Was Alexander II more successful than Alexander III Essay Example for Free

Was Alexander II more successful than Alexander III Essay Was Alexander II more successful than Alexander III in coping with the problems he inherited? During the reigns of both Alexander II and Alexander III both faced significant problems. Both rulers inherited some similar problems when they ascended to the throne for example both faced significant opposition, albeit in different forms. For example, at the time of Alexander II’s ascension to the throne opposition was disparate and far away from what it was by the time he was succeeded in 1881 by Alexander III. Problems regarding domestic policy were also inherited by both Tsars as well as problems on the international stage posing difficulties. It would seem that the more successful of the two leaders in dealing with these problems would be Alexander III as he managed to crush the opposition he faced surviving his reign unlike his father as well as being adept at dealing with international issues. The opposition faced was a serious problem that was faced by both Alexander’s. Opposition to Alexander II was largely based on discontent from the serfs and peasantry that had been festering before he came to power. For example there were 1468 serf uprisings since the turn of the century. This group of the population were seen as potentially dangerous to the regime within Russia and as a result Alexander II recognised there was need for change. As a result he set about with the drafting of the Emancipation Act using the nobility to do it. While he did sympathise with the serfs the reason behind the eventual introduction of this act was to uphold the fundamental principles of Tsarism, these being autocracy, orthodoxy and nationalism. Though this reform was meant to drastically improve the position of the serfs, it instead made their situation worse in many cases. This undoubtedly created more grievances on behalf of the, now, ex serfs. This growing discontent coincided with the emergence of an intelligentsia from the middle class. The intelligentsia were starting to become more organised forming early groups such as the Nihilists and then Populists. These groups were beginning to actively show their discontent at the limited reforms Alexander II had introduced would eventually result in the formation of the People’s Will, the group responsible for the assassination of Alexander II himself on 1st March 1881. It can thus be seen that Alexander II did not successful cope with the opposition he faced. In contrast it can be argued that Alexander III was successful in coping with the problem of opposition. The situation he had inherited in this regard was much worse than that of his father. Opposition had become much more dangerous to the regime in the years between 1855 and 1881 clearly highlighted as they ended Alexander II’s reign. The assassination of the Tsar generated a mass of insecurity and a determination to crush the opposition on behalf of the new Tsar. The creation of the Okhrana was almost immediate; this was essentially a police force that aimed at data collection on political offenders and infiltration of terrorist organisation. This came alongside the policy of Russification which forced the Russian on language onto those of foreign nationality and made the principle of Russian nationality fundamental to life within the country. The Okhrana were dedicated to enforcing religious, racial and national orthodoxy as well as restricting various parts of the population i.e. writers, teachers, Jews etc. As a result any opposition to Alexander III’s reign was suppressed. It would appear that the measures he introduced allowed him to successful cope with this opposition unlike Alexander II whose reforms caused opposition to develop further. Alexander II came to the power with the backdrop of the Crimean War in 1855. This war had highlighted the various incompetency’s of Russia as a nation, making them appear weak and backward in comparison to the Western European nations. As a result Alexander II saw the need for the introduction of reforms to bring Russia up to date with the West. Aside from the aforementioned Emancipation Act there were various other reforms. He decided that the country needed to develop on an industrial level. In order to do this Alexander II drew up plans for a massive investment in railways. The emancipation, he hoped, would lead to greater agricultural output, in order to finance the railways, and the beginnings of Russias industrialisation. He also invested in new iron and steel works for armaments and new manufacturing industries. However these plans never came to fruition during his rule with the dissatisfaction amongst the serfs playing a key part to this. Though he may have not been successful in this area the creation of Zemstvos as well as changes to the legal system and education on the surface appeared to bring Russia up to date with Western Democracies. The Zemstovs allowed people to have more representation at a local level, they were places where people could go to express opinions. The development of education and legal reforms also appeared as though the regime was becoming more liberal and to a certain extent this was true as people enjoyed greater freedom in society and thus showed distinct improvement in modernising Russia. On the other hand the rule of Alexander III can be seen to not offer such modernisation. Though he was successful he in introducing a large system of railways across Russia, most notably the Tran Siberian system these were largely following the plans of his father. On a more social level the repression experienced under Alexander III was somewhat archaic and was a step in the completely wrong direction. The persecution of the Jews was most horrific, they were forced to live in restricted areas and only a limited number were allowed in education. There were even Jewish Pogroms which occurred when gangs of people violently attacked Jewish people. This added to the state interference through the Okhrana mean that Russia had moved away from modernising rather than towards it under Alexander III. In this way Alexander II was more successful in coping with the problem of modernising Russia through domestic policy. A final problem both leaders faced were the issues taking place on the international stage. While the Crimean war had resulted in a need for domestic change it to had required Alexander II make changes to the army after being humiliated. Universal conscription was eventually introduced in 1874. This pointed the way to a large scale armed force with six year service and a long length of time in reserve this replaced the outdated old-fashioned system which had basically seen a serf army. Russia now looked to be on the path to developing a modern army on the Prussian model. However the Russo-Turkish 1877-1888 war saw the limitations of the army with the diminishing Ottoman Empire not being overrun by the new Russian army. Although they made gains in several areas they took a huge financial hit and had been isolated from the other European superpowers as they allied together. When Alexander II came to power he thus inherited these problems. He however was much more adept at dealing with international affairs than his father and predecessor was. Alexander III proved to be quite the negotiator gaining the title of â€Å"Alexander the Peacemaker†. He aimed at avoiding war at all costs and was tolerant of Otto von Bismarck, a conservative German statesman who dominated European affairs from the 1860s to his dismissal in 1890. Bismarck had a quite belligerent attitude towards Russia, and Alexander II was able to revive the ancient league of 3 emperors in 1884. During his reign as Tsar Alexander had managed to avoid war and create some kind of international security whereas under Alexander II Russia still seemed vulnerable as a result the problems inherited on the international stage were handled more successfully by Tsar Alexander III. In conclusion, it can be seen that Alexander III was more successful than Alexander II in coping with the problems he inherited. Although Alexander II’s handling of domestic policy and modernisation was superior, Alexander III’s ability to successfully get rid of opposition, through things methods such as the Okhrana, and his handling of the international situation make it clear that he was the more successful Tsar in coping with the problems he inherited.

The Declaration of Independence: A Closer Look Essay example -- essay

In What Did the Declaration Declare?, Joseph J. Ellis, an editor for history publications presents various historical perceptions on the analytical conception of this mythic text of American public life. The Declaration of Independence has enjoyed a long and useful career as an expression of "natural rights," providing Americans with an influential statement of their national doctrine. Thomas Jefferson had no reason to believe that he was writing a document that would become so revered throughout the ages. One may confirm the Declaration’s idealistic origins by examining Carl Becker’s enduring argument that the Declaration was an American product of the doctrines of John Locke. The Declaration was composed for a specific purpose. The members of the Continental Congress were more preoccupied with handling pressing military matters and meeting with delegates in the separate colonies, who were busy drafting and debating new state constitutions. This book by Elli s also provides a general, philosophical justification for revolution based on the colonist’s growing feeling of entitlement of Lockean rights. The colonists attitude about rights is illustrated in the statement â€Å"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed† (Ellis 15). These words, taken from the Declaration of Independence, are the most influential in our country’s political culture, even today. This document was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Today, it is read and analyzed constantly in not just America, but all over the world as well. Granted, it was based on gaining Independence from the British Crown’s rule, but its contents still holds true even today. It gives strength to the â€Å"underdog† in society to know even his government believes he is created equal. It puts fear into the soul of an y to-be tyrant, letting him know—we will not stand back and allow you to bully us. It also makes it quite clear that if the people do not find solace in the government, if they are bullied and persecuted consistently by this government, then they have the right to overthrow the oppressors and again, start ane... ...e colonists frustration with Britain; it was in actuality a â€Å"public confession of treason† which meant death and confiscation of estate for one found guilty (Ellis 104) at that time. If one really thinks about it, the men who signed the Declaration risked loosing the very rights stated in the document. The document stated that their creator had given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They risked their lives, freedom and property to gain independence from the Crown and to have freedoms of their own. These freedoms included, freedom to run their own country as they saw fit, freedom to live life in the manner they chose, freedom to form their own laws and regulations, and many more. Men, who risked death for treason in writing it, wrote this Declaration, and because of them we all enjoy our freedom and ability to have choices. The document not only played a role in gaining independence from Great Britain, but it played a role in the abolition of slavery, in eq ual rights for African-Americans and women, and many more. We should all be proud of the Declaration. It is a document the United States formed on and its contents definitely hold true value even today more than ever.

Lessons in Pragmatism Essay

Having been a Para Educator since 1994, serving both Special Education as well as General education children, I have had countless opportunities to observe incredible teachers in action. In fact, one of my most vital responsibilities is to collect observational data on various special education students and their IEP goals. This allows the teacher to generate reports of student progress and to help in modifying goals and objectives as needed. It is unfortunate that the writing of this paper falls during the summer months making it impossible to conduct a formal observation of a specific lesson plan in real time. Therefore, the focus of this presentation shall be a lesson plan which was located in the database of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, an organization dedicated to providing enriching, meaningful mathematics curriculum while ensuring availability for all students. This particular lesson plan is a multi-dimensional lesson, or a better an investigation, written by Laurie St. Julien (2008) and printed in the publication Teaching Children Mathematics. It has been generated toward third graders as a means to â€Å"pose their own mathematical questions from real data† (St. Julien, 2008, pg. 506) Before performing any critique of a lesson plan, it is first helpful to identify the basic philosophies that provide its foundation. In a course structured around empowerment through group dynamics conducted by Brunson and Vogt (1996), the results correlated with the theology that â€Å"an empowering educational philosophy promotes trust, collaborative learning and tolerance for ambiguity†. (Brunson & Vogt, 1996, pg. 73) Pragmatism is a philosophy that centers not on the simple passing of knowledge from teacher to student, but around the teacher and student acting as co-learners in the educational process. Stallones, 2011) Pragmatic teachers believe that in order for children to flourish, they must be provided with opportunities to create their own knowledge through experience with the real world in a social context. This Pragmatic theology can be traced back to philosopher John Dewey (1859 – 1952). He saw education as the process of reconstructing knowledge through experiencing the real world; seeing Philosophy as a discipline that required constant change, paradoxically requiring the same reconstruction in education. Neubert, 2009) Following this school of thought, students are guided to generate their own questions, and to use scientific means to come to their own conclusions. This seems to go in tandem with the 7000 Pancakes lesson plan, centered on the theme of the incredible weekend output of the busiest International House of Pancakes in the country. This is quite pragmatic in that it clearly relates to a real world construct familiar to most children, as well as the fact that this particular pancake house just happens to sit next to Disneyland. The students have not been asked to arrive at a singular conclusion, but rather to hypothesize and test their theories, problem solve solutions to and adjust their assertions. This is done in a systematic way over more than one period. (St. Julien, 2008) They are also asked to generate and share their own small group generated questions, This allows for the development of scientific analysis and critical thought, particularly when coupled with the opportunity to scientifically attempt to answer each other’s questions through experience. In addition, Pragmatism favors the merger of various disciplines, in this case the blending of mathematics and science. The lesson plan includes an element that focuses on the eggs that are needed to create various numbers of pancakes in various time increments; however it also questions the properties of the egg and how they change when prepared differently embodying a scientific component to the lesson. This is accompanied by hands on demonstration of all of the aforementioned components, even culminating in a pancake breakfast! St. Julien, 2008) The real world connection in every aspect of this lesson, and the scaffolded guidance required by the teacher to implement it effectively, shows the true pragmatic nature of the lesson and its creator. The strengths of the lesson in question are numerous. The social requirements within the various groups and in the numerous opportunities for open discussion provided a psychosocial aspect to this lesson. These social skills are vital in every aspect of adult life, beyond the practicalities of mathematics. This is support by Siegel (1995) in her assertion that â€Å"learning is a social process in which learners actively construct their understandings†. (Smith, 1995, pg. 407) By using the real world construct of the familiar pancake house, and the visual aids that the lesson facilitates the students in developing a vested interest in investigating the questions that naturally arise through scientific analysis. The hypothesis and analysis process that resulted were well established and right on target for the inquisitive mind of a third grader. Allowing them to tactilely handle the different components of the pancakes allowed them to commit the information to memory in meaningful ways, allowing them to apply this new knowledge to other situations. The scientific component is also a major strength, however I believe yet another discipline could have been added to this lesson; I would also ask them to keep a scientific journal chronicling the experience as well as write a short reflective essay at the end to tie in the language aspect as well. To find any other fault with the lesson plan in question or to better it would prove to be extremely difficult.

Qualitative Scholarly Article Critique How Christian...

Qualitative Scholarly Article Critique Different types of research studies form the basis of evidence-based practice among many different aspects of health care. Qualitative research studies look at the most complex issues nurses face today and there is an emphasis on the need for more studies of this type. Critiquing qualitative research studies validate the study and provides a smooth transition incorporating the findings into clinical practice. Therefore, developing and maintaining the skills for critiquing research is a core nursing skill. However, many nurse professionals do not feel fully confident in critically appraising qualitative research studies. Nurses who are not comfortable with their skills in determining the quality of research studies, can spend ample amounts of time and challenges due to the language of research. The purpose of this paper is to systematically appraise a published research article, using the critiquing framework by Polit and Beck (2012). The paper chosen to be critiqued is a descriptive qualitative article that is titled â€Å"How Christian Nurses Converse With Patients About Spirituality† by Pfeiffer, Gober and Taylor (2014) published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing. Title The title of this study was appropriate and correlated directly with the study. It described the key aspects of the research study and it conveyed the central topic (how Christian nurses converse with patients about spirituality). The title was less than 15 words, so the