Tsarist system of government Essay Example for Free

Tsarist system of government Essay The Tsarist system of government underwent many changes throughout the years of 1881-1914. Both Alexander III and Nicholas II created several modifications, being both good and bad, to the government during these years. Alexander III created mostly negative changes, due to him being seen as a reactionary, whereas Nicholas II created mainly positive changes to the government as a result of the 1905 revolution. These changes can be categorised into political, economic and social modifications. Alexander III made a few political modifications to the Tsarist government. In 1851, he introduced Land Captains. These meant that people, sometimes locals, could be appointed to have more power over the people within their towns or cities, meaning power was seemingly being more wide spread. However, these lands captains were chosen by the Tsar himself, meaning he could manipulate who had extra power based on what he wanted. Therefore, some could argue that this was a negative modification made to the government. Alexander III also introduced the Manifesto of Unshakeable Autocracy in 1881. This showed the Tsars rejection of democracy and further reform, meaning he had further influence and power over everyone else. He also introduced the Statue of State Security in 1881, which allowed for the Okhrana to have more powers. For example, the Okhrana was now able to break into people’s houses without reason or their consent, meaning the government had further control over the population of Russia. Although Alexander III’s political reforms were mostly bad, the introduction of the Land Captains meant that his power was in fact becoming more widespread amongst the population of Russia, and not all of Russia’s power was given to one person. Therefore, the political reforms made by Alexander III showed a slight modification the government during his reign. Nicholas II also introduced several political reforms. These took place after the 1905 revolution. In 1905, Nicholas issued the October manifesto. This gave people a lot more freedom than they previously had. Freedom of speech, organisation and assembly was now made legal; allowing opposition groups to now be able to be more organised as they were allowed to meet in public. Nicholas also introduced the fundamental laws in 1906, which allowed for the government to become more democratic. Under the fundamental laws, Article 87 was introduced, giving the Tsar the complete right to exercise any policy that he wished, without having to gain permission from the Dumas beforehand. The first State Duma was also introduced under Nicholas II in April 1906, which allowed for the population of Russia to have more of a say in the governments decisions. It was believed that the Duma was a step forwards towards a democracy for Russia; however, the Tsar could change and manipulate the Dumas in whatever way he wished through the use of Article 87, mean they were only put in place to make Russia seem more democratic when in reality it was not. Nicholas II also introduced a pro-government terrorist group called the Black Hundreds in 1905, meaning the government had further control over Russia as they were willing to use violence to get what they wanted. All of these new policies introduced by Nicholas seemed like positive reforms, however Article 87 meant that the Tsar could still pass laws and policies without consulting the Dumas beforehand, so really the Tsar and his power still heavily remained in Russia. The modifications made by Nicholas II throughout the years of his reign drastically changed the Tsarist government, showing the fact that Nicholas’ modifications greatly impacted the Tsarist government. Both of the Tsars between the years 1881-1914 also introduced a range of economic reforms. Under Alexander III were Witte, Bunge and Vysknegradsky. Witte made several economic reforms, including the building of the Trans-Siberian railway in 1891, the increase of foreign loans, the gold standard and industrialisation. All of these meant that Russia was now becoming a much richer country, with more exports going to other countries. The production of coal, iron and oil was majorly increased, meaning the country had a lot more sources of income other than just agriculture. The building of the railway meant that trade was much easier, and therefore the countries income was increased as a result. Despite all of Witte’s efforts, Russia still lagged behind other great powers economically, and therefore the economic policies put in place did improve Russia but not as much as Witte intended. Also, Alexander III introduced the Peasants Land Bank in 1862, which meant that peasants would now find it easier to rent land. However, they still had a difficult time paying this back and not many peasants owned land after this was put in place, the majority of land was still owned by the major, richer landowners. As a result, this shows a major change to the government during Alexander’s reign as a wide range of economic policies were introduced by Witte which dramatically improved the countries overall income and as a result Russia was much better off as a country. Nicholas II also put various economic changes in place. These were under Stolypin, who changed a great deal for Russia and put a lot of policies in place. One economic policy which was put in place by Stolypin was the ending of redemption payments for peasants to pay to the Mir in 1907. This in turn meant that peasants had more money to put towards land and farms, meaning they could make more income and not lose any money due to having to make redemption payments. Stolypin also introduced loans for peasants which were easier for peasants to get hold of. This meant that they could own more land and were encouraged to own a farm, and therefore would have an increased income as a result of this. Also, the peasants easily would have been able to pay off these loans due to having an increased income, so as a result peasants were no longer as poor as before. This however can be counter-argued by saying that in 1906-14, only 25% of peasants owned lots of land/farms, showing that this policy did not fully do what was originally intended. Also, the richest 10% of landowners still owned majority of the land, meaning not much of it actually belonged to the peasants. Nicholas II therefore made several economic modifications to the government during his reign which attempted to benefit the peasants of Russia. However, although most of these changes were beneficial to Russia, some of them did not take the desired effect; for example Nicholas II tried to make peasants gain more land, but figures show that majority of the land was still owned by the richest land owners and not peasants. Finally, both Alexander and Nicholas introduced a range of social reforms. Alexander III introduced the policy of Russification in 1883. This meant that the official language of Russia was Russian, and all schools and documents had to be written in Russian; any other language was not allowed. This meant that other cultures and other languages were repressed, as someone could not speak the language of their home country within Russia. This then would have created a further breeding ground for more opposition to the Tsarist rule, so Russification had negative effects on Russia and on the Tsarist government. Alexander III also emancipated the serfs in 188. This was a major social reform for the serfs as it now meant that they had a lot more freedom and were no longer enslaved by serfdom. However, it can be argued that the serfs were no actually freed. The now ex-serfs were still tied to the land, meaning they still had to work on that land for the land owners and they therefore were not actually free. Also, ex-serfs had to pay redemption payments on the land they used to be tied to, so they are having to compensate the government. As a result of these modifications, the Tsarist government was modified in many ways based on Alexander’s social reforms, even if all of his reforms made were not as beneficial as originally thought. Nicholas II also introduced many social reforms. Under Stolypin, Nicholas introduced the policy of every head of each household inheriting some land. As a result, each family would then therefore have some land ownership within the family, meaning they had some source of income if no other sources of income are obtainable. This was a positive reform made by Nicholas II as not as many people faced poverty and poor living conditions and therefore they overall had a better life. Another reform made by Stolypin under Nicholas II was the demolition of the Mir. These meant that peasants had to live within a Mir and had a lot of restrictions based on where they could go and when they could leave. Stolypin got rid of Mir’s in 1908, which as a result gave peasants a lot more freedom than they previously had. The social reforms made by Nicholas II were overall positive as they greatly benefited the population of Russia; mainly the peasants. This then shows that the Tsarist government did face many modifications throughout the years 1881-1914 as Nicholas put in place many social reforms which greatly changed how Russian peasants lived. Overall, it is clearly evident that several modifications were made to the Tsarist government in the years 1881-1914, which were made by both Alexander III and Nicholas II. These took form in political, economic and social changes, and some had positive effects whereas others had negative effects. However, not all of the reforms put in place fully did what they were originally intended to do, and therefore the modifications were drastically made but not to the extent in which they were intended to do so.

Feminism in Chaucer’s Wife of Bath Essay -- Wife of Bath Essays

Women in the medieval times were cast into very distinct roles. There was a strict code of conduct that was followed. They were to be submissive to their husbands and follow their lead. A woman’s place was also in the home and the responsibilities of cooking, cleaning, sewing, etc. fell into their domain. Women who deviated from these cultural-set norms made for interesting characters. Chaucer’s use of women and their overstepping their boundaries and typical roles in society make them most memorable.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Most of the gender expectations stemmed from the Church and biblical history. There were many anti-feminist feelings due to Eve causing the fall of Man. Women were perceived to be responsible for most of the suffering to man, and were therefore inferior and to be dominated by their husbands and men in general. â€Å"The courtly lady of medieval poetry has much in common with the images of the Virgin† (Martin xiv). Chastity, purity, and holiness, were all associated with the expectations of women from role models such as the Virgin Mary type-cast women into a saintly role. Because women were thought to have caused so much suffering on behalf of mankind, they were to be controlled, held in check and not exhibit any outward signs of defiance or concern for themselves. Their purpose in life was to serve others at their own expense.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There were typical male traits, and these had a more positive connotation to them. In the following list of terms, the first are meant to be masculine and the second to be feminine; â€Å"limit and unlimited, odd and even, one and plurality, right and left, male and female, resting and moving, straight and curved, light and darkness, good and bad, square and oblong† (Cox 8). The more desired traits like the obvious ‘light’ and ‘good’, were saved for the traditional male. These ideas stem from the Aristotelian paradigm, and are consistent with gender roles in Chaucer’s world. The Wife of Bath was expected to have the feminine traits, but she would not accept that. Why should the positive traits be reserved only for men? Being born a woman should not automatically exempt a woman from being cast into a more positive position within society.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  What makes Chaucer’s characters so unique and unforgettable is that he cast them outside of these roles. Bordering on the controversial but lightened by his use of humor, his characters... ...f Bath, we see an individual who is willing to express that idea. Her courage to defy the traditional concepts as set by her peers does not intimidate her, and she boldly stands up for what she believes in, popular or not. Another strong feminist aspect to her is that she feels no need to be justified or have approval for her decisions and lifestyle. Just because she is a woman does not limit her choices in her life, and neither her gender nor her decisions make her inferior. Works Cited Chaucer, Geoffrey. â€Å"The Canterbury Tales: The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.† The Norton Anthology English Literature. Ed. M.H. Abrams and Stephen Greenblatt. 7th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. Cox, Catherine S. Gender and Language in Chaucer. Florida: University Press of Florida,  1997. Hallissy, Margaret. Clean Maids, True Wives, Steadfast Widows: Chaucer’s Women and Medieval Codes of Conduct. Westport, Ct: Greenwood Press, 1993. Jennings, Patrick. Online Webct posting. 18 April 2004. Mann, Jill. Feminizing Chaucer. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2002. Martin, Priscilla. Chaucer’s Women: Nuns, Wives and Amazons. London: The  Macmillan Press Ltd, 1990.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  

Lego Branding Community Essay

Online communities are becoming â€Å"places† of belonging, information, and emotional support that people cannot do without. These social groups have a real existence for their participants, and thus have consequential effects on many aspects of behaviour. This article examines collective value creation and empowerment in an online brand community. It presents the main features of an online brand community, the process of value co-creation, and motivators for participating in online brand communities. These key factors jointly characterize collective value creation and empowerment. This netnographic study focuses on an online brand community called BrickBuilders, which is a meeting place for LEGO builders in Finland. BrickBuilders’ members feel a sense of belonging, they share similar motivations, and they create value together. Introduction A brand community can be formed by any group of people who share a common interest in a specific brand and who create a parallel social universe rife with its own myths, values, rituals, vocabulary, and hierarchy (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Cova and Pace, 2006). Brand communities become more than a place. They become a common understanding of a shared identity, which can be found in both face-to-face interactions and in cyberspace (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Analysts no longer question whether the concept of community should have a place in the domain of marketing (Cova and Pace, 2006). However, the concepts of brand community and online brand community are relatively new and have yet to find their place in the academic world. Traditionally, companies produced products relatively independently. Today, consumers and other stakeholders can create value more collectively. The purpose of this article is to describe and analyze collective value creation and empowerment in an online brand community. Main Features of Online Brand Communities Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) used three constructs to identify the distinguishing features of brand communities. First, a sense of belonging is a connection that members feel toward one another and the collective sense of difference from others outside of the community. The second feature is the presence of shared rituals and traditions that surround the brand. Rituals and traditions perpetuate the community’s shared history, culture, and consciousness. Traditions include certain behavioural norms and values. The third feature is a sense of moral responsibility, which is a felt sense of duty or obligation to the community. The sense of moral responsibility is what produces collective action. Heinonen and Halonen (2007) have identified motivators for online brand community activities. Members want to belong to something, build and strengthen their identities, get feedback from others, and create something new. The Process of Collective Value Creation Schau and colleagues (2009) have identified the process of value co-creation in online brand communities. The process consists of four thematic practices, which are social networking, impression management, community engagement, and brand use. Social networking is a practice that focuses on creating, enhancing, and sustaining ties among brand community members. These include welcoming, empathizing, and governing. These practices operate primarily in the intangible domain of the emotions and reinforce the social or moral bonds within the community. Impression management includes evangelizing and justifying. Online brand community members act as altruistic emissaries and ambassadors of good will. Members devote time and effort to the brand, share the news of the brand, and inspire others to participate in the community. Community-engagement practices are those that reinforce members’ escalating engagement with the brand community. These include staking, milestoning, badging, and documenting. Staking, milestoning, and badging mean that community members bring out brand experiences and proclaim openly that they are fans of a particular brand. Documenting occurs when brand community members construct a narrative of their brand experiences. Brand-use practices are specifically related to improved or enhanced use of the focal brand. These include grooming, customizing, and commoditizing. Grooming means that members share, for example, homemade tools and advice. Customizing means modifying existing ideas and discovering new ideas, which result in customized products. Commoditizing means that members rant or chastise some products, but at the same time, they have new ideas on how those products could be developed. Synthesis of the Theoretical Framework The main features of online brand communities, value co-creation, and motivators for participating in online brand communities (Heinonen and Halonen, 2007; Kozinets, 2010; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Schau et al., 2009) are the key factors that jointly – realized in various combinations – characterize collective value creation and empowerment in an online brand community. The collective value creation and empowerment in the online brand community may occur when its members have a sense of belonging, they create value together, and they have similar motives. The collective value creation and empowerment of the online brand community allows mutual interaction between the online brand community and the company as well as other stakeholders. Companies have an opportunity to communicate with consumers and influence their opinions (Kozinets, 2010) and vice-versa. We have moved away from one-way transactions to a relationship-based interaction model that emphasizes consumers’ and other stakeholders’ roles in networks and communities.

The Obama Administrations Animal Protection Record

Expectations were high during President Barack Obama’s election campaign, and for good reason. Obama and VP Joe Biden both had great records on animal protection issues heading into the election, and won the endorsement of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. Also before the election, Obama participated in Jana Kohls book against puppy mills, A Rare Breed of Love, and promised to adopt a rescue dog. One pre-election disappointment was Obamas statement that a hunter should head the Department of the Interior. Despite pleas from animal advocates, Obama appointed a hunter, Senator Ken Salazar, as Secretary of the Interior. However, Obama also appointed Tom Vilsack, recommended by the Humane Society Legisative Fund, as Secretary of Agriculture. Fast-forward to the present, and Obamas actions since taking office have been a mixed bag: January, 2009: Obama Suspends Delisting of Grey WolvesOn his first day in office, Obama put a freeze on a number of federal regulations adopted by the Bush administration in its final days, including the delisting of grey wolves under the Endangered Species Act. This gave the wolves a temporary reprieve, and gave animal advocates hope.March, 2009: Grey Wolves in Northern Rockies DelistedJust weeks after giving hope to animal advocates, the Obama administration delisted wolves under the Endangered Species Act. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, a hunter and rancher himself, cleared the way for individual states to begin killing wolves in order to protect animal agribusiness interests.March, 2009: Slaughter of Downed Cows Banned in the USSecretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack banned the slaughter of downer cows - cows who are too sick, weak or injured to stand on their own. The decision was applauded by animal advocates across the country.April, 2009: Obama Breaks Promise to Rescue a DogThis was the most disappointing move, probably because it was so unexpected. By getting a dog from a breeder, Obama broke his promise to animal advocates and reinforced the misconception that people cannot get their dog of choice from a shelter or rescue group. The Obamas decision will lead to puppy mills churning out Portuguese water dogs, and one breeder of PWDs described the sudden demand for the breed as general mayhem.April, 2009: Scientific Requirements of Endangered Species Act RestoredSecretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a revocation of the Bush administrations weakening of the Endangered Species Act. With this move, the Obama administration brought back the ESAs longstanding scientific requirements and fulfilled Obamas promise to reverse the Bush administrations change.May, 2009: Polar Bears Wont be Protected from Global Warming Ken Salazar, Obamas Secretary of the Interior, failed to overturn a Bush-era rule that weakens the Endangered Species Act and jeopardizes the survival of polar bears.June, 2009: Michelle Obama is Fur-Free More of a personal stance than a political one, but like the decision to accept a dog from a breeder, the first couples actions are highly influential.June, 2009: Obama to Nominate Sam D. Hamilton, a Hunter, as Head of USFWS Obama announces his intention to place an avid hunter in charge of our nations National Wildlife Refuges.June, 2009: Obama Swats, Kills Fly Obama swats and kills a fly on camera, during an interview with CNBC.July, 2009: Animal Protection Views Hold Up Nomination of Cass Sunstein Although the nomination has been stalled, Obama deserves credit for appointing an animal advocate in his administration.November, 2009: Critical Habitat for Polar Bears Proposed The Obama administration proposes the designation of over 200,000 square miles of Alaskan land, water and ice as critical polar bear habitat. While the designation would be a good first step, the propos al still allows oil and gas drilling and does nothing to address climate change.November, 2009: BLM Removes Thousands of Wild Horses to Make Room for Millions of Cattle The Obama administration continues a long-standing policy of removing wild horses while allowing cattle to graze on public lands.November, 2009: Obama Pardons Turkey Obama continues a 20-year tradition of pardoning a turkey for Thanksgiving, but adds his own comments. Continued on Page 2 Questions or comments? Discuss in the Forum