Belief

In this essay I will explore why such a large number of people claim truth in conspiracy theories surrounding the September attacks of 9/11. I will analyse the idea that citizens will often blame the political power, instead of agreeing with some more believable views. Furthermore, I will investigate the theory that people will create these conspiracies as a way to balance out the huge scale of the crime; in terms of 9/11, they saw the enormous size of the crime and the rippling effects in had on the country, and so, were not accept the easy explanation or terrorise involvement.

People in political power often come under scrutiny for their actions, in many ways people blame them for any minor difficulty they face. Similarly, we can see this in the way President Bush was accused of devising the 9/11 attacks. In 2015, Cambridge university carried out an experiment, that found that Over 50% of people believe at least one conspiracy theory . Similarly, a 2004 poll by Zogby International revealed that 49 percent of all New York City residents believe that the United States government had prior knowledge of the attacks.

As you can see, most of these conspiracy theories are constructed with limited, questionable evidence and a huge vendetta against any people of authority within the political system of the country. For example, in 1916, a series of shark attacks of the coast of New Jersey caused a significant decline of support for the current President, Woodrow Wilson.

So, why do people prefer to create or agree with wild, baseless ideas instead of those explained by the elected democracy in place? Well, Professor Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Vanderbilt university, may have a theory; he mentioned that people will ‘blindly reward or punish the government for good or bad times without any clear understanding of how the governments policies have contributed to this.’ In this sense, we are constructing our beliefs to support what we want to be true, rather then what we leading from an unbiased perspective, that could allow us to create a clearer view of the reality of the situation. For many this means disregarding any evidence that rivals what they want to believe.

In the same way, a large number of Americans believe that their government and president knew about the attacks before hand, and stood down NORAD (North America Aerospace Command Defence) and allowed the hijacked planes to meet their targets. They claim that this was to justify the American military to entering and attacking Iraq and Afghanistan to start the ‘war on terror’ that rages to this day, but also to claim many oil reserves within the countries.

However, they may not realise that NORAD were only warned of the planes missing, not hijacked, minutes before they crashed. The longest warning NORAD was given for one of the planes was eight minutes, for flight 11, they were told of flight 175 as it was crashing. Due to this it is clear that there is no possible way they could have dispatched fighter jets from across the country with enough time to catch up with the hijacked planes and carry out a forced landing.

Similarly, many believe that the September attacks were a USA/Israeli plot to create a new world order. People theorise that the wars carried out across the Middle East were purely to grow the sphere of influence for America in this area. It claims that financial corporations and arranged the attacks to justify their militaristic actions across poorer countries purely to strengthen their grip on the middle East’s natural resources. However, the fall of this theory comes from the fact there is no evidence at all. No documents, no one has come forward; there is no proof that this is true. If it were, with something of this scale; it would be likely to have a slip up, one person at least would come forward to bring forth the truth. But, as we can see, this has not happened, so it is highly unlikely that this is true.

Furthermore as we know, the US Governments illegal actions do not often remain a secret, take the Watergate hotel for example, bugged by the Republicans, to gain information of the Democratic Party but also other individuals of interest, operating on the orders of the President. Perhaps even , in the same vein of 9/11, Operation Norwood. The CIAs plan to initiate terrorist attacks in America itself, blame it on Cuba to declare war on them.

The parallels drawn here, between Norwood and 9/11 itself, are a frightening in a way, but as we can see, the government do not have the ability to hide their illegal actions, especially from such a large scale operation. From this, we can see that these ‘truthers’ base their facts on purely blaming those who they feel are to blame, even without sufficient evidence, If it makes a person feel safer knowing there is someone to blame for their misfortune, then psychologically they feel safer more content to hold those views rather then to view a situation from fair-minded perspective. In the end, we want to feel comfortable in what we believe, not necessarily right.

Furthermore, we can see the determination of the believers of the theories, these so called ‘truthers’; from their ability to take any minuscule evidence and twist it into their advantage. Some claim the US government deliberately allowed the attacks to take place, others, that the building were destroyed in a process called controlled demolition. The more outlandish, are adamant that there were no planes involved at all, and the damage was done by missiles.

They even may claim that there planes involved at all, and that the tens of thousands of people that saw the collision, saw merely holograms. During this time, the speculation that 9/11 had more to it than we were told, had grown exponentially. In 2006 the film ‘ loose change ,’ became one of the most popular videos of Google video. It has been downloaded over eleven million times. Its cynical, yet informative view of the attacks, calling all to take action for those who lost their lives, to seek the truth, appealed to the millennial generation.

However, perhaps the fact that it continuously is removed by the FBI, on whichever platform uploads it, has attracted the attention of those hesitant to believe is the theories against their own government. Why do the American government see this video, made by two men on a laptop, as such a threat? Most experts will say that the multitude of conflicting theories come purely from the disbelief that a rather small group of people, from a impoverished, destitute country can cause such a catastrophe in a wealthy country that is believed to have one of the most advanced economies in the world.

We can see, that the vast majority of these conspiracy theorists simply can’t accept such a mundane, uncomplicated explanation, as it does not seem to be satisfactory. Indeed, the recent explosion of social media has not seemed to quell these hypothesises. If anything, It seems that the ability to share ideas with like- minded people, has caused a surge of protests against governmental secrecy.

However, this could be caused from a ‘crippled epistemology’ this is where a group of people have limited information of an event/person, but what they do know, is either wrong or has very little truth to it. Most of their information would come from these ‘news’ accounts on social media, that draw on an audience with outrageous claims portrayed as facts. Furthermore some so called ‘conspiracy entrepreneurs’ may write papers or books claiming to expose those of authority, preying on a person natural instinct to blame those in power, allowing the author to gain money and power for themselves. Such as ‘solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World’ that became a best seller, just from its claims of the ‘truth’. Books like this, pander to the impressionable minds of the young and the ignorant, by providing the so called answers to what happened during that pivotal point in history.

In Conclusion, the believe in conspiracy theories, especially those centred around 9/11, are not going to be quelled any time soon. However, they do cause violence and a divide within the country, so the government should try to prove the falsity of at least some of the major claims against them, if only to aid those told misconceptions by those who are ill informed or chose to be ignorant. Indeed it is likely that attempting to dispel these rumours could, and most likely would, cause some with extreme views on this matter, to vehemently oppose the government in regards to this.

Moreover I have explored why people do believe these theories, from distrust in the government itself and a preference to keep holding these beliefs as a way to feel comfortable not necessarily right. But also, the use of social media, on which people can share beliefs and theories among each other and to impressionable young people, causing them to question their beliefs of terrorist involvement in the attacks.

In May 2003, the Cleveland Cavaliers selected a high school phenom named Lebron James with the Number one overall pick in the 2003 NBA draft. In this “I believe” commercial featuring Lebron James the first thing that was mentioned was his very first press conference. During his first press conference, this humble kid from Akron, Ohio declared that he didn’t feel any pressure as the top overall pick in the NBA Draft and that he wouldn’t guarantee a championship for the team he was playing for. Lebron also spoke about how hopeful he was that the league accepted him as a person, basketball player and leader. Lebron believed in the process that would get him towards that goal.

Believing in yourself is one very important trait in life. One reason why believing in yourself is important is that it creates the right mindset as to how you approach things. Before we can begin to take massive action towards our goals, we as individuals need to create the mindset that will give us the motivation, discipline and mental ability to carry us through to their completion. Based on pass experiences of our success and failures and the mental conditioning of those around us, mainly through our childhoods, we develop a self-belief of the person we are. On many occasions we have created limiting belief systems and act in accordance with these beliefs. A famous quote from Henry Ford, is that ‘Those that believe they can and those that believe they can’t be often both correct’. Therefore, creating and holding a strong positive self-belief is essential to the achievement of our goals.

For Lebron to get to where he has been as a success in not only in the NBA but as a central figure in society is the ability to acknowledge what he must improve upon. In 2011, Lebron James and the Miami Heat lost to the Dallas mavericks in the NBA Finals 4-2. After that series, Lebron James was criticized for his performance in that finals. Many of those individuals who criticized him saying that he would never approach Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player ever. Some even calling Lebron a “choker”.

Lebron himself took that criticism to heart. “I wasn’t that good of a player in that series. I wasn’t a complete player”(Espn.com). Lebron said. “That Dallas series is a big part of why I am the player that I am today. (Espn.com)” Lebron critiqued himself from that and from that series on, Lebron would then go on to go to lead his teams to eight straight NBA Finals. That ability to believe in yourself is a big reason why.

Another reason why believing is important is that creates belief in others. Despite all the efforts and achievements that can be made in life it is important to accept that there is no such thing as a 100% self-made person. At certain stages in our lives, we have all had support, guidance and direction. Whether it is as financial support from parents, an advice from a close friend or if a stranger you meet at a random place gives you support from whatever issue you are dealing with. There is always someone who has a belief in you. They all have played a helping hand in shaping you to the individual that you are today. It is that level of confidence and commitment that we demonstrate through our actions and when communicating with those that are around us that inspires other individuals to either take a chance on us or support us on our journey towards our goals.

Another reason as to why believing is important is that it increases self-confidence. It can be argued that which comes first self-confidence and then belief or vice versa. Lebron James as he got more experience in the NBA developed more of a self-confidence. In Lebron’s first three seasons in the NBA, his statistics increased. His points per game increased from 20 to 27 to 31. His field goal percentage increased from 41% to 47% to 48%. As Lebron matured into developing self confidence as a basketball player, the team he was playing on improved. The Cavaliers win record increased all three years after Lebron James was drafted. From 35 wins to 42 wins to 50 wins. Self-confidence is a skill we as individuals can all develop by conditioning and reaffirming our minds to hold a strong set of positive beliefs.

On the court, what makes Lebron great is his ability to believe in his teammates. Lebron throughout his basketball life has made a habit of making players around him better. Lebron has 8,662 career assists which is tenth all time. With the impact of Lebron he was able to lead his teams to three NBA championships. In 2016, Lebron James was able to pull off what no one was able to do and that was comeback from a 3-1 deficit and defeat the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals. That Golden State Warriors basketball team went 73-9 in the regular season in 2016. That happened to be the most wins in an NBA season in NBA History. The previous win-loss record was held by the Chicago Bulls in 1996.

The last reason why believing in yourself is critical is because it gives us a peace of mind and it reduces stress. Building self-confidence and a belief in our abilities to achieve new and existing challenges can reduce stress and anxiety significantly in our everyday lives. As our confidence in ourselves grows more, the everyday situations in our personal lives that may have previously created a level of anxiety will begin to have less influence on us. Areas such as personal conflict, public speaking, or being in uncomfortable work environments deadlines will no longer pull on our mental resources and will allow us more intellectual energy to take on new challenges.

Believing in yourself also requires you to act accordingly. For example, Michael Jordan failed countless times in his basketball career. Michael has admitted countless times, that he has missed thousands of shots and lost hundreds of basketball games. However, he realized that it is a part of the process, so he used it as a driving force to work even harder. Michael Jordan also emphasizes his failures that has enabled him to endure huge success. One of Michael Jordan’s famous quotes “I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can’t accept not trying.” is a quote that holds true to this day to many other individuals today. One that also hold true to individuals such as Lebron James.

In conclusion, believing in yourself is one very important trait in life. One reason why believing in yourself is important is that it creates the right mindset as to how you approach things. Another reason why believing is important is that creates belief in others. Believing is important is because it increases self-confidence. Believing in yourself is critical is because it gives us a peace of mind and it reduces stress. Lastly, believing in yourself also requires you to act accordingly. Individuals such as Lebron James used these traits in believing in himself to turn himself into the successful basketball player and human that he is today.

America is one of the most racially and religiously diverse countries in the world. People with different ethnical and religious backgrounds have lived in america for centuries. Its unclear when the first muslims arrived in the united states but their influence on the american culture isnt going to be un-noticed. As communities migrate from one place to another they take their culture values and traditions with them. These same norms can be applied to the migration of muslims from the middle-east to the united states such as slaves coming from africa arabs coming to the united states and settling here. They all brought their tradition with them.

Times had been tough on the community as their faith had been questioned over numerous periods of time whether it was for the slaves coming from africa to keep the religion alive or after the attacks of 9/11 on the world trade center. The major event that changed the lifestyles judgement and portrayal of muslims in america was attacks on twin towers of world trade centre on sept 11 2001. Even though these attacks were carried out by few extreme minded individuals who were linked to terrorist group al-qaeda but the storm of hate prejudice was experienced by the whole muslim community that lived here in the united states.

Muslim in the U.S. were americans the day before attacks but all of a sudden they became terrorists anti-americans the day after the attacks. Muslim americans have since thrived and silenced all the stereotypes against them and the belligerence act of islamophobia. Americans are suspicious of islamic beliefs and motives which creates widespread hostility towards their faith. Facing discrimination throughout the country and despite heightened anxiety around their place in u.s. Culture their experiences largely mirror those of other religious groups. Even current president of united states donald trump has sign executive order 13769 also known as the muslim travel ban which shamefully attempts to ban migrants and refugees from seven muslim countries.

Trumps travel ban aims to keep muslims out of america but it would be impossible to take the america out of muslims. Mainstream media has one of the largest impacts on todays world and how societies can perceive people as the other. The media has been used to invoke hatred towards muslims in america. Portrayal of muslims in america has been negative mainly because of two things one being their faith but also people who come from the middle east. The media has focused on presenting muslims in a centric manner by associating the word terrorist with muslims; while the historic context and perspectives that played behind the attacks are not mentioned in the influence on the individuals decision to perform such an act. Media start to debate if islam justifies violence to achieve something.

And because of the negativity spread by the media american muslims citizenship patriotism and devotion to this country are constantly questioned. Political cartoons depicting a muslim persons outfit was aimed to trigger suspicion and enforces a negative perception of muslim people. When discussing the fear mongering ways of the media on the public one cannot leave hollywood behind. Hollywood may have invoked more islamophobia and xenophobia in individuals than president trump may have done. Hollywood has made americans associate islam with terrorism through inaccurate representation. Television showtime sleeper cell came with a tagline friends. Neighbors. Husbands. Terrorists and homeland where the mere act of a man praying toward mecca signaled foreboding events.

If there are few good muslims shown in the shows it doesnt come without a twist. In shows sayid on lost or twins *nimah and raina of quantico are defined by a connection to saddams republican guard or terror groups. Muslim representation in movies tv shows and even news is that muslims in american art and media are represented as being violent terrorist and intolerant. Despite such negative representation religious profiling and constant questioning of their faith and loyalty american muslims have achieved a lot in educating americans about islam and how it promotes peace among communities and how few evil minds use religion to carry out their heinous acts.

Comedians like chris rock paul mooney russell peters margaret cho and dave chappelle are a few examples of intellectuals who challenge the stereotypes and common-sense beliefs held about their respective ethnic groups. The use of comedy to highlight injustices experienced by the muslim community is common among all of the recent arab and muslim american comics. Muslim comedians believe that distrust and fear such as one poll found out that 39% of americans admit to having feelings of prejudice against muslims living in the us and they may support an initiative to have muslims carry around special id cards concerns like muslims in america are sympathetic to groups like al-qaeda etc. Can be combated through comedy amarasingam as dean obeidallah speaks of 9/11 events he says that those events changed the way he was viewed in the country. Another comedian maz jobrani iranian-born comedian and actor also takes a dig at how muslims are portrayed in the media.

He notes every time they show us on t.v they always show the crazy guy burning the flag going like death to america and its always that. Media doesnt show any other role of muslims besides being violent anti-american. They depict muslims and islamic countries as hotbeds of fanaticism full of muslim men who enslave their wives movies such as not without my daughter serve to warn american women about the dangers of inter-racial marriage which is totally mis-representation of the islamic religion. Its true that in every religion there are people who are willing to connect and relate with other religions and also there are people who take the religion very extremely by manipulating and using the religion according to their own belief/ mind set. Actions from such people do no reflect the belief system of entire religion.

There are lot of american muslims who achieved fame in american art and culture such as hasan minhaj aziz ansari are few of the outspoken american muslims taking representation of muslims in america to positive and friendly level. In a new york times op-ed why trump makes me scared for my family aziz wrote that people in american culture associate muslim less with kareem abdul-jabbar or the kid who left the boy band one direction than with a scary terrorist character from homeland or some monster from the news. He also adds that the most constructive way to approach the problem is to show muslim people being normal on tv.

Even women artists have also came forward to shatter the stereotypes about muslims not only in the united states but also rest of the world. One of the famous artists shahzia sikander had solo show at brent sikkema gallery in new york in 2003. Shahzia in her work named utopia in the post 9/11 context tries to think about the world in different ways including taking on icons like american flag and inflecting it with her own meaning. Utopia help better situate the cultural divide and argue for seeing cultural reading not as mutually exclusive but necessary for seeing any work of art.

In such images times like 9/11 are being created in the ways various histories are being retold through art. Larita dixon in her painting of hijabis describe that in this work she wanted to show the fun side of muslims her aim is to show people that muslims are just like everyone else. Another artist kelly izdihar crosby in her painting of tapestry of sisterhood states that she is touched by the diversity of islamic global community and thats the reason she created a montage of muslim women wearing turbans hijabs wraps and no hijab. The reason behind the painting was that she wanted to show the beauty and diversity of muslim women in terms of how they outwardly reflect their faith.

The mainstream image of muslim women is one dimensions and this piece offers the viewer an alternative to that monolithic stereotype towards muslim woman. Female muslim comedians such as tissa hami had to deal with issues surrounding the hijab. She often starts off wearing the hijab and half way through her act she removes it to illustrate that she is same women regardless of what she wears on her head. This act has much bigger impact which makes a point on larger context. She wants to prove that no all veiled muslim women are silent or oppressed or terrorist. A veiled woman isnt someone to fear from because no matter she wears hijab or not she is the same person.

At the end one way or the other american media must change how they portray muslim americans. Muslim americans have same rights and freedoms as every other citizen of this country does regardless of their ethnicity religion and race. Acts carried out by few individuals does not reflect the ideology of the whole community or religion. In order to reduce violence stereotypes and prejudice among communities media needs to portray every individual community as same rather than picking on one religion to expand the hate crime against the religion.

I am the only child of older parents. I was born in Plantation Florida. My mother was forty-one years old when I was born, and my father was sixty-one years old. My mother is third generation American also being born in South Florida, where she attended public and Catholic schools. Her ancestry is fifty percent Danish and fifty percent Irish. My father was born and raised in Costa Rica. His ancestry is fifty percent from Spain and fifty percent of the indigenous people of Costa Rica, whose origins are not really known. Both of my parents were raised within the Catholic faith. I have been raised in the Catholic faith, being baptized, receiving first Holy Communion and then participating in the sacrament of Confirmation. We are a middle class working family. We are not wealthy, but we are comfortable. I have never wanted for anything. We have traveled throughout the United States extensively and I used to spend summers with my father’s family in Costa Rica. We currently do not attend mass regularly as we are on twenty-four hour duty to care for my 100 year-old grandmother. My parents take care of her out of love, but it is emotionally stressful and takes a great deal time. They have tried to prevent any impact on me as much as possible, but I am called to help sometimes. As I started this essay, I looked up the definition of spirituality. According to the Oxford online dictionary, the definition is “relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.”

Spirituality is something that will change over your lifetime. As Professor Peter Feldmeier states in his interview U.S. Catholic interview for the article What is spirituality? Building a relationship with God is a life-long process of transformation. The key is first figuring out where your heart lies, the purpose of spirituality is transformation. He also believes if you can define what is most important to you and imagine the world to be, then you on your way to figuring out your spirituality. As Buddha said, “just as a candle cannot burn without fire, man cannot live without a spiritual life”. Because it is always transforming, there is no beginning and no end. It is constantly changing throughout your lifetime. I believe there will be doubts about your spirituality up until the moment you draw your last breath. That may be the most critical time, and that is when your faith will come into play. What do you believe? How have you behaved based on your beliefs? Are you worthy of salvation? Is there salvation? I agree with this position. I often question my faith and . What is important to me changes over time as I learn more about people and the world. I have come to a greater understanding that we are all interconnected as human beings and with God’s other creatures on our planet. As I learn more, my priorities change.

Throughout your life, spirituality and faith will guide your behavior, so it is important to always be aware of what you believe and what your priority are so you can act in accordance with both. My current state of spirituality has been shifting greatly the past few years. I was very self–centered and now I am shifting my priorities to family, friends and the community. I believe the change is the result of observing the love and care my parents give my grandmother. In addition, while completing my service hours, I have met so many other people whose situation in life is very difficult and it helped me know how blessed I really am. Often we feel sorry for ourselves, and as much as I do not like to see others suffer, it certainly changes one’s perspective! As I continue my journey, I definitely need to talk to others about their spirituality. I also need to read and seek out information so as not to be afraid of any change or transformation. It is easy not to focus on spirituality or faith as by definition they are a belief that you have to somehow convince yourself at each point, it is the right priorities and faith. Then because it is always changing, you are looking for ways to connect the dots, and that is not always easy.

Institutional church offers you guidance in determining priorities and explaining or justifying why those should be your priorities, what you should treasure. However, some churches can also provide mixed messages or as institution not have their priorities in the right order. I believe my relationship with God will strengthen in the future. As I mature, I seem to rely more on my faith, my spirituality and what means living a good life. I do not know if there is a heaven, but in a way to provide comfort for why we live, I would like to think there is and I will someday be there with God. If I were to sit with Pope Francis, I would challenge him to somehow reduce some of the rigidity and complexity of the church. I am not suggesting to loosen the definitions of what is sinful, or how we should behave, but rather to allow more full participation by regular people and use technology and more modern tools to communicate with the members. I would also suggest the church spend more time helping the poor, elderly, infirmed and less time on collecting and spending money.

On the other hand, one of the Church’s strength is tradition. There are some traditions, like the sacraments which make us all the same, as one in God’s love. If I were ever blessed enough to sit with God, I would want to find out why as humans do we turn on each other the way we do? Why do we have instances of ethnic cleansing? Holocaust? War? Why do we do that? We each value, and when we hurt each other, we are turning our backs on what God has given us. My relationship with God in one word would be “loving.” I believe God loves all of us and all of creatures on the planet. As the Church teaches, all lives have value and deserve respect. This is the framework of a loving God. The color I see in God is blue. That is the color of the Virgin Mary who gave birth to Jesus. It is also a calm and peaceful color.

Is he on a vacation backpacking across the globe spending his rich father’s money or is the only reason for his tourism the drug deal? Is he going back to Delhi or all the way back to England? Since he has both a girlfriend with potential wife-status and a child to take care of at home my guess is the last possibility – he is simply a rug dealer buying incredibly low-prized cannabis in India for re-selling in his home country. His statement at p. 2 1. 70 is obviously pointing in that direction: “My Job? Re, I don’t really have one as such. ” Ironically enough, Lee is filled with self-congratulation as he leaves the village.

Overwhelmed with compassion he has given the children the gooey biscuits he himself described as revolting and unpalatable. Maybe he does not consider the fact that he refuses to give the children something that would actually help them: rupees. Money, he earlier referred to as “Joke money’. Instead he uncompromisingly shoes he child away with a “No! Don’t touch me, you shouldn’t touch! ” Lee seems to be an egoistic, ignorant and unpleasant figure from what we are described – and is possibly supposed to symbolize the typical western tourist.

Though we are not given a lot of information about the village people, they seem shy and reserved. Lee makes no two- way communication with any other than the president and one of the kids for a brief moment. It might be that Lee considers the village people naive and ignorant, but as the story surprisingly twists in the end, all is turned upside down, and it is obvious that Lee has underestimated the president. He has not fooled the president – it is he himself who have been deceived. An ancient, proud chieftain is not the obvious one to suspect for depraved actions.

As he may seem proud and honorable on the outside, the president is the exact opposite on the inside. At the end of the story we are suddenly having another perspective – that of the woman leading her donkey to the village. She entrusts us with the president’s secret: “Sometimes the president and his slimy friend Punned got drunk and talked more than they should in the presence of the women. The president was a shrewd man, and under him the village ad prospered, but he was a man without honor. ” (p. 4-5 1. 158-163) The president has actually prostituted himself and given up all his pride and honor for money.

The president cooperates with Ram, the police commissioner, who gives him money in return for information about tourists like Lee. In this way the president can profit from his unfortunate customers buying cannabis and receive money from the police at the same time – and he does not at all seem to care about the people he may harm in the progress. Suddenly the gesture of trust on page 4 1. 123 seems more as a scorn tan anything else. Lee Is nothing more out a Oarlock In ten pralines game, Ana It quickly becomes uncertain who to sympathize with.

At first it was the president: The proud chieftain of an ancient village thinking he made a good deal with another tourist, but at last it is the poor Lee that is the victim: And he will suffer his deeds. “She knew that Ram and the bullies he used as deputies would be getting drunk now, and when the foreigner came down they would greet him, smiling, and Ram would laugh taping his tick wooden cane against his leg” (p. 5 1. 165) It is here that the title becomes paradoxical. Lee may have been greedy and disrespectful but does he deserve to get beat up?

Lee is a man with a girlfriend and, to a certain extinct, a child at home both depending on his financial success – is it a Justified laugh that bursts from the president’s mouth and follows Lee down to the foot of the mountain? I do not think it is. The chieftain has become Just as grasping and greedy as any western president. And from where has those influences emerged? The boy with the Walkway bobbing his head up and down (in what seems as a prayer but very remarkably is not) “karaoke’s” the phrase: “We are Justified and ancient.

And we drive an ice cream VA-an” from Kills single “Justified and ancient”. This is a very good clue for interpreting the title. Given that the phrase “Justified and ancient” does not only refer to the president but to all of the people living in the village, a more general view is set on the story. The village may be Justified due to the western influences that have had negative influence on their society and their culture. To combine the word Justified with the more concrete word ancient does not normally seem irrational.

After reading this short story it does though – because the ancient village with the old president represents something honorable, sacred and proud: Values that have been destroyed by western society – it is now all about materialism and money. The president does seem proud to have flourished the old culture, surviving the civilization below them from the mountain summit – but he wants more than Just doctor visits and he has broken the traditional way of behaving in the village. Whether or not the village people are (the president is) Justified or not is a discussable topic – a topic that provokes us to think the term Justification over.

Australia during the wartime. The concept of Australia from the viewpoint of six year old Rob Coral at the start of ‘The Merry-Go-Round in the Sea’, is not actually about the country itself, but one that Is solely based upon his Immediate surroundings. The security of his family and of the land that Is his home, are the things that provide him with safety and identity. ‘He thought, often, of himself, of who he was, and why. He would think: I am Australian, and wonder why. How had he come to be Rob Coral, living in this town? This quote is taken from the beginning of the book. Here Rob is cost and often struggles to define his own Identity. The continual presence of the large Nameplates clan that he belongs to is very important, as it signifies, what Rob comes to believes, is his place in the world. This quote is an example of the shelter and protection Rob feels with family. ‘After that, the boy stopped listening to his mother’s warnings of doom. But because no catastrophe was possible which she would not have foreseen, he felt secure with her, he felt that she could thwart any danger, except the one danger he really feared, which was made up of time and change and fragmentary talk of war.

Rob is engrossed in Geraldine, his home. The single connection with the outside world he has Is of the war, which links to him simply because of his cousin and Idol, Rick, and having to move homes every now and then. The importance and value of close family bonds is a fundamental Australian belief that is still held today. Family is where we draws our base set of values and beliefs, and the frequent visits and gatherings Rob shares with his tens of aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins Is one of the elements that define his world.

Australia is depicted in hundreds of literary texts by images of the ‘bush’ and outback. The landscape portrayed in most of the novel is set in more rural areas of Australia. Randolph Stow, the author, goes into a large amount of detail describing the scenery with Its sights, smells and sounds, as demonstrated by the following quote: ‘In the summersets along the dry creek that wound almost to the river at Install, cockatoos swirled like torn paper, catching the light. Rising from one tree, they flashed and screeched across the tiger striped sky to another, a quarter of a mile away.

They Infested the tree like migratory fruit-blossom, flapping, tearing, and relining. ‘ Almost all of the descriptions are positive, planting the land In a beautiful and attractive light. The frequent mention of native animals and plants, FIFO together Walt ascriptions AT ten vastness Ana emptiness AT ten eternal Is unleaded Australian. Rob’s life throughout the novel revolves around school, the beach and most importantly, his cousin Rick. It is the relationship between the two that supports the entire novel.

The effect of Rick’s character is complicated, as we see him largely through Rob’s point of view. Being absent for half the book, his character can be official to grasp. While Rob adores and dollies Rick, the adults in the family are continually criticizing him after his return from the war. ‘Rick was immature. He was lazy. He was a narcissist. He used dirty language. He had stayed at the very bottom of the army. He refused to be a farmer. He talked like Hitler about the Bomb. He looked bored and miserable when he was with people Rob liked… Before leaving for War, Rick had been a golden boy, but he never lived up to the family’s expectations in the end. Although the war had a shattering effect on Rick, both physically and psychologically, it was this that lead to the development of his character; his loss of innocence and carefree attitude. He came home a changed man. While Rick’s best friend Huge, whom he meets in the War, has managed to put the impressions of the War and its impact behind him and move on with life, memories of War continue to haunt Rick long after he returns home.

Although this change in Rick’s character is obvious to young Rob, he continues to admire his cousin. Quotes from the end of the book Justify this. ‘Rob’s love for Rick was like an ache in his body,’ and ‘He (Rob) seems o be trying to turn himself into a carbon copy of Rick,’ Margaret Coral said. ” Towards the end of the novel, Rob’s perception of the world, his concept of Australia, has changed. ‘The world the boy had believed in did not, after all, exist. The world and the clan and Australia had been a myth of his mind, and he had been, all the time, an individual. In Rick’s words, ‘Families and countries are biological accidents. ‘ Rob is forced to question the idea that although everyone comes from a family and country, it doesn’t provide us with any identity, and everyone is an individual. As the novel progresses, Rob starts to doubt the beliefs of his family, beliefs that he had never challenged before, mainly due to Rick’s actions and reactions after experiencing life so close to death, and his decision to leave Australia forever. ‘Look, kid,’ Rick said, ‘Eve outgrown you. I don’t want a family, I don’t want a country.

Eve grown up, and I’m on my own. ‘ Rick was turning his back on his home and as Rob’s idol, forcing Rob to consider a life outside of what he had always known. While a great deal of ‘The Merry- Go- Round in the Sea’ goes into detail featuring and ascribing the landscape, ‘Summer of the Seventeenth Doll’, another popular Australian story, does the opposite. Being a play, the dialogue is the main thing that drives the plot, but with the novel, a variety of different scenes and settings is easier to portray. Setting in the play consists of only two locations, both indoors.

The time periods of both stories are different, with ‘The Merry- Go- Round in the Sea’ set during the wartime and depression, while ‘Summer of the Seventeenth Doll’, a few years after. This contributes to the different behaviors and way of life of the harassers in the stories. The main similarity between the two texts is the symbols of the kepi doll and merry-go-round. Both are recurring motifs in their own stories. The kepi doll is a representation of the relationship between Olive and ROR, two main characters in the play.

Unmarried, and taking the chance to see each other for only Twelve months every year, tenure Is never any progress In tenet relations anon t doll signifies the fragility and artificial bond between them. Olive wants to keep their relationship the way it is, like a teenage romance. The doll is flawless, but its refection is fake. The merry-go-round has similar significance. It too, is a symbol of perfection, of Rob’s ideal world. At the beginning, it is one of Rob’s greatest desires to learn how to swim to what he believes is the ‘merry-go-round in the sea’, which is really the mast of a sunken shipwreck.

When Rob asks his mother, ;Why? Why can’t we go there? ‘ , she answers with, ‘Oh- because of the war. ‘ This leads him to dislike the war, in addition to it also taking Rick away and causing change in Rob’s life and home. He imagines that when the war is over, he will swim to the merry-go-round, Rick will return, he’ll move home, and things will be perfect. However, this is not the case. The last sentence of the novel reflects the change from start to end of the story, and Rob’s growth towards maturity. He thought of a windmill that had become a merry-go-round in a backyard, a merry-go-round that had been a substitute for another, now ruined merry-go-round, which had been itself a crude promise of another merry-go-round most perilously rooted in the sea. ‘ The major themes of time and change are shared in both stories. ‘The world would revolve around him (Rob), ND nothing would ever change. He would bring Rick to the merry-go-round, and Aunt Kay, and they would stay there always, spinning and diving and dangling their feet in the water, and it would be today forever. This quote demonstrates Rob’s aversion to change and time’s unceasing forward momentum. He wants everything to be the way it was before Rick went to war, and this is also symbolized by the merry- go-round in the sea. This fear of change is identical to Olive’s feelings in ‘Summer of the Seventeenth Doll’. Even after seventeen years of no change and progress, Olive is tuck in a time warp, wants to keep things the way they are and continue acting like a young adult.

She is afraid of commitment and not feeling youthful anymore, causing her to cling on to her young and innocent kepi dolls for security and comfort. ‘Olive (to ROR): ‘l want what I had before. You give it back to me; give me back what you’ve taken. ‘ When things start to change in the seventeenth summer, Olive doesn’t react well and by the end of the play, she is left with nothing. The tradition of metathesis, although frequent in other countries as well, is a very rage part of Australia and the bond between its men.

The ‘outback man’ is a famous Australian icon that is incorporated into thousands of movies, poems, novels and songs. The strong, very masculine impressions they exude of power, pride and being ‘one’ with the land is a famous and commonly used Australian stereotype. Both Rick and ROR in the texts radiate the ‘outback man’ persona. They are strong, much more physically than mentally and both are very tough. The metathesis between Rick and Huge is very deep, largely because of what they shared through the war.

When in a fife and death situation, the trust and loyalty between the men had to be strong, and the experiences they went through together is something neither will forget easily. ‘The skeleton of Hugh McKay lay on the floor. ‘Rick,’ Hugh said, breathing painfully. ‘I drank your water. ‘ ‘That’s all right. ‘ ‘No, no- bastard of a thing to do. ‘ ‘Don’t be stupid,’ Rick said. What’s a mate for? ‘ This quote reveals how meaningful are on the verge of death. This metathesis is similar to that of ROR and Barneys in ‘Summer of the Seventeenth Doll’.

Although their bond may not have been as deep, hey still relied on each other a lot during the cane season up North where they worked as cutters. ROR and Barney have the same loyal and ‘got your back attitude, which, even though it comes into question, proves to be strong by the end of the story. While ‘Summer of the Seventeenth Doll’ is similar to ‘The Merry Go Round in the Sea’s’ themes, symbols and characters, the poem, ‘My Country by Throated Mackerel is comparable to the novel through images of Australia’s landscape. Depictions of its beauty and magnificence are plentiful in both texts.

The book concentrates on a mall area of Australia because it is where the action takes place, whilst the poem gives a picture of Australia as a whole. Mackerel’s attitude in ‘My Country is enthusiastic and positive, while Stows is more restrained. There is similar imagery between the two texts in some descriptions. ‘l love a sunburns country; a land of sweeping plains’ refers to Australia’s vast, brownish-red land, and its sun drenched weather. A vision like this is also expressed in the novel. ‘The hills and soils were red- brown and stony, brownish purple in the distance. Australia is often represented by TTS landscape and so it is not common to find that different texts have described the country in comparable ways. Stow has masterfully captured the atmosphere of growing up in Australia in the sass’s. The concept of Australia explored by the novel has reinforced my perceptions of the land. Its conception of the landscape, what it means to be Australian and whether it is possible to outgrow your country has broadened my outlook and even question a few of my own values. It raises profound issues that cause readers to stop and consider what it really means to be Australian.

John Boynton Priestley was born within the city of Bradford on the 13th of September 1894. His childhood consisted of many major historical events, including the First World War in the period of 1914 – 1918, within this period he would have been 20, he served on the front line, and this life experience could have left Priestly with long-term mind like effects. Before the war his mother died, and collectively these two major events could have made him unstable or unsure of position within the world.

You could describe his life as war, marriage and tragedy. Throughout his lifetime priestly wrote a number of novels, plays and other texts, mainly containing and expressing his own beliefs and experiences. As an individual he believed very much in capitalism and everybody living within there own success, benefiting from their own profits. Priestley was very left wing, whereas he disagrees with the right wing policies and prefers policies that are of a different extreme.

This left wing attitude made up his main and general characteristic, which was that of someone expressing their views, his membership of the socialist party allowed him to do exactly this and share in other people’s societal beliefs and views. This idea of Priestley’s expression of beliefs, views, emotions and feelings of the world and society are shown clearly through the characters of Priestley’s play “An inspector Calls”. Prior to the arrival of the inspector Mr. Birling appeared to be very confident in what he spoke, making his beliefs shown to his surrounding family.

He made it clear that he was powerful and a strong believer of capitalism where oneself would benefit from all working efforts. From the opening scene Mr. Birling’s characteristics started to be shown to the audience, he says, “I speak as a hard headed, practical man of business”, this shows that he considers himself of a high class and somewhat intelligent, however there is an understanding of his arrogance, self satisfaction and complacency. The idea of him being a man of business also suggests his obsession for money and power. Mr.

Birling’s confidence is shown in furtherance when he says, “the titanic-she sails next week forty-six thousand eight hundred tons- New York in five days and every luxury and unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable”. This to the audience shows irony as we know that the titanic went onto sink, however in context to the characteristic of Mr. Birling it becomes clear that he is a very confident and arrogant man. When the inspector arrives it is made clear that the family are tense, uneasy and uncomfortable with the arrival of an unexpected visitor. When the inspector asks any questions, very blunt and subdued responses are given.

The family regard themselves as class which should receive no such suspicion of any crime or any police related incident. Mr. Birling believed that the inspector must be calling regarding his “Knighthood” or a warrant, however in actual fact there are questions to be answered, and this scenario shows the arrogance of Mr. Birling, alongside his self satisfaction and his complacency. The inspector at this time plays a vital role in the implementation of fear, worry and guilt. In furtherance Mr. Birling becomes victim to a thorough scrutiny by the visiting inspector. Before the inspector begins his questions Mr.

Birling shares information which highlights his importance within the local community, His mellow minded approach to the scenario has no huge effect and instead suggests and expresses his personal characteristics to the audience. The way that Mr. Birling says, “I was an alderman for years and lord mayor two years ago and I’m still on the bench so I know the Brumley police officers pretty well”. This shows his eagerness to express his importance and destroy any of the inspector’s suspicions or questions.

As the questions carry on being delivered by the inspector, Mr. irling’s level of impatience increases. He also shows an eagerness to complete the interview and carry on with the evening celebrations. At this stage of the play the inspector is staging a battle, where he has to bring Mr. Birling down to reality and try to extract information regarding the death of Eva Smith. As the inspector continues to reveal the horrific happenings, Mr. Birling continues to defend his position, expressing a query regarding the role in which he plays as a high class business man in connection to the death of an ‘unknown’ person. Mr. Birling says, “Yes, yes. Horrible business but I don’t understand why you should come here, inspector? ” In relation to human nature in general it highlights people’s arrogance, directly what is being shown through the character of Mr. Birling. It is made clear at this point that it was the idea of J. B. Priestley to express peoples characteristics and show them to the reading audience, probably intended to support the main theme of the play which is to extract information using certain techniques which are used in order to allow people to face their actions and relate it to guilt, making people realise the consequences of their actions.

As more details become revealed by the inspector and as Mr. Birling realises that he has previously employed Eva Smith, tension starts to build, Mr. Birling begins to give very blunt, sharp and self centred, with the inspector interrupting with a very abrupt manner, suggesting that he wants answers and will not let Mr. Birling’s attitudes and beliefs stand in the way.

In relation to the real world, people often have to use appropriate manners and techniques to show that they are important and will not let anything slip away from the matter in hand, regardless of a person’s attitudes and characteristics etc. Although Mr. Birling accepts that he has once employed Eva Smith, and in furtherance sacked her, due to a protest over the smallest increment of pay, which solely adds to and shows his arrogance, business man like ways and higher class ignorance.

He stills shows denial, he says, “Oh – that’s it, is it? Well we’ve got several hundred young women there, y’know, and they keep changing”. This clearly shows that Mr. Birling has no care for anybody other than himself and his family, this is also shown within the following quotation, he says, “A man has to make his own way – has to look after himself – and his family of course, when he has one”, Small details which are given off by Mr. Birling relate to a major or important and meaningful thing.

Mr. Birling’s actions and characteristics are very important towards the main theme of the play, as they separate truth from reality, just as many defensive people within today’s society would also contemplate, it shows in general how people will withhold information for the sole purpose of preventing a leakage of information which could be potentially harmful lot themselves, there business or there social dealings. Within the context of ‘An Inspector Calls’, Mr.

Birling makes every possible attempt to prevent a scandal which would involve himself, he repeatedly says to the inspector, “I don’t see where I come into this”. The use of the word ‘I’ shows his belief in a society where oneself looks after themselves and there surrounding family only. Mr. Birling continues this self satisfied and self belief attitude as he continues to use words which refer to himself, this is recognised by the audience and the inspector who are now in realisation of his full characteristics. Mr.

Birling is faced with the realisation of responsibility and how it is affected by small and simple actions which in context to the guilty party may appear harmless. The inspector says, “What happened to her then may have determined what happened to her afterwards, and what happened to her may of driven her to suicide”, this makes Mr. Birling think and realise fully what his actions could have caused, however instead of simple straight confession he replies to the inspector with the following comment, “oh – well put it like that, there’s something in what you say, still I cant accept any responsibility.

If we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody we’d had anything to do with, it would be very awkward”. At this moment in time Mr. Birling demonstrates once again his strong and clear attitudes, however the inspector makes his first challenge, questioning his use of vocabulary, he asks more questions, forcing more related detail. The inspector starts to be shown as a strong character who is unwilling to take blunt and meaningless responses, however the inspector needs to be shown as strong, otherwise Mr. Birling would express no relevant detailed information, and instead only the bare minimum. Priestly made this idea significant by showing that so called superior high class citizens are not entitled to withhold and ignore information which links and directs to a plea of guilt. The Inspector asks very probing and searching questions, which have great significance, his role becomes much more exposed, the inspector as a character becomes someone who is confident, wise and possibly someone who is an advisor like person who is warning of a future event.

He is seen as someone who can adapt to an individual to extract the highest quality of information. He acts as a catalyst, wanting to change something in the case of the Birling family, this is to turn their attitudes away from uncaring to somewhat sympathetic. The inspector says, “But after all it is better to ask for the earth than to take it”. This quote is significant because it shows a man of wisdom, and knowledge, but it also shows Priestley’s perspective of life, showing that it is better to ask for something rather than just taking it.

In relation to the general world it shows how people will just take something or do something without thinking of the consequences, this is exactly the point that the inspector is making when he makes this comment to Mr. Birling. Mr. Birling continues to show his arrogance as he begins once again to relate to his superiority and importance he says, “How do you get on with our chief constable, Colonel Roberts? ” The way that he gives names is supposed to impress the inspector, and release himself from any further suspicions, even though at this stage he does realise that he has played a part in the death of Eva Smith.

However it makes the inspector more eager to move on and away from the situation, leaving Mr. Birling beginning to realise his wrong doings which had consequences eventually leading to a death. Sheila enters and her interview begins. When she enters she appears totally oblivious to the presence of the inspector, although all is about to be changed as her true doings and actions are about to be exposed changing her high class status into a guilty, responsible and conscious citizen.

Although Sheila is totally oblivious to the scenario and situation, she is eager to find out exactly what is going on, the complete opposite to her father, showing a difference in character. Sheila appears much more subtle and sympathetic, personally asking questions to entice more information. It becomes clear that the inspector will play up to Sheila’s nature and play a different game, using different techniques.

It appears at the outset that Sheila has driven herself into the situation and dragged herself in purely because of the many questions which she is posing. It appears that priestly wanted to make the play more interesting to the audience by introducing from the outset a mix of characters, creating conflict, opposition and contrast, however it is soon to be made clear that only from the outset the family are different, and in fact very similar within their ‘unintentional’ actions. Gerald and Mr.

Birling soon realise potentially what Sheila could be doing to the family, too much information can be never to good! Gerald intervenes with the following comment to the inspector, he says, “And I don’t see that this inquiry gets you anywhere, inspector”. This shows Gerald’s desperation to release Sheila from the scenario, and save the families from a public scandal. Gerald and Mr. Birling at this stage seem to have at least one thing in common, and this is the matter of business.

Sheila starts to turn against her father, precisely what the inspector is trying to do, she says, “I think it was a mean thing to do”, this conflict starts to draw tension, totally obliterating the happy followings from the earlier evenings, Priestley’s idea of creating conflict is the basis for the revealing of the truth, in relation to the general world it often takes a simple disagreement or argument for people to confront there guilt.

Shelia has won the gold award for drawing attention to herself, asking many questions has eventually led her to be faced with the truth, the inspector appears to know more than he is letting on, and instead of showing it he allows the family to expose there corrupt ways themselves. Priestly made this idea of self exploitation significant because it shows how uncaring, unsympathetic people in general will expose themselves is correctly probed, in the case of the Birling family they are turned against each other, which makes them face to an extreme guilt and true reality.

The inspector keeps the photograph to himself and only one family member at a time, refusing access to no one other than the interviewee. Could the photograph be someone different each time he shows it to somebody, the way that priestly keeps the audience guessing and allowing for them to draw there own conclusions on the situation is very cleverly done. Slightly coincidental but the inspector keeps the photograph very secret, just like the Birling family with there secret’s, kept hidden from anyone other than themselves.

The inspector has taken a very different approach to the interview with Sheila, this approach to Sheila is to extract information, however with the rest of the family members it is seen to be inappropriate and somewhat intrusive. With the continuation of the Inspectors questions and Sheila’s subtle approach, she realises that she has some responsibility for the happenings of Eva Smith. She realises that the inspector had his suspicions and admits her responsibility, a total contrast to her fathers approach.

As is shown in the following comment, she says, “I’ve told my father, he didn’t seem to think it amounted to much – but I feel rotten”. It just shows there contrasting attitudes to life. Priestly made this idea of contrast significant because it shows how people on the outside can be very different, but inside can be very similar. As Sheila continues to expose her conduct, the audience starts to understand her character from a different angle, her innocent early impressions change as she tells of a story of jealousy. It becomes clear that Sheila was jealous of the girl, her looks and her position within the world.

She says, “She was a very pretty girl”, this shows her jealousy of other glamorous threats within her society, she went onto to misuse her power, by using a threat to the manager, she says, “If you don’t get rid of that girl, I’ll never go near the place again”. This is significant because it shows how people’s actions can be solely driven by jealousy and power, without thinking of the consequences, this is exactly the case of Sheila, the audiences perceptions of Sheila have suddenly changed, and as an audience we begin to understand that people shouldn’t judge on first appearances as there is usually more to be told.

The inspector says, “Well, we’ll try to understand why it had to happen? And that’s why I’m here, and why I’m not going until I know all that happened”, this quote is significant because it shows the inspectors determination to change the family, to extract and make them face reality and guilt, making them confess to all of there wrong doings, making them realise that actions have consequences. Sheila’s interview takes less time than Mr. Birling’s, possibly because of co-operative manner, showing a willingness to become involved and share all that she knows, accepting reasonability.

Now that Sheila accepts what she has done, she casts her suspicions to Gerald, who is next for the hot seat. Gerald is confronted on his own honesty, Sheila realises that the inspector knows about each person, this is imprinted on her mind and she confronts Gerald about his own doings with Eva Smith, he admits a relationship only to Sheila expressing no real details, however not with an Eva Smith but instead with a Daisy Renton, the change in name suggests confusion and deliberate separation to attract no links between the very secretive family members.

As Gerald’s interview begins he again starts the routine where he tries to excuse his rather fragile Sheila. He protests that she must leave, escaping the following disturbing details which are to be revealed by Gerald. This is significant because it continues to show the families rather secretive motives, relating and sharing to nothing with the possibilities of exploitation leading to a public scandal. Gerald says, “I think Miss Birling ought to be excused any more of this questioning. She’s nothing more to tell you”.

From this comment he shows to the audience that he is hiding something, which appears to be his affair with the dead girl. The inspector makes a very interesting comment when he says to Gerald, “And you think young women ought to be protected against unpleasant and disturbing things”, which is closely followed by, “we know one woman who wasn’t”, this comment is an attempt to hit Gerald with guilt in the face, it is yet another revelation from the part of the inspector. The inspector wants Sheila to stay with Gerald throughout his interview, he says, “She feels responsible.

And if she leaves us now, and doesn’t hear any more then she’ll feel she’s entirely to blame”, this quote is significant because it relates to an idea of sharing guilt and not just accepting as a sole being, however in relation to the general world, people are prepared to burden guilt onto a sole being to save themselves from any shame of guilt. As the interview of Gerald continued there were numerous interruptions, possibly planned, possibly coincidental, Mrs Birling made her first appearance who also tries to expel Sheila from the ‘damaging’ scenario.

Sheila continues to defend her case and manages to stay for the remaining of Gerald’s story. There is an element of surprise when the inspector directly asks Gerald when he started seeing Daisy Renton, Gerald plays down the claim by saying, “where did you get the idea that I know her? ” However the inspector continues to say, “I knew already! “, this tactic used by the inspector is interesting as it shows the ignorance and arrogance of Gerald and Mr. Birling, who are unwilling to take and accept responsibility.

The inspector is getting Gerald to reveal and expose his secret life, which prior to this interview no other person was aware of. Gerald reveals that he felt sorry for the girl and he was acting to save her from an atrocious womaniser, surely this shows a caring side to Gerald, yes, this other side to people is significant because it shows that people are made up of a mixture of personalities and characteristics, what would the world be like if we only had one mode?

Gerald says, “We went along to the country hotel, which I knew would be quiet at that time of night” this suggests that he has been there before and possibly has a habit of taking in women for short petty affairs, this in relation to the real world shows how people have secret lives behind the backs of there supposed family.

Gerald is exposed almost to be as bad a Muggerty, although he had saved someone from an extreme sexual relationship from an intense womaniser, he himself took advantage of the situation, turning a simple refuge campaign into a secret affair, although he did implement thoughtful and caring measures to make sure that she was well looked after, and free of trouble, you could say he was only helping a weak, vulnerable and deprived person.

He said, “It was inevitable. She was pretty and warm hearted”, Priestly made this idea significant because it shows in relation to the world how people will take advantage of a weak and vulnerable person to benefit themselves in some way, In the era of priestly it was common for high profile men to take advantage of weak lonely women for the sole purpose of making there reiterating lives into something more exciting with a bit more entertainment.

Gerald eventually puts into context what he has done and realises that elements were unscrupulous and inappropriate, Gerald explains that the relationship ended a few months after it begun, it was clear to the audience that the affair wouldn’t of continued for a long period of time, because back then within the days of Priestly it was totally expelled that only people of the same class could have a relationship, and not a mixture in the case of Gerald and Daisy.

In furtherance Gerald offered Daisy money to keep her sustainable and out of trouble, however she refused as she wanted the relationship to be meaningful and representative, she also wanted to take away the idea that Gerald was paying her for her services, this idea is significant because it shows that a proud person does not have to be of a social high class, and instead should be respected whatever there actions or beliefs.

Gerald appears to have moved by the story in which he has told, he asks politely to be excused, the inspector allows for this to happen, the upset of Gerald is significant because it shows even a high class man of business with unsympathetic feelings for others in the world can and does feel emotion for tragedy’s that occur within the world, I believe that it was the idea of priestly that characteristics must be shown and covered from every angle, in accordance with the main theme of the play which is the expressing of emotions, feeling guilt for the of consequences caused by an unintentional action.

Gerald leaves and Mrs Birling now becomes accustom to settling routine of interview. Mrs Birling is very assertive showing that there should be no such suspicion hanging over her. She answers very sharply being very inconsiderate, when the inspector poses a question she immediately without thought gives such an answer which releases no such relevant information. The inspector says, “You’re not telling me the truth! “, which is followed abruptly with the following comment from Mrs Birling, she says, “I beg your pardon! already just seconds into the interview Mrs Birling and the inspector are having major clashes of personalities, Mrs Birling’s attitudes are shown very strongly and she repeatedly makes the point that she has no point to play in this charade. As tension continues to grow, and as the inspector continues to fire questions which antagonise Mrs Birling, Sheila makes a point which brings the family back down to mother earth, she says, “We’ve no excuse now for putting on airs and that if we’ve any sense we won’t try”.

This allows Mrs Birling to realise that there is no escape as the inspector has already uncovered information from three characters, finally the inspector can resume his questioning to a more subtle level. Priestly made this point significant because it shows how people will act without full information to save themselves from suspicion or scrutinising. Still a little hesitant but more cooperative, Mrs Birling responds to the inspectors questions, it is revealed that she is a volunteer working for women’s charity, she says, “We’ve done a great deal of useful work in helping deserving cases”.

From this the audience starts to understand that she must be very caring, but indeed we are very wrong, our perception of a volunteer would be a caring person, but in the case of Mrs Birling it is non existent, it appears that she only carries out the volunteer work to gain status within her community, showing that she is prepared to be caring and work for free, to serve and aid the needy. Priestly gave the audience this idea because it is very true throughout the world, Mrs Birling represents the snobs of the world who participate in such events which gain them credentials within the community’s perceptions.

The inspector reveals that Mrs Birling was in fact one of the last people to see the girl before she died, she had appealed for help to the women’s organization, however due to Mrs Birling’s bitterness and prejudice she influenced the decision that no help would be given, Mrs Birling says, “I didn’t like her manner”, jealousy and prejudice are shown. Priestly made this significant as he showed that a snobbish like person will feel no such remorse for somebody else’s misery or wrong doing.

In my own personal opinion Mrs Birling is the worst character out of them all, she had the opportunity to help this harmless, vulnerable, friendless, penniless, desperate victim but instead because she was dissatisfied with her initial case she dismissed her and made sure that the other members gave a unanimous vote to refuse help, it should be Mrs Birling who feels the most sympathy, but instead she probably feels the least amount of compassion from the overall spectrum of the Birling family.

Tensions continue to rise as Mrs Birling’s attitudes towards the inspector change, as she begins again to give responses which suit herself and not that of the inspector. More details are revealed which will eventually link back into the remaining character, Eric. The inspector Wants Mrs Birling to release more information to make her face the consequences of her actions, repeating and exploring the avenues more of the incidents will hopefully help Mrs Birling realise what she has done.

The family begin to realise that Eric plays a role in the death of the girl, and his scrutinising will begin shortly, just as Mrs Birling’s interview comes to a firm conclusion. The family sit and wait in anticipation for the return of Eric. Priestly made this idea of time significant, because it changes the way that we as the audience interpret the play, somebody who read the play twenty years ago will have different interpretations of the meanings than somebody who reads the play today.

Eric enters and is sharply questioned, he enters with a realisation that the inspector knows about his traits, and actions, His realisation that his family are also aware of what he has done creates a rather subdued atmosphere, arguments arise and there is an overall feeling that Eric has committed such an act that jeopardises the family’s status. With the family firing questions wanting to know why and what possessed him to do such a thing, the inspector becomes increasingly angry and frustrated.

Eric says, “Could I have a drink first? “, this is answered with a ‘No’ from Mr. Birling and a ‘Yes’ from the inspector, this conflict of interests between the two is increasingly apparent with a case of rivalry implemented. Is alcohol the answer to all problems? Priestly wanted to show how different people deal with their own problems in there own ways, this varies videly throughout the world.

Suspicion and guilt hits Eric straight in the face, He tells of the secret meetings with the girl, and he explained how he made love to her on more than one occasion, it is suggested that himself and Gerald both took advantage of the girl, for her good looks, and her vulnerable position within life. Eric says, “She told me she was going to have a baby”, Eric then replies with, “I was in a hell state about it”, this shows that only consequences hit certain people in the face when they are confronted with reality, a baby for Eric created by accident with somebody he didn’t love would have catastrophic and disastrous.

Priestly wanted to show exactly how some high class families were humiliated back then within his era, when such events occurred it was common that the families would banish the perpetrator, and escape any disgrace from the local community, for the Birling family it would have been cataclysmic if any such news escaped of there corrupt wrong doings, this would have been followed by a public scandal. Eric’s integrity is severely questioned by his fathers somewhat raging temper and annoyance.

It is revealed that that he stole money from his own family business, as the truth is revealed, it becomes clear that Mr. Birling is more concerned about the money, than the pregnancy of the girl. He says, “He’s admitted he was responsible for the girls condition”, Mr. Birling burdens total blame onto the Eric, as his secret life unfolds, for the position that the girl was left in. Priestly made this idea significant because it shows how people will prioritise things to there own aptitudes and attitudes of life, in the case of a business man (Mr. B) he is putting money and theft before family and pregnancy. This is shown by Mr. Birling when he says, “I’ve got to cover this up as soon as I can”. A childhood revolt begins to occur as Sheila continues to blame her mother and father for all of the endeavours committed by the younger generation. Eric blames his mother for the final death of the girl, saying, “You killed her – she came to you to protect me – and you turned her away”.

This idea of a childhood revolt is significant because it shows how disrespect on the child’s part occurs within a family, in the time of priestly it was unheard of a child questioning there parents, in the case of the play it was the inspectors job to remove such disrespect.

The inspector continues to assert his authority, interrupting and taking charge, He gives a summary of events, hitting each perpetrator directly in the face with guilt and realisation of there true given consequences, he burdens the main blame onto Mr. Birling, who is left with a moment of thinking to reiterate what has just been said, this idea of repeating what has been done is allowing for the family members to understand the extent of there actions, coming to terms with the consequences, realising what they did then was unacceptable and a feeling of guilt should be felt. The interviewing of the family draws to a conclusion, he leaves the family divided, with opinions against each other, they are allowed to reserve judgement and come to terms within there own hemisphere just exactly what they have done. The inspector leaves giving a rather meaningful speech