Unresolved Issues in The Odyssey Essay Example for Free

Unresolved Issues in The Odyssey Essay Homer would never have willingly chosen to end the Odyssey at book 23, line 343. The Odyssey cannot be concluded here because Odysseus has not finished everything he set out to do and the reader is left hanging. At this point in the book Odysseus is still facing the threat of repercussion for his actions. Until Odysseuss rule is secure, the ending is unsatisfying. It is also not possible for the Odyssey to have an entirely happy ending if Odysseus isnt brought together with his father, Laertes, who has mourned him throughout his long absence. One of Odysseuss main incentives for returning home is that he wishes to be reunited with his father, Laertes. Odysseus learns to appreciate the value of home and family even more during his long journey. When speaking of his desire to go back to Ithaca while he is still in Phaiakia, Odysseus asks, Where shall a man find sweetness to surpass his own home and his parents? (book 9 line 34-36). If the book ends before Odysseus has reveals himself to his father, then Odysseuss goal of seeing his family again has not been completely fulfilled. His father is consumed with grief about his missing son. Laertes is not taking care of himself at all; he is sick and emaciated from sleeping on the ground in the mud and not eating. In the hierarchical mindset I dont think you could leave the king (Laertes is still king until he dies) or a father in that condition and not face wrath from the gods. The Greeks had tremendous amounts of respect for elder family members and it doesnt make sense that Odysseus, who is supposed to be extremely generous, would let his father suffer after he returned home- its too cruel. In terms of number of pages the journey home is not really that big or significant, while ousting the suitors and restoring right at home is huge. The focus of the book is on what Odysseus did once he got home to accomplish that goal- rather then how he got to Ithaca itself. Odysseus comes home, and murders the suitors, but that only resolves some of his problems. He still has the families of the suitors to contend with, for there is a very good chance that the Akhaians will not accept Odysseus as king again after he has murdered a good number of the high-ranking men in town. Before the book ends, it is essential that Odysseus make peace with the families of the suitors and reunite with his father, Laertes. If the Odyssey were to end while Odysseuss power was still in question the main goal would not be accomplished, and the book would be incomplete.

The Death Of Robert F. Kennedy Essay -- essays research papers fc

The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and its effects on the modern world. Robert Francis Kennedy was born on November 20, 1925 in Brookline Massachusetts. He was the seventh child, and third son of Rose Fitzgerald and Joe Kennedy . "I was the seventh of nine children," he later recalled, "and when you come from that far down you have to struggle to survive."( Alden Whitman, 2001).Compared to his brothers, Robert or Bobby as they all called him, was smaller and he struggled to match his brothers athleticism. As a child Robert had a robust enthusiasm for history. It was his favorite subject in grammar school. At the age of 11, Robert wanted some independence so he got his own newspaper route.( Joe Geringer,1995). He had to get up early in the morning before school to deliver the daily paper. This grueling work schedule would prove to help him learn dedication that was needed to become a successful individual. After high school he attended Portsmouth Academy. After attending school there, he attended Milton Academy to better prepare him for Harvard . Before attending Harvard, he had to put in military service in the Navy during war time. In 1944, he began to attend Harvard University. In 1948 he received his degree in government. Three years later he earned his degree in law from University of Virginia. Education was very important to to Kennedy family, his parents would dicuss history and education at the dinner table "I can hardly remember a mealtime," Robert Kennedy said, "when the conversation was not dominated by what Franklin D. Roosevelt was doing or what was happening in the world."(Alden Whitman, 2001) In 1950, Robert married Ethel Skakel of Greenwich, Connecticut she was the daughter of Ann and George Skakel, founder of Great Lakes Carbon Corporation. (Alden Whitman, 2001). The couple later had eleven children. In 1952, his brother John ran for Senate. This is the year that Robert made his political debate as manager of his brother's successful Senate campaign. In 1953 he briefly served on a Senate Subcommittee of Investigations. Thanks to his investigative skills Kennedy helped confirm that some United States allies during the war against communist China and Korea were shipping the countries goods. He resigned after six months because he didn't approve of Joseph McCarthy's tactics.(Alden Whitman, 2001... ... Kennedy had made it very clear that he supported Israel so being an Arab Sirhan felt the only option he had was to kill him.( Joe Geringer,1995) Sirhan had a swift trail and was sentenced to death. The world mourned the lost of an up and coming leader. Many felt that had he lived he would have become the next president of the United States. Many African Americans were deeply saddened because he had desperately fought for their rights. With the conviction of Sirhan many Americans felt that justice had been served. Yet some felt no sentence was good enough to make up for what he stole, a true American leader. Works Cited Page 1. Joe Geringer."Robert Kennedy Assisination: Revisions and Rewrites."April 26,2002. http://www.crimelibrary.com/assassins/sirhan/2.htm 2. "About Robert F. Kennedy." April 26,2002. http://www.rfkmemorial.org/RFK/index.htm 3. Alden Whitman. "Robert Francis Kennedy: Attorney General, Senator and Heir of the New Frontier". April 26,2002. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1120.html 4. " Robert Francis Kennedy (1925-1968)". April 26,2002. http://www.norfacad.pvt.k12.va.us/project/rkennedy/kennedy.htm

Handling Efl Learners’ Unexpected Behaviors in Class Essay

For the sake of providing the best services to their students, English teachers arrange their English language teaching and learning activities as perfect as possible. They spend most of the time to make preparation for their teaching. However, along with the process of such preparation, they sometimes do not consider the importance of also preparing the unplanned teaching. Consequently, when things go wrong, they often get difficulties on what they should decide to do. Therefore, this study is crucial to be conducted as its result would be able to give knowledge to English teachers on how to appropriately respond when such phenomenon comes into surface. The purposes of this study were 1) to observe the categories of EFL learners’ unexpected behaviors in the process of learning English in class and 2) to identify the efforts of English language teachers in handling such behaviors. This study utilized the qualitative design in which observation and interview were used as the main instruments in carrying out the research. To be the respondents of this present study, three English teachers from three different state junior high schools in Bogor were purposively chosen. The findings showed that there were four major categories of the EFL learners’ unexpected behaviors, namely learners’ psychological problems, uncooperative attitude, learners’ intelligence level and learners’ native language use. Some solutions in handling such behaviors were also recommended. One of which was to give different materials when dealing with learners with different level of capability. Keywords: unplanned teaching, EFL learners’ classroom behaviors Introduction For English language teachers, planning lessons has become a crucial action that needs to be carried out since it helps guide them during and after the lesson (Spratt, Pulverness & William, 2005). Further, it enables them to make the language teaching process more systematic and well-organized so that they would be on the right track of what they are going to teach and what kind of teaching methods they are about to employ in classroom activities. Therefore, as an effort to provide the best services to their students, English teachers frequently spend most of their times arranging their English language teaching and learning activities as perfect as possible before conducting the act of teaching in the classroom. In fact, only few teachers are aware of the importance of also making attempts to think of and list the solution handling the EFL learners’ ‘unexpected’ behaviors that may probably appear in the classroom when English language teaching is in action. As the result, they will face problems which could seriously block the flow of the teaching process. Thus, the unplanned teaching needs to be paid a particular attention within the consideration when teachers plan the lesson. Brown (2001) explains that the unplanned teaching can occur when the midstream of the lesson changes; going out of the plan that has been set earlier. Further, such phenomenon may happen at anytime. In conclusion, teachers are daily called upon to deal with the ‘unexpected’. 1 Methods This study was principally aimed at identifying the categories of the EFL learners’ unexpected behaviors that might exist during the English language teaching and learning process inside the classroom. Additionally, the investigation was also led upon the identification of the teachers’ effort in handling the behaviors. This present study employed qualitative research design using observation and interview as the instruments in collecting the data. Additionally, three English teachers from three different state junior high schools in Bogor were purposively chosen. The observation was conducted to capture and observe the behavior of the EFL learners when learning English at the classroom. Further, it also functioned to identify how the teachers reacted towards the existing behavior of the learners which were categorized ‘unexpected’. The interview was done to verify what has been witnessed during the observation. The Categories of the Unexpected Behaviors Having completed with the data analysis process, the categories of the EFL learners’ unexpected behavior could then be revealed. It could be seen from the table below. Table 1 EFL Learners’ Unexpected Behaviors No 1 Categories Learners’ Psychological Problem Sample of Phenomenon Learners had less confident and did not want to participate within the language class activities Learners did not pay attention and kept on talking with their friends when teachers were explaining the materials Learners were not well-motivated to learn Learners did not do the tasks ssigned Learners did not want to work in a group Some learners were slow and some were fast Learners asked question which was far ahead the topic being discussed at the mean time Learners kept on using their native language when the teachers wanted them to speak English 2 3 Uncooperative Attitude Learners’ Level Intelligence 4 The Learners’ Native Language Use Solutions in Handling the Behaviors After knowing the categories of the unexpected behaviors of the EFL learners when learning English, solutions on how to appropriately rea ct towards the phenomenon were discovered. Firstly, when dealing with the learners’ psychological problems, teachers, in the beginning of the class, were required to put a strong emphasis on the positive side of having high motivation in the process of learning language. This would build their learning enthusiasm. Second, in handling the learners who were uncooperative such as did not do their homework, teachers could explain the benefit of doing their homework to help them get progress in their language learning process. Third, to teach learners who were at different level of capability, teachers could give special attention to the slow learners while fast learners were given other materials to work with. This was in line with the theory proposed by Harmer (2007) in which he suggested the use of different materials when facing students with different levels. The last, to handle learners who kept using their native language, as found in the interview, teachers were strongly suggested to only respond to the English use. This was supported by Harmer (2007) in which he indicated to ignore what students said in their own language. 2 Conclusion Considering the unexpected things that perhaps may exist in the language learning and teaching process is really important for the language teachers to take into account in the process of planning the lesson. Therefore when things go wrong, they would at least have options on how to handle it, as they are well-prepared. After all, four major categories of the EFL learners’ unexpected behaviors were recognized. They were learners’ psychological problems, uncooperative attitude, learners’ intelligence level and the learners’ native language use. Some solutions in handling such behavior were also recommended. One of which was to give different materials when dealing with learners with different level of capability. These findings are expected to be able to give knowledge to English teachers on how to appropriately respond when such phenomenon comes into surface so that the act of English language teaching and learning will keep on successfully moving forward.

Battle of Petersburg in the Civil War

The Battle of Petersburg was part of the American Civil War (1861-1865) and was fought between June 9, 1864 and April 2, 1865. In the wake of his defeat at the Battle of Cold Harbor in early June 1864, Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant continued pressing south towards the Confederate capital at Richmond. Departing Cold Harbor on June 12, his men stole a march on General Robert E. Lees Army of Northern Virginia and crossed the James River on a large pontoon bridge. This maneuver led Lee to become concerned that he might be forced into a siege at Richmond. This was not Grants intention, as the Union leader sought to capture the vital city of Petersburg. Located south of Richmond, Petersburg was a strategic crossroads and railroad hub which supplied the capital and Lees army. Its loss would make would Richmond indefensible (Map). Armies Commanders Union Lieutenant General Ulysses S. GrantMajor General George G. Meade67,000 increasing to 125,000 men Confederate General Robert E. Leeapprox. 52,000 men Smith and Butler Move Aware of Petersburgs importance, Major General Benjamin Butler, commanding Union forces at Bermuda Hundred, attempted an attack on the city on June 9. Crossing the Appomattox River, his men assault the citys outermost defenses known as the Dimmock Line. These attacks were halted by Confederate forces under General P.G.T. Beauregard and Butler withdrew. On June 14, with the Army of the Potomac nearing Petersburg, Grant instructed Butler to dispatch Major General William F. Baldy Smiths XVIII Corps to attack the city. Crossing the river, Smiths advance was delayed through the day on the 15th, though he finally moved to attack the Dimmock Line that evening. Possessing 16,500 men, Smith was able to overwhelm Brigadier General Henry Wises Confederates along the northeastern portion of the Dimmock Line. Falling back, Wises men occupied a weaker line along Harrisons Creek. With night setting in, Smith halted with intention of resuming his attack at dawn. First Assaults That evening, Beauregard, whose call for reinforcements had been ignored by Lee, stripped his defenses at Bermuda Hundred to reinforce Petersburg, increasing his forces there to around 14,000. Unaware of this, Butler remained idle rather than threatening Richmond. Despite this, Beauregard remained badly outnumbered as Grants columns began arriving on the field increasing Union strength to over 50,000. Attacking late in the day with the XVIII, II, and IX Corps, Grants men slowly pushed the Confederates back. Fighting continued on 17th with the Confederates defending tenaciously and preventing a Union breakthrough. As the fighting raged, Beauregards engineers began building a new line of fortifications closer the city and Lee began marching to the fighting. Attacks on June 18 gained some ground but were halted at the new line with heavy losses. Unable to advance, the commander of the Army of the Potomac, Major General George G. Meade, ordered his troops to dig in opposite the Confederates. In four days of fighting, Union losses totaled 1,688 killed, 8,513 wounded, 1,185 missing or captured, while the Confederates lost around 200 killed, 2,900 wounded, 900 missing or captured Moving Against the Railroads Having been stopped by the Confederate defenses, Grant began making plans for severing the three open railroads leading into Petersburg. While one ran north to Richmond, the other two, the Weldon Petersburg and Southside, were open to attack. The closest, the Weldon, ran south to North Carolina and provided a connection to the open port of Wilmington. As a first step, Grant planned a large cavalry raid to attack both railroads, while ordering the II and VI Corps to march on the Weldon. Advancing with their men, Major Generals David Birney and Horatio Wright encountered Confederate troops on June 21. The next two days saw them fight the Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road which resulted in over 2,900 Union casualties and around 572 Confederate. An inconclusive engagement, it saw the Confederates retain possession of the railroad, but Union forces extend their siege lines. As Lees army was significantly smaller, any need lengthen his lines correspondingly weakened the whole. Wilson-Kautz Raid As Union forces were failing in their efforts to seize the Weldon Railroad, a cavalry force led by Brigadier Generals James H. Wilson and August Kautz circled south of Petersburg to strike at the railroads. Burning stock and tearing up around 60 miles of track, the raiders fought battles at Staunton River Bridge, Sappony Church, and Reams Station. In the wake of this last fight, they found themselves unable to breakthrough to return to the Union lines. As a result, the Wilson-Kautz raiders were forced to burn their wagons and destroy their guns before fleeing north. Returning to the Union lines on July 1, the raiders lost 1,445 men (approx. 25% of the command). A New Plan As Union forces operated against the railroads, efforts of a different sort were underway to break the deadlock in front of Petersburg. Among the units in the Union trenches was the 48th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry of Major General Ambrose Burnsides IX Corps. Composed largely of former coal miners, the men of the 48th devised a plan for breaking through the Confederate lines. Observing that the closest Confederate fortification, Elliotts Salient, was a mere 400 feet from their position, the men of the 48th believed that a mine could be run from their lines under the enemy earthworks. Once complete, this mine could be packed with enough explosives to open a hole in the Confederate lines. The Battle of the Crater This idea was seized upon by their commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Henry Pleasants. A mining engineer by trade, Pleasants approached Burnside with the plan arguing that the explosion would take the Confederates by surprise and would allow Union troops to rush in to take the city. Approved by Grant and Burnside, planning moved forward and construction of the mine began. Anticipating the attack to occur on July 30, Grant ordered Major General Winfield S. Hancocks II Corps and two divisions of Major General Philip Sheridans Cavalry Corps north across the James to the Union position at Deep Bottom. From this position, they were to advance against Richmond with the goal of drawing Confederate troops away from Petersburg. If this was not practicable, then Hancock was to pin the Confederates while Sheridan raided around the city. Attacking on July 27 and 28, Hancock and Sheridan fought an inconclusive action but one which succeeded in pulling Confederate troops from Petersburg. Having achieved his objective, Grant suspended operations on the evening of July 28. At 4:45 AM on July 30, the charge in the mine was detonated killing at least 278 Confederate soldiers and creating a crater 170 feet long, 60-80 feet wide, and 30 feet deep. Advancing, the Union attack soon bogged down as last-minute changes to the plan and a rapid Confederate response doomed it to failure. By 1:00 PM the fighting in the area ended and Union forces suffered 3,793 killed, wounded, and captured, while the Confederates incurred around 1,500. For his part in the attacks failure, Burnside was sacked by Grant and command of IX Corps passed to Major General John G. Parke. The Fighting Continues While the two sides were fighting in the vicinity of Petersburg, Confederate forces under Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early were successfully campaigning in the Shenandoah Valley. Advancing from the valley, he won the Battle of Monocacy on July 9 and menaced Washington on July 11-12. Retreating, he burned Chambersburg, PA on July 30. Earlys actions forced Grant to send VI Corps to Washington to bolster its defenses. Concerned that Grant might move to crush Early, Lee shifted two divisions to Culpeper, VA where they would be in position to support either front. Mistakenly believing that this movement had greatly weakened the Richmond defenses, Grant ordered II and X Corps to attack again at Deep Bottom on August 14. In six days of fighting, little was achieved other than forcing Lee to further strengthen the Richmond defenses. To end the threat posed by Early, Sheridan was dispatched to the valley to head up Union operations. Closing the Weldon Railroad While the fighting was raging at Deep Bottom, Grant ordered Major General Gouverneur K. Warrens V Corps to advance against the Weldon Railroad. Moving out on August 18, they reached the railroad at Globe Tavern around 9:00 AM. Attacked by Confederate forces, Warrens men fought a back and forth battle for three days. When it ended, Warren had succeeded in holding a position astride the railroad and had linked his fortifications with the main Union line near the Jerusalem Plank Road. The Union victory forced Lees men to offload supplies from the railroad at Stony Creek and bring them to Petersburg by wagon via the Boydton Plank Road. Wishing to permanently damage the Weldon Railroad, Grant ordered Hancocks tired II Corps to Reams Station to destroy the tracks. Arriving on August 22 and 23, they effectively destroyed the railroad to within two miles of Reams Station. Seeing the Union presence as a threat to his line of retreat, Lee ordered Major General A.P. Hill south to defeat Hancock. Attacking on August 25, Hills men succeeded in forcing Hancock to retreat after a protracted fight. Through a tactical reverse, Grant was pleased with the operation as the railroad had been put out of commission leaving the Southside as the only track running into Petersburg. (Map). Fighting in the Fall On September 16, while Grant was absent meeting with Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley, Major General Wade Hampton led the Confederate cavalry on a successful raid against the Union rear. Dubbed the Beefsteak Raid, his men escaped with 2,486 head of cattle. Returning, Grant mounted another operation in later September intending to strike at both ends of Lees position. The first part saw Butlers Army of the James attack north of the James at Chaffins Farm on September 29-30. Though he had some initial success, he was soon contained by the Confederates. South of Petersburg, elements of V and IX Corps, supported by cavalry, successfully extended the Union line to the area of Peebles and Pegrams Farms by October 2. In an effort to relieve pressure north of the James, Lee attacked the Union positions there on October 7. The resulting Battle of Darbytown and New Market Roads saw his men repulsed forcing him to fall back. Continuing his trend of striking both flanks simultaneously, Grant sent Butler forward again on October 27-28. Fighting the Battle of Fair Oaks and Darbytown Road, Butler faired no better than Lee earlier in the month. At the other end of the line, Hancock moved west with a mixed force in an attempt to cut the Boydton Plank Road. Though his men gained the road on October 27, subsequent Confederate counterattacks forced him to fall back. As a result, the road remained open for Lee throughout the winter (Map). The End Nears With the setback at Boydton Plank Road, fighting began to quiet as winter approached. The re-election of President Abraham Lincoln in November ensured that the war would be prosecuted to the end. On February 5, 1865, offensive operations resumed with Brigadier General David Greggs cavalry division moving out to strike Confederate supply trains on the Boydton Plank Road. To protect the raid, Warrens corps crossed Hatchers Run and established a blocking position on the Vaughan Road with elements of II Corps in support. Here they repulsed a Confederate attack late in the day. Following Greggs return the following day, Warren pushed up the road and was assaulted near Dabneys Mill. Though his advance was halted, Warren succeeded in further extending the Union line to Hatchers Run. Lees Last Gamble By early March 1865, over eight months in the trenches around Petersburg had begun to wreck Lees army. Plagued by disease, desertion, and a chronic lack of supplies, his force had dropped to around 50,000. Already outnumbered 2.5-to-1, he faced the daunting prospect of another 50,000 Union troops arriving as Sheridan concluded operations in the valley. Desperately needing to change the equation before Grant assaulted his lines, Lee asked Major General John B. Gordon to plan an attack on the Union lines with the goal of reaching Grants headquarters area at City Point. Gordon began preparations and at 4:15 AM on March 25, the lead elements began moving against Fort Stedman in the northern part of the Union line. Striking hard, they overwhelmed the defenders and soon had taken Fort Stedman as well as several nearby batteries opening a 1000-foot breach in the Union position. Responding to the crisis, Parke ordered Brigadier General John F. Hartranfts division to seal the gap. In tight fighting, Hartranfts men succeeded in isolating Gordons attack by 7:30 AM. Supported by a vast number of Union guns, they counterattacked and drove the Confederates back to their own lines. Suffering around 4,000 casualties, the failure of the Confederate effort at Fort Stedman effectively doomed Lees ability to hold the city. Five Forks Sensing Lee was weak, Grant ordered the newly returned Sheridan to attempt a move around the Confederate right flank to the west of Petersburg. To counter this move, Lee dispatched 9,200 men under Major General George Pickett to defend the vital crossroads of Five Forks and the Southside Railroad, with orders to hold them at all hazards. On March 31, Sheridans force encountered Picketts lines and moved to attack. After some initial confusion, Sheridans men routed the Confederates at the Battle of Five Forks, inflicting 2,950 casualties. Pickett, who was away at a shad bake when the fighting started, was relieved of his command by Lee. With the Southside Railroad cut, Lee lost his best line of retreat. The following morning, seeing no other options, Lee informed President Jefferson Davis that both Petersburg and Richmond must be evacuated (Map). The Fall of Petersburg This coincided with Grant ordering a massive offensive against the majority of the Confederate lines. Moving forward early on April 2, Parkes IX Corps struck Fort Mahone and the lines around the Jerusalem Plank Road. In bitter fighting, they overwhelmed the defenders and held on against strong counterattacks by Gordons men. To the south, Wrights VI Corps shattered the Boydton Line allowing Major General John Gibbons XXIV Corps to exploit the breach. Advancing, Gibbons men fought a protracted battle for Forts Gregg and Whitworth. Though they captured both, the delay allowed Lieutenant General James Longstreet to bring troops down from Richmond. To the west, Major General Andrew Humphreys, now commanding II Corps, broke through the Hatchers Run Line and pushed back Confederate forces under Major General Henry Heth. Though he was having success, he was ordered to advance on the city by Meade. Doing so, he left a division to deal with Heth. By late afternoon, Union forces had forced the Confederates into Petersburgs inner defenses but had worn themselves out in the process. That evening, as Grant planned a final assault for the following day, Lee began evacuating the city (Map). Aftermath Retreating west, Lee hoped to resupply and join with General Joseph Johnstons forces in North Carolina. As Confederate forces departed, Union troops entered both Petersburg and Richmond on April 3. Closely pursued by Grants forces, Lees army began to disintegrate. After a week of retreating, Lee finally met with Grant at Appomattox Court House and surrendered his army on April 9, 1865. Lees surrender effectively ended the Civil War in the East.