The Cold War: Effect on Political Discourse

The Cold War: Effect on Political Discourse With the end of the Cold war in 1989, has there been more openness in the discourse of deterrence or in warring words? Introduction The Cold War has been described as a nearly fifty-year war of words and wills, (Maus, 2003: 13). It was a period during which most individuals lived in constant fear that the bomb would be dropped, effectively obliterating life as we know it. Direct combat itself was a very small part of this war: The Cold War, fought with national ideologies, economic posturing and infinite defense budgets, festered without any combat or mass casualties (at least among the superpowers) throughout the latter half of the 20th century before finally coming to a head in the mid-80s (Hooten n.d.). When the Cold War finally came to its ultimate end, the words of war shifted in meaning. Warring words continued to be part of the popular vocabulary, but their connotations had changed, and their definitions shifted. The discourse of deterrence faded away, as there was no longer a need for it. This paper will discuss the ways in which the Cold War has affected not only the history of the world, but also the hi story of the words that changed along with it. The Words of War The language we use to describe the things we do is a significant reflection of who we are at a given time in the culture. Communication is an essential tool for human beings, as we are highly social creatures by nature. The need to communicate is an integral part of our composition. However, in the course of transferring information to one another, there is always a margin of error. This means that miscommunication is bound to occur. According to Coupland, Wiemann, and Giles, language use and communication are in fact pervasively and even intrinsically flawed, partial and problematic (1991: 3). Because communication is so important to humans as a species, it is only natural that miscommunication brings with it some sort of consequence. This is a universal concept, and it affects all of us on a very basic level. As Banks, Ge, and Baker assert, ones theoretical orientation is of no importance in this respect: A key sense of miscommunication, however, regardless of ones theoretical orientation, is something gone awry communicatively that has social consequences for the interactants; without social consequences, the phenomenon would be of trivial interest (1991: 105). As a result, conflict is inevitable in society, and a worst-case scenario of conflict is, of course war. War is more than a militaristic action that is played out with bullets and bombs as tools. Words, too, are very much a part of any war effort, and they can be very powerful as weapons. The Cold War has been described as a nearly fifty-year war of words and wills, as both sides aggressively tried to promote and protect their respective ideologies at home and abroad while always remaining aware of the repercussions of pushing the limits too far (Maus, 2003: 13). How did this war of words manage to continue for so long without reaching the stage of physical combat? One perspective on this is offered by Grimshaw, who asserts that so long as conflict talk is sustained (i.e., if participants do not withdraw) it does not seem to be the case that hostility (‘ugliness’) will increase without some concomitant increase in intensity (1990: 295). During the nearly fifty years duration of the Cold War, neither opponent was willing to back down, yet neither one was willing to plunge into what might turn into a major war with dire, irreversible consequences. It was primarily a war fought with words and bravado, a dramatic opus played on an international stage. In fact, the Cold War was fought with national ideologies, economic posturing and infinite defense budgets, festered without any combat or mass casualties (Hooten, n.d.). This is in keeping with Grimshaws assertion that, although disagreements can reach high levels of emotional upheaval, they do not necessarily have to result in physical interaction. Friendly disputes can get quite ‘hot’; at least to some point they can apparently increase in intensity without the occurrence of hostility’ (Grimshaw, 1990: 295). The ever-present fear of nuclear obliteration may have had a great deal to do with this abeyance of action. Much of the world was still numbed by the disastrous tragedy that this power had wrought in the past, and there was great consternation at the thought of reaching a level of conflict that would require use of it again. Therefore, the Cold War remained a war of words. Words, of course, are more than mere utterances. We communicate a great about ourselves when we use them—more than the actual message we are seeking to convey at any given time. As Halliday explains, ‘in all languages, words, sounds and structures tend to become charged with social value (1978: 166). In states of conflict, Halliday asserts that individuals tend to develop a code of words that not only reflects that conflict, but also helps the individual to come to terms with it on some level. He refers to this code of words as an antilanguage, and he asserts that it is to be expected that, in the antilanguage, the social values will be more clearly foregrounded’ (Halliday, 1978: 166). Since the purpose of an antilanguage is to give individuals an alternative reality that is acceptable to them, the theory may be applied to the language of the Cold War. Living with the constant threat of nuclear war is an unbearable state of mind for most individuals; therefore, they must create a world that is more livable to them. This concept is echoed in the writings of Lemert and Branaman, who assert that: ‘Whatever his position in society, the person insulates himself by blindnesses, half-truths, illusions, and rationalizations. He makes an â€Å"adjustment† by convincing himself, with the tactful support of his intimate circle, that he is what he wants to be and that he would not do to gain his ends what the others have done to gain theirs’ (1997: 109). Hence, the development of this different worldview is basically a survival mechanism during a time of great uncertainty and turmoil. The widely respected historian Hobsbawm has explained that generations grew up under the shadow of global nuclear battles which, it was widely believed, could break out any moment, and devastate humanity (1996: 194). The fear that this knowledge brought to individuals naturally affected them on a very deep level. Through the use of an antilanguage, they were able to go on with the activities of daily life by designing a safe cocoon of illusory safety in which they could feel—or pretend to feel—safe. As Halliday puts it, a social dialect is the embodiment of a mildly but distinctly different worldview—one which is therefore potentially threatening, if it does not coincide with one’s own’ (1978: 179). Post-Cold War Language When the five decades of decades of this war came to an end in 1989, the attitudes in place in society necessarily underwent a change, and that change was reflected in the language used as well. The fall of communism in Europe, combined with the end of the Cold War, were enough to bring new hope to the people of the United States. According to Mason, the vicious circle of threats and distrust was replaced by a new spiral of trust and reassurance (1992: 187). In this mostly positive atmosphere, the constant threat of nuclear attack abated, and people were able to breathe more easily. The words of war lost the impact they once had. As Hooten has explained, the words of war were tinged with fear, helplessness, and frustration throughout the years of the Cold War. After it ended, the words did not disappear from the language, but began to take on new connotations The words of war were once the moral and emotional defense of the nation, corresponding with the real memories and motivations of an embattled citizenry, asserts Hooten. After 1989, as images of war receded from the American psyche, the language of war invaded the common lexicon of America (Hooten, n.d.). Examples of this are ubiquitous, and have become so common that we are often barely conscious of it. For example, words such as defend and bomb, which were once tainted by the association with war, have taken on new and less menacing uses. During the second half of the twentieth century, people may have felt a constant need to be ready to defend themselves in case of nuclear attack. Post-Cold War use of this word became something different: a politician may defend his platform. The constant concern and ever-present worry about dropping the bomb during the Cold War era has resulted in a transformation of this word as well: Consider again the numerous, non-militant ways in which the word bomb is used: â€Å"Frat brothers get bombed on a Saturday night.† â€Å"Your new car is ‘da bomb.† â€Å"Did you see that comedian bomb on Letterman last night?† â€Å"The quarterback threw a long bomb to win the game (Hooten, n.d.). Conclusion Language has changed since the nearly fifty years of the Cold War era. Notice, for example, the language of Reagans Star Wars Speech, which was delivered on March 23, 1983: Deterrence means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains (1983: 250). In contemporary times, deterrence can mean many things, most of which do not pertain to war at all. In a similar vein, many of the violent definitions associated with warring words have fallen out of use. These words have become part of the common lexicon, used to describe the quotidian events of daily life without any sense of impending doom. Words such as battle, bomb, defend, and massacre, have lost the potency they held during the years of the Cold War. They have taken on new, less menacing definitions and uses. Language is an integral part of the human experience. The language we use to describe the things we do is a significant reflection of who we are at a given time in the culture. Because we are highly social by nature, communication is vitally important as a tool for human beings. The need to communicate is an integral part of our composition. However, as noted earlier, in the course of transferring information to one another, there is always a margin of error. This means that miscommunication is bound to occur. Consequently, for miscommunication to have impact, it is not likely to be a perturbation of smooth performance that is repaired in the current interaction (Banks, Ge and Baker 1991: 105). References Coupland, N., Giles, H., and Wiemann, J.M. (Eds.). 1991. Miscommunication and Problematic Talk London: Sage. Banks, Stephen P., Ge, Gao, Baker, Joyce. 1991. Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication. In: Coupland, N., Giles, H., and Wiemann, J.M. (Eds.) Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. London: Sage, 103–120. Grimshaw, Allen. 1990. ‘Research on conflict talk: antecedents, resources, findings, directions’. A. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 280–324. Gumperz, John and Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 1982. ‘Introduction: language and the communication of social identity. Pp. 1–21 in Gumperz, John, ed. 1982. Language and social identity. London: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold Publishers. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1996. The Cold War Was a Relatively Stable Peace. Pp. 193–198 in  191 in Maus, Derek, ed. 2003, The Cold War. London: Greenhaven Press. Hooten, Jon. n.d. Fighting Words: The War Over Language.  Retrieved January 13, 2006, from  http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/printerfriendly/2002-09-10-warlanguage.shtml Lemert, Charles and Branaman, Ann, eds. 1997. The Goffman Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Mason, David. 1992. The Last Years of the Soviet Union. Pp. 179–191 in Maus, Derek, ed. 2003, The Cold War. London: Greenhaven Press. Maus, Derek, ed. 2003. The Cold War. London: Greenhaven Press. Reagan, Ronald, 1983. The Star Wars Speech. Document 22 in Maus, Derek, ed. 2003, The Cold War. London: Greenhaven Press.

How to Be a Good Muslim

Garrett Waidelich October 8, 2012 Islamic Civilization Dr. McGrath How to be a Good Muslim In the Quran and the Hadith of Bukhari there are many descriptions of what it takes to be a good Muslim. God gives very specific details to Muhammad about what Muslims need to do and what they can’t do if they want to get to paradise. The five pillars of Islam created a base for Muslims to follow in order to be a good Muslim. The five pillars are that there is no god but God, to offer prayer, to give charity, perform the hajj and to fast during Ramadan (HB 1: 7).The Muslims that follow the five pillars and follow Muhammad’s teachings will reach paradise. The first pillar is to accept that God is the only god and that he is the only one worthy of being worshiped (HB 1: 7, 25, 50, 63, 2: 594, Q 2: 176). This first pillar is very important in Islam because Islam is based around the idea of submitting to God and being God’s slave. God is the most powerful being that there is an d he created the Earth and all its inhabitants (Q 2: 163). God also hears and knows everything, including people’s thoughts and intentions (Q 2: 180).This pillar is so important because God is all powerful, righteous, and merciful. Disobeying this pillar is a terrible deed and Muhammad also said that the worst sin is to worship another god (Q 2: 190, HB 3: 821). The second pillar is to offer prayer perfectly five times a day. There are a lot of rules about how to pray and things that must be done for prayer to count as a good deed. Because God knows and hears all, a Muslim must be completely focused on God while they are praying and not be distracted by other things (HB 2: 307, 4: 504).Muslims are supposed to pray five times a day at specified times (HB 3: 115). Prayer is also better when it is done consistently instead of praying for a long time and then not praying again until the next week (Quran 23: 5, HB 1: 41). Muslims should not get drunk and especially should not pray while drunk (HB 1: 50). Cleanliness is also important when praying. It is good to clean your teeth before prayer and when women menstruate it is considered unclean and they should not pray (HB 2: 12, 1: 247, 1: 817, 3: 172, Quran 2: 222).Men are also not supposed to pray or be around women when the woman is menstruating (Quran 2: 222). Women were also told not to watch men pray because the sheets they wore were short and showed their private areas (HB 2: 306). Prayer is also considered better, 27 times better, when done in congregation than alone (HB 1: 618). Prayer also can reduce the bad deeds that a Muslim might commit, for example a man came to Muhammad and said he had kissed a woman unlawfully and Muhammad told him to pray and the prayer would remove the bad deed (HB 1: 504).Praying to please God and not to impress other people also will lead to all of your past sins to be forgiven (HB 1: 34). Charity is also a very important part of Islam. There are many different references to charity from Zakat, to the alms levy, to giving to the poor. It is considered a god deed to help the poor and it is required to give Zakat. Muhammad says that giving Zakat is one of the best deeds that a Muslim can do (HB 1: 7, 25, 50, 54, 502).Not only is paying Zakat a good deed but also giving to charity and helping the poor is a good deed (HB 1: 11, 27). There is a charity that can be given every day, called Sadaqa, and this charity consists of doing good deeds (4: 232). These good deeds count as the charity. Muhammad told a woman that giving the alms levy is especially important for women because a majority of the people in hell were women (HB 1: 301). Helping orphans, beggars, travelers, and anyone in need is considered a good deed (Quran 2: 215, 2: 177).Giving to help people in need has many benefits for Muslims. When a woman gives charity from her husband’s belongings without hurting his belongings, both the woman and her husband will be rewarded (HB 2: 518, 520, 5 21). While giving to charity is a good deed it is bad for someone to hoard their wealth and money for their personal benefit and can lead to punishment from God (HB 2: 513, 514, 515). If a person does keep all of his money instead of spending it in God’s cause, God will withhold his blessings from that person (HB 2: 513, 514, 515).Another form of charity is buying the freedom of a slave, or setting your own slave free. Freeing a slave can remove the worst of bad deeds including killing someone or breaking your oath (Quran 4: 92, 5: 88). It is good to pay for the rest of the freedom of a slave if you own a part of the slave and partially free him (HB 3: 672). Performing the Hajj at least one time during a Muslims life is another pillar of Islam. Hajj is the pilgrimage from Medina to Mecca that occurs every year in the last month of the Islamic calendar.Hajj is to be made during the specified months, and while on the hajj a man should not have sexual intercourse, should not swe ar, or get into disputes while on the pilgrimage (2: 197). If someone is ill or too weak to perform hajj, someone else can make the pilgrimage on their behalf, with the ill person receiving the reward (HB 2: 589). Muhammad also tells women that instead of participating in Jihad, a women’s Jihad is performing the hajj (HB 4: 43, 127). The final pillar is fasting. Fasting is best when it is done three days a month and during the whole month of Ramadan (HB 2: 274).When someone is ill or on a journey, they can fast the same number of days later when they return or when they are healthy again (Quran 2: 183). It is also possible to substitute feeding a poor person instead of fasting if a person is unable to fast, but fasting is the better of the two (Quran 2: 183). During fasting, you are allowed to eat and have sexual relations at night when the sun is down (HB 3: 139). Women that are menstruating when they fast do not get the rewards because they are considered unclean (HB 3: 172 ).The five pillars are the basis for Muslim actions that will get them into paradise, but there are also a few other things that make a Muslim good. Jihad is another very important thing for a Muslim to participate in and there are many benefits to Jihad. The Quran states that everyone has an obligation to take part in Jihad, but they should never be the aggressor (Quran 2: 216, 2: 190). Fighting for God’s cause is basically fighting to defend Islam and to make it superior to all other beliefs (Quran 1: 125, 22: 78). Jihad has many rewards for Muslims that participate in it.Some of these rewards are booty that is taken if you survive and for the martyr a place in heaven right beneath God (HB 4: 48). If a Muslim did not want to fight, Muhammad said that to equal the good deeds of Jihad that person would have to fast and pray during the entire time the soldiers were on Jihad (HB 4: 44). This would be impossible and enforces the idea that Muslims that participate in Jihad are co nsidered better than those that don’t, unless someone is injured and unable to (HB 4: 84). Women were not supposed to participate in Jihad but instead their Jihad was the hajj (HB 4: 127).Although women’s Jihad was hajj there are numerous stories of Aisha and other women helping the wounded and watering the soldiers during battles (HB 4: 130, 131, 132, 133, 134). Muslims are given very specific directions and helpful tips to be good Muslims. If Muslims accept and admit that God is the only God, pray, offer charity, make the pilgrimage, fast, and do other good deeds they will be considered good Muslims and will get into paradise on Judgment day. Doing good deeds also wipes away or cancels out bad deeds and will also help Muslims be better people and increase their chances of getting into paradise.

Tragic Heroes, Joe and Chris Keller, Portrayed in All My Sons

A tragic hero can be defined by several different factors; the hero usually has a major flaw that prevents him from seeing the truth that lies in front of him, which contributes to the character’s peripeteia due to mistaken judgement. This mistake then leads to achieving anagnorisis, usually at the end of the play, but is too late to change anything, and results in death. Both Joe and Chris Keller constitute as being tragic characters of All My Sons because they both make very tragic mistakes and are driven by the disastrous events that begin before the play. Joe Keller can be described as being tragic because his whole life was dedicated to his family and their well being but all his plans were undone by one fatally flawed†¦show more content†¦In contrast to Joe, a key theme of Chris’ mistake was guilt, as he felt a ‘responsibility’ when he returned from the war alive, which led him to want to believe the best in Joe. Arthur Miller chooses to use ‘killed’ when Chris tells Ann about his ‘men’, because it creates the idea that it was meant to be, and was the ultimate example of altruism, which reflects Chris’ feelings of guilt when he returns home. Joe’s peripeteia is linked with the swift arrival of George, who infiltrates the certainty of the ‘holy family’, that Steve was entirely at fault for the cylinder heads. George imminently wants to confront Joe, and this indicates that Joe’s fortune may be shifting, which is shown through Joe’s sudden mood change to ‘hopeless fury’ when he hears of George’s arrival. Joe’s fortune is altered by Kate’s slip-up when talking to George about Joe; ‘He hasn’t been laid up in fifteen years’, this then prompts George to raise questions, leading to Joe’s downfall. George is also a factor in Chris’ peripeteia, which leads to Chris conforming to a realistic out look on life, rather than the idealistic. Joe’s reversal of fortune guides the path for Chris’ realisation that his father was responsible for the death of twenty one pilots, and his brother, Larry, which ultimately leads to the breakdown of the Keller family, and almost destroys Chris’ relationship with Ann. Whilst Chris’ peripeteiaShow MoreRelatedDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 Pagessources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on appropriate page within text. Copyright  © 2011, 2007, 2005, 2002, 1998 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any

How to Attract Beneficial Insects to Your Garden