A Review Of Groundhog Day

A Review Of Groundhog Day Groundhog Day is one of those rare films that has been entirely embraced as a cultural artifact by Western society. Roger Ebert says; there are a few films, and this is one of them, that burrow into our memories and become reference points. When you find yourself needing the phrase this is like Groundhog Day to explain how you feel, a movie has accomplished something. As a term it has been absorbed into popular speech, as observed by Ryan Gilbey; Its everywhere in travel writing, rock journalism, advice columns, horoscopes. Tony Blair refers to it in a speech about the Northern Ireland peace process, and it crops up in the Archbishop of Canterburys Richard Dimbleby Lecture in 2002. It makes its way into the headline of a restaurant review (a culinary groundhog day), a cricket report (Groundhog Day for the West Indies), and an editorial on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (No smoking guns, no huge breakthroughs, just a hint that Groundhog Day may be over) while a kidnap victim uses the phrase to describe his captivity in the Colombian jungle. It was even unofficially adopted into the American military jingo with reference to their conflict in Somalia at around the time that the film came out on VHS, and officially adopted into the United States Film Directory as being culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant in 2006. It was screened in the New York Museum of Modern Art in a season entitled The Hidden God: Film and Faith along with works by Bergman and Rossellini, and the occasion was seen as an opportunity for religious groups to vocalise their suppositions as to its pertinence to their individual faiths. The most vocal were the Buddhists, with a popular urban legend regarding the film stating that in an early draft Phil was stuck in Punxatawny for 10,000 years, a significant number in Buddhist teachings. Danny Rubin, the films screenwiter, denounces this as untrue: Harold [Ramis, the director of the film] likes that allusion, and its good for the legend of the film because of the Buddhist connection. However, that wasnt on my mind. Some interpretations were that the film was intrinsically Jewish, (the movie tells us, as Judaism does, that the work doesnt end until the world has been perfected) or Christian (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦clearly the resurrected Christ). The film has also apparently been used in teachings by the Chinese spiritual movement Falun Dafa. If Nietzsche had been at that screening, however, I think that he would have revelled in it as intrinsically Nihilistic (in the positive sense), or (if the term existed when he were alive) Nietzschean. I have always been intimidated by Nietzsche, and indeed by Philosophy in general. I have always found the subject bewildering. Id hear outlandish quotes like God is dead, or about philosophical leanings like utilitarianism, empiricism or relativism, and be frustrated by their opacity, or at least by my inability to decipher what they are. But I also found it fascinating, at least from a distance. My aim for this thesis is to examine Groundhog Day a film I personally have a great love for using the parlance of the philosopher which most intrigued me, so as to better understand the work in the context of something which I have an afinity for. Nietzsches writings and musings had a huge effect on Populist opinion in the twentieth century, and it is my contention that this can be observed clearly in Groundhog Day. Chapter One examines Nietzsches notion of Eternal Recurrence, and how it appears in the film. Eternal recurrence is the idea that we have lived the exact life we are leading now an infinite number of times in the past and will do so an infinite number of times in the future. If weve enjoyed a particularly righteous or pleasurable life, this might sound like the greatest of outcomes. If not, eternal recurrence may strike us as a curse. Our misery, far from being over when we die, is destined to be repeated on us, eternal retribution for our mistakes. This is very obviously manifested in Groundhog Day. Chapter Two then will examine Phil seeking and achieving what Nietzsche refers to as the Ubermensch, or Overman. Nietzsche coined the term Ubermensch in his book Thus Spake Zarathustra; I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughing stock or painful embarrassment. The idea of the overman was misappropriated by National Socialism in the early part of the twentieth century. After Nietzsches death, his estate was run by his sister Elizabeth, a staunch nationalist and rampant anti-semite, two things which Nietzsche himself found unpalatable. She re-edited and reinterpreted Nietzsches work so that he became the representative philosopher for the Nazis, going so far as to print a book called The Will to Power posthumously, which was made up of notes and musings which he had no intention of publishing. This became something of a bible for National Socialism leading to Nietzsche being worshipped by the Nazis, an image which Nietzsche only overcame in the latter part of the Twentieth century. As you can imagine, the idea of the Ubermensch became a standard for the Nazis and their theories on eugenics and ethnic cleansing. But this was not Nietzsches intention. According to documentarian Simon Chu, Nietzsche proposes an ideal of self overcoming, an ideal he calls the overman, not by having recourse to a metaphysical realm outside of the human, but within the possibilities of the humanà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ how can we as humans transcend ourselves? The idea of the overman came from Nietzsches own battle for self mastery. Human beings in general, he argued, had a duty to rise above their own condition. Nietzsche himself was quite limited physically due to perpetual illness, and socially due to self-imposed isolation, and Phil Connor is similarly limited by his own nature: he creates a bitter faà §ade which, through the course of the film, is broken down through his own endeavours at self-improvement. Ubermensch actually means overcoming, looking for a new path devoid of God. Chapter Three will deal with that notion: the association between Phil Connors self-betterment and the Nihilistic idea which must be embraced by the Ubermensch. Nihilism, as Nietzsche saw it, was not just a viewpoint that nothing in life has any meaning: Nietzsche proposed that we must look within ourselves to find a strong moral compass, rather than be corralled by the external ideals purported by religion. This type of moral opinion is negative; only from looking within ourselves can we find a true moral standpoint. When left to his own devices for an eternity of recurrence, Phil makes the choices which make him a better man for himself, not for anyone or anything else, Maybe the real God uses tricks. Maybe hes not omnipotent, hes just been around so long he knows everything. Eternal Recurrence Phil: What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered? Ralph: That about sums it up for me. Phil: I have been stabbed, shot, poisoned, frozen, hung, electrocuted, and burned. Rita: Oh, really? Phil: and every morning I wake up without a scratch on me, not a dent in the fender I am an immortal. Groundhog Day concerns itself heavily with the notion of Eternal Recurrence, or Eternal Return, to the extent of illuminating some conflicting interpretations of this key Nietzschean thought. In Nietzsches book The Gay Science, he first hits upon the idea of Eternal Return: What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you, `This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence even this spider and this moon-light between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust! Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him, `You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine!' This statement makes the point that Eternal Return, though at first glance a hellish endeavour, is in fact a positive occurrence, if the person that he is referring to in the quotation is in fact happy to repeat their lives. The notion rears its head in earnest in Thus Spake Zarathustra. The semi-autobiographical text sees a fictional interpretation of the prophet of the Zoroaster people make his way down from his mountain retreat to spread the word of Nihilism to the people down below. He arrives during his journey to a straight road leading far off in distant directions under a gateway titled Moment. His dwarf travel companion makes this point: All that is straight lies, All truth is crooked; time itself is a circle. Zarathustra cannot reconcile with the thought of eternal recurrence quite as easily as his companion, largely because he would have to recognize that the mundanity of humanity that he so deplores will never be fully overcome, but rather will be repeated over and over again. This seems contradictory of what happens in Groundhog Day: Phil experiences February 2nd every day in the same small town, but every day he does something different, thus negating Eternal Recurrence as Nietzsche sees it. According to Deleuzes interpretation, Nietzsche was not in fact promoting the idea of the return of the identical but rather the return of the different. Each return selects the life-enhancing while rejecting the life-degrading, leading to each iteration being better than the last. As Deleuze says, We can thus see how the eternal return is linked, not to a repetition of the same, but on the contrary, to a transmutation. It is the moment or the eternity of becoming which eliminates all that resists it. It releases, indeed it creates, the purely active and pure affirmation. Groundhog Day contradicts both the outlined hypotheses. In Phil Connors world, there is no Nietzschean return of the identical he is able to act differently each time and cause different events to happen. And no repetition is more affirmative than the last Groundhog Day presents a far more human version of eternal recurrence. Phil mostly muddles his way through the situation, sometimes winding up less affirmative, sometimes more. Motivated by his love for Rita, he does finally reach a state of metamorphosis and at that point he is extricated from eternal recurrence. Luce Irigaray is perhaps the right philosopher for guiding us to unlocking the Nietzschean essence of Groundhog Day. Irigaray agrees with the conventional view that eternal recurrence concerns the return of the same. She objects to it on the grounds that it is a sterile thought that excludes any notion of the other, of outer influence. She writes of eternal recurrence as nothing but the will to recapitulate all projects within yourself. In other words, it is self-perpetuating and self-referential. We might think of it as a type of parthenogenesis it provides men with the ability to give birth to themselves over and over again, thus denying the role of the female. Irigaray wishes to promote the value of the other, which she largely conceives in female terms, in opposition to the traditional philosophical subject that she considers steadfastly male and masculine. She says For, in the other, you are changed. Become other, and without recurrence. In Groundhog Day, its Phil Connors love for his female colleague Rita that proves decisive. By immersing himself in otherness, by learning everything that makes Rita tick, he performs a type of metamorphosis, a rebirth in a sense rather than a return. He sheds his old, sexist form and emerges as a far more rounded human being, in touch with his feminine side (his inner other). As soon as he has fully achieved this, hes released from eternal recurrence. As argued by Irigaray, in any case. In Nietzsches conception of eternal recurrence, the individual has no memory of his previous lives. In Groundhog Day, Phil Connors certainly does. But hes the only one. All the others with whom he shares his eternal recurrence are perhaps in the classic Nietzschean position of having no recollection of their past existences. However, if they specifically interact (or even not specifically or personally) with Phil then their fate each time is no longer fixed, although they have no memory of the different paths Phil engineers for them. Phils circumstance is in this sense much more horrific than theirs. He is not dealing with eternal recurrence as an interesting hypothesis; he is a conscious participator and victim of it, entirely out of his control. Nietzsches eternal recurrence is, of course, logically problematic because if an individuals life is a repeat of previous lives then he would appear to have no free choice, yet Nietzsche seems to want us to alter our attitude to life in the face of the realisation of the harsh truth of eternal recurrence. If we accept his scenario in its strictest sense then our response to the concept of eternal recurrence is nothing over which we can have any control and our reaction, whatever it may be, is entirely futile, one we have exhibited an infinite number of times before and will do so an infinite number of times in the future. For Phil, this objection is removed. He can change; he has complete free choice. Its up to him to choose his attitude towards his metaphysical and existential predicament. At first, understandably, he experiences complete shock, before enjoying a brief sensation of omnipotence and omniscience. Then suicidal depression kicks in at the utter futility of everything he does. Of course, he is incapable of dying, so there is no way out. He then has few choices within the confines of Punxatawney. After much duress, Phil chooses to make the most of the world he now inhabits. He educates himself in many new fields and becomes accomplished as a scholar, artist, linguist and musician. He also develops as a person and achieves self-awareness, rather than the self destruction that he pursued previously. Through this enlightenment, he at last secures the love of the woman he has pursued from the beginning. In Jungian terms, Rita represents the Self that we all strive to find during our lifes journey. By winning her, Phil has completed Jungs arduous process of individuation, and become Nietzsches monument of self-improvement. This is so momentous that Phil actually escapes from eternal recurrence and re-enters causality, but now he is a transformed human being, completely reborn out of the hardships that he has experienced, given that chance to view the world through entirely new eyes. This then is the key to Eternal Recurrence: its not meant to be interpreted literally, but as an aphorism to guide people to whom Nihilism was becoming an increasingly attractive prospect when Nietzsche wrote about it in 19th Century Germany  [1]  . In a meta-physical sense, its like an Aesops Fable, with an easily discernible moral. Its not to be analyzed and dissected scientifically to ascertain its veracity: as said in The Simpson; Lisa: When a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Bart: Sure it does. Neeeeer-crash. To argue (as Nietzsche himself did), that there is a scientific grounding in the theory is missing the point, I feel  [2]  . The point is that the individual must strive for self-improvement, to aim to achieve the Ubermensch, as I feel Phil did in Groundhog Day. The Ubermensch I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughing stock or painful embarrassment. Larry: Prima Donnas. As said in Simon Chus documentary Human, All too Human, Nietzsche proposes an ideal of self overcoming, an ideal he calls the overman, not by having recourse to a metaphysical realm outside of the human, but within the possibilities of the human how can we as humans transcend ourselves? The idea of the overman came from Nietzsches own battle for self mastery.  [3]  Human beings in general, he argued, had a duty to rise above their own condition. Nietzsche (early on) was what was referred to as a Schopenhauerian, as in he became a disciple of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer after reading The World as Will and Idea. Schoppenhauer was a huge influence on Nietzsche, and talks about the will. Schoppenhauers will is akin to Freuds id, an unconscious, striving, persistent force, it may seem that the intellect drives the will, but it is in fact the other way around. In a Darwinian sense, every individual is striving against the will of others in a self interested way. Schoppenhauer saw the will as essentially evil, and the only way out of this suffering and evil is the denial of the will, a refusal to take part in the egotistical contest for domination of others. Its interesting to take a look at Phil Connors with Schoppenhauers will in mind, seeing as he was such a huge influence on Nietzsche. Early in the film, even before the time loop comes into effect, Phil strives persistently to impose his higher status onto the people around him, mostly by belittling them. In the first three minutes, almost every line out of his mouth is vitriolic, from calling his fellow anchor hairdo, to diminishing Ritas authority through impersonating her, to fussing over the fact he wont stay in the hotel that Rita is staying in, to insulting how Larry eats, the list goes on.  [4]   After the loop sets in and the realization of we can do whatever we [want], he sets about dominating the whole town, to becoming the King of Punxatawney. The loop and the actions that Phil took eventually led to what Schoppenhauer referred to as the extinction of the self. This can all be interpreted as similar or influential on Nietzsches idea of the Ubermensch. Nihilism God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.  [5]   Phil: Im a god. Rita: Youre God? Phil: Im a god. Im not *the* God I dont think.  [6]   Nietzsche does not deny the existence of values, but the denial of value is in some sense what he means by nihilism. Michael Tanner says, What he portrays, in book after book, is the gradual but accelerating decline of Western man into a state where no values any longer impress him, or where he mouthes them but they mean nothing to him any longer. Tanner, p 32. If forced to label Nietzsche as a particular sort of philosopher, one would label him as a moral philosopher. But unlike moral philosophers that had come previously, Nietzsche does not provide the reader with a set moral code. His aim is to motivate the reader to come up with their own moral code, one that comes from within. Morality is usually studied philosophically from two different perspectives: normative ethics and meta ethics. Normative ethics is concerned with what is good and what is bad, and providing a perspective for moral decision making. Meta-ethics is concerned with what we mean when we use the word good or bad, and where our definition of those words come from, ie where our morals come from. When we think of the word good, we are probably not tapping into some universal reservoir of goodness, rather our definition more than likely comes from the society we inhabit.  [7]   Nietzsche is mostly concerned with meta-ethical issues. Nietzsche is not so much concerned with the fact that our beliefs are false, but rather the belief about those beliefs. Why should we hold the beliefs that we do? When Nietzsche first declared that God is dead in The Gay Science, he means that society no longer has a use for God, that the belief does not help the survival of the species, rather it hinders it. The ethical implications of this are important, for with the death of God comes the death of religious morality, a morality that has underpinned Western culture for hundreds of years. Morality as it is still practiced derives from the Hebraic-Christian tradition, its origins to be found in the dictates of the god of a small middle Eastern tribe, and that its contents remain very much what they were. This brings us back to Phil Connors in his Punxatawney time-warp. Observing Phil superficially, we can surmise that he was probably raised in a Christian moral system, and would have been raised with the ubiquitous Western moral code. But as soon as he trusts in the fact that there will be no repercussions for his actions in the form of punishment from an external authority figure (a staple of the Christan moral code), he was able to cast aside his morals easily, Phil: Its the same thing your whole life: Clean up your room. Stand up straight. Pick up your feet. Take it like a man. Be nice to your sister. Dont mix beer and wine, ever. Oh yeah: Dont drive on the railroad track. Gus: Well, Phil, thats one I happen to agree with. This signifies that they were not his, merely the morals society applied to him. He then embarks on a spree of ethical naturalism. Ethical naturalism is the view that our morality can be based on our nature. For example, in a utilitarian sense, Our moral beliefs did not fall from heaven and neither are they credentials we can flash like a badge to establish our moral probity p30, Tanner And morality, meaning the variety of attitudes that we find officially espoused in our society? It ministers to our welfare, in its basic form, so that at least we feel safe when our backs are turned on other people Tanner, p31 If he sometimes thinks of himself as the prophet of nihilism, it is not in the sense that he is proclaiming arrival as something to be celebrated, but in the sense that Jeremiah was the prophet of the destruction of Jerusalem. Tanner, p32. What he portrays, in book after book, is the gradual but accelerating decline of Western man into a state where no values any longer impress him, or where he mouthes them but they mean nothing to him any longer. Tanner, p 32. Christianity has always been in a state of moral identity crisis. That, though a large factor in the moral bewilderment of the West, is a marginal issue for Nietzsche, whose main interest is in the nature of moralitys sanctions in general. Tanner, p 33. Its interesting to note the moral compass of the film itself. As (despite the philosophical ramification of the premise) a light-hearted entry into the romantic comedy genre, it was unlikely to go to a particularly dark place with the premise. What this means for the character is that Phil represents the morals of the progenitors of the piece: they were unwilling, morally, to allow Phil to become involved in any particularly unsavoury acts or crimes. The repeated suicides were a strong turn in the film (unusual in its genre), but Phil never acts upon his presumed darkest impulses to commit forceful sex acts or to murder. Im glad we dont have to watch a scene where a deranged Phil takes a meat cleaver to Ned, or brutally sexually assaults Rita, but I find it worthwhile to note the morally controlling influence of creator and audience. Imagine Gaper Noes Groundhog Day. Could it be said that this was, in fact, Phils punishment?

President Lincolns Struggle With His Cabinet Essay -- American Americ

President Lincoln's Struggle With His Cabinet Abraham Lincoln is regarded by many historians as the greatest president ever to stand at America's helm. This reputation is extremely well deserved, as Lincoln was able to preserve the Union and gain victory in the civil war, despite his fighting an uphill battle against his own presidential cabinet. Had he not been struggling against this divided government, President Lincoln could have achieved victory with extreme efficiency and a minimum of wanton bloodshed (Angle 659). After Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, he was forced to battle a split cabinet because of campaign promises made to various Republican factions, which made it almost mandatory for certain individuals to be appointed to cabinet posts. He ruled his cabinet with an iron hand, and often acted without cabinet consent or advice. Although his opponents called his method of rule "dictatorial" and "unconstitutional," it was the only effective way to get anything done (Simmons 142). In the beginning, Lincoln's secretar... President Lincoln's Struggle With His Cabinet Essay -- American Americ President Lincoln's Struggle With His Cabinet Abraham Lincoln is regarded by many historians as the greatest president ever to stand at America's helm. This reputation is extremely well deserved, as Lincoln was able to preserve the Union and gain victory in the civil war, despite his fighting an uphill battle against his own presidential cabinet. Had he not been struggling against this divided government, President Lincoln could have achieved victory with extreme efficiency and a minimum of wanton bloodshed (Angle 659). After Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, he was forced to battle a split cabinet because of campaign promises made to various Republican factions, which made it almost mandatory for certain individuals to be appointed to cabinet posts. He ruled his cabinet with an iron hand, and often acted without cabinet consent or advice. Although his opponents called his method of rule "dictatorial" and "unconstitutional," it was the only effective way to get anything done (Simmons 142). In the beginning, Lincoln's secretar...

West Virginia State Board of Education

It understandable that there are â€Å"certain unalienable rights† that we, as human beings, possess. These rights can†t be, or should never be, taken away from us. Of course, there have been many great crusaders who have fought with everything they owned to make sure that we kept those rights. The case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, is a case that really expresses the beliefs and interests of the time. The case reached the US Supreme Court after there was huge controversy on both sides of the debate. It just so happened that three years before this case, in 1940, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of the Minnersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, that it was necessary for every school student to stand to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag. The act of saluting and pledging, along with the teaching of American history and ideals â€Å"for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government. – 1 The justices voted 8 to 1 for the Minnersville School District to force teachers to salute and pledge to the flag, leaving only Justice Harlan Stone to dissent. Then on January 9, 1942, Minnersville Board of Education came up with a resolution. This resolution contained recitals that were mostly from the Courts† Gobitis decision. The resolution said that every school student and teacher alike must salute and pledge allegiance to the flag, and if anyone disobeyed this law, it â€Å"would be regarded as an act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly. 2 This meant that they would be immediately be expelled from the school, and only be allowed back into the school if they denounce they†re acts and agree to honor the flag as stated in the resolution. And â€Å"any such child shall be treated as being unlawfully absent from school during the time he refuses to comply with such requirements and regulations, and any person having legal or actual control of such child shall be liable to prosecution under the provisions of this article for the absence of such child from school. 3 This parent or guardian is then in jeopardy of bein! g given a fine not to exceed $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. This, however, fueled a few sparks, especially among some relatively religious sect of people. Namely, the sect was the Jehovah†s Witnesses, which is a division between them and Catholicism. The Witnesses believe in God, as do regular Catholic Christians do, but they strongly believe that the â€Å"obligation imposed be law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. 4 Basically, they feel that laws made by mere mortals can†t be obeyed when a law of God contradicts it. Their definition of laws from God comes from a very literal and precise interpretation of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5 5, which says: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt now bow down thyself to They feel that the flag stands for, or is a symbol, which directly contradicts their view of this message from God. For this reason they refuse to salute the flag. The boy, Walter Barnette, was taken out of class when he refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance. He was accused of disrupting the class, of being obnoxious, and of being a threat to national security. No matter how much of an overreaction this was, we have to remember this happened in the year 1943, about the time the Second World War broke out and at a time nationalism in this country was running high. He belonged to a family of firm-believing Jehovah†s Witnesses. His family pleaded to a District Court of three judges, and argued that they had a right to not stand if they did not want to. They also argued that it was a blatant denial of they†re First Amendment rights, including the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech, and that the laws were unconstitutional, violating their due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court restrained their enforcement of the resolution; the West Virginia State Board of Education took the case to the US Supreme Court by direct appeal. Once in court by March 11th, 1943, the hearings began. The Board of Education argued that just three years ago the court had decided that the Board of Education could force the students to stand to salute and pledge to the flag. Since the court had already decided that they were allowed to do this, the people had to abide by the US Supreme Court†s decision. Also, the West Virginia State Board of Education argued that since the job of the schools was to teach them US History as well as Americanism, all they were doing was teaching the students to be good, honest Americans. They argued that there was no difference between them teaching the students about great Abraham Lincoln and brave Stonewall Jackson then teaching them to the salute the flag-which would foster a healthy pride for their nation. They also argued that it was a matter of national security to keep the masses united. They felt that they had a duty to preserve the national unity, and the only way to make sure! this happened would be to make sure there is strong nationalism, which can be heightened be pledging to the national flag, which goes like this: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. † The Board of education also argued that the boy†s parents had the option of sending them to a private school, instead of the public schools. They said that they didn†t have to go to a public school. And since the funds for the public schools come from the state, they had the right to raise the students as they pleased, which included teaching the students to be model Americans. The Jehovah†s Witnesses argued back that the ruling in the Minnersville School District v. Gobitis was tremendously biased, and was blatantly unconstitutional, since it was an incredible violation of they†re First Amendment rights, which includes the freedom of worship. They felt that since it was in their religion to not salute the flag, they shouldn†t be forced to do so. They also argued that the ceremony was too much like the salute Hitler forced his people to do-the salute where the hand is outstretched a little above the heart. Also, it was too much like the fascist compulsory salute. They argued that the idea of the gestures like that was extremely unconstitutional and takes away a lot of our rights that are seemingly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In the Minnersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), all but one of the Supreme Court Justices voted that the boards of education do have the right to impose the salute and pledge on the students. The only judge to dissent was the brave Justice Harlon Stone. However, in 1942, a year before the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case, there was a very interesting turn of events. There was a US Supreme Court case, not involved with either of the two flag salute cases, where the court reversed its decision and held the compulsory flag salute as being unconstitutional. Three of the initial judges, Justices Black, Douglas, and Murphy, publicly recanted their decision, making the case alive again. The next year, however, they didn†t make the same mistake. The Court ruled in favor of Walter Barnette and his family, that forcing people to salute to the flag was unconstitutional. However, their decision was based less on the Freedom of Religion clause under the First Amendment, but under the Freedom of Speech clause. They decided that it was a form of uttering that they were supposed to perform towards the flag, a symbol of the United States. In this manner, they were outlawing the enforcement of the resolution altogether-you didn†t have to have a religious conflict with saluting and pledging to the flag, you could just not agree with the idea of saluting and not do it all. On June 14th, 1943, Mr. Justice Jackson, along with the other 5 Justices of the previous Gobitis case, voted that it was unconstitutional for any board of education, or anyone in the United States, to impose their ideas on anyone in that fashion. The Court voted 6-3 in favor of the Barnettes and the Jehovah†s Witnesses. Justices Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the dissenting party. He felt sympathy for the minority in this case, but couldn†t find any constitutional right in their favor. According to him, he warned that â€Å"minorities can disrupt civil society †¦ nd there is NOTHING in the Constitution which subordinates the general civil authority of the state to sectarian scruples. † Because of the ruling of the court, a lot of questions and speculations were finally put to rest. It would be decades later before this type of flag case would need to be contested again. However, even in that ruling, the justices sided for the freedom of speech. The precedent was set and it has never been overturned. The West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, was an extremely important case. Because of this case, people began to realize how much of a violation the enforcement of the resolution to salute the flag was. People realized such a practice can†t be enforced, but should only be done in a state of absolute pride for the country. Also, in a political sense, the people realized that it was still wrong to force people to salute the flag. The government thought it was doing the country such a favor by making every child in the nation patriotic, but since the utterance was done only because they were told to, it had no real meaning, and didn†t necessarily institute patriotism. During the Second World War (1939 – 1945), the government was eager to make sure that the union was really united. The sign that someone was saluting the flag raised eyebrows for more than the said reasons. Not only did they disrespect the rules of this nation, but the Jehovah†s Witnesses were also thought to have double interests. They thought the Witnesses could easily have been a threat to national security because they could a stirred a revolt amongst those who didn†t support the war. There are a lot of different sides to this case, and all the sides have really good reasons to support their case. That†s what makes this case so difficult to judge. However, I agree with Mr. Justice Jackson and the other judges who voted that Walter Barnette has â€Å"certain unalienable rights† that just can†t be taken away from him. He has the right to stand, sit, or do anything he feels like during the pledge. In his right to sit during the pledge, he is not hurting anyone or violating anyone else†s rights by doing so, so in my opinion, there shouldn†t be any reason to judge the case any other way. The argument that the nation would not be united if they didn†t all salute the flag is outrageous. First of all, the students aren†t saluting the flag because of there incredible sense of pride, but merely because they have to. Second of all, if the government forced us to all stand straight at the same time and recite a national poem glorifying the nation at the national flag (sounds very Hitler-ish, doesn†t it), then the very reason that millions have so much love and pride for this country will vanish with that freedom. We have to understand that we can†t force people to like something, they have to want to like it. In the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, the judges decided that the board of education could not force any student to salute the American flag and recite the pledge of allegiance. This was a case where the very existence of the United States was at the hands of these fine justices as we know it. If it wasn†t for the extremely knowledgeable justices that judged the case, we would have lost something profoundly special.

Animal Farm Corruption Essay - 1663 Words

Imagine sitting with your parents who are watching the news. On the news there is a man on trial for the things he s done in his corporation. You soon realize the man is the head of his business and has been using underhanded tactics to gain more money. It is also revealed the man wasn t always like this and has only started using these tactics when his corporation began to expand. This is one example of the theme corruption comes with power. In The story Animal Farm by George Orwell which follows the events of an animal rebellion on a farm that gains power, but eventually begins to become corrupt and reverted back to it s old ways due to their leader Napoleon. In the story Napoleon is shown gaining a larger stance in the rebellion only†¦show more content†¦His men were idle and dishonest, the fields were full of weeds, the buildings wanted roofing, the hedges were neglected, and the animals were underfed.† This evidence shows the theme by depicting how throughout the years Mr. Jones was once capable but as time progressed he became corrupted and started mistreating the animals he was supposed to care with the power he had gained thus showing the theme was adopted in the text. The evidence provided also shows that simply because of the farmers own problems he is projecting it on those he is supposed to care for showing one example of corruption in the story. Throughout this story animals are portrayed as starting a rebellion but, as the story progresses it is shown that the animals in the text become traitorous and toxic to others, using them for personal gain. One other example of this corruption is with Napoleon. Evidence that portrays Napoleon s Corruption goes as stated, â€Å"At last the day came when Snowball’s plans were completed. At the Meeting on the following Sunday the question of whether or not to begin work on the windmill was to be put to the vote...Until now the animals had been about equally divided in their sympathies, but in a moment Snowball’s eloquence had carried them away. In glowing sentences he painted a picture of Animal Farm as it might be when sordid labour was lifted from the animals’ backs. His imagination had now run far beyond chaff-cuttersShow MoreRelatedAnimal Farm Corruption Essay1379 Words   |  6 Pages Animal Farm, by George Orwell, is an allegorical novella depicting the Russian Revolution through the viewpoint of a revolution of farm animals against the owner of the farm. The revolution gives way to the pigs seizing a position of power on the farm. The pigs cement their claim to power through manipulating the other animals with force and their superior intellect. The pigs create an ideology for the animals on the farm to follow, and it begins as a message speaking of equality for all. TheirRead MoreAnimal Farm Corruption Essay1289 Words   |  6 PagesCorruption in the governments can take place in any civilization. A representation of this is, if you take a group of people and drop them off in the middle of nowhere, with no form of authority nor government. Most of the time someone will want to take power, and sacrifice the greater good for their own needs. This same form of corruption is greatly displayed in the book called, â€Å"The Animal Farm†. It shows how a utopia can turn into a dystopia in a blink of an eye. â€Å"Now comrades, what is our natureRead MoreAnimal Farm Corruption Essay930 Words   |  4 Pagespeople can fall subject to corruption. Likewise, one who is already an unjust figure is more than capable of becoming a tyrant. Such is the case in Animal Farm, a novel by George Orwell. Animal Farm focuses on the rebellion of the animals on Manor Farm, and their attempt at a socialism-esque society. The leaders of the farm, two pigs named Napoleon and Squealer, gradually change from fair authority figures to unethical dictators. Orwell’s critically acclaimed novel Animal Farm establishes a theme ofRead MoreCorruption of Power in Animal Farm Essay1172 Words   |  5 Pagesproclivities towards corruption. There are many examples in the book, â€Å"Animal Farm†, by George Orwell, of power corrupting those in charge because they had these tendencies. In the story, the most powerful animals are the two pigs, Napoleon and, to a lesser degree, Snowball. During the course of the story these pigs used their power to get more power, and in the process their inclinations towards corruption triumphed. When Old Major, the boar who came up with the idea of all animals uniting against humansRead More Theme of Power Corruption in Animal Farm, by George Orwell Essay1787 Words   |  8 Pageshistory, such as World War II and proven by the actions of Napoleon in the allegory, Animal Farm, by George Orwell. As Lord Acton said â€Å"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.† In history what was viewed as a villain or wrong doer is never the same as the perception. A leader does not begin wanting to do wrong, they start with the best intentions, but power is a tricky thing, showcased in Animal Farm as Utopian ideals but with failed practices. Most new societies that have a UtopianRead MorePolitics And Language In Animal Farm, By George Orwell720 Words   |  3 Pagesto expose the injustices he saw in the world. He does this through the many novels and essays he writes. Animal Farm, one of his better known pieces, depicts the hardships faced by a group of farm animals in an attempt to claim the farm that had been exploiting them for the entirety of their lives. His fable is written as an allegory to comment on the Russian Revolution and to warn his audience of the corruption that entails power; he does this by using various literary devices, such as allegory andRead MoreAn Allegory In Animal Farm By George Orwell?819 Words   |  4 Pagesopportunities does writing Animal Farm as an allegory rather than an academic essay offer Orwell? The novel Animal Farm was written by George Orwell. This book was published in 1945 during the time of World War 2. It intended to portray the communism that was happening throughout Russia. Orwell took a massive risk in publishing and jeopardized his wellbeing to publicise his thoughts and to get his point across to the public. This essay will discuss what opportunities Animal Farm provides Orwell by writingRead More1984: Governments Attempt to Control the Mind and Bodies of Its Citiz1253 Words   |  6 Pages1984: Governments Attempt to Control The Mind and Bodies of Its Citizens The novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is an American classic which explores the human mind when it comes to power, corruption, control, and the ultimate utopian society. Orwell indirectly proposes that power given to the government will ultimately become corrupt and they will attempt to force all to conform to their one set standard. He also sets forth the idea that the corrupted government will attempt toRead MoreEssay about Animal Farm: The World and the Words 1041 Words   |  5 Pages Animal Farm is a masterfully written cynical exploration into the abuse of power through language.c George Orwells book provides a theory of power structures, equality and the very nature of human character. As a short, ten-chaptered essay, this book has made its mark on the communist and authoritarian societies with the cutting morals and the phrase â€Å"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others† In the beginning, Mr. Jones is an antagonistic study into Czar Nicholas IIRead MoreAnimal Farm By George Orwell1384 Words   |  6 PagesAnimal Farm is a book written by George Orwell in 1945. It was made into an animated movie in 1954. It is an allegory about real life political situations that have occurred around the world. In this essay I will discuss how it relates to actual political circumstances, how particular techniques were used in the film to enhance the meaning and comparison of real events, how Farmer Jones ruled, how the animals proved their resentment towards Farmer Jones, how their communist system operated, how egotism