Heritage, Traditions and Beliefs Essay Example for Free

Heritage, Traditions and Beliefs Essay All around us, there are different cultures, races, and ways of life that we interact with. Even with all of the differences, we still somehow manage to live in harmony with each other. If we think about it, we all live in one place; Earth. There are different perspectives and stories as to how it came about. These stories about the earth’s origin also reflect the different heritages, traditions, and beliefs that we see around us. The stories from the Native Americans, Africans, Mayan civilization, scientific origins of life and the book of genesis from the bible will be discussed in this essay. The Native Americans, called Navajo believe in the power of the Wind. They believed that life came from the wind. The breath that comes from our mouths gives us life. When the wind stops to blow, our life ends and we die. The Navajo also believes that their ancestors are always with them. The presence of wind trail on their fingertips shows them their ancestors. They believe that every living and non-living things are connected with the power of the wind. The Africans, specifically from the tribe of Yoruba, the people of Nigeria, Togo, and Benin, believe in the supreme being, Olorun and his assistants, Orishas, heavenly entities. David A. Anderson wrote this story. The story started with Oluron with orishas living in the sky in a baobab tree. Oluron being a great being allows the orishas to roam around. Obatala, a curious orisha, left the baobab tree and found a vast empty ocean below the mist. Obatala asked Olorun for permission to go down to the vast ocean and make something solid in the waters below. Olorun allowed Obatalas request. Before starting his journey, Obatala asked for the help of Orunmila, the orisha seer. She advised Obatala to prepare the following things for his journey; a chain of gold, sand, palm nuts, maize, and a sacred egg, which carries the personalities of all the orishas. So Obatala hooked the chain of gold to the sky and climbed down to the vast empty ocean. He went down for seven days and when he reached the end, he waited for the advice of Orunmila to pour the sand into the water. A vast land was formed from the water. Obatala was still unsure of what to do. The sacred egg, which he hid inside his clothes near his heart hatched as Obatalas heart pounded stronger. The Sankofa, a bird bearing the spirits of all the orishas, came out. As it flew around the solidified land, it formed dunes, hills, and lowlands. Eventually, Obatala released the chain and walked in the land that he named Ife. As Obatala explored the land, he scattered the seeds that he brought with him and so plants started to grow. Obatala made images of him out of clay and he was pleased. Olorun, being pleased with what Obatala did, made a fireball for the clay to be cooked and Oloruns breath brought life to the figures. The Mayan civilizations story of creation is called the Popol Vuh. The story started with Heart-of-sky, also called Maker, Modeler, Kukulkan, and Hurricane, whom they regarded as the almighty. It was only him who existed and he realized he needed someone to talk about his name and praise him. By mere speaking, earth emerged followed by mountains, trees and land. When Heart-of-sky sees that everything is going well, he created the animals to roam the land. He ordered the animals to praise him, but all they did was make animal sounds, thus he ordered that animals shall serve the people, whom he made to praise him. It took Heart-of-sky two attempts to make people, the first was made of mud and was loop-sided and spoke nonsense, and so he decided to let it dissolve away. The second was made from wood. Doll woods were mad, but did not have blood, sweat or minds. They did not respect their creator so flood was casted to the land, it destroyed the homes of the dolls and later on they are called monkeys. Thus, this explains the similar features of monkeys to humans. The scientific origin of life focuses in two main people, namely Pasteur and Darwin. With Pasteurs experiments, he supported that God created the earth. He believed that life couldn’t arise from inanimate matter. In connection to this, Pasteur believed in the aid of the divine creator. Darwins theory, on the other hand, states that the first life on earth came from inanimate matter. Another theory was that the earth was an eternal entity according to Iris Fry, a historian of biology. Earth and life being eternal means that it did not come from anything, but it just existed before everything else. Lastly, the term Panspermia, from the Latin word pan meaning all states that sperms of life wanders the universe and takes root at any planet that meets its living condition. Svante Arrhenius in Sweden promoted this idea. The early idea that life and earth are eternal is outdated. People started to wonder where we came from and thus the idea was lost. Panspermia or Transpermia describ es the transfer of life from planet to planet. The story of creation from the book of genesis of the holy bible depicts the seven-day creation of earth by God. Each day was described with the building of different things like, the separation of land and water, animals and humankind creation. On the seventh day, seeing that everything was perfect, God was pleased and so he had a rest that day. It was believed that God made everything on earth; He named all creatures in His power and ordered them to follow Adam. It ended when God was pleased with men and eventually gave the Garden of Eden for them to take care of. In comparison of these beliefs, the Native Americans belief with the origin of life is somehow similar with Darwins theory on life. Both stories pointed out that life came from non-living objects. Through the wind, everything came to life and through it people are connected with the environment. Similar with Darwin, he believed that inanimate objects are responsible for our existence. Compared to the points discussed earlier, the stories of the Africans, Mayans and the book of genesis all believe in a supreme being, who made everything. Olorun, Heart-of-sky and God, these are the names of each creator. Even with such different titles, they are the same. Their only differences are on the details on how they made life. Each stories started with the divine existence followed by their prime need to create something or someone to worship them. Their stories ended with the creation of their subordinates, people. In addition scientist Pasteur, who made one of the major contributions scientifically, supports the story of creation from the book of genesis. In conclusion, these five stories about lifes origin are somehow interconnected. Each is presented differently. The elements of the stories reflect their culture. After comparing each story with others, it only shows the importance of our beginning. By knowing the differences and similarities of each, I have come to understand that everyone deserves respect regardless of their origin. The comparison I have made will help me interact better with my future patients because of the culture reflected in each stories. We live in one place, one atmosphere, and one sky and yet each of us has our own belief in life. We came about evolution differently based on the area we live in. To preserve each race, tribe and community, we made stories of it, which reflects our culture and traditions. These stories were made so others may understand and respect our way of living.

Analysis of History :: American America History

Analysis of History "History is the memory of things said and done. Every man is a historian." I agree that history includes everything said and done, to a certain extent. There are levels of history. The relevance to each individual's life determines the significance and importance of the certain event. Also, it should only be studied, perhaps, if the event has a certain impact on the person who is studying it. If an action proved to be important to an individual in the present or the future, that incident would be a sort of personal history. If it were meaningful to a large group of people, it would be a less individual kind of history. The type of history that is commonly taught is the less personal kind. History teachers think that this kind of national history has more relevance to each person's life than the more individual events. However, sometimes the personal events are more important and leave a bigger impact on an individual than the national history. In one dictionary, history is defined as "a written account of events, particularly of those affecting a nation, institution, science, or art..." I think that this definition of History completely counteracts the original quote. In my opinion, if one were to do something that only effected himself, it would still be history. It would not have that big of an impact on the world, but to that person, it could have been very influential. Another definition of history says that it " is a methodical record of important events which concern a community of men." Once again, in my opinion history does not have to effect a community of men in order for it to be important or significant. Also, history does not have to be written in order for it to be relevant or to have an impact. Even a simple story passed from generation to generation with clues from the past is a form of history. If one were to write that cavemen had three legs, it would not make it history. Whether it is written or not does not affect the truth and facts of the situation. I agree that history is simply just the memory of past events. The remembrance of an occurrence shows that it is relevant enough to be remembered. It is important that a historical event is remembered the same by all.

National academy of sciences Essay

I HAVE spared you, even as I spared myself, an arithmetical consummation of my inquiry, but the data here cited instruct us that the cost of the drug war is many times more painful, in all its manifestations, than would be the licensing of drugs combined with intensive education of non-users and intensive education designed to warn those who experiment with drugs. We have seen a substantial reduction in the use of tobacco over the last thirty years, and this is not because tobacco became illegal but because a sentient community began, in substantial numbers, to apprehend the high cost of tobacco to human health, even as, we can assume, a growing number of Americans desist from practicing unsafe sex and using polluted needles in this age of AIDS. If 80 million Americans can experiment with drugs and resist addiction using information publicly available, we can reasonably hope that approximately the same number would resist the temptation to purchase such drugs even if they were available at a federal drugstore at the mere cost of production. And added to the above is the point of civil justice. Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs sought after by the minority. I have not spoken of the cost to our society of the astonishing legal weapons available now to policemen and prosecutors; of the penalty of forfeiture of one’s home and property for violation of laws which, though designed to advance the war against drugs, could legally be used — I am told by learned counsel — as penalties for the neglect of one’s pets. I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors. 2. Ethan A. Nadelmann We turned to Mr.Nadelmann to pursue the inquiry. Formerly in the Political Science Department at Princeton, he is now the director of the Lindesmith Center, a drug-policy research institute in New York City. He is the author of Cops across Borders: The Internationalization of U. S. Criminal Law Enforcement. THE essayists assembled here do not agree exactly on which aspect of the war on drugs is most disgraceful, or on which alternative to our current policies is most desirable, but we do agree, as Mr.Buckley expected, on the following. The â€Å"war on drugs† has failed to accomplish its stated objectives, and it cannot succeed so long as we remain a free society, bound by our Constitution. Our prohibitionist approach to drug control is responsible for most of the ills commonly associated with America’s â€Å"drug problem. † And some measure of legal availability and regulation is essential if we are to reduce significantly the negative consequences of both drug use and our drug-control policies. Proponents of the war on drugs focus on one apparent success: The substantial decline during the 1980s in the number of Americans who consumed marijuana and cocaine. Yet that decline began well before the Federal Government intensified its â€Å"war on drugs† in 1986, and it succeeded principally in reducing illicit drug use among middle-class Americans, who were least likely to develop drug-related problems. Far more significant were the dramatic increases in drug- and prohibition-related disease, death, and crime. Crack cocaine — as much a creature of prohibition as 180-proof moonshine during alcohol prohibition — became the drug of choice in most inner cities. AIDS spread rapidly among injecting drug addicts, their lovers, and their children, while government policies restricted the availability of clean syringes that might have stemmed the epidemic. And prohibition-related violence reached unprecedented levels as a new generation of Al Capones competed for turf, killing not just one another but innocent bystanders, witnesses, and law-enforcement officials. There are several basic truths about drugs and drug policy which a growing number of Americans have come to acknowledge. 1. Most people can use most drugs without doing much harm to themselves or anyone else, as Mr. Buckley reminds us, citing Professor Duke. Only a tiny percentage of the 70 million Americans who have tried marijuana have gone on to have problems with that or any other drug. The same is true of the tens of millions of Americans who have used cocaine or hallucinogens. Most of those who did have a problem at one time or another don’t any more. That a few million Americans have serious problems with illicit drugs today is an issue meriting responsible national attention, but it is no reason to demonize those drugs and the people who use them. We’re unlikely to evolve toward a more effective and humane drug policy unless we begin to change the ways we think about drugs and drug control. Perspective can be had from what is truly the most pervasive drug scandal in the United States: the epidemic of undertreatment of pain. â€Å"Addiction† to (i. e. , dependence on) opiates among the terminally ill is the appropriate course of medical treatment. The only reason for the failure to prescribe adequate doses of pain-relieving opiates is the â€Å"opiaphobia† that causes doctors to ignore the medical evidence, nurses to turn away from their patients’ cries of pain, and some patients themselves to elect to suffer debilitating and demoralizing pain rather than submit to a proper dose of drugs. The tendency to put anti-drug ideology ahead of compassionate treatment of pain is apparent in another area. Thousands of Americans now smoke marijuana for purely medical reasons: among others, to ease the nausea of chemotherapy; to reduce the pain of multiple sclerosis; to alleviate the symptoms of glaucoma; to improve appetite dangerously reduced from AIDS. They use it as an effective medicine, yet they are technically regarded as criminals, and every year many are jailed. Although more than 75 per cent of Americans believe that marijuana should be available legally for medical purposes, the Federal Government refuses to legalize access or even to sponsor research. 2. Drugs are here to stay. The time has come to abandon the concept of a â€Å"drug-free society. † We need to focus on learning to live with drugs in such a way that they do the least possible harm. So far as I can ascertain, the societies that have proved most successful in minimizing drug-related harm aren’t those that have sought to banish drugs, but those that have figured out how to control and manage drug use through community discipline, including the establishment of powerful social norms. That is precisely the challenge now confronting American society regarding alcohol: How do we live with a very powerful and dangerous drug — more powerful and dangerous than many illicit drugs — that, we have learned, cannot be effectively prohibited? Virtually all Americans have used some psychoactive substance, whether caffeine or nicotine or marijuana. In many cases, the use of cocaine and heroin represents a form of self-medication against physical and emotional pain among people who do not have access to psychotherapy or Prozac. The market in illicit drugs is as great as it is in the inner cities because palliatives for pain and depression are harder to come by and because there are fewer economic opportunities that can compete with the profits of violating prohibition. 3. Prohibition is no way to run a drug policy. We learned that with alcohol during the first third of this century and we’re probably wise enough as a society not to try to repeat the mistake with nicotine. Prohibitions for kids make sense. It’s reasonable to prohibit drug-related misbehavior that endangers others, such as driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, or smoking in enclosed spaces. But whatever its benefits in deterring some Americans from becoming drug abusers, America’s indiscriminate drug prohibition is responsible for too much crime, disease, and death to qualify as sensible policy. 4. There is a wide range of choice in drug-policy options between the free-market approach favored by Milton Friedman and Thomas Szasz, and the zero-tolerance approach of William Bennett. These options fall under the concept of harm reduction. That concept holds that drug policies need to focus on reducing crime, whether engendered by drugs or by the prohibition of drugs. And it holds that disease and death can be diminished even among people who can’t, or won’t, stop taking drugs. This pragmatic approach is followed in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, and parts of Germany, Austria, Britain, and a growing number of other countries. American drug warriors like to denigrate the Dutch, but the fact remains that Dutch drug policy has been dramatically more successful than U.S. drug policy. The average age of heroin addicts in the Netherlands has been increasing for almost a decade; HIV rates among addicts are dramatically lower than in the United States; police don’t waste resources on non-disruptive drug users but, rather, focus on major dealers or petty dealers who create public nuisances. The decriminalized cannabis markets are regulated in a quasi-legal fashion far more effective and inexpensive than the U. S. equivalent. The Swiss have embarked on a national experiment of prescribing heroin to addicts. The two-year-old plan, begun in Zurich, is designed to determine whether they can reduce drug- and prohibition-related crime, disease, and death by making pharmaceutical heroin legally available to addicts at regulated clinics. The results of the experiment have been sufficiently encouraging that it is being extended to over a dozen Swiss cities. Similar experiments are being initiated by the Dutch and Australians. There are no good scientific or ethical reasons not to try a heroin-prescription experiment in the United States. Our Federal Government puts politics over science by ignoring extensive scientific evidence that sterile syringes can reduce the spread of AIDS. Connecticut permitted needle sales in drugstores in 1992, and the policy resulted in a 40 per cent decrease in needle sharing among injecting drug users, at no cost to taxpayers. We see similar foolishness when it comes to methadone. Methadone is to street heroin more or less what nicotine chewing-gum and skin patches are to cigarettes. Hundreds of studies, as well as a National Academy of Sciences report last year, have concluded that methadone is more effective than any other treatment in reducing heroin-related crime, disease, and death. In Australia and much of Europe, addicts who want to reduce or quit their heroin use can obtain a prescription for methadone from a GP and fill the prescription at a local pharmacy. In the United States, by contrast, methadone is available only at highly regulated and expensive clinics.

Origins and Symbolism of the German National Flag

These days, when you come across a larger number of German flags, you are probably running into a bunch of soccer fans or walking through an allot settlement. But as many state flags, also the German one has quite an interesting history. Even though the Federal Republic of Germany wasn’t founded until 1949, the countrys flag, bearing the tricolors black, red, and gold, is actually much older than the year 1949. The flag was created as a symbol of hope for a united state, that didn’t even exist at that time. 1848: A Symbol of Revolution The year 1848 was probably one of the most influential years in European history. It brought revolutions and massive change in many areas of daily and political life all over the continent. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, hopes for a united non-authoritarian German state were quickly disappointed as Austria in the South and Prussia in the North achieved practical domination over the patchwork of dozens of smaller kingdoms and realms that were Germany back then. Shaped by the traumatic experience of French occupation, in the following years, the incrementally educated middle classes, especially the younger people, were appalled by the autocratic rule from the outside. After the German revolution in 1848, the National Assembly in Frankfurt declared the constitution of a new, free, and united Germany. The colors of this country, or rather its people, were to be black, red, and gold. Why Black, Red, and Gold? The tricolor dates back to the Prussian resistance against Napoleonic Rule. A squad of voluntary fighters wore black uniforms with red buttons and golden trimmings. Originating there, the colors were soon used as a symbol of freedom and nation. From 1830 onwards, more and more black, red, and gold flags could be found, even though it was mostly illegal to fly them openly as the people were not allowed to defy their respective rulers. With the beginning of the revolution in 1848, the people took to the flag as the emblem of their cause.   Some Prussian cities were practically painted in its colors. Their inhabitants were fully aware of the fact that this would humiliate the government. The idea behind the use of the flag was, that a united Germany should be constituted by the people: One nation, including all of the different realms and territories. But the high hopes of the revolutionaries didn’t last long. The Frankfurt parliament basically dismantled itself in 1850, Austria and Prussia once more took over effective power. The hard-won constitutions were weakened and the flag was once again forbidden. A Short Return in 1918 The later German Empire under Otto von  Bismarck and the emperors, that did unite Germany after all, chose a different tricolor as its national flag (the Prussian colors black, white and red). After World War I, the Weimar Republic emerged from the rubble. The parliament was trying to set up a democratic constitution and found its ideals represented in the old revolutionary flag of 1848. The democratic values this flag stands for could of course not be tolerated by the National Socialists (die Nationalsozialisten) and after they seized the power, the black, red, and gold was again replaced. Two Versions from 1949 But the old tricolor returned in 1949, twice even. As the Federal Republic and the GDR were formed, they reclaimed the black, red, and gold for their emblems. The Federal Republic clung to the traditional version of the flag while the GDR changed theirs in 1959. Their  new variant bore a hammer and a compass within a ring of rye. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the reunification of Germany in 1990, that the one national flag of a united Germany should finally be the old symbol of the democratic revolution of 1848. Interesting Fact Like in many other countries, burning the German flag or even trying so, is illegal according to  §90 Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) and can be punished with up to three years in prison or a fine. But you might get away with burning the flags of other countries. In the USA though, the burning of flags isnt illegal per se. What do you think? Should burning or damaging flags be illegal?