Fringe benefit plans Essay Example for Free

Incidental advantage plans Essay What, truly, are incidental advantages? Incidental advantages are a noteworthy portion of a laborers complete remuneration bundle, which has developed after some time (Flynn, 2000). They are of two sorts: One kind of incidental advantage is the spreading of an employee’s pay, which was earned while working, over periods when the worker doesn't work. The other kind of incidental advantage incorporates a wide range of things which became fill in for cash pay, which the worker may spend for things voluntarily. Rather than getting one’s whole cash wage, the representative may get some of it as indicated products or assumed administrations. A wide range of things become fill in for cash pay. They extend right from better can offices in the plant to fairways for individuals from the groups of representatives maybe even assistance in building a congregation of some section in the network. It might be more organization picnics, or a Christmas celebration, or protection of some sort, or an annuity for mature age a wide range of things. Retirement annuities, despite the fact that all laborers might be secured by an essential age-related state benefits, most by far of firms work a word related annuity conspire for their representatives to which the firm contributes. Regardless of the onus for annuity arrangement moving towards the person in various nations, including the UK, organization annuity plans stay a generous and far reaching incidental advantage. Different advantages incorporate excess installments and limits on organization items and the utilization of organization vehicles. Now and then these incidental advantages are the consequence of representative weight, either through the association or with no association. Be that as it may, regularly they are started by the executives; an organization plan is placed into impact. Anyway they come to fruition, incidental advantages of this sort share one viewpoint practically speaking. Smith (2003) has stated that in each case its cost comes out of the cash due the representative as pay. Incidental advantages are not only an interest after all other options have run out by men living in a general public which as of now supplies them with nearly all that they need. They fulfill some central human needs which, however for conservatism on the two sides of industry, would presumably have become matters for the bartering table well before now. Incidental advantage plans increment the advantages accessible to representatives through arrangement of such advantages as better benefits, year-end rewards, paid get-aways, wiped out leave, and occasions and a cooled working spot, notwithstanding the employees’ essential compensation. In certain occasions, benefit sharing understandings are additionally included, just as store rebate benefits of laborers. At this stage, the craving for security and coherence of pay may well have become as incredible, or more prominent, than the longing to raise salary. Therefore the social rationale of incidental advantages in a propelled society. With regards to medical coverage and annuities, incidental advantages help make up for nearsightedness in a people utilization choices. High negligible expense rates, for the two firms and laborers, support the utilization of incidental advantages. As laborers have gotten happier in genuine terms this has expanded their interest for incidental advantages. Incidental advantages gave charge points of interest on the two specialists and firms. In principle it was conceivable to decide the ideal blend of wages and incidental advantages according to the organizations want for benefits. A significant extent of the normal specialists expenses to his manager are as incidental advantages. Undoubtedly, huge firms can get bunch limits and bigger quantities of representatives guarantee lower per-laborer expenses of organization. Regularly incidental advantages are charged at moderately low rates, if by any means. This makes solid impetuses for the firm and its workers to build the extent of incidental advantages inside complete remuneration. Further, tax assessment inclusion is somewhat deficient at the worker level inferable from specialized challenges in burdening singular incidental advantages and in light of the fact that government assistance pay is generally little. Incidental advantages additionally have a preferred position to the businesses on the grounds that the advantages were charge deductible as well as in light of the fact that they diminished turnover and in this way supported profitability. Additionally, the utilization incidental advantages improved the general confidence of the workers. The social condition was working. WORKS CITED Flynn, B. (2000). Incidental advantages. New Statesman, 129 (4499), 32. Smith, S. (2003). Work Economics. (second Ed. ). London: Routledge.

Oliver Twist :: essays research papers

OLIVER TWIST CHARACTERS  Harry ~ He is Mrs. Maylie's child, and he is infatuated with Rose.  Rose ~ She lives with Giles and Brittles, and is uncertain on how she feels about Harry until the end.  Oliver ~ Represents the hopelessness and destitution of the poor during the 1800.  Bil ~ He is an expert hoodlum, an exceptionally mean individual, a heavy drinker, and is beau of Nancy.  Toby ~ A hoodlum (he is Bill’s aide).  Nancy ~ A generous lady who sadly pays for being that at long last. She is additionally Bil's better half (who she is frightened of).  Brittles and Giles ~ The individuals whose house was broken into by Sikes, Toby, and Oliver. Additionally the individuals who dealt with Oliver after he came to them practically dead.  Mrs. Bedwin ~ Housekeeper for Mr.Brownlow.  Mr. Brownlow ~ Oliver's first student, he and Mrs.Bedwin took generally excellent consideration of him.  Fagin ~ Teaches kids how to become hoodlums, yet everything he does is make the kids take for him with the goal that he doesn’t need to do it without anyone else's help or a so he wouldn’t get found doing it.  Doctor Losberne ~ Doctor that helps Oliver after he get shot in the arm.  Mr. also, Mrs. Blunder ~ Preppy and Snobby individuals, and they detest Oliver.  Mrs. Cheesy ~ Mr. Blunder's better half, it was her original surname before she was hitched to him.  Mr. Priests ~ He was otherwise called the outsider, however he was truly Edward Leeford (Oliver sibling).  Mrs. Maylie ~ She is Harry's mom. Outline Bil Sikes, Toby Crackit, and Oliver burglarized Brittles and Giles. During the time spent the theft Oliver is shot in the arm thus Sikes wouldn't get captured he left Oliver in a dump to pass on. The following morning he strolls to Brittles and Giles house and took him in and called the Doctor. At the point when the specialist came he said that he was eager to see the kid. After Oliver's arm is dealt with Brittles, Giles, Rose, Mrs. Maylie, and the specialist chose not to tell the police, yet what they choose to do is deal with him and give him a home. At the point when Oliver disclosed to them his story they felt terrible for him, so they disregarded him to recuperate. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â When Oliver recovered he discovers that Mr. Brownlow and Mrs. Bedwin had moved toward the West Indies.

Top Five AWOL Novelists Was It Something I Said

Top Five AWOL Novelists Was It Something I Said You know what would be kind of awesome? If cream-o-the-crop novelists like Jonathan Franzen, Haruki Murakami and Jeffrey Eugenides published kick-ass literary novels at a frequency of even half that of other, um, novelists, like Janet Evanovich and James Patterson. But they dont. Probably because they have this irrational hang-up about only affixing their names to books theyve written themselves. Snark aside, there are any number of real reasons for long gaps between novels. Usually the simplest explanation is the right one: Novelists have spent their time on other projects, like teaching, traveling, or writing non-fiction, short stories or essays. But the opposite may be true, too: Theyre blocked. Or, perhaps theyre actually gone for good, having enrolled at Harper Lees School For Quitting While Youre Ahead. (One final theory: They know Im waiting anxiously for their new books, and they enjoying annoying me.And so now that that jokes out of the way, this seems like a good time to broach the fact that I do realize this whole post has an air of presumptuousness â€" that these novelists are nothing but circus clowns, plying their trade to entertain me (us), and the only thing that matters is how quickly they can crank out their next bit of art. I dont really think any of this, just so were clear. Sorry for the detour. Back to the post.) So, as you surely know by now, last week, Eugenides published a novel (The Marriage Plot) for the first time in nine years. (By way of comparison, James Patterson publishedand Im not exaggerating here, you can count for yourself58 novels in that same time. 58!)   And thats gotten me thinking about other writers whose novels I loved, but who we havent seen in awhile. Here is my top five: 5. Norman Rush and Robert Stone â€" Im lumping these two old, venerable American novelists together here largely because I seem to constantly conflate them in my own mind. They even bear a passing physical resemblance â€" each sporting a distinguished old-guy white beard. Rush is the author of intellectual thrillers Mating (1991) and Mortals (2003), which was his last novel. Stone has published a memoir (Prime Green: Remembering the Sixties â€" 2007) and a book of short stories (Fun With Problems â€" 2010), since his last novel â€" 2003s Bay of Souls, which, frankly, was a far cry qualitywise from many of the other six novels (especially Damascus Gate, which is incredible!) hed published over the course of the last 35 years. 4. Claire Messud â€" Though many people didnt, I loved The Emperors Children (2006), a novel about a clique of single folks in New York City. But Messud hasnt published another novel since. She had written three pre-The Emperors Children novels between 1995 and 2001, so Im hoping for something new soon! 3. James David Duncan â€"   The Brothers K, one of my favorite novels of all time, came out in 1992. Since, Duncan has published numerous essays, a volume of short stories, and a memoirbut no novel. Sadly, I think Duncan may be a prime example of the Harper Lee School â€" if he hasnt published in 19 years, its hard to imagine a new novel is forthcoming. I hope Im wrong â€" and hes actually slaving away at the Karl Marlantes School (30 years to write and publish Matterhorn). 2. Cormac McCarthy â€" Another Great American Novelist who is getting up there in years (hes 78). McCarthys last novel was The Road (2006). I know this is literary sacrilege, but The Road is actually the only McCarthy novel Ive liked (and Ive read a lot of his stuff). And The Road got me just interested enough to keep going with McCarthy. But now hes made us wait five years. (Incidentally, somewhere, Philip Roth â€" who definitely reads Book Riot! â€" just slammed an angry fist onto his typewriter, and commenced a tirade about how age is no excuse to stop publishing.) 1. Zadie Smith â€" From 2000 to 2005, Smith published three novels â€" the brilliant White Teeth (2000), The Autograph Man (2002), and On Beauty (2005). And thensilence (at least novelistically speaking). Shes published several essays (collected in Changing My Mind: Occasional Essays â€" 2010), but no more fiction. Please come back, Zadie. We miss you! There you have it. Who is on your list? From which novelists are you patiently waiting for something new? Sign up to Unusual Suspects to receive news and recommendations for mystery/thriller readers.

Essay Sample about My Mistakes

Essay about my wrongdoings and mistakes Have you ever been involved in some serious wrongdoing? What lesson did you learn from the experience? Highway to Death Making mistakes is a natural part of life, since learning from them helps us to progress. My love for speed started while I was a young girl. I enjoyed watching car races and was fond of playing car speeding games, unlike other girls my age who had a passion for dolls. When my dad noticed my interest, he would take me to the rally competition each year. Five months after my dad’s funeral, I decided to take his 504 Peugeot for a ride. After I had done about 3 miles from home, I pressed on the gas pedal to the far end, shifting gears at an interval of 5 seconds. For a while it felt awesome, but I was starting to get scared, and when the speed approached the 87 mph mark, I could see a grave sign blinking on the dashboard. A dark cloud covered the sky, and for seconds there was a pin drop silence. I drove past a red light at a crossroad, and from the passenger window I could see a trailer driving towards me. My head hit hard on the steering wheel and the shards of broken glass spewed in all direction. From a distance, I could hear the ambulance siren and a male voice that kept repeating the words â€Å"you are going to be alright, hold on, we are almost there†. My whole body was numb, and at some point I thought was dying. Yes, I still love fast cars and cool stunts performed by great drivers, but I chose to be on the spectator side of it all. I fully recovered after 15 months, but I will never forget that deadly ordeal that almost took my life. Observing speed limits and traffic lights have become a compulsory routine to my driving.

The Rhetorical Strategy of Identification

US-South Korean Relations A New Era of Cooperation Free Essays

string(155) " exchanges in misperceived intentions and mutual suspicions spiraled into political turmoil that culminated in the shocking assassination of Park in 1979\." President Carter stated in a secret memorandum at the beginning of his administration that â€Å"U. S. – Korean relations as determined by Congress and American people are at an all time low. We will write a custom essay sample on US-South Korean Relations: A New Era of Cooperation or any similar topic only for you Order Now † This statement, coupled with his iron determination to withdraw forces from South Korea, reflected the end of what is often known as the â€Å"Golden Age† of Korean-American relations. During Park Chung Hee†s 18-year authoritarian reign over South Korea, the late 1970s portray a complex web of alliance relations and tumultuous security commitment that threatened the overall strength of the two allies. Constant U. S. intervention and attempts to influence Korea†s political process were met with massive resistance and did not deter then president Park from steadfastly continuing his Yushin system of authoritarian rule until his sudden assassination in 1979 (Gleysteen 4). However, the decades following the 1970s portray yet another shift in Korean-American relations. Once opposed to Western style democracy, the government of the 1990s (namely, Kim Dae Jung) has shed its authoritarian foundation and now supports a policy that reflects the ideals of Western democracy. South Korea has effectively put into place a system of democracy that will now be difficult to overturn, if anyone should ever again try. Although unsuccessful in the 1970s, the U. S. has finally realized its primary goal of political liberalization in South Korea. In this paper, I will discuss the relations between Korea and the U. S. in the late 1970s and the factors that led to tensions in alliance; mainly, differing political ideologies. Then, I will elaborate on the great strides Korea has made in achieving democracy, therefore lessening the political gap between Korea and the Western nations. I will do so by presenting Kim Dae Jung†s strongly democratic vision of Korea among opposing viewpoints. By analyzing his response to Lew Kwan Yew†s generally anti-Western democracy stance, one is able to discern the similarities in political thought that bridged the seemingly irreparable gap rendered during the Park Chung Hee rule. The differences in these two political leaders effectively portray the opposite ends of the political spectrum and show the changes in government Korea has made during the governments of Park and Kim. Upon Park Chung Hee†s rise to power following the military coup of 1961, it was inevitable that Korea would not follow a trend towards democracy. Given Park†s military background, Confucian heritage and Japanese education, there was nothing in his history to suggest that he would embrace democracy American-style. In fact, he considered this practice to be â€Å"inconvenient and unproductive† (Oberdorfer 32). A U. S. military assessment noted: From the time he led the 1961 coup, it has been evident that President Park had little admiration for or interest in the craft of politics. His approach to his stewardship as ROK head of state has remained that of a general who desires that his orders be carried out without being subjected to the process of political debate (Oberdorfer 33). Although heavy U. S. ressure influenced Park to return to nominal civilian rule following his coup, one can see that from the beginning there were prominent factors that foreshadowed the clash of ideologies to come. Park began his most anti-democratic line of rule in 1972 with the advent of his â€Å"Yushin† system that disbanded the National Assembly, declared martial law, discarded the existing Constitution and prepared for indirect election of the president. To silence opposition, Park arrested many of the senior political leaders of the country. He justified this radical line of rule by declaring that they were â€Å"revitalizing reforms† that were necessary to strengthen and unify the nation to prepare for possible Northern invasion and maintain national independence (Oberdorfer 38). All pretense of a civilian government was thus ended by this blatant grab for complete authoritarian power. Following a policy that encouraged gradually lower levels of U. S. engagement with Korea, the U. S. responded to this maneuver by stating that they had not been consulted or involved in Park†s actions and would seek to avoid involvement in Korea†s internal affairs (Oberdorfer 41). In effect, the U. S. was attempting to not endorse the Yushin plan as a whole by following a policy of disassociation that diminished the role of the U. S. in Korea†s political system. U. S. involvement, while always present, became significantly more intrusive with President Carter†s rise to office in 1976. At this time, America†s reaction against military commitments abroad were seen for the first time since the Vietnam disaster when President Carter advocated the withdrawal of U. S. troops from Korea almost immediately following his inception into office. Korea was, of course, adamantly against this maneuver and Carter†s own government displayed opposition to such a drastic move. However, for undetermined reasons, Carter remained steadfast in this course of action for almost the entire duration of his office. Although the administration and Congress opposed the immediate withdrawal of U. S. forces, they were not against the idea of using the issue to induce a process of liberalization. However, they had to be careful in their suggestions so as to not provoke a nationalist and regressive reaction. The U. S. ought to do this by attempting to recover strained relations with Park, hoping it would lead to gradual democratization by a friendly and understated counsel. Park too hoped to end the awkward relations with the U. S. but sought to maintain U. S. support without changing his ruling style. He proposed a summit with Carter in January 1979 but rejected Western style democracy as unsuitable to Korea. Although both sides wanted to return to the friendly relations of the past, misperceptions regarding the other†s government led to escalating tensions (Gleysteen 6). The political interplay was such that Park believed that the U. S. policy toward Korea would shift from human rights and democratization to security, whereas the Carter administration gradually adopted a flexible status quo policy linked to a strategy of offensive intervention. These exchanges in misperceived intentions and mutual suspicions spiraled into political turmoil that culminated in the shocking assassination of Park in 1979. You read "US-South Korean Relations: A New Era of Cooperation" in category "Essay examples" There can be no doubt that although the U. S. pparently had not direct involvement in the assassination, its public statements and support of the opposition helped to fuel and enhance the struggle for Park†s demise. The fall of the Park regime and the â€Å"Carter Chill† are interdependent, and the decline of the Triangular Alliance Security System (TASS) is apparent as Korean politics continued to deviate from U. S. interests. There is a fundamental lack of compromise and miscommunication between the Carter and Park administrations that led to the detrimental effect of unsteady alliance. With this level of tension and uncertainty, relations can only be strained and self-defeating, for they are only encouraging instability in the very region that both are trying to maintain peace in. Judging by the transition of Korean-American relations and the dismal conclusion in 1979, neither side was entirely successful in securing their interests and maintaining a cohesive alliance management. However, the shift to democracy (and consequently, united Korean-American interests) came in 1987 when Korea held its first popular ballot since Park Chung Hee†s narrow victory in 1971. Since then, Korea has been on a sometimes shaky but determined road to continue democracy that appears to have no end. We see this commitment to democracy in current President Kim Dae Jung, who has had a long and remarkable history in advocating democracy. Throughout his long and volatile political career, Kim has remained staunchly dedicated to his belief in democracy despite constant threat and repression. Kim came very close to winning the popular ballot in 1971 against Park Chung Hee and it was no secret that Park despised and feared him. He was abducted by Park†s KCIA in Tokyo and brought back to Seoul bound and gagged, after which he was placed under house arrests and later imprisoned. After Park, Chun continued the vengeance by having Kim arrested and sentenced to death. It was only with the influence of the Reagan administration that Chun reluctantly allowed Kim to live. Prior to 1987, there had been only 2 months since his kidnapping fourteen years earlier when he had been free of house arrest, prison, exile, or some other serious official restriction. In these years of adversity, Kim has had the opportunity to strengthen his convictions and answer major questions facing Korea (Oberdorfer 177). When Kim Dae Jung assumed power as President in 1997, many thought finally. After a political career that has spanned more than 4 decades, Kim was finally able to implement his democratic ideals. Kim was also a U. S. favorite for the presidency for it meant that Korea would strengthen its democratic government and Korea would have a president that the U. S. ould relate to – unlike Park Chung Hee in the 1970s. Overall, Kim†s ascension into the presidency signified increasingly harmonious Korean-American relations into the 21st century. There is perhaps no better assurance of Korean-American political compatibility in the 1990s than Kim Dae Jung†s article that appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine in late 1994. In order to understand Kim Dae Jung†s adamantly pro-democracy article titled, â€Å"Is Culture Destiny? † one must first understand the Lee Kwan Yew interview that provoked it. In his interview with Foreign Affairs in early 1994, Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister of Singapore, stated his belief that the primary reason that Asian countries cannot adopt Western democracy is due to the inherent differences in culture. In response, Korean President Kim Dae Jung argues that Asian culture does not oppose the ideals of democracy, but rather, enhances it. He believes that Asian culture in no way hinders the progress of democracy and the resistance of authoritarian leaders and their supporters only obstructs incorporation of such a culture into democracy. And above all, Kim supports the ideals of democracy and promotes it fully throughout his article. Kim asserts that though Lee stresses cultural values throughout his interview, that alone does not determine a country†s fate. Furthermore, he believes that Lee†s view is not only unsupportable but also self-serving. Throughout the article, Kim disputes Lee†s arguments of incompatibility and implies that Lee†s â€Å"democracy is incompatible with Eastern culture† argument is only used to justify his personal anti-democratic beliefs. The effects of Kim†s history of political oppression and opposition against authoritarianism can be seen throughout this response. In reply to Lee†s view that an individual exists within the context of the family, Kim points out that industrialization has brought the inevitable consequence of self-centered individualism. Also, Lee†s statement that â€Å"the ruler or government does not try to provide for a person what the family best provides,† rejects what he perceives as the intrusive nature of Western governments. In it, Lee claims that this intrusiveness is not suited for family-oriented East Asia. However, Kim argues that this is not true, for East Asian government are much more intrusive than Western governments into the daily affairs of their people. Whereas Western people exercise much more individual liberties than Eastern people, the Eastern governments tend to limit individual behavior. Singapore, for example, strictly regulates activities such as gum chewing, spitting, and littering. Lee even dislikes the â€Å"one man, one vote† principle that Kim states is a fundamental part of democracy, saying that he is not â€Å"intellectually convinced† that it is best (Kim 190). Kim goes on to argue that though he cannot disagree with Lee†s objection to forcing an alien system indiscriminately upon societies in which it will not work, he questions the extent to which democracy is alien to Asian cultures. Contrary to Lee, Kim believes that Asian culture in fact enhances democracy and even contains underlying foundations that are essentially democratic in nature. Similar to the Lockean foundation of modern democracy that gives sovereign right to the people and leaders a mandate to govern through a social contract that the people can withdraw, Asia also has a similar philosophy. Chinese philosopher Meng-tzu preached that the king is the Son of Heaven and is given a Mandate of Heaven to provide government for the good of the people. If he did not do so, the people had the right to rebel and overthrow the government in the name of heaven. A native religion of Korea further advocated that â€Å"man is heaven† and one must serve man as he does heaven (Kim 190). Kim also describes the ancient political systems of China and Korea in which the government practiced the rule of law and saw to it that all citizens were treated fairly. Powerful boards of censors supported freedom of speech by checking imperial misrule and abuses by government officials. Therefore, he says, the fundamental ideas and traditions necessary for democracy exist in both Europe and Asia. Many Asian countries, including Singapore, became prosperous after they adopted a Western style of free-market economy, which is also an integral part of democracy. In countries where economic prosperity preceded political advancement, it was only a matter of time before democracy followed. The best proof that democracy can work in East Asia, Kim says, can be seen in the fact that despite the resistance of authoritarian leaders, Asia has achieved the most remarkable record of democratization of any region since 1974. This achievement has only been overshadowed by Asia†s tremendous economic success. Kim uses the finding of experts who claim that the new economic world order requires guaranteed freedom of information and creativity, things that are only possible within a democracy. Thus, Kim maintains, Asia has no alternative to democracy because it is also a matter of survival in an increasingly competitive world (Kim 192-193). Much to the U. S. â€Å"s pleasure, Kim suggests that Asia look towards the models of the democracy in the West and learn from their successes and failures. He advocates a â€Å"rebirth of democracy that promotes freedom, prosperity, and justice both within each country and among nations, (193)† and using the traditional strengths of Asian society to better the implementation of democracy. Kim says, â€Å"such a democracy is the only true expression of a people, but it requires the full participation of all elements of society. Only then will it have legitimacy and reflect a country†s vision. † Policies which strive to protect people from the negative effects of economic and social change will never be effective if imposed without consent, but those same policies will have the strength of Asia†s people if decided through public debate. Furthermore, Kim advocates the need to strive towards a new democracy that guarantees the right of personal development for all human beings and the wholesome existence of all living this. As a whole, Asia should firmly establish democracy and strengthen human rights. The biggest obstacle to democracy, Kim asserts, lies not within culture but within authoritarian governments. Coming at the brink of a political comeback, Kim†s article was in many ways pivotally timed to gain the support of the international community as well as the majority desiring Korean democracy. Through his support of public voice, direct elections, and humanitarian policies, one can clearly see the enormous change in Korean-American political interplay during the course of two decades. Judging by the strength of Korean-American relations in the 1990s in comparison to the faltering one of the late 1970s, one can reasonably conclude that similar principles (rule of law, popular elections, freedom of press and speech) prove successful in stabilizing alliance management. The more positive image of Korea to Americans as the Koreans democratize versus all the scandals (Koreagate) and human rights violations of the 1970s have also served to improve the image of Korea to Americans. Parallel trains of political thought and an enhanced Korean image in America have helped to make the Korean-American alliance far more beneficial and reliable than it was before Park†s demise, when it was feared that relations were irreparably deteriorated. More than any other president in Korea†s history, Kim Dae Jung personifies the ideals of Western style democracy. In direct contrast to Park Chung Hee†s rule in the 1970s, Kim Dae Jung supports a political policy that embraces Western ideology. The fundamental points within his argument are in line with primary U. S. interests of democratization, so it is easy to see why Americans would welcome Kim as Korea†s leader. Twice in his political history the U. S. intervened to save Kim†s life and they further showed their support more recently when they pledged economic aid and support for Kim†s reforms. Thus, the 1990s have seen the vast improvement and strengthening of Korean-American relations while Korea progresses to become independent of the U. S. Democratization is well on its way and unlikely to regress, and Korean-American relations steadily continue to improve. No longer is their alliance merely one in which Korea is a junior ally unable to exert much influence – Korea has gradually been able to test the limits of their alliance and exercise more power than ever before. An alliance that started as a U. S. security interest has evolved to become a more interdependent one in which both states will reap the benefits. Kim Dae Jung†s parting comment, if followed, will forever bind the U. S. and Korea as allies with the same political vison – â€Å"Culture is not necessarily our destiny. Democracy is† (194). How to cite US-South Korean Relations: A New Era of Cooperation, Essay examples

Nelson Mandela (3754 words) Essay Example For Students

Nelson Mandela (3754 words) Essay Nelson MandelaExcuse me sir, may I see your pass? These words mean very little to most Americans; however these words struck fear in the hearts of black South Africans during the times of apartheid. While apartheid was being practiced, blacks were restricted in the jobs they could hold, facilities they could use, as well as the places they could be, and all blacks had to carry passes for identification purposes. If the passes were not in order, the carrier was subject to arrest. Through these terrifying times, one man rose above all the rest in the effort to combat this terrible practice of apartheid. This man was Nelson Mandela; a man who was so dedicated to the overthrow of apartheid that he was willing to spend twenty-seven years of his live in prison for the cause. Mandelas rise to the South African presidency, after his release is well documented, but in order to truly understand Mandela, one must examine his life before his prison term, and rise to the presidency. When analyzin g Mandelas life from this point of view, several questions come to the forefront. First of all, what was the extent of the apartheid laws which Mandela and the people of South Africa were facing? Secondly, what tactics did Mandela use to combat this practice of apartheid? Thirdly, what factors played a motivating force in the life of Mandela? And finally, what impact does the life of Nelson Mandela have on the rest of the world? After carefully answering each of these questions, one can easily see that Nelson Mandela was a man shaped by apartheid into a staunch nationalist that served as an example for his people and the world. In understanding Mandela as a nationalist, one must first have an idea of the brutal laws which he faced and dedicated his life to overthrowing. Apartheid was the policy being used to repress the blacks at the time of Mandela. Encyclopedia of Britannica describes apartheid as, policy that governed relations between South Africas white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites (Britannica web). It is important to note that racial discrimination existed in South Africa since Europeans first came there, however the policy of apartheid was not instituted until after the victory of the National Party in the election of 1948 (Britannica web). Once the National Party gained power, they began their movement towards apartheid in 1950 with the Population Registration Act (Britannica web). With the passing of the act, all South Africans were forced to classify themselves into one of three racial groups: Bantu (bl ack South Africans), Coloured (of mixed dissent), and white (Britannica web). A fourth group to include Asian inhabitants was a later addition to the act (Britannica web). This demeaning Population Registration Act was the foundation for all of the brutal apartheid laws that were yet to come from the National Party. Once the National Party had all South Africans placed into categories based on their race, they preceded to enact one policy that was particularly devastating to blacks. The name of this policy was the Group Areas Act of 1950. Before discussing the impact of this act, it is important to understand the extent of the majority the blacks had over the whites. Black residents numbered 31.5 million people, Colorued were 3.3 million, Asian 1.2 million, and the whites had only 5.4 million inhabitants (Geocities web). Now the purpose of the Group Areas Act was to prevent members of certain races from having land, houses, or businesses in particular areas of the country (Britannica web). As a result of this act, the small minority of white citizens was allotted over 80% of South Africas land (Britannica web). By analyzing the numbers presented, it is not difficult to see how this act had a devastating effect on black South Africans. Blacks represent approximately 75% of the population, yet are only able to use less than 20% of the land. As one could imagine, it would be hard for anyone to prosper under those conditions. Besides the Population Registration Act, and the Group Areas Act many other acts were passed to ensure the segregation between blacks and whites. Two acts in particular demonstrate that the ideas of the National Party were already in practice before they took power. These acts, very similar to the Group Areas Act of 1950, were the Natives Land Acts of 1913 and 1936 (Geocities web). The result of these acts was the large black majority being restricted to only 13% of the land in South Africa (Geocities web). To ensure that blacks would not move into white area, the government instituted pass laws (Britannica web). These laws forced blacks to carry documentation at all times, and these documents would show the authorities in which areas these people could travel (Britannica web). From these laws, one can easily see how the white government of South Africa used any means at their disposal to demean and keep blacks at an economic disadvantage. With this understanding, one can imagine how these policies could spawn the nationalist ideals of Nelson Mandela. After gaining an understanding of the laws Mandela was in opposition to, one must next look at the tactics he used to combat apartheid in order to truly understand him as a nationalist. The first time Mandela delved into anything that could be considered nationalist was when he joined the ANC (African National Congress web). The ANC was established in 1912 as a non-violent organization to combat the repression of black South Africans (Mandela xi). In 1944 Mandela joined the Youth League of the ANC, and the nationalist implications of the maneuver will be discussed later in the paper (Mandela xi). As far as ideology is concerned the ANC believed in using non-violent civil disobedience, which consisted of strikes and protests, and avoided taking lives at all costs (Mandela xi). According to one source the ANC saw, passive resistance was the only way to combat the heavily armed, violent state (Benson 43). By his involvement in these organizations one can easily see the efforts of a begi nning nationalist in Mandela. By 1952 Mandelas respect as a nationalist led to him being named the leader of the ANCs Defiance Campaign (xi). The Defiance Campaign stressed the type of non-violent resistance, which was the foundation of the ANC. Although the movement was passive, the masses were involved, and Mandela alludes in his autobiography when he writes, Doctors, factory workers, lawyers, teachers, students, ministers, defied the law and went to jail (115). The role of the masses in this nationalist movement headed by Mandela was also obvious in the fact that 8,500 people went to jail during this campaign (115). The fact that Mandela led this grass roots campaign to gain more freedom for his people, serves as an excellent example of Mandelas nationalist tactics. After the Defiance Campaign, and incident occurred on March 21, 1960 that would shape many of the nationalist tactics Mandela would use up until the time he was sent to prison. On this day, a group of blacks were peacefully protesting anti-pass laws in a region known as Sharpeville (Mandela xii). In response to the demonstration, South African officials fired on the protestors, and, in fact, killing many of the people (xii). The incident was labeled the Sharpeville Massacre, and because of it the National party called for a state of emergency, in which the ANC was banned (xii). With the banning of the ANC Mandelas and the other members of the ANC were forced to take their efforts underground (xii). The banning of the ANC, led to new nationalist philosophies within the group. These new philosophies are evident in a quote from Mandela, when he says, When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial State by non-violen ce had achieved nothing (Mandela 22). This quote shows that Mandela and fellow members of the ANC new something new needed to be done within the ANC. What Mandela and other nationalist leaders decided to do was to form a military faction of the ANC called the Umkanto Sizwe (24). Mandela lets readers know this was the last option when he writes, We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice (24). The nationalist members of the Umkanto decided on sabotage, over guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and all out revolution, as a means to obtain their goals (26). Mandela makes readers aware of why they chose sabotage when he writes, Sabotage did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations (26). The main targets of this sabotage were power plants, infrastructure, government buildings, as well as symbols of apartheid (26-27). The efforts of the Umkanto were designed to have a crippling eff ect on both the government and the economy, and in doing so change the attitudes of South African voters (27). Mandela was the leader of this group until he was arrested in Natal on August 5, 1962, and sentenced to life in jail (27). By leading and partaking in these efforts to rebel against a repressive government, Mandela once again shows himself as a nationalist. After looking at the brutal effect apartheid had on Mandela and the people of South Africa, as well as the tactics he used to fight this practice, one must delve deeper into Mandelas life to better understand what shaped his nationalistic ideas. In his own autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela says, I cannot pinpoint a moment when I became politicized, when I knew that I would spend my life in the liberation struggle (83). Mandela goes on to discuss how frustrating it was that he could only hold certain jobs, live in certain areas, ride on certain trains, etc. (83). Although Mandela says that his attitude of natio nalistic political activism was the result of coming face to face every day with the apartheid laws that have already been mentioned, there are some specific motivations that can be seen as particularly influencing his nationalistic feelings. Martin Luther King Jr. EssayBesides the impact of Lembede and the Asiatic Land Tenure Act, the third major event that formed Mandela as a political activist and a nationalist was the election of 1948. This election pitted the United Party, which was in power at the time, against the National Party (Mandela 96). Although the United Party did not treat the blacks particularly well, they were rather mild compared to the National Party (96-97). The platform of the National Party was the idea, and programs of apartheid, which was discussed earlier in the paper. The main ideology held by the Nationalist Party was that blacks were inferior to whites, and that the white man should always have control over blacks (97). Eventually, the Nationalist Party, led by Dr. Daniel Malan, won the election of 1948, and this came as a great shock to the entire country (97). One would expect the black South Africans to be devastated by this outcome; however they were not. After hearing news of the electi on, Mandelas partner Oliver Tambo said, I like this. Now we will know exactly who our enemies are and where we stand (Mandela 97). Put differently, the new threat from the state allowed for the ANC to become more united on the ideal that some drastic new actions had to be taken (99). So by looking at the implications of the results of the election of 1948, we can see how it led to further understanding that more nationalist/activist actions had to be taken by Mandela and the ANC. Now that the laws Mandela faced, tactics he used, and his nationalist influences have been discussed, one must now analyze what kind of an impact Nelson Mandela had on his people and the world. Nelson Mandela spent twenty-seven years of his life in prison. After Mandela was released, the people of South Africa let him know what kind of impact he had on them in a rally on February 11, 1990 (PolyGram Video). The masses expressed what Mandela had meant to them in a song entitled, Father of our Nation (PolyGram Video). Some of the lyrics of the song are, You shaped our destiny, for many years we waited for you. Oh Mandela, son of Africa, Father of our freedom, Spirit of our Love (PolyGram Video). Hearing this quote, one can see the extreme gratitude the people of South Africa felt towards Nelson Mandela. Black South Africans understand that it was Mandela and his nationalist yet peaceful agendas that achieved freedom for them. Finally the song shows how dedicated the people were to Mande la, and how they did not forget about him while he was imprisoned. Mandela was conditioned from a young age to be a figure of great impact to his people. Even as a child, Mandela was groomed by the Paramount Chief of his tribe to eventually hold a position of leadership (ANC web). From his upbringing, Mandela was taught a strict work ethic, and learned the value of dedication (ANC web). Obviously, this dedication served Mandela well in his attempt to impact the lives of his people. Mandela makes his audience aware of his dedication to the freedom struggle when he says, You can see that there is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountain tops of our desire (ANC web). This quote comes from Mandelas address to the ANC Transvaal Congress in 1953, and shows the dedication he was willing to put forth to the freedom struggle (ANC web). It was because of this dedication that Mandela was able to unite the masses in a fight for freedom, and eventuall y bring apartheid and the government of the National Party to an end. By bringing about the end of apartheid, Mandelas nationalist tactics have had a profound impact on the lives of his fellow Africans, and blacks can now have an opportunity to succeed and prosper in South Africa. To conclude this paper, I would like to analyze the impact Mandela, as a nationalist, had on people around the world. To do so, I will talk about what I learned from Nelson Mandela while doing my research. While researching Mandela, I came across a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, and the quote said, I will stand here for humanity? I think this quote is an excellent explanation of how I now see Mandela. Mandelas efforts to overturn apartheid can really be admired by all of humanity, not just because he was dedicated to overthrow an evil system, but because of the manner in which he did so. One important idea to me was the fact that Mandela was against bigotry of any kind, and he was not just concerned about his own people. One quote which I found to be very moving explains Mandelas effort to end racism, and Mandelas quote says, I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the idea of a democratic and free society in which all per sons live together in harmony and with equal opportunity (Mandela 5). This dedication to democracy, and loving your fellow man is something that I believe should be applied throughout the world. I also am able to really admire Mandela for the love he expressed to those who were repressing him, as well as the fact that he combated violence with non-violence. The fact that Mandela went about his nationalist efforts in way that would do the least to damage race relations is very admirable. The world has recognized Mandelas work in this area as well by rewarding him with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 (Britannica web). None of Mandelas goals would have been accomplished if it were not for Mandelas aforementioned dedication, as well as his willingness to sacrifice. These too are qualities for which Mandela must be greatly admired. For those throughout the world fighting repression, Mandela can serve as an example of the action necessary to triumph in struggle. Because of his democratic at titude, and determination, I believe that Mandela truly does stand here on earth for humanity, as an example of what we should all strive for. BibliographyWorks CitedBenson, Mary. Nelson Mandela: The Man and the Movement. WW Norton ; Company; New York: 1986. http://anc.org.za.htmlhttp://www.eb.comhttp://www.geocities.com/apartheid.htmlMandela, Nelson. Long Walk to Freedom. Little Brown and Co.; New York: 1994. One Nation, One Country. Phelps-Stokes Institute for African, African American, and Indian Affairs; New York: 1998 (Mandela quotes xi-5). Video: MANDELA Son of Africa, Father of a Nation PolyGram Video New York: 1996. Legal Issues