Perception Of Authority

1. What is ‘imperialism’? How did 19th-century colonialism, empire building, high imperialism differ from those of earlier times: in particular from the colonialism of early- modern mercantilism (16th to18th centuries)?

Nowadays the wide array of transportation means and infrastructures at our disposal has made it relatively easy for us to travel from one country to another; even when those countries are thousands of miles away from each other. However, during the 13th and 14th centuries, travelling was not that easy. Yet, two men, the Italian tradesman Marco Polo and the Moroccan Jurist Ibn Battuta became famous for having managed to perform extremely long distance journeys away from their home country. At the end of their long travels, both men shared their experiences with the world via the books, The Travels of Marco Polo and The Travels of Ibn Battuta. An analysis of those two texts reveals two things. On one hand, Marco Polo remained a cultural

The reader gets a rare and exotic understanding of a totally foreign and ancient culture experiencing the growing pains of colonial expansion during the British domination

In the late 19th century, a desire for expansion and control swept through Europe. Today, we know this as the age of imperialism. Influential powers like Britain and France competed to gain more land and to spread their influence throughout the world. The purpose of imperialism was to gain political power by means of land and wealth. The more power an empire held, the more influence it had on worldly matters. With this power came racial tensions, and a strong sense of nationalism. Britain was the leading power in the race for imperialism, leading many of its citizens to believe that they were above those not of English origin. Growing powers meant new opportunities for the citizens of the growing imperialistic empire. Anna Leonowens, a British

1. The thesis of this essay in the author's words is "Travel is how we put a voice to the Other and step a little beyond our second hand images of the alien." In other words, the author is trying to tell us that travelling is necessary in order for us to not hold prejudices and experience the lifestyle of other cultures.

The essays that comprise Traditional Classics on Leadership present varying notions of authority and of challenging authority. This is largely due to the fact that this manuscript is comprised of essays from 31 contributors, ranging from well-known political theorists to some of the more salient voices for individuality that the world has known. Still, there are some points of commonalities in these essays that present a synthesized viewpoint of the concept of challenging authority.

The journal asks what possible reasons Americans could have to begin to quarrel over our identity with the crown. We are not defiant because we simply have nothing else to do; rather we are defiant because we have been stepped on countless amounts of times by “Parliament (specifically, the House of Commons)” that insist that they are “the guardians of British constitutional liberty” only because of their victorious efforts against the “tyranny of the Stuart kings of England.” Yet, their understanding of a constitution is so much more different that they continue the same practices of the Stuarts.

As English shifted their focus on fighting wars, the colonies were left by “salutary neglect” to “develop self-reliance and their own ideas of government”.

A formal explanation to a “candid world’ was needed according to the textbook authors because Jefferson’s defiant Declaration of Independence gave his appeal universality by invoking the “natural rights’’ of humankind, not just British rights. He argued that because the king had flouted these rights, the colonists were justified in cutting their connection. He then set forth a long list of the presumably tyrannous misdeeds of George III.They put facts on paper about what the King of England has done to let the world view this and judge for themselves whether or not they were right or wrong.

Today our society raises us to believe that obedience is good and disobedience is bad. We are taught that we should all do what we’re told and that the people that are disobedient are almost always bad people. Society tells us this, but it is not true. Most people will even be obedient to the point of causing harm to others, because to be disobedient requires the courage to be alone against authority. In Stanley Milgram’s "Perils of Obedience" experiment, his studies showed that sixty percent of ordinary people would agree to obey an authority figure even to the point of severely hurting another human being. (Milgram 347).

No human social organization can function without some degree of obedience to authority, as the alternative would be anarchy leading to total chaos. Hence we find some sort of a hierarchy in both the most underdeveloped and the most civilized societies where certain individuals exercise authority over others. Almost everyone will agree that some degree of authority in certain individuals or groups (and their obedience by other groups) is desirable for the proper functioning of a society. The problem arises when the obedience to authority is taken to extremes. Unfortunately, history has shown that this happens time and again, usually with undesirable results. It is this blind obedience to authority that

“He spoke to me about you; and said you were more like a gentleman than a servant; now, I am plain dressed, and I have got the place.” For The British in the eighteenth century, the ideas of identity and class were united and informed each other. Moreover the growth of the empire caused these ideas to be challenged and allowed for the appearance of cross-class mobility. For in the common Briton, the empire created an interesting opportunity for mobility that was both social and spatial. The empire provided citizens’ reasons to travel such as commercial opportunities, patriotic duty with the military, and employment. Historians extensively explored imperial mobility through the upper middle class, aristocracy, and gentry. The lower and remaining middle class had opportunities to become part of the mobile empire as well; although they left fewer sources. Yet the lower classes wrote travel

In The Empire Writes Back (Ashcroft, et al.), the term ‘post-colonial’ is defined as covering “all the culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to the present day”. Post-colonial theory, then, provides an insight into the complicated power dynamic that occurs between the coloniser and the colonised, and, at its simplest, responds to colonialism with emphasis on the effects, both positive and negative, on the coloniser and the colonised. Having read Jones’s Mister Pip with a post-colonial lens, it becomes clear that Mr Watts and Matilda are a metaphor for the coloniser and the colonised. Within this metaphor, they each take on unbalanced roles in different relationships, and are represented in different ways, though Mr

As Europeans discovered other cultures during the Age of Exploration, travelers returned with knowledge of new religious, political, and economic systems. Aphra Behn’s seventeenth-century travel narrative, Oroonoko, describes the life of Oroonoko, an African prince and slave in Surinam, while contrasting the cruelty of the Europeans with the morality of the Africans and natives of Surinam. Thomas More’s sixteenth-century Utopia displays his subtle criticism of English society behind the words of his character Raphael Hythloday, who travels the world and explores the rationality of Utopia. These authors criticize many of the conventions of their time periods through their characters’ explorations into new ideas and territories. In Oroonoko and Utopia, nature and reason lead the natives’ governments and societies instead of the corruption of the wealthy and noble Europeans.

Authority is defined as the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Coincidentally, authority is found virtually everywhere, including in religious establishments. An issue has arose in many different circumstances, and continues to create religious debates all over the world. The issue is the amount of authority a community of faith should have over its members. Although many argue that this authority is needed in religious establishments, I disagree completely. I believe that a community of faith should possess no authority over its members. There are many of reasons why I think this, and I will soon discuss them. There are several advantages of a community of faith attaining great authority, while there is also an array of disadvantages. Likewise, there are plenty of advantages of a community of faith attaining no authority, while there are multiple disadvantages, as well. However, I believe that numerous benefits can occur when a community of faith attains a lack of authority over its members.