Does the media affect your health Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Does the media affect your health - Essay Example In most cases, the use of these mediums can significantly influence not only the way we perceive things in life but also result to the development of our eating habits and the way we perceive or feel about our body images (DArcy and Jan). Seale explained that most of the food and beverage companies are using the media as a platform in advertising their food or beverage products even if these food and beverages does not contain the proper nutrition needed by our body (Seale, Health and media: an overview). For example, multinational companies are more than willing to pay a large sum of money just to advertise their formula-milk on the television. By continuously using the media as a way of persuading mothers to feed their babies with formula-milk, the newborn babies are the ones who suffer from not getting the most of out the health benefits they should receive from breast-feeding (Seale, Media and Health 199). It is also possible for some tobacco companies to take advertise their cigarette products using any of these media as a way of encouraging the people to smoke (Seale, Health and media: an overview). In some cases, people are unconsciously using the Internet or other social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter to make themselves look better off as compared to other people (Falcon). By boosting their ego at the expense of other people, the use of social media networks can somehow cause depression to other people. Aside from the risk of becoming a victim of cyber-bullying (Falcon), the media can also be used to trigger aggressive behaviour possibly due to substance abuse or trigger inappropriate sexual behaviour (DArcy and Jan). Considering all these examples, it is clear that the media can be used to negatively affect the people’s physical, psychological and emotional health. Even though the main purpose of using the media is to entertain or communicate something to the target audiences, there will always be some

Racism And US Imperialism History Essay

Racism And US Imperialism History Essay American writer and missionary Pearl S. Buck once wrote, Race prejudice is not only a shadow over the colored, it is a shadow over all of us, and the shadow is darkest over those who feel it least and allow its evil effects to go on.  [1]  For generations, historians have concluded that the last decade of the nineteenth century bred white-supremacist racial ideologies such as Anglo-Saxonism and the concept of the white mans burden and in turn drove the American empire into the non-white world. In  Race Over Empire, Eric T. L. Love contests this outlook and offers instead that racism had almost the contradictory effect. From Grants attempt to annex the Dominican Republic in 1870, to the annexations of Hawaii and the Philippines in 1898, Love illustrates that the imperialists association with the racist ideologies of the era were antagonistic, not harmonious. In an era marked by the Jim Crow laws, policies of Chinese exclusion and immigration restriction, no realistic politician wanted to place non-whites at the center of an already divisive scheme by invoking the concept of the white mans burden.  [2]  Moreover, convictions that defined whiteness created great barriers to imperialistic ambitions, particularly when Anglo-Saxon empire entered into the tropical regions of the Atlantic and Pacific. Alternatively, Love contends that policy aims had to be cloaked in more covert aims than racism. In the first chapter, Love sets up his main line of argument that while racism may have been an inherent part of American society and ideology from 1865 to1900, it would have been a major obstacle to include it as a stated objective in expansionism. The American people had no desire to see more foreigners associated with America, so race could only ever play an implicit motivator in imperialism according to Love. Love spends much of the rest of his work providing examples of how race and racism had to take a backseat to more overt policy objectives. Love illustrates the barriers caused by the invocation of race in three different case studies in Santo Domingo, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The affair in Santo Domingo provides a very interesting example that gives credence to Loves thesis. President Ulysses S. Grant, inheriting many expansionist schemes passed down from Johnson and Seward, rejected nearly all expansionist aims in his foreign policy; except the acquisition of Santo Domingo. Grant, while never mentioning race, wanted to annex Santo Domingo as a racial safety valve, for African American resettlement according to Love.  [3]  While the implicit aim was clearly racial, there were very mixed feelings throughout Congress and the general public in regards to African American relocation; as such these implied aims were never stated directly. Instead, Grant preaches about the necessity to acquire Santo Domingo for commerce and security reasons. The island had plentiful timber and other natural resources and its position in the Caribbean made it a prime asset to ensure the safety of Americans. Ultimately, Congress rejects the call to annex Santo Domingo, and Gr ant takes this as a very personal defeat. In writings from his son we are able to clearly see that Grant wanted desperately to annex Santo Domingo, and this desire was most likely guided by the implicit racial motivation. Grant actually stated his drive for annexation was for the advancement of a white America.  [4]  Grant never made peace with this defeat. Words spoken by Grant reveal the churning disappointment and bitterness he felt. His bitterness was actually carried on by his son Jesse Grant who stated: I think of San Domingo and of fathers persistent efforts to bring about annexation every time I ride upon the Elevated or in the Subway, and see white women stand while negroes occupy the seats.  [5]   The Santo Domingo episode is only one example of Loves thesis in action; however, I believe the clearest evidence to Loves credit comes in his analysis of Hawaiian annexation.   Love argues that the United States did not want to annex Hawaii, and actually did so under a policy of last resort.  [6]  After the rule of Liluokalani was subverted and the queen was overthrown in 1893, the United States chose not to annex Hawaii due to the events that precipitated the overthrow by Americans on the island. It was not until the island was plagued by disease and suffering under a government that could not protect or provide for its people that we annexed Hawaii. The reason, Love argues, that we did not annex the island immediately is because of its large indigenous population. Race in this case was a road block to annexation; a testament to Loves thesis. When the imperialists renewed their goal to take Hawaii they abandoned the rhetoric of social uplift and the Christian mission.  [7]à ‚  Annexation in 1898 was accomplished by changing the explicit motives for annexation. It was portrayed to the American people that Hawaii was an island of white American majority that was under threat of an insidious Asian invasion that could only be checked by American presence and annexation in Hawaii. Race and racism was an inhibitor to empire in this case, just as Love speculates in his thesis. Loves Race Over Empire is an interesting text that can be abundantly linked to the historians and texts we have discussed in class. From the views of Michael Hunt to Walter Lafeber, it seems that Love contests the normal view of the role of race in relation to American Empire by asserting that race was not the driving factor behind American imperialism in the late nineteenth century. Love challenges the views of these historians and provides a compelling case that while race may have been an implicit motive, the use of race as an explicit motivator would have caused many of the U.S. imperialistic ventures to fail. We have read that historian Michael Hunt believes that a driving force behind U.S. foreign relations is racism.  [8]  From our interactions with Haiti to American expansion into the Philippines, Hunt reads these events as a continuation on the timeline of Anglo-Saxon racial hegemony. Love counters that while many Americans were in fact racists during the late nineteenth century, the fact that they are racist is the reason that racial imperialism could not occur in this country. Love essentially states that the American people would not have supported any expansion that was sold to them under the context of race because the last thing southerners wanted were more people of color for the government to look after. The harbingers of expansionism had to sell the American people the bill of goods differently because to blatantly tell them we were expanding into the islands of the Pacific to acquire more foreigners to be under our control would not have been a compelling reason for the average American (and as Love argues not compelling for the average politician either). In addition, Walter Lafeber in his work The American Age argues that the United States entered and annexed Hawaii under the presumption of providing trade and economic reciprocity to the natives of Hawaii.  [9]  This mutual trade agreement quickly became one-sided as the United States began to import cheap sugar from Cuba which stranded the Hawaiian market that had become so dependent on U.S. imports. Love argues that this economic goal was only a pretext to enter Hawaii. The way the annexation of Hawaii was sold to the American people was that the island was predominantly settled by white Americans, and these white Americans were under threat by Asian intruders. Unless we liberated the island of Hawaii we would see the Asian threat spill over into Americas borders. Also, it was argued that Hawaii could serve as a valuable pacific naval base to further pacific expansion of American empire. Race was completely abandoned as an explicit motivator due to the fact that annexation of H awaii was blocked for years due to the large indigenous population on the island. Those who backed the annexation of Hawaii failed at their attempts until they quite literally took up William Appleman Williamss thesis and put it into action; we tried to make the Hawaiians like us.  [10]  In order to attain our policy objective the government essentially lied to our citizens and told them that the natives that comprised the island were white Americans like the rest of us. It was this blatant lie, not the supposed aid and spread of Christianity that finally compelled our people to deem annexation appropriate; this is in turn what J. Garry Clifford was trying to state in his essay Bureaucratic Politics and Policy Outcomes.  [11]  Clifford argues that policy isnt made just on the whim of one person in our bureaucratic system, it in fact takes many people to enforce policy and to that end in order to pass policies often compromise must occur, and as Love talks about Hawaii a compromise becomes quite apparent. The fact that the usual Christian mission had to be abandoned in the case of Hawaii is a large compromise from those who originally were pushing the annexation, but nonetheless through compromise the desired outcome was achieved (annexation). Standing in contrast to Loves premise is historian Walter L. Williams. Williams in his essay United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippine Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism outlines an argument that seems to directly counter Loves theory of race as a blockade to annexation.  [12]  Williams states that the United States has a long history of invading land controlled by foreigners and dealing with the indigenous population by denying them citizenship. Alternatively, Williams states they become wards of the United States and as such are situated at a level below citizens. To illustrate his analysis he shows how the Native Americans and indigenous people of the Philippines are essentially cast aside once America annexes the natives land. Williams offers a strong response to Loves thesis and both Williams and Loves arguments are well-built through careful historical analysis of the American experience. Furthermore, historian Samuel Flagg Bemis in his work American Foreign Policy and the Blessings of Liberty argues that the American experience is embedded in a long history of spreading the blessings of liberty to those people and nations who do not enjoy what we consider basic liberties.  [13]  Love would tend to agree that spreading the blessings of liberty is a large explicit rationale of American imperialism from 1865-1900. However, Love would not go as far as to actually postulate that spreading the blessings of liberty was a primary motivator for empire. From Loves prospective it is very simple to see that spreading liberty was a convenient means of masking policies that had at heart more menacing objectives. In conclusion, Race Over Empire benefits from the strong evidence that Love presents to support his argument. Looking over the events in Santo Domingo, Hawaii, and the Philippines it is hard to disagree with Loves analysis; that a purely race motivated approach to imperialism in these areas would have failed miserably for American expansionists. The main strengths of this work are that it is rooted in sound logic and the author uses pertinent evidence that helps to give real-world illustration to support his thesis. There are a few problems with this book however. Too often it feels that Love is trying to completely dispel race as a motivator in American foreign policy. I believe this makes his argument unbelievable at times. The period from 1865-1900, is marked in clearly racist policies and mindsets in the United States, and to argue that imperialist policies didnt have at least some racism in the back of its mind would be a very naÃÆ' ¯ve point to argue. Furthermore, in his dis cussion of Hawaii Love fails to mention the desire of American policymakers to extend U.S. influence into Asia. Hawaii was annexed because of its position in the Pacific that allowed it to be a staging center to both control Asian migration into America, and to expand American influence into the far-east. I feel that by working so hard to show the insidious motivation behind the humanitarian angle (which he does very well), he neglects a major reason for Hawaiian annexation. The significance of Loves work, Race Over Empire, is rather monumental. First, Loves work challenges the contemporary view of race and racism and its correlation to American imperialism. Whenever a credible argument can be brought against the generally accepted view of history the historical community is benefitted by having its beliefs challenged. Second, the insight that Love provides on the ulterior motives of policy is a point that resonates with American foreign policy still today. So often we take policy at its face value, and we do not look for the implicit motivations behind the policy we put into effect. If anything, Love encourages examining policy in its original context and exploring the concealed motives behind it. Finally, Loves work is significant because it illustrates a theme that is quite often forgotten in history (especially in American classrooms today), there are always different interpretations of history and we are often taught to think about history in one wa y. Love challenges the accepted view and provides compelling evidence as to why the views of generations of historians need to be challenged. In closing is race prejudice a continual shadow upon the United States as Pearl Buck would suggest? I am compelled by Loves argument that in an openly and belligerently racist south the people and politicians would never accept policy that allows for the mass migration of foreigners into our country, and it is for that reason race was cloaked as an implicit motivator, but rejected as the primary motivation of American imperialism.

The Saga of Kirke :: Classics

The Saga of Kirke. In various situations in the Kirke episode the themes of false paradise and loyalty are present. The Island of Kirke gives itself a false appearance of divinity. The goddess Kirke gives off a false appearance of enchantment and courtesy. Odysseus and his men convey the theme of loyalty throughout the episode of Kirke to each other. Odysseus shows loyalty not just to his men, but to his wife and his homeland as well. From the ship's arrival on the shore the island gives itself a false appearance of divinity. Odysseus narrates that an unseen god has lured them into the cove: "We came/ washed in our silent ship upon her shore/ and found a cove, a haven for a ship-/ some god, invisible, conned us in" (154-157). False appearance of divinity comes out on third day on the island of Kirke. On Odysseus's way back to the seashore from the observation rock he comes across a big buck, which he kills to feed his men. Odysseus perceives the buck as a gift from the gods: ", some god's compassion/ Set a big buck in motion to cross my path-/ So hands were washed to take what heaven sent us" (173-200). Kirke herself gives off a false appearance to the men. When the first group of Odysseus's men come to the house, they were enticed by the goddess's song: "In the entrance way they stayed to listen there:" (240-241). She shows the men that she is courteous by inviting the men in and giving them food and drink. The goddess works her magic on the men by giving them temptations to deal with. She gives them food to eat, and wine that she has laced with some sort of potion that causes the men to lose desire to go home. Kirke then turns the men into pigs. She uses false appearance as a courteous enchanting god the lure the men in. "/ to call them in./ While she prepared a meal of cheese and baley/ and amber honey mixed with Pramnian wine./ adding her own vile pinch,/ / all/ swinish now" (253-265). The men are not the only ones that have to deal with the deception of Kirke. She tries to deceive Odysseus with the same food and drink that she offered his men, but with the knowledge attained from Hermes he was able to out wit the goddess. When her first attempt fails she then tries flattery to dupe Odysseus into the bedroom to lie with her: " 'What a champion, of what country, can you be?/ We two shall mingle and make love upon our bed.

Unknown Mixtures Lab Report

-Unknown Mixtures Lab- Purpose: The aim of this experiment was to find out the two substances of the unknown mixture from salt, sugar, dirt, and baking soda by looking at its properties. Hypothesis: Find the unknown substance by testing it out by heating it, pouring water, vinegar, and observing it . Procedure: 1) Materials- * 100ml of water * Vinegar * Bunsen Burner * 2 beakers * 1 spatula 2) First, do steps (3-6)to find out the properties of salt, sugar, dirt, and baking powder. 3) Observe and record the appearances of the four known substances. ) Burn the known substances one by one to see what will happen. When it starts to burn take the beaker off of the burner. 5) Add water to all substances. Make sure to stir well (until the salt and sugar dissolve) to see how each substance reacts with water 6) Add vinegar to all substances. Make sure to stir well (until the salt and sugar dissolve) to see how each substance reacts with vinegar 7) Observe your unknown substance and write down how it looks 9) Add water to the unknown substance.Check to see if it turns to mud and that the white substance dissolves. 10) Heat up unknown substance until it starts to burn. Check and see if the substance starts to turn brown and smell good and dry up and crack. This is to see if the unknown substance is a combination of dirt and sugar. Safety Precautions- * Remember to wear closed shoes just in case someone drops something like glass and it lands on your foot. * Always wear goggles, and for girls tie their hair, when near a burner so it doesn’t burn your hair or get something in your eye. Be careful not to drop the beakers so that there will be no danger of accidently stepping on glass. Observations- The sugar turned brown and smelled good when heated, salt turned black and smelled like burnt rubber when heated, dirt turned to mud when water was added, and baking soda started to bubble when vinegar was added. DATA: TABLE 1: CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSTANCES SUBSTANCE| Chara cteristics| Appearance | Sugar| Heat: sugar turns brown and smells goodWater: sugar dissolvesVinegar: sugar dissolves| White, shiny, looks similar to sugar. Salt| Heat: turns black, smells like burnt rubberWater: dissolvesVinegar: dissolves| White, looks like sugar except it isn’t shiny| Dirt| Heat: dries up and starts to crackWater: turns to mudVinegar: turns to mud| Brown, has bits of rock and dried grass in it| Baking Soda| Heat: Water: turns water whiteVinegar: starts to bubble | White, soft, kind of like flour| These are some of the characteristics and appearances of the four known substances after experimenting (heating, adding water, adding vinegar, observing) to find their properties.This will help when trying to figure out the two substances in the unknown mixture. TABLE 2: UNKNOWN SUBSTANCE Substance| Characteristics| Appearance| Result| Unknown| Water: the substance turned to mud and the white specks dissolvedHeat: while the dirt turned hard, the white substance st arted to turn brown and smell good | * pieces of rock and dried and grass * small white shiny specks mixed in | Dirt and Sugar| This is the data collected from observing the unknown substance.From looking at table 1 and then comparing the appearance of the known substances to the unknown substance the unknown substance is the most similar to the appearances and characteristics of dirt and sugar. DATA ANALYSIS: The data collected states all the characteristics and appearances of the four known substances. This helps when trying to find the two substances in the unknown mixture. To gather the data the substances were burned, added with water and vinegar, and observed. Then with the information of the known substances was compared with the characteristics of the unknown substances.The unknown substance had characteristics similar to dirt and sugar, and so the unknown substance was experimented to check if they were really dirt and mud by adding water to see if it turned to mud and heat ing the substance to see if it would turn brown and smell good. CONCLUSION/ EVALUATION/IMPROVEMENTS: The purpose of this experiment was to find out the two substances of the unknown mixture out of salt, sugar, dirt, and baking soda. For this experiment my hypothesis was correct.The purpose of this experiment was achieved by observing and finding out the characteristics of each substance. The sugar turned brown and smelled good when heated, salt turned black and smelled like burnt rubber when heated, dirt turned to mud when water was added, and baking soda started to bubble when vinegar was added. According to table 1 the data shows that the unknown substance had similar characteristics to both sugar and dirt. And so to find out if my hypothesis was correct or not experiments were carried out based on tests that were characteristics of either sugar or dirt.One experiment was heating the unknown substance to check if it would start drying up and bubbling brown. The other was adding wa ter to test if it would turn into mud. Some mistakes that could be improved in the experiment next time is- making sure not to pour a lot of salt into the beaker when heating it, since there was a lot of salt when heating it the smell was more nastier and shocking. Also when heating the dirt not to let it burn for a long time because when washing it, it was hard to get some of the dirt off.

Lord of the Flies Brings Abstract Idea Through Its Symbol Essay

God loads people with humanity and savagery. It depends on how people manage it in everyday life. It also shows in Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies. This story concerns to how people run the instinct to live such rules, peacefully, moral and value. The story begins when a group of English schoolboys isolated on an island after their plane has crashed during a war. They are Ralph, Piggy, Jack, Simon, Roger, Sam and Eric. They tried to survive until they could find by others. The conflict among them showed their personal characters; Ralph was chose as protagonist character, he was elected as a leader of the group and tried to handle his friends to build a miniature civilization on the island until they could be saved. In this story, Golding represented Ralph as person who had humanity instinct. Jack was antagonist character because through the story he showed barbarian instinct which is wild, savage, and brutish. Simon was represented as a good boy who had the willingness to work in the group. Piggy was symbolized as intellectual boy, Golding showed it in his appearance which is he wore an eyeglasses. Roger was like Jack, cruel boy who brutalized others. And the last, Sam and Eric, they are a pair of twins who had a lot of innocence. In the whole story, the reader can easily find that the narrative is built by so many symbols or we can say it allegory novel which is a story in which characters, setting and actions stand for something beyond themselves, such as abstract ideas, moral qualities and historical figures or events, in this case, story can be read in level of symbolic. Lord of the Flies was written in 1954, it seems that Golding had experienced to World War II when humanity and crime existed on it. It is possible that Golding tries to portray the conflict between evil and civilization on the story of Lord of Flies. The ideas of civilization and savagery appear in both characters Jack and Ralph. In the beginning of the novel, Ralph and Piggy found a conch shell, they decided to use that conch shell to gather the others after the crashed. The shell is being a symbol of civilization, which successfully head the group’s meetings, and for point who is the right to speak by holding its shell. It is safe to assume that the shell is symbol of democratic and to unite each other. But however when the shell loose its power and the boys came to savagery, it influenced among them. Many people who usually live or travel in the jungle believes that focusing the glasses on the sunlight may get a fire. It looks when the boys tried to make a fire by using the lenses from Piggy’s glasses. Golding looks as if he wants to picture Piggy as an intellectual boy among the other boys and the glasses as a symbol of it. Glasses is symbolized the power of science and intellectual attempt in society. Making the signal fire may help so that others can rescue them. Ralph had an idea to climb the mountain and made a smoke therefore if a ship came near the island, they could notice them. The signal fire can be one of symbol to connect to civilization. They want to be rescued and go back to society by making a sign. But when the fire goes low burned or even out, it may assume their desire to be rescued by other is helpless. In the end of the story, the signal fire isn’t a notice to a ship but a fire in the mountain forest as a part of Jack’s savagery to hunt Ralph. The fear of something imaginary leads them to savagely behavior. For the first time, the boys didn’t believe there was a beast on the island, but later on it frightened all of them because the existence of the beast was in their mind. When the boys are wilder the existence of the beast are more real. They consider it as a totemic god and surrender for it. The boy’s behavior brings the beast into existence so it seems like beast become real in soul of them. Golding may portray the beast as a symbol of savagery because the reader may consider it as a monster or evil that against with humanity. In a way, reading this novel is like seeing an adventure to find the existence of personal identity. Golding succeeds in portraying a conflict between humanity and savagery through his novel Lord of the Flies. Showing that God creates people with two sides; civilization and sin. It is a matter how people handle with it and discover the wisdom to know the difference.