The Cold War: A New History

The Cold War: A New History By 1945, World War II came to an end, but there was no victorious celebration or a promising future of hope for peace. The members of the Grand Alliance had already toasted their success in winning the war. However, the United States and the Soviet Union became wary of each other as they had very different goals regarding how to deal with Germany and eastern Europe. The competing visions of the two countries had led the world to fall under the shadow of the Cold War. In his one-volume-book The Cold War: A New History, John Lewis Gaddis examines the dynamics of the political conflicts that dominated the world from the end of World War II to the late 1980s. John Lewis Gaddis is currently the Robert A. Lowett professor of history at Yale University. He is a distinguished historian who had written six other books on the subject of the cold war. In 2005, he was also rewarded a National Humanities Medal by the National Endowment for the humanities (Gaddis, back of front cover). Unlike his previous six books, Gaddis was convinced by his students and agent to write a short, comprehensive, and accessible (Gaddis, pg x). He had intended to write his book for a new generation of readers for whom the Cold War was never current events' (Gaddis, pg x). From many research from the works other Cold War historians and as well as his own analysis, Gaddis created a masterpiece of work that leads his reader through the history of a fearful era and behind-the-scene strategies and thoughts on both sides of the war. His objectives were to reveal the underlying dynamics of the political struggles of the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union that shaped, and threatened to end, our lives (Gaddis, back of front cover) while intertwining with his own judgments of the historical events. The superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, may have collaborated together to end the World War II; however, their visions of shaping the postwar settlement of Germany and eastern Europe could not have been more different. As Gaddis had stated in his book, The tragedy was this: that victory would require the victors either to cease to be who they were, or to give up much of what they had hoped, by fighting the war, to attain (Gaddis, pg 6). Stalin of the Soviet Union desired security for himself, his regime, his country, and his ideology, in precisely that order (Gaddis, pg 6). He solely believed that his country deserved a lot of territories because of the wartime expenditures that caused the countrys land to be ravaged and the notorious, bloody casualties of an approximate of 27 million civilians that died as a result of World War II (Gaddis, pg 9). He also had a zealous dream which was influenced by the Marxist-Leninist ideology that communists would soon dominate Eur ope through patience because capitalists cannot comply with one another for long. On the other hand, unlike Stalin, the Americans had a less determined goal of grasping security and global influence of their democratic ideas. Most part of Americas history was isolated from the rest of the world until its involvement in World War I. Americans did not have to worry much about security since they were apart from the other continents up until their involvement in the world wars. Within time, the distrust between the United States and the Soviet Union intensified by major issues such as the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, and especially the fear of the atomic bomb. President Truman announced to provide military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey along with a speech that publicized the aid program in supporting the free people to make their own destinies (which became known as the Truman Doctrine). As the Americans searched for an explanation of the Soviet behavior, George F. Kennan, a Foreign Service officer who served in the American embassy, found the problem that the Soviet Unions internally driven hostility toward the outside world (Gaddis, pg 31). After the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan was devised as a solution to Kennans identification of problem, which was committing the United States to provide economic aid for the reconstruction of Europe. The Marshall Plan was intended to produce psychological benefits that would prevent Europeans to not tu rn towards communism as a solution for their hunger and poverty. According to Gaddis, the Marshall Plan was a trap to get Stalin to build the wall that would divide Europe, which was the blockade of Berlin (Gaddis, pg 32). The fear of the atomic bomb was probably most intensifying cause of the distrust between the two superpowers. The atomic bomb was developed by the Americans and British (without telling the Soviet), called the Manhattan Project, to use against Germany. When the bomb was used on Japan, Stalin reacted strongly, War is barbaric, but using the A-bomb is a superbarbarity (qtd. by Gaddis, pg 25). Not soon after, Soviet scientists devised atomic bombs in August 1949 to Stalins relief. Silently, Stalin and Truman both knew well enough how the atomic weapons can hardly be used without destroying the world. Gaddis analyzed how the two sides did not go into war, especially with the nuclear weapons involved because those weapons could very well end the world. The Cold War spends a good amount of time in examining the emergence of autonomy during the Cold War. However, Gaddis was not focusing on the decolonization of the various countries. Instead, the author dove into what was beneath the surface by showing how the non-alignment of independent countries had an advantage by not committing to either side of the Cold War. As Gaddis writes, if one superpower became too great, a smaller power could defend itself by threatening to align with the other superpower (pg. 124). Other countries such as North and South Korea, North and South Korea, and East and West German kept the two superpowers on their hooks. The weaknesses of those countries became their strength because if their countries collapsed, the countries may turn to communism (which is what the United States does not want) or capitalism (which is what the Soviet Union does not want). The best way to put to is in Gaddis words, a compelling form of Cold War blackmail: if you push me too h ard, my government will fall, and youll be sorry (pg. 130). In this short, comprehensive, and accessible book, Gaddis did an impressive job to discuss and condense down his judgments and the history of the entire era of the Cold War in a fewer than 300-pages of text. Gaddis divided his book into nine different chapters, in which each chapter covers a different topic that were occurring on both sides of the Cold War. Although each chapter covers a different topic, Gaddis subdivided each chapter into smaller sections, yet still able to compel the events or topics in a sequenced manner which allows the reader to follow along without confusion. In each topic, Gaddis does not only provide the hard facts that happen but examines and provides insightful analysis of how the events or ideologies influenced the leaders of the superpowers. This made it difficult to summarize and capture everything of what the author has to offer to the reader about an era that is commonly written about. In the center of the book, Gaddis provided sixteen pages of black-and-white photos that are organized in chronological order of the important people that made up the history of the Cold War as well as events. In addition, there were maps of Europe that added as a visual aid for the reader as the author explains territorial changes, bases, and alliances of the two superpowers. The author was very straightforward with what he had to say, which makes it easy to read and understand, and revealing to his audiences of what the superpower leaders were truly thinking of and their strategies in reaching their ambitions. However, there are flaws or bad choices of events that the author decided to take time to talk about. For instance, Gaddis spent two to three pages on the Watergate crisis, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. As a reader, one may find how such an event is irrelevant to the Cold War. Overall, it was impressive of how the author organized the numerous events of the Cold War into a one-volume book. The writing style of Gaddis is very absorbing, which makes the book to be enjoyable to read. He chose great quotes from leaders and other people during that time that backs the judgments he makes. Also, he included little anecdotes that supplement his grand narrative of analysis of the various events of the Cold War. For example, every person who has some background knowledge of the Cold War knows that the atomic bombs were not used since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, he started out on the second chapter telling the reader how General MacArthur commanded five atomic bombs to be dropped on the Chinese advancing down the Korean peninsula and two Soviet bombers took off from Vladivostok (Gaddis, pg. 48-49). I was momentarily fooled by this little fiction Gaddis created. The purpose of the story was to show how close the world was to have a nuclear-violent war that could virtually destroy the entire planet. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who anyone who is interested in the Cold War because the book is not just a history book that provides hard facts about events, but also deep analysis of how the events influenced leaders during that era and the future of today. The book is not difficult to read but it would be better if the reader already had some background knowledge of the World War II and the Cold War. The book is worthy for a reader to take their time and absorb the analytical thoughts, examples, and anecdotes that the author conveys. Gaddis examines the different aspects of the events switching and back and forth between the perspectives of the two superpowers. While doing so, he guides the reader through the history of the Cold War without missing any of the commonly-known landmarks of the era providing a well-written narrative of the authors own interpretation and the history itself.

Functionalism and Machine Aesthetic of Modern Architecture

Functionalism and Machine Aesthetic of Modern Architecture Functionalism in Architecture was a movement during the late 19th century and early 20th century was a product of one American architect Louis Henri Sullivan who coined the term form follows function. It was Distinct to have exposed architecture of the existence of ornamentation and therefore aesthetics so that a structure simply expressed its purpose or function. Both in the United States and in Europe, functionalism and machine aesthetics became existent due to the development of the era. During the 1920s and early 1930s in the United States, there was a growing machine-driven culture. The machines influence on art and architecture reflected the machines explosion as a valuable form of aesthetic. Both Functionalism and machine aesthetics held its own influence in modern architecture. The arrival of the machine was to have such revolutionary significance that the following years can legitimately be termed the Machine Age. Among the great number of cultural changes engendered by this new era was the installation of a machine aesthetic in the fields of architecture and design. This was of central importance to the Modern Movement as it provided a means by which its practitioners could engage with what they regarded as the spirit of the age. The machine aesthetic can be distinguished in the work of each major figure of the Modernist pantheon; it therefore conditioned the entire range of Modernist activity. By utilizing these aspects, the ornamentation and unnecessary forms of designs were obliterated and instead replaced by a plainer but functional look. Despite the growing movement of functionalism and machine aesthetics during the early 20th century, there still lie the differences and comparisons between the utilizations, views, and ideas about them from America and Europe. The difference of the two places somehow manifested various approaches towards the topic. The machine was valued for its service. Its aesthetic was promoted by those who saw a beauty in the machine a beauty in appearance and function. The machine aesthetic was assumed by all sorts of objects. The look of the machine was not universally celebrated, yet it was widespread nonetheless Despite this consistency, the reasons why individual Modernists employed the aesthetic varied greatly, and to conclude that they did so only to evoke the current zeitgeist would hardly seem satisfactory. Instead, the aim of this essay is to analyse functionalism and the several uses made of the machine aesthetic in order to determine why it was so central to Modernist theory and practice. Since the particular character of the aesthetic varied according to the nature of the interest in it (e.g. political, economic), the reasons for its use are fundamental to any understanding of Modernism. Firstly, the idea that Modernism embraced the machine aesthetic in order to give concrete form to the spirit of the age, though not the sole motivation behind Modernist movement is valid in itself and deserves to be expounded. The Industrial Revolution precipitated a series of immense changes which can be understood to have genuinely transformed the world. These include industrialisation, the rise of the metropolis, an accompanying decline in ruralise, and rapid technological progress. In being plundered for their natural resources, even Third World countries felt the impact of the new era. For many these changes threatened to create an environment that was both alien and hostile to humanity and nature. In the cultural sphere, the nineteenth-century design reformers John Ruskin and William Morris attacked machine-production for discouragement the craft skills and individuality of the worker. Since the machine took both tradition and individual attempt, it would become impossible for the artist or craftsman to take pride in their work, and the consumer, in turn, would suffer the spiritual disadvantages of no longer living in an environment that had been lovingly crafted. As a neutralizer, Ruskin, Morris and others proposed a return to traditional craft processes and sources of inspiration that were primarily medieval. In other sectors, this reactionary measure was felt to be unrealistically traditionalist. Since the machine was, as Ruskin and Morris had argued, incompetent at matching traditional craft processes and designs, those who recognised that the machine was an beyond doubt reality were aware of the need to evolve a new aesthetic that it was suited to. This would re-establish a high standard of quality in design and ensure that designed goods were adjusted to the age, rather than being hopelessly revivalist. One such figure was Adolph Loos, whose essay Ornament and Crime (1908) argued that applying decoration to a designed product was both inefficient and criminal, because eventually it resulted in the utilization of the craftsman: If I pay as much for a smooth box as for a decorated one, the difference in labour belongs to the worker. Instead, the new aesthetic was to be derived from the new processes of mass production. The result was a simple, essentialist style that was based on geometry (especially the straight line and the right angle3). Geometry became a model, not only because geometrical forms were theoretically easier for the machine to execute, but also because of overtones that Plato, amongst others, had invested it with. In Platos philosophy, geometrical forms were beautiful because they were elements of the eternal and absolute world of ideas that existed beyond material reality. The most concerted attempt to articulate this style was given in an exhibition on Modern Architecture at the Museume of Modern Art in 1932. The International Style: Architecture Since 1922 accompanied the exhibition. Historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock and critic Philip Johnson outlined the principles of the International style: The idea of style as the frame of potential growth, rather than as a fixed and crushing mould, has developed with the recognition of underlying principles such as architects discern in the great styles of the past. The principles are few and broad. . . . There is, first, a new conception of architecture as volume rather than mass. Secondly, regularity rather than axial symmetry serves as the chief means of ordering design. These two principles, with a third proscribing arbitrary applied decoration, mark the productions of the international style.4 Advances in construction techniques and materials allowed for a shift in structural support. Whereas walls were once weight-bearing, and thus massive, support was now given by skeletal infrastuctures. This change provided greater flexibility in window placement; once nothing more than holes cut in a wall, they could now be located virtually anywhere. Thus, proponents of the International style, the architectural equivalent of machine purity, moved windows away from walls centres, lest they suggest traditional construction. Armed with these new possibilities, asymmetrical designs were encouraged, as function in most types of contemporary building is more directly expressed in asymmetrical forms. Ideally, structures were not to be arbitrarily asymmetrical, but it was assumed that the needs of residents and the purposes of different spaces in the buildings would not produce symmetrical designs in fact, arbitrary asymmetry would be a decorative device, and thus an anathema to the Internationalists. Machine purity was a reaction against the ornamentation of previous decades and even the Moderns. Honesty in use and materials was sought functions should not be concealed beneath a covering, and items shouldnt be presented as something they were not. Simplicity and sterility championed the pure white of the hospital and lab. Stucco was an ideal material, as it provided for unbroken, continuous surfaces. Walls were skins, stripped down and allowing for a maximum of interior space. These interior spaces were to be designed individually, matching the needs of the resident, to provide for the amelioration and development of the functions of living.6 Rooms were to be determined by function, and the movement between rooms was to stress the unity and continuity of the whole volume inside a building.7 Book shelves and living plants were the best decorative devices in the home. This appealed to Modernists, whose works and writings revealed a desire to exceed the chaos of temporary solutions and preoccupation with styles that had characterised nineteenth- century design. The aim of Modernism was to achieve the ideal solutions to each design problem in works that would be style less, timeless and possess the same purity and clarity as geometry. Given the widespread belief that the machine symbolised the new century, it was perhaps inevitable that certain Modernists should embrace it entirely for its own sake purely as a metaphor, and with no concern for its practical applications. To some extent at least, this tends to be the case for most canonical Modernists, but this approach is exemplified by the Italian Futurist movement. As this brief analysis indicates, Futurism was primarily a literary and artistic movement. It was characteristic of its paradoxical nature that a movement initiated as a response to the changing environment should possess no means of expression in the art form that most directly conditioned the environment architecture. This was the case until 1914, five years after the publication of the first Manifesto, when Marinetti was finally able to welcome Antonio Sant Elia into the ranks. Sant Elia recognised the metropolis as the environment of the new age, and accordingly pioneered designs that were replete with intimations of the machine aesthetic. His perspectives for La Città   Nuova (1914) emphasise the geometry and verticality of his vision by juxtaposing stepped-back sections with sheer verticals. The interaction of diagonals and verticals this produces invests his works with the same energy and dynamism to be found in exemplary Futurist paintings. In addition, his buildings are frequently surmounted by features resembling industrial chimneys or radio masts (e.g. Casa gradinata con ascensori, 1914), thus making perhaps slightly picturesque use of an iconography derived from machines. Futurisms interest in the machine aesthetic arose from a naà ¯ve and romantic celebration of the machine for its qualities of energy and dynamism. The machine was therefore valued exclusively for the expressive potential it offered. Since they failed to grasp its practical aspects the Futurists neglected to adapt their aesthetic to technological limitations. For this reason Sant Elias designs remained on the drawing board. A deeper engagement with the realities of the machine was demonstrated by those who embraced the concept of functionalism. This idea played a significant role in most forms of Modernist design and theory. The central contention was that the form of an object should be dictated by its function. The Bauhaus, for example, aimed to originate the design of an object from its natural functions and relationships,11 so that they could be used effectively and were rationally related to each other. Of course, the pursuit of functionalism complemented the Modernists aim to arrive at ideal design solutions unless objects fulfilled their purpose they could barely be ideal. This led to the notion that a designed object could be beautiful if, and only if, it functioned perfectly. Function therefore replaced appearance as the prime principle of aesthetic quality. Artistic elaboration was eschewed in favour of clear form that both expressed its purpose and ensured that this purpose was satisfied. Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson, in their discussion of European functionalist architects (i.e. canonical Modernists), wrote that, If a building provides adequately, completely and without compromise for its purpose, it is then a good building, regardless of its appearance.12 Explanation of this somewhat radical view was found in the machine. Since the machines appearance was derived entirely from its function it was both morally and economically admirable, which made it beautiful. Karl Ewalds writing The Beauty of Machines (1925-6) contained the saying, A good modern machine is an object of the highest aesthetic value we are aware of that.13 For evidence of this the Modernists looked to the USA, where an unselfconscious functionalism had been put into practice by pioneers like Samuel Colt and, in particular, Henry Ford. Ford brought the concept of standardisation to his car plant, with results that were seen as almost astonishing. His moving meeting line system, which involved specialised stages of fabrication and identical parts, had enabled him to dramatically increase car production. His success was such that industrialists and manufacturers across the world were adopting these methods. Theoretically, their goods were now readily available and continually depreciating in price, even as profits soared. Paul Greenhalgh has observed that Modernists recognised the need to embrace technology for these reasons of economy and availability. It was the means by which Modernism could be promoted worldwide. In addition, the standardisation advocated by Ford would facilitate rapid construction and maintenance.14 Therefore, the example of Ford and others encouraged the Modernists to view the machine as the absolute ideal of functionalism. This can be confirmed by reference to Le Corbusier. Much of Le Corbusiers manifesto Vers une architecture (1923) is dedicated to promoting the architectural virtues of the machine. His famous declaration, The house is a machine for living in,15 often misunderstood, meant that the guiding principle for architects should be to make the house as well suited to its purpose as was a machine. This reiterated the argument that functionalism was more important than appearance. In order to progress, he believed, it was necessary for architects to abandon the notion of traditional styles and decorative effects: Architecture has nothing to do with the various styles [They are] sometimes pretty, though not always; and never anything more.16 this implies that he saw the aesthetic, not as just another style, but as the very substance of architecture. Instead, he drew parallels between architecture and the Engineers Aesthetic, arguing that engineers were to be praised for their use of functionalism and mathematical order. As a consequence, architect s were encouraged to emulate engineers and adopt these principles in order to attain harmony and logic in their designs. To reinforce this argument the illustrations of Vers une architecture celebrated the functional and architectural unity of Canadian grain stores, ships, aeroplanes and automobiles. From a present day perspective his principles are better illuminated by his architecture, since these illustrations (e.g. the Caproni Triple hydroplane) seem rather old. The Maison Dom-Ino (1915) was an early example of his Engineers Aesthetic: three identical planes are suspended above each other by steel columns, a method of construction that frees the walls of their load-bearing purpose, and allows his concept of the free faà §ade to be introduced. An external staircase communicates between each level, and its location permits an unprecedented space and clarity in the plan. The components were all to be standardised and pre-fabricated, which would allow for rapid construction. This house was therefore a product of Le Corbusiers intention to apply the principles of mechanical mass production to domestic architecture. However, a substantial body of criticism (e.g. Greenhalgh, Sparke) has argued that this functionalism of Modernist theory was not based in reality. The machine aesthetic remained just that, as few of the designs were capable of being standardised. For example, the Grand Comfort chair by Le Corbusier and Charlotte Perriand was neither functional nor standardised. It required no less than eighteen welds and three materials, making it expensive and capable of production only by craftsmanship. Le Corbusiers pavilion LEsprit Nouveau featured door handles supposedly derived from car or aeroplane handles. These were not standardised but had to be made individually. At the Bauhaus, Marianne Brandts tea service (1928/30) embodies the machine aesthetic with its geometrical, angular forms, but, again, these features made it unsuited to machine production. For this reason, virtually no products of Modernism were mass-produced, at least until the style was modified and practised on an international level in what became known as the International Style. For the pioneer phase, mass production remained a metaphor that could not yet be emulated.17 A further dimension which has not yet been discussed is the political function of the machine aesthetic. This was hinted at in Loos belief that it improved the domination of the worker, but here the importance was on the labour-saving potential of the machine. Loos celebrated the aesthetic because, theoretically, it reduced the hours of effort required of the worker by avoiding unnecessary ornament. This line of reasoning even occurs in the theories of the politically unsure Le Corbusier, whose Freehold Maisonettes of 1922 used mechanical applications and good organisation derived from machines to reduce the need for human labour, and thus alleviate the workloads of servants.18 It did not necessarily follow in either case, however, that the machine could serve as an instrument for social liberation. This possibility was not fully explored until the influence of Modernism had spread and produced a diversity of practitioners. To the increasingly machine-orientated Bauhaus Moholy-Nagy imparted his belief that the machine was inextricably linked with socialism because it was an absolute. He wrote: Before the machine, everyone is equal I can use it, so can you . . . There is no tradition in technology, no consciousness of class or standing. Everybody can be the machines master or slave.19 This belief was widespread amongst Modernists, with Theo Van Doesburg being another notable exponent. Van Doesburg praised the machine as a medium of social liberation, and denied that handicraft possessed this capability, since handicraft, under the supremacy of materialism,20 reduced men to the level of machines. But as Charles Jencks has observed, Van Doesburgs enthusiasm for the machine went beyond its labour-saving potential, it was also based upon its universalising, abstract quality.21 In Jencks outline, the machines impersonality enforces equality between its users, which in art would lead to the universal and the abstract. The result would be the realisation of a collective style that was universally valid and comprehensible, based as it was upon the abstract forms of the machine. Paul Greenhalgh suggests that such an internationalism was central to Modernists theory and was an inevitable condition of their quest for a universal human consciousness.22 In order to achieve this, national boundaries had to be disposed of, as well as those between disciplines (such as fine art and design) and political classes. Greenhalgh confirms that the abstract, geometrical aesthetic appealed to Modernists because it could be used as a common language through which different nationalities could arrive at uniform solutions, thereby dissolving national boundaries. In its exclusion per se of language, abstraction was the aesthetic which enabled the ethic, internationalism, to be realised.23 Though he does not use the term, the aesthetic Greenhalgh refers to is that of the machine, since it is derived from and (theoretically) tailored for machine production. I would therefore argue that Modernists associated the aesthetic with internationalism, not only because of its abstract quality, but also because its origins in the machine imbued it with the universal quality that Moholy-Nagy and Van Doesburg recognised in this source. The practical use of the machine aesthetics political function is best illustrated by the Russian Constructivist movement. It is perhaps surprising that an aesthetic originating from the machine the foundation of capitalism could flourish in the political climate following the Communist revolution. Loos idea of the machine as labour-saving device was, of course, central in resolving this dilemma, as was the social liberation and classlessness revealed by Van Doesburg and Moholy-Nagy. Also instrumental, no doubt, was the fact that, in this era, Russia was still largely a rural, peasant country possessing no heavy industry. The negative aspects of the machine would therefore have been less obvious than the myths of its glorious effects. In this climate of rural poverty and political fervour, the machine seemed capable of transforming society, and the aesthetic became the perfect metaphor for revolution and nation-wide progress. Since this made the aesthetic an invaluable resource for Communist propaganda, many of the leading designers were commissioned to create works that mythologized the revolution. Significantly, this situation did not only involve the government manipulating design to its own ends; many of the artists and designers were equally committed to the idea that they could serve the new society. The Constructivist movement was so named because its members saw it as their task to construct the environment for a new society in the same way that engineers constructed bridges and so on.25 Proletkult promoted the unity of science, industry, and art: Vladimir Tatlin, for example, believed design was linked to engineering, and saw the designer as an anonymous worker building for society. Tatlins Monument to the Third International (1919-20) reflects this ethos. This projection for a 400m tall tower (only a scaled-down model was built) clearly represents the union of art and construction its sculptural form of two intertwining spirals and a soaring diagonal component is rendered in a lattice construction suggestive of engineering. As well as resembling a machine, the tower actually functioned as one: it featured four transparent volumes that rotated at different speeds (yearly, monthly, daily and hourly). These were intended to house government offices for legislation, administration, information and cinematic projection. It should be pointed out that none of these reasons for interest in the machine aesthetic were mutually exclusive, and individual Modernists did not adhere to it for any single reason. Each partook, to some extent, of most of them. The enthusiasm of the European Functionalists also involved the political interest observed in Constructivism. At the same time, an element of the Futurists romantic fascination can be detected in the thinking of Le Corbusier, the Bauhaus, and all those for whom mass production remained out of reach. In conclusion, as case after case demonstrates, the Modernists enthusiasm for the machine aesthetic continued to be of an ideological rather than a practical nature. The machine was embraced as an idea by designers who failed to grasp the realities of mass production. Since their aesthetic was therefore inspired by the machine but not adapted to it, in many cases this actually impeded its realisation. This is highlighted by the examples of Futurism, Constructivism and even aspects of the Bauhaus, where numerous schemes could not be put into practice. However, the importance of the machine aesthetic within Modernism should not be underestimated; it was practised so widely, indeed constituted an International Style, precisely because it was deemed to be the ideal and most logical way of realising the central tenets upon which Modernism was founded. These included truth, internationalism, function, atonement with the age, and so on. The belief that the aesthetic was universally valid is reflected by the great variety of uses to which it was applied, such as Utopian, political, economic etc. For this reason it is no exaggeration to say that, for the Modernists, it was not a question of aesthetics at all, but of a Machine Ethic.

The Foreign Miners in the American Gold Rush Essay -- American History

The Foreign Miners in the American Gold Rush One Saturday night, a mob of masked men, who numbered forty to sixty, approached a small house. Arriving at the house, they dragged two slumbering men from their bunks and hustled them from the house, without even allowing them to put on their clothes, and started to kick and beat them. One of the invaders drew his pistol and shot at one of the victims. The bullet pierced the body of the man and inflicted a terrible wound. Both men who were attacked that night died. This event occurred in Rico, a camp in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado on May 13, 1882. The two Chinese miners that inhabited the village were kicked, cuffed, and dragged over the ground by the hair of their heads, clubbed with pistols and sticks by white men who wanted to run the Chinese out of town. Six Chinamen who resided next door were treated in much the same manner as their friends were that night. Mongolians of the village were thrown into the icy water half-naked. This was nothing new in the west, since the non-traditional miners, especially Chinese miners, were the victims of American racial prejudice from the beginning of the Gold Rush. When the Gold Rush struck the American continent, waves of people came to the west. One might think that only white people participated, but there were lots of miners who came from various places around the world. Their life and experiences were not widely known, whereas those of the white miners were pretty well known. Non-traditional miners certainly had much harder experiences than the white miners did. Many of them were discriminated against, abused and even killed. Looking into the life and experiences of the non-traditional miners, the American Gold Rush period w... ...du/~agf2/history391/nativism.html. Gerstaecker, Friedrich. California Gold Mines. NP: Greenwood Press, 1946. "Gold Fever Prospecting-Sonoran Arrastra." Gold Rush. 1998. 18 Apr. 2002. http://www.museumca.org/goldrush/fever13-ar.html. Hine, Robert V., and John Mack Faracher. The American West: A New Interpretive Story. Yale University, 2000. Lewis, Marvin. The Mining Frontier. Oklahoma: the University of Oklahoma Press, 1967. Milner, Clyde A, ed. The Oxford History of the American West. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Nugent, Walter. Into the West: the Story of Its People. New York: Alfred A Knopk, 1999. Sylva, Seville A. A Thesis-Foreigners in the California Gold Rush. California: University of Southern California. 1932. "The People Vs. Hall." Ancestors in the Americas. 1998. 10 Apr. 2002. http://www.cetel.org/1854_hall.html.

The American Media and the Exploitation of Men :: Argumentative Persuasive Argument

The American Media and the Exploitation of Men Men’s rights in the media are deliberately ignored today on TV and in the newspapers. Men have a social obligation to get married, have children, and support the family by going to work eight hours a day. Not many people think that men don’t have these obligations in life. Warren Farrell it talks about how men’s expectations are unfair in the world today in the article â€Å"Men as Success Objects† by (page 185). Intentions for marriage have changed over the last millennium. From personal fulfillment, relationship, to love both men and women have their reasons for getting married. But with marriage there’s sometimes a divorce that comes with it, which has increased during the years. Because media focus on the women’s rights, most people don’t understand the sexism directed against men. The idea â€Å"men are jerks† is thought by women which have dominated the media. Along with fighting the degrading advertisements on the TV, men also have to live up to the obligation of bringing home a salary. Women marry men who are successful or have â€Å"potential† to make money in the world today. There are only a small percentage of men who will marry a woman because of her â€Å"potential†. More people need to recognize the unequal treatment men get these days. In the article â€Å"Marriage, Horror, and Susan Reimer,† the author expresses his disgust for the idea of marriage and having children. The woman Susan Reimer represents every American woman who thinks that no one is good enough for her. Every â€Å"Susan† says that they despise men, yet they want to get married and have babies. These kinds of women will rape men in divorce courts, which should convince men to avoid them. Marriage can also do permanent financial damage to men, which is why being single is not a bad idea in these times. Men should always think twice about having children. From bad schooling to divorce can have permanent damage on a child. Despite what women say, having children should not be a priority. Because of the women’s attitudes towards men today in America, it is recommended to find a wife somewhere overseas. Both of the texts have a strong point on men’s rights, and the perception on what women really want out of men. The authors would probably agree that men are being treated unfairly compared to women these days.

Stalking :: essays research papers fc

Based on a study done by Schwartz-Watts and Morgan at the American Academy of Psychology Law, they found that stalking was far more prevalent than anyone had imagined: 8% of American women and 2% of American men will be stalked in their lifetimes. That’s 1.4 million American stalking victims every year. The majority of stalkers have been in relationships with their victims, but significant percentages either never met their victims, or were just acquaintances - neighbors, friends or co-workers. I have broken down types of stalkers into three broad categories: Intimate partner stalkers, delusional stalkers and vengeful stalkers. Obviously, there is overlap. Intimate partner stalkers are typically known as the guy who "just can’t let go." These are most often men who refuse to believe that a relationship has really ended. Often, other people - even the victims - feel sorry for them. But they shouldn’t. Studies show that the vast majority of these stalkers are not sympathetic, lonely people who are still hopelessly in love, but were in fact emotionally abusive and controlling during the relationship. Many have criminal histories unrelated to stalking. Well over half of stalkers fall into this "former intimate partner" category. Delusional stalkers frequently have had little, if any, contact with their victims. They may have major mental illnesses like schizophrenia, manic-depression or erotomania. What they all have in common is some false belief that keeps them tied to their victims. In erotomania, the stalker’s delusional belief is that the victim loves him. This type of stalker actually believes that he is having a relationship with his victim, even though they might never have met. The woman stalking David Letterman, the stalker who killed actress Rebecca Schaeffer and the man who stalked Madonna are all examples of erotomanic stalkers. The final category of stalker is not lovelorn. He is the vengeful stalker. These stalkers become angry with their victims over some slight, real or imagined. Politicians, for example, get many of these types of stalkers who become angry over some piece of legislation or program the official sponsors. But, disgruntled ex-employees can also stalk, whether targeting their former bosses, co-workers or the entire company. Some of these angry stalkers are psychopaths, i.e. people without conscience or remorse. Some are delusional, (most often paranoid), and believe that they, in fact, are the victims. They all stalk to "get even." In general, for any type of stalker, the less of a relationship that actually existed prior to the stalking, the more mentally disturbed the stalker.

Lord Kelvin (1824 - 1907) :: essays research papers

Lord Kelvin (1824 - 1907) William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) was born June 26, 1824 in Belfast, Ireland, and was part of a large family whose mother died when he was six. His father taught Kelvin and his brothers mathematics to a level beyond that of university courses of the time. Kelvin was somewhat of a genius, and had his first papers published in 1840. These papers contained an argument defending the work of Fourier (Fourier transforms), which at the time was being heavily criticized by British scientists. He proved Fourier’s theories to be right. In 1839 Kelvin wrote an essay which he called " An Essay on the Figure of the Earth." He used this essay as a source and inspiration for ideas all his life and won an award from the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Kelvin remained at the University for the rest of his working life. Kelvin first defined the absolute temperature scale in 1847, which was later named after him. In 1851 he published the paper, "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat", and in the same year was elected to the Royal Society. This work contained his ideas and version of the second law of thermodynamics as well as James Joule’s idea of the mechanical equivalent of heat. This idea claimed that heat and motion were combined, which now is taken as second nature. At the time, heat was thought to have been a fluid of some kind. Kelvin also maintained an interest in the age of the sun and calculated values for it. He assumed that the sun produced its radiant energy from the gravitational potential of matter falling into the sun. In collaboration with Hermann von Helmholtz, he calculated and published in 1853 a value of 50 million years. He also had an interest in the age of the earth, and he calculated that the earth was a maximum of 400 million years old. These calculations were based on the rate of cooling of a globe of matter after first solidification occurs ( such as the beginning of the earth). He also calculated that molecular motion stops at -273 degrees Celsius. He called this temperature absolute zero. Kelvin started work in 1854 on the project of laying transatlantic cables. His idea was that electrical current flow was similar to that of heat flow, and by applying ideas on heat flow, helped in the problem of transmitting electrical signals over long distances. In 1866, Kelvin succeeded in laying the first successful transatlantic cable. Kelvin invented the mirror galvanometer which he patented in 1858 as a long

Potbelly’s Case Essay

1. Potbelly’s strategy in terms of product and market are to provide great food and a friendly atmosphere. As far as their product goes even their CEO Keil says that anybody can make and sell a sandwich. What strategy they use is by using quality ingredients and a superior value. Their strategy towards the market is to provide a fun, unique experience to their customers. Their previous attempts as far as product goes was to sell antiques along with their sandwich shop, kind of the same approach as a cracker barrel. It seems the sandwiches become a more important part of their revenue. The antiques became more of decoration then sale items. The past market was very small just having one sandwich shop owned by a couple. With the purchase of the shop they quickly started a chain of restaurants and have opened a lot of locations just recently. 2. Potbelly’s position strategy seems to have been starting small in one area while making a name for itself. In its first five years all the locations opened were in Chicago, Illinois. After they had built a reputation they moved into Washington D.C. This seems to be an attempt to stay in major cities to increase their reputation. The nation’s capital is one of the many major travel destinations for work. This way the businessmen of Chicago can get the sandwiches they love even away from home. The next year instead of branching out to the other major business travel cities, for example, New York, Atlanta, Dallas, and Los Angeles, Potbelly took the approach that many other chains take. There central location was Chicago, Illinois; from there they spread into neighboring states, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Like mentioned earlier most chains take this approach until they are nationwide. A lot of grocery stores northerners are familiar with will not be found as the y head further south just as southerners will not find the same stores they are used to shopping at when they head north. The next year it opened locations in some of those same states and spread to Indiana as well as another major business travel destination, Texas. In the more recent years they have built more locations in the already occupied states while spreading to neighboring state Ohio. From this point they have made a good name for themselves and have over 100 locations; with the reputation the company has I am sure they will continue to spread their market. Their original locations are located in Northern Mid America, they did not start on one coast and try to spread to the other, this will help extremely with them being a nationwide chain and in the coming years will probably start seeing Potbelly’s as far east as New York, as far south as Georgia, and west into the mid-western states. 3. Potbelly’s environmental opportunities in the external environment would probably include their original location and how much easier it is to spread from the middle of the country rather than the corner or coastline of the United States. The threats Potbelly’s would face more importantly is the competition. There are many well established chains of sandwich shops in the United States including, Sub-way, Quiznos, Panera Bread, Jimmy John’s, and Schlotzsky’s Deli to name a few. When moving into a new market promotion is a key element as the market the company does not know the companies name and would rather go with what they know. Potbelly offers promotions and a great atmosphere that may be able to take some of these competitors business. Subway for example does not use quality ingredients, nor does it have any sort of friendly atmosphere for around the same price. It should be very easy for Potbelly’s to take business away from them. For Potbelly’s to maintain its antique setup and friendly atmosphere they will require excellent management expanding into these new markets. I do not see any reason for Potbelly’s to change their strategy at this time. Changing the way they do business, either the looks of the restaurants or the friendly workers would take away from why people will choose them in the first place over their already known sandwich shops.