Passing Of The UK 1832 Reform Act

Passing Of The UK 1832 Reform Act The passing of the 1832 Reform Act (also knows as the Great Reform Act) and the consequent extension of the franchise was due to the culmination of several factors. It did not, in itself, make a great difference at the time but it certainly had an undeniable effect on what was to follow. It was rather the beginning of the satisfaction for reform; a way of opening the way for legislation that went further, than an achievement of this aim. Many MPs who voted for it saw it rather as a way of preventing further future change and avoiding revolution. At the time, only the land-owning class could vote. They represented areas of land as opposed to the actual people within. The lower classes were considered an uneducated rabble; they were seen to be unable to be trusted. Property and wealth determined who was able to vote. This essay will examine how the Act came to be passed and also the ways in which its passing affected British politics in the years to come. The issue of Catholic emancipation was arguably a factor in paving the way for the ability to reform. The Conservative government of the time was deeply against the issue of Catholic emancipation; ideologically, it was concerned with the preservation of tradition. As Robert Blake commented; The Tory party never tired of proclaiming its determination to uphold the traditional institutions of the United Kingdom, the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Protestant establishment, both its property and its privileges.  [1]   This became a problematic position. William Vesey Fitzgerald was obliged to resign as MP and stand for re-election after entering into the position President of the Board of Trade. Daniel O Connell ran against him for the seat of County Clare, and won. Due to his being a Roman Catholic, he could not actually serve if elected. Therefore, the Conservative government had a problem; the opposition of Catholic emancipation was a point of unity for the Tory Party. On the other hand, the Catholic Association could cause significant disruption if no action was taken. Catholic emancipation caused a severe split within the Tory party. It convinced many ultra-Tories to support reform. Eric J. Evans comments that it was in fact an ultra-Tory, the Marquis of Blandford, as opposed to a radical that called for reform regarding the issue of rotten boroughs- he called for the seats of rotten boroughs to be given to larger towns, among other reformations. The ultra-Tories believed that the increased voters would lend support to their opposition of Catholic emancipation.  [2]   Economic conditions also contributed to a desire for reform. The economy had largely been dependent on the war- when Britain went to war against France in 1793. When the war ended in 1815, the country entered into an economic depression due to the lack of demand in peacetime for that which the country had been producing during wartime. In 1829, the harvest failed and resultantly, food prices increased. Radicals used this as an opportunity; William Lovett and Henry Hetherington formed the National Union of the Working classes in April, 1831. The goal was suffrage for all adult males and it campaigned for that.  [3]   A new middle class emerged in England as a result of the Industrial Revolution- this was composed of factory owners and entrepreneurs. This new middle class believed, justifiably, that their inability to vote was unfair as they were creating wealth. Middle class desire for increased representation in the political system was leading to a greater support for reform on their part, and this in turn lead to increased collaboration with the working class. The middle class felt that they deserved more representation in parliament than they currently possessed; industry and commerce were becoming more important and legislation such as the Corn Laws was in the interest of the aristocracy, which controlled parliament, as opposed to that of the middle class. Hence, they desired greater political power in order to do something about this. In 1830, Thomas Attwood formed the Birmingham Political Union due to the awful economic conditions. He founded a General Political Union between the Lower and Middle Classes of the People'.  [4]  Attwoods Union was not the only one of its kind; the creation of others followed in various forms. Their activities -political rallies which were well-attended and organised- indicated that the middle class did indeed desire reform and was prepared to work towards such a goal. The effect of the economic distress; the political unions and the French revolution was to prove to parliament that reform was an unavoidable issue, lest a revolution occur. MP Thomas McAulay said, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦I support this measure, because I am sure that it is our best security against a revolutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [5]   Many politicians came to view reform in this manner; as a means of preventing revolution and greater change to the system at a later point. The reform act, once passed, meant that more populated areas received a more proportional representation. It changed the areas represented by MPs to better reflect the changes in population distribution caused by industrialisation. Middle class males were enfranchised; all householders paying a yearly rental of  £10 and, if they had been resident for a year, lodgers paying  £10 received the vote. This, however, meant that the working class was excluded from the vote. Those living in cities were still not adequately represented and MPs still did not receive a salary- they also had to own land to be able to stand. This brought to an end the alliance between the middle class and the working class. The working class was resentful of this; they were aware that without their pressure, the government would not have felt such an urgent need to reform. Chartism was a movement born of working class resentment at their exclusion from the newly expanded franchise. There were two types; moral force and physical force Chartism. The principle of moral force Chartism was that demonstrating that the working class was respectable and trustworthy (e.g. Chartist churches) was the way to achieve their goals. In contrast, physical force Chartism was the idea of a more forceful, direct manner. That is not to say there were two distinct groups; most viewed the physical force concept as a last resort. The Peoples Charter consisted of six demands: * Institution of a secret ballot. * General elections be held annually. * Members of Parliament not be required to own property. * MPs be paid a salary. * Electoral districts of equal size. * Universal male suffrage. The first meeting specifically organised for Chartism  [6]  took place on Kerstal Moor on 24 September. The message was that universal suffrage, as opposed to direct action, would achieve their aims. Chartism was closely linked to the present state of the economy; if the economy was doing well then demand was low. If it was doing badly, demand was high. Chartism did not last; its high point could be said to be 1848. After a meeting on Kensington common on the 10 April of that year, the Chartists presented a petition to parliament. The procession to bring the petition to the House of Commons was banned, some of the upper class having come to believe the Chartists intended revolution. Many of the signatures on the petition itself were later found to be forgeries. There was still, of course, a demand for reform after the act of 1832. The Great Act did not, in fact, do much to expand the electorate at all. However, it created a precedent- it could be said to have opened the door for further reform. In 1851, The Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations took place. Thomas Cook took 165,000 people to attend it. There was a fear that the working class would damage/cause trouble in the city, but the concerns proved to be unfounded. In reality, they demonstrated interest and were peaceful. There was a growth in public libraries and such services- this can be traced from the principles of moral force Chartism. By the 1860s, the general feeling was that the working class had demonstrated sufficient respectability to gain the vote. However, the Liberal/Whig party was divided over the extent to which reform should go. Elements of the aristocracy were unsure, whereas radical members were very keen. The split of the Conservative party had a llowed the Whigs to come in. Disraeli desired to lead the party into power once more; he pushed through reform far more radical than the Liberals had envisioned in an effort to win popular support- as a result, the working class became the majority. This was the 1867 reform act, and enfranchised the urban working class. His was a pragmatic move; he was taking advantage of the Liberals split, and trying to demonstrate the Conservatives had the ability to lead. The factors leading to the passing of the 1832 Reform Act were myriad; for example, the French revolution inspired radicals, the middle class resented their exclusion despite their creation of wealth and also the restriction on the growth of industry and the working class desired power in order to improve their quality of life. However, the effects of it were very limited. It was still deeply restrictive; the working class still did not possess the vote after it. It was this very fact that led to the creation of movements such as Chartism; the reform act set a precedent and the working class campaigned in earnest for universal male suffrage.

Sir John Hawkwood :: Essays Papers

Sir John Hawkwood English Mercenary 1320-1394 Sir John Hawkwood (1320-1394), also known as Giovanni Acuto, was an English mercenary fighting in Italy during the 1300s. He is considered the first military leader of the modern times. He was a member of the White Company of Englishmen, which was famous for its white armor, and loud harsh war cries. These men were infamous for their night raids. Hawkwood and his men never remained loyal to one side but were always changing sides of the war depending on who paid the most money. Money is what Hawkwood desired. He learned to fight during the Hundred Years War in France, where he fought first under Edward III and then at the command of his own company, which sacked Provence. When he came to Italy in 1360, he was first employed by the city of Pisa, then by the Viscontis of Milan, by Pope Gregory XI and lastly by Florence. In 1364 Hawkwood with his Pisan troops was the enemy of the Florentines and had raided their city but they forgave him and established such a good relationship with him that he was honored on his death with the equestrian monument frescoed by Paolo Uccello in Santa Maria del Fiore (1436). This monument is in the Florence Cathedral. In August of 1372, Hawkwood's White Company under the pay of the Viscontti fought Enguerrand de Coucy. Hawkwood's men were served with at least two pages. These pages made sure the armor was as bright as a mirror, and they also held the horses during the battles. Hawkwood desired the armor to look like a mirror in order to make them look more fierce. The men fought on foot in a tight circle that no enemy could break. Coucy claims that the war cries of the White Company were fierce and instilled fear in the enemy. After this battle, Hawkwood teams up with Coucy to take the city of Mantua. In 1375, at the age of 55, John Hawkwood fathered two sons without getting married. In this same year, he led raids into Tuscany to get spoils since the Pope was late on his payments. Hawkwood was not a religious man and did not deal with authority very well.

Faces of Aids: Gender Inequality and Hiv/Aids

Running Head: Face of AIDS: Gender Inequality and HIV/AIDS 1 Face of AIDS: Gender Inequality and HIV/AIDS Introduction The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which eventually develops into acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a devastating disease that has reached pandemic levels, affecting all populations worldwide. Since the first reported case of HIV/AIDS in the early 1980s, HIV/AIDS has become one of the leading causes of mortality across the globe in the history of mankind (U. S.Global Health Policy [USGHP], 2010). While HIV/AIDS has contributed significantly to the global burden of disease; amongst those living with HIV/AIDS, it has had devastating impacts on women and girls. Amid 40 million people living with HIVAIDS globally, virtually half of them are women (Quinn & Overbaugh, 2005). In addition, new infection rates have been escalating dramatically worldwide, with most centralized in developing countries (The Global Coalition on Women and AIDS [GCWA], n. d. ).In su b-Saharan Africa, women account for almost 60% of all infected adults, while girls account for approximately 75% of all infected young people between ages of 15 and 24 (Brijnath, 2007; Quinn & Overbaugh, 2005). In developing countries such as sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion of women infected with HIV/AIDS is also on the rise, for every ten men infected with HIV/AIDS, 13 women are diagnosed HIV-positive (Brijnath, 2007). In developed countries such as United States, the incidence of HIV/AIDS had increased by 15% compared with 1% that of men from 1999 to 2003 (Quinn & Overbaugh, 2005).These alarming statistics imply an ominous future for women and girls affected by the disease – feminization of HIV/AIDS. This paper will highlight the burden of disease implications on gender inequality in developing nations. Running Head: Face of AIDS: Gender Inequality and HIV/AIDS 2 Feminization of HIV/AIDS When HIV/AIDS cases were first reported, it was viewed that HIV/AIDS was a disease a mongst homosexual men, and the main modes of transmission were through men who have sex with men (MSM).Presently, however, 80% of infections were contracted through heterosexual sex while 19% were through drug injections (Quinn & Overbaugh, 2005). It is evident that women and girls are bearing a hefty portion of the burden of HIV/AIDS. Women and girls are socially, physically, and biologically more vulnerable to HIV/AIDs transmissions and stigma associated with the disease. On the societal level, women in developing countries are perceived as being inferior, which is the root cause of gender profiling and stigma towards this group (Quinn & Overbaugh, 2005).The society have set the stage for women and girls to be more susceptible to means for HIV/AIDS transmission; furthermore infringing on their freedom of choice. Due to cultural structure and gender norms, women and girls are deprived of education, thus they grow to be economically dependent on men. This limits their autonomy to re fuse sexual liaisons with their intimate partner. For instance, the practice of safe sex through condom usage is mainly the males’ choices, while women have restricted negotiation power (Mulligan, 2006). The minority status of women in developing countries thus exposes them to high rates of HIV/AIDS infections.Gender norms impacts of HIV/AIDS are discerning and even more harmful towards women and girls because they face stigmatization and discrimination on a greater magnitude than men. An ethnographic study conducted by Carr et al. (2004) reported that women were more concerned about the psychosocial insinuations affiliated with being HIV-positive, rather Running Head: Face of AIDS: Gender Inequality and HIV/AIDS 3 than the adverse health outcomes of the disease. The fear of stigmatization accompanying disclosure of HIV-positive status has hindered women from reaching out for appropriate and necessary medical and mental support.Stigma and discrimination have shown to have neg ative effects on women’s mental and physical wellbeing because they suffer from social isolation and low self-esteem (Carr & Gramling, 2004). This has not only resulted in the under-representation of HIV-positive women, it has also created barriers for women to attain better health (Carr & Gramling, 2004). Being physically inferior to men, women are prone to be coerced and being victims of sexual violence. These factors contribute to escalating infection rates because there is an increasing likelihood for survival sex work (Brijnath, 2007).Attributable to poverty and lack of education, women resolve to prostitution for survival. The combination of lack of knowledge regarding practices of safe sex and frequent encounters of sexual partners further enhance women and girls’ vulnerabilities to contracting the disease. Sexual violence is also a common theme among women living with HIV/AIDS (Rountree & Mulraney, 2008). Moreover, it has also been suggested that women are biol ogically more susceptible to disease progression of HIV/AIDS when taking hormonal contraceptives (Quinn & Overbaugh, 2005).The Global Coalition on Women and AIDS The feminization of HIV/AIDS is evident, and requires serious attention. Gender inequality in developing countries has placed significant burden of disease on women, and has been the propelling force for feminization of HIV/AIDS pandemic. In recognizing and fully comprehending the severity of this pandemic, The Global Coalition on Women and AIDS (GCWA) has taken initiative towards fighting for a brighter future for women on a national level. Running Head: Face of AIDS: Gender Inequality and HIV/AIDS 4GCWA is an UNAIDS collaborative effort, which involves diverse networks of organizations and political bodies to alleviate this burden of disease on women and girls (GCWA, n. d. ). The objectives of GCWA are to provide necessary medical attention to those in need, raising awareness, mitigate violence against women, and promote gender equality. GCWA tackles issues concerned with gender inequality and the adverse impacts it has had on women. Public Health Intervention Recommendation Gender inequality and inferiority are the undertow that has deteriorated the feminization trend of HIV/AIDS.Public health initiatives should focus on empowering women and improving their independence. This can be achieved through specialized support systems that educate and raise public awareness of the roots and gravity of the situations. Furthermore, this should be complemented with employment referencing and acquisition support programs to enrich their economic autonomy. Conclusion HIV/AIDS has become a feminizing pandemic, resulting in disproportionate burden of disease on women and girls. Traditional subordination of women as minorities has exacerbated the severity of the issues.Global Coalition on Women and AIDs is a comprehensive initiative that targets the root of this problem. Future initiatives for decreasing this gap of gender inequality should emphasize on empowering women and promoting their autonomy. Running Head: Face of AIDS: Gender Inequality and HIV/AIDS 5 References Brijnath, B. (2007). It’s about time: Engendering AIDS in Africa. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 9(4), 371-386. Carr, R. L. , & Gramling, L. F. (2004). Stigma: A health barrier for women with HIV/AIDS. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 15(5), 30-39. Mulligan, S. (2006). Women and HIV/AIDS.The Furrow, 57(4), 232-238. Quinn, T. C. , & Overbaugh, J. (2005). HIV/AIDS in women: An expanding epidemic. Women’s Health, 308, 1582-1583. Rountree, M. A. , & Mulraney, M. (2008). HIV/AIDS risk reduction intervention for women who have experienced intimate partner violence. Clinical Social Work Journal, 38, 207-216. The Global Coalition on Women and AIDS. (n. d. ). About GCWA. Retrieved March 25, 2011, from http://www. womenandaids. net/about-gcwa. aspx U. S. Global Health Policy. (2010). AIDS deaths (adults an d children) 2009. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from http://www. globalhealthfacts. org/topic. jsp? i=7

Life and Art of Eva Hesse, Postmodern Sculpture Pioneer

Eva Hesse was a German-American artist known for her work as a postmodern sculptor and draughtswoman. Her work is characterized by a willingness to experiment with material and form, fashioning work from latex, string, fiber glass, and rope. Though she died at the age of thirty-four, Hesse has had a lasting impact on American art as a radical voice that pushed the New York art world into an era beyond Abstract Expressionism and stark Minimalism, the dominant art movements at the time she was working in the 1960s. Fast Facts: Eva Hesse Occupation:  Artist, sculptor, draughtswomanKnown for:  Experimenting with materials such as latex, string, fiber glass, and ropeEducation: Pratt Institute of Design, Cooper Union, Yale University (B.A.)Born:  January 11, 1936 in Hamburg, GermanyDied:  May 29, 1970 in New York, New York Early Life Eva Hesse was born in Hamburg, Germany in 1936 to a secular Jewish family. At the age of two, she and her older sister were put on a train to the Netherlands in order to escape the increasing threat of the Nazi party in Germany following Kristallnacht. For six months, they lived in a Catholic orphanage without their parents. As Hesse was a sickly child, she was in and out of the hospital, with not even her older sister for company. Once reunited, the family escaped to England, where they lived for several months, before they were miraculously able to sail to the United States in 1939, on one of the last boats of refugees welcomed on American shores. Settling in New York did not spell peace for the Hesse family, however. Hesse’s father, a lawyer in Germany, trained and was able to work as an insurance broker, but her mother had trouble adjusting to life in the United States. As a manic depressive, she was frequently hospitalized and eventually left Hesse’s father for another man. Following the divorce, young Hesse never saw her mother again, and she later committed suicide in 1946, when Eva was ten years old. The chaos of her early life characterizes the trauma Hesse would endure throughout her life, with which she would wrestle in therapy for her entire adult life. Eva’s father married a woman also named Eva, the strangeness of which was not lost on the young artist. The two women did not see eye to eye, and Hesse left for art school at the age of sixteen. She dropped out of the Pratt Institute less than a year later, fed up with its mindless traditional teaching style, where she was forced to paint uninspired still life after uninspired still life. Still a teenager, she was forced to move back home, where she got a part time job at Seventeen magazine and began taking classes at the Art Students’ League. Hesse decided to take the entrance exam for the Cooper Union, passed, and attended the school for a year before moving on to get her BFA at Yale, where she studied under renowned painter and color theorist Josef Albers. Friends who knew Hesse at Yale remembered her to be his star student. Though she did not enjoy the program, she stayed until graduation in 1959. Return to Germany In 1961, Hesse married sculptor Tom Doyle. Described as equally â€Å"passionate† people, their marriage was not an easy one. Reluctantly, Hesse moved back to her native Germany with her husband in 1964, as he was awarded a fellowship there. While in Germany, Hesses art practice matured into what would become her best known work. She began using string in her sculpture, a material which resonated with her, as it was the most practical way of translating the lines of drawing into three dimensions. Critical Success Upon returning to the United States in 1965, Hesse began to hit her stride as a critically successful artist. The year 1966 saw two landmark group shows in which she exhibited: â€Å"Stuffed Expressionism† at Graham Gallery, and â€Å"Eccentric Abstraction† curated by Lucy R. Lippard at Fischbach Gallery. Her work was singled out and critically praised in both shows. (1966 also saw the dissolution of her marriage to Doyle through separation.) The next year Hesse was given her first solo show at Fischbach, and was included in the Warehouse Show, â€Å"9 at Leo Castelli† along with fellow Yale alumnus Richard Serra. She was the only woman artist among the nine to be given the honor. Artistic Milieu in New York City Hesse worked in a milieu of similarly-minded artists in New York, many of whom she called her friends. Nearest and dearest to her, however, was sculptor Sol LeWitt, eight years her senior, who she called one of the two people â€Å"who really know and trust me.† The two artists equally exchanged influence and ideas, perhaps the most famous example of which is LeWitt’s letter to Hesse, encouraging her to quit distracting herself with insecurity and just â€Å"DO.† Months after her death, LeWitt dedicated the first of his famous wall drawings using â€Å"not straight† lines to his late friend. Art In her own words, the closest summation Hesse managed to come up with to describe her work was â€Å"chaos structured as non-chaos,† as in sculptures that contained within them randomness and confusion, presented within structured scaffolding. â€Å"I want to extend my art into something that doesn’t exist,† she said, and though conceptualism was gaining popularity in the art world, critic Lucy Lippard says that Hesse was not interested in the movement as â€Å"material meant much too much to her.† The creation of â€Å"non-shapes,† as Hesse termed them, was one way to bridge the gap between her dedication to direct touch, investment in material, and abstract thinking.   Her use of unconventional materials like latex has sometimes meant that her work is difficult to preserve. Hesse said that, just as â€Å"life doesn’t last, art doesn’t last.† Her art attempted to â€Å"dismantle the center† and destabilize the â€Å"life force† of existence, departing from the stability and predictability of minimalist sculpture. Her work was a deviation from the norm and as a result has had an indelible impact on sculpture today, which uses many of the looping and asymmetrical constructions that she pioneered.   Legacy Hesse developed a brain tumor at the age of thirty-three and died in May 1970 at the age of thirty-four. Though Hesse did not live to participate in it, the women’s movement of the 1970s championed her work as a female artist and ensured her lasting legacy as a pioneer in the American art world. In 1972, the Guggenheim in New York staged a posthumous retrospective of her work, and in 1976 feminist critic and essayist Lucy R. Lippard published Eva Hesse, a monograph on the artist’s work and the first full length book to be published on virtually any American artist of the 1960s. It was organized by LeWitt and Hesse’s sister, Helen Charash. Tate Modern staged a retrospective of her work from 2002-2003. Sources Blanton Museum of Art (2014). Lucy Lippard Lecture on Eva Hesse. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?vV50g8spJrp8t2511s. (2014).Kort, C. and Sonneborn, L. (2002).  A to Z of American Women in the Visual Arts. New York: Facts on File, Inc. 93-95.Lippard, L. (1976). Eva Hesse. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.Nixon, M. (2002). Eva Hesse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.