Into to future autobiography Essays - Frankie Laine Discography

Option 3 As I sit here on this fine early morning in my rocking chair, wearing only a bath robe with a warm cup of tea in hand. My legs are crossed and I am looking off into the sweet blue early morning sky. I think about my past, I reminisce. I am 75 years old now, gray in the face, gray in the beard, and grey in the eyes. I now walk with a cane, and some say I am growing weaker but my mind has never been stronger. I think of a time when my hair was full and shined golden brown in the sunlight and I still had a raging fire in my eyes, I chuckle at myself as a boy. I was so na?ve. As a boy one day I would feel like I had the bull by the horns and the next I felt like life had chewed me up and spat me back out. Nonetheless I never gave up, there have been times that I have thought about it but I never did. I knew what I wanted out of my life and I would have done anything to do it. What I wanted, to some, may of seemed simple but to me it was a daunting task that no one could stop me from achi eving. I wanted to be a teacher. I wanted to teach English. But beyond having the title of a ?teacher? I wanted more than anything to influence and spark the imagination of young minds. I wanted to show my students the power of literature. Because the power of Literature is greater than that of anything else in our world. Literature gives you and me the power to be whatever we want to be in that very moment. One student could be a helpless romantic saving the girl of his dreams and stealing her breathe as he rescues her from an evil prince, while the kid next to him could be a brave worrier battling a flank of enemies from on top of his black stallion, with nothing but a sword and the honor of his country to defend. And I wanted to teach the world this even if it was by one single pupil at a time. I had a theory that it only takes one great mind to change the world. And maybe that great mind was not me, but maybe I could be the one to spark that great mind or idea. And I am proud t o sit here old, gray, and worn knowing that I did everything I could. I gave it my all. And I am quite sure that I did my job and completed my task. I now am a retired English professor, quite different than that na?ve boy with a full head of beautiful brown hair. I have a family now, a beautiful wife, and 2 lovely daughters. One married and has given me 2 of the most precious grandbabies a man could ask for with another one on the way. The other married and followed in the steps of her daddy, inspiring children. In my auto biography My Life as a Thinker and Teacher you will see my transformation from a young kid with nothing but an idea to a profound expert of Literary studies teaching college students and forming a beautiful family along the way.

Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment Free Online Research Papers In my opinion capital punishment is morally not right. I am from Germany, were death penalty is nowadays prohibited by law for many years. Everybody is able to live there as an individual and around the next corner will not someone be waiting to kill you. But I think in some cases it would be very helpful to make capital punishment legal, as in the case of serial killers or people that do not learn form being imprisoned and commit a number of other crimes. I think the people that decide if a murderer get executed or not, and the people that fulfill an execution are murderers on their own. This does not make them much better than the person that was killed. It is morally not right to kill other people, just because they did kill someone. Murderers should stay imprisoned for many years and get a second chance to show good will. Then when they get free and commit another crime, then they should be punished for it. In this case I would really be for capital punishment because this person did not use the second chance to change and did not learn anything from the time spent in prison. I found out in some research that â€Å"the mix of drugs is unacceptable for putting dogs and cats to sleep† (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdf?vid=1hid=7sid=70c7fc1c-6945-468c-b6cb-234d4e8513b6%40sessionmgr7), so why should we use this mix of drugs to execute a person like us? This mix was invented by DR. Jay Chapman, that did not even have any knowledge about killing someone. There are also many reasons people kill other people. Some people are mentally ill and need rather a therapy than many years in prison; other people just kill for fun and will never learn, such as serial killers. Then there are also people that had to kill because they were in a certain situation and had to act in affect. While I was living in Germany, I sometimes heard about people that got the death penalty and were not even guilty. I think if there would not be a death penalty in too many cases, it would be more likely avoided to execute a wrong person. Even that people know that there is capital punishment in 22 states, do some people not care about it and still commit horrible crimes. If someone would want to stop crime at all, there must be a death penalty for almost every crime. This is already impossible by law written down in the â€Å"Bill of Rights†. A lot more cases of murders could be eliminated if the U.S. would change the regulations for weapons. People should not be allowed to buy weapons everywhere and to carry them around. People should obtain a license and they should only be allowed to have weapons for hunting in the woods and shooting at ranges. Another point that speaks against executions is, that the public has to pay for the executions. This means that tax payers are paying money to execute someone. I personally rather would pay money to keep someone imprisoned for a long time, than to pay for a execution. I also believe that it is gods decision to let someone die. So a murderer only fulfills gods will to kill a special person. It always hurts the family and people that knew the person that was killed. Another point I think that will be important for the future of the U.S. is that capital punishment should be limited or prohibited by law. Even in Puerto Rico, which is a territory of the U.S., the last death sentence executed was in 1927 and two years later the government abolished capital punishment. Today â€Å"two- thirds of Puerto Ricans oppose death penalty† (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdf?vid=1hid=8sid=d2944897-fd00-4842-9f32-a87c6735dabe%40sessionmgr3) and might be happy that it is prohibited now. In my opinion the US seems to live in the future but for real it still lives in the past. A country can be kept save using other ways than capital punishment. Many countries in the world do not support capital punishment and do prohibit it by law. These countries live in the future, know how to punish people right and know what is morally right. Research Papers on Capital PunishmentCapital PunishmentArguments for Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)The Effects of Illegal ImmigrationThe Fifth HorsemanComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoGenetic EngineeringPersonal Experience with Teen PregnancyThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseThe Masque of the Red Death Room meaningsAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into Asia Capital Punishment Free Online Research Papers The use of capital punishment is believed to deter future acts of crimes and deter the number of people who commit these crimes. Many years ago, capital punishment was almost used for anything such as stealing, murder, rape and even disrespect toward a higher authority but now it has been abolished in all countries except for the United States. Some believe that capital punishment should become, under law, a regular form of punishment and should be used against the ones who commit crimes. People who want to use it believe that it is the only justice that could be given to the victims of these crimes and to their families. In my opinion I don’t believe that the use of capital punishment makes any situation better or even brings back justice to the victim or their family. Even though it might see like the right idea, is this process really justified? If we are against murder it wouldn’t be right to commit the act ourselves, we would be contradicting ourselves. Is it reall y retributive justice? Or is it in fact a way to get back at the convicted and get the revenge they desire for. Before the use of capital punishment and prisons, when people participated in crimes, it would go unnoticed. As the government started to grow, they decided they had to change this. So the world created a system, which was used for two main purposes: to keep people who caused danger to others and/or also to themselves away from the community and the second was to rehabilitate those who were considered morally wrong for their actions and the community would be able to release them back into society. This is why they called it correctional facilities, to correct peoples’ wrong doings. It seemed like society had come up with a way to help reduce crimes. So how did capital punishment come into the picture? When executions were first used it was used by rulers in higher power. Executions were not just used to give the convicted what they deserved. Many people were executed because they robbed someone or went against that higher power. Executions were used to make an example out of that person and show everyone who had the power and let them know that you could not go against them. It seems not to some that incarceration is not doing enough and not creating the effect people thought it would. Now executions are seen as retributive justice. â€Å"Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that proportionate punishment is a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party and its intimates.† (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice) Sentences to death row mainly consist of murderers and repeated offenders of heinous acts. After committing such heinous crimes, people believe that there is no way to help the convicted. They feel as though letting them out into the community would just put other peoples’ lives in danger. Retributive justice is a way to make the lives of the ones who were affected by the crime a little easier to cope with the pain. Since their loved ones’ lives were taken away, the one who committed the act will have his life taken as well. Since the murderers took others’ lives, society believes that they have forfeited their right to life. If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call. (John McAdams Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence, (prodeathpenalty.com/). As I had stated in my past essay, people would rather risk a murder’s life for no effect in helping the community than letting him go and having him commit more murders or other acts of violence and risking innocent lives. Once someone has commit a crime such as murder, that person did not value their victims’ life and obviously must not have valued their own life so why should anyone else take their life into consideration? Their life is of no importance so taking that away shouldn’t be a big problem. Even if you think they valued their li fe the other side is that they will probably go out and do it again. â€Å"Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistic †¦ the study found that at the time of the new crime 18 percent were on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and 7 percent on parole.† (â€Å"Organized Crime Digest† Sept 30, 2006) This is where the use of capital punishment comes in. When society believes that they have a criminal who cannot be corrected and he is considered a threat to that society and himself, what is the use of him? Why keep him locked up for the rest of his life when he doesn’t even deserve that right? People who are for capital punishment would give the answer that there is no need for them to stay alive. Saving the society from future harm and giving back justice to the victims and their loved ones; that is the use of capital punishment. On the other side, if we are talking about what is morally right than most people of the U.S see the death penalty as an immoral act. â€Å"It is one thing to kill murderers when there is reason to think it will protect innocents, but to kill them because of bare possibility that this might happens seems like exactly the kind of disrespectful treatment of the murderer that Kant condemned.† (Reiman, Jeffrey (1998). The Death Penalty: For and Against) Along with this argument he states, not only is it wrong to kill the murderer without having actual proof of it saving innocents but there is research showing an increase in murders following the time of executions. In that case, we are making things worst. How can we go and kill someone because they had taken away someone else’s life? That is a little hypocritical. We think by doing this we are retrieving justice, maybe they thought the same thing. They were trying to create their own retributive justice. If we as the society are going to choose to kill them anyway, why is it that the law does not let the society kill that person themselves? Why can’t they make their own retributive justice? The reason why they cannot do so is because it is wrong! Killing someone because of what they did is wrong. â€Å"The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.† (Abolish the Death Penalty† www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty) Yes, it was not right for them to commit that crime but they need to be punished in a way where they can understand why they were wrong and why they cannot do what they did. Isn’t the reason for punishment is to make that person understand they shouldn’t have done it and next time to know better? We as Americans have decided to change that idea. In response to this theory some wou ld say it was to deter future acts of crime, but when in fact it does not. â€Å"Defenders of capital punishment have argued that it deters crime. Studies on the deterrent effect have largely been inconclusive, with no firm evidence that the prospect of death sways criminals from their actions.† (Capital Punishment. (2002). In World of Criminal Justice, Gale. Farmington, MI: Thomson Gale. Retrieved December 09, 2008, from credoreference.com/entry/4827419/†) Like I stated earlier, I am not for the death penalty and I believe a corrupted system determines who is chosen for that punishment and the judgment is hypercritical. When people are being convicted, the decisions are rushed, sometimes based on racism, class, gender and the convicted are often innocent. The way court systems and juries convict people are merely an unfair act. Studies have shown that as many as one in seven people who are convicted to death row could be innocent, with a lot more who get off each year because they are proven innocent. The price of life is unlimited, but the U.S. puts a price on it. We are in fact killing innocent people. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and you don’t have proof to why you were there than basically you could be giving up your life. Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt is too subtle. The government misuses this phrase and they are simply misusing the idea of the death penalty all together. â€Å"Death penalty opponents mounted another challenge in the early 1980s, arguing that racial bias had made the imposition of the penalty unequal. One study found that during a six-year period in Georgia, murderers whose victims were white were eleven times more likely to be sentenced to death than were killers whose victims were black. However, the Supreme Court rejected the use of statistical evidence to prove that the death penalty was imposed in a discriminatory or arbitrary way. Later studies have confirmed the disparity in the treatment of African-American and white killers.† (Capital Punishment. (2002). In World of Criminal Justice, Gale. Farmington, MI: Thomson Gale. Retrieved December 09, 2008, from â€Å"credoreference.com/entry/4827419†). The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) states that you are more than three times as likely to be sentenced to death if you are black rather than being white. The numbers grow significantly higher if you are black and ha ve killed a white person, and the numbers decrease if you are white and you have killed a black person. This is a good reason why we should not have the right to use the death penalty. This country is supposed to be non-racist, a place of equality and if our justice system has those defects in them, then they should not be allowed to make decisions involving those defects and in no way should the U.S be trusted with the death penalty. Some would ask but what about the justice for the victims’ and their families? Why do we care more about what happens to the convicted more than the justice for the victim? I truly believe that justice is the first thing that should be solved. But no matter how many people you incarcerate and no matter how many people you sentence to death, nothing could ever bring that person back. Nothing in the world could ever take the pain away. Justice for the victim would be teaching what is morally right and would help people who often feel as though they have no other choice but to harm someone to focus their anger or depression on something else. If we murder those who have murdered it is just making us as bad as they are. Justice is to stop future acts of crime. There are some who are convicted who shouldn’t get another chance because they feel as though what they did was right but almost in every case most of the convicted probably repented what they did. What if murderers felt like they were creating peace by killing and maybe they felt justified like we do when we kill them. Most people I believe are mixing retributive justice with revenge. The anger someone goes through when losing a loved one to an act of violence is unbearable, but sometimes we have to put our feelings aside and decide what would have the best outcome. I understand it is easier said than done but if we cannot get over our personal feelings than we should not have the right to make a decision of such serious nature like the death penalty. Every other country has abolished Capital Punishment. Why hasn’t the U.S.? This is because our minds are in the wrong place. Before we even decide to make it a regular form of punishment we need to fix the loose ends in our system and make sure it is an equal conviction for everyone. As I stated before, in the end capital punishment is just a vicious game of vengeance not justice and no one is winning and this is why capital punishment should be abolished. Research Papers on Capital PunishmentThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoHip-Hop is ArtPETSTEL analysis of IndiaEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationGenetic EngineeringRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into Asia

The French Revolution, Its Outcome, and Legacy

The French Revolution, Its Outcome, and Legacy The outcome of the French Revolution, which began in 1789 and lasted for more than a decade, had numerous social, economic, and political effects not just in France but also in Europe and beyond.   Prelude to Revolt By the late 1780s, the French monarchy was on the brink of collapse. Its involvement in the American Revolution had left the regime of King Louis XVI bankrupt and desperate to raise funds by taxing the wealthy and the clergy. Years of bad harvests and rising prices for basic commodities led to social unrest among the rural and urban poor. Meanwhile, the growing middle class (known as the bourgeoisie) was chafing under an absolute monarchical rule and demanding political inclusion. In 1789  the king called for a meeting of the Estates-General- an advisory body of clergy, nobles, and bourgeoisie that had not convened in more than 170 years- to garner support for his financial reforms. When the representatives assembled in May of that year, they couldnt agree on how to apportion representation. After two months of bitter debate, the king ordered delegates locked out of the meeting hall. In response, they convened on June 20 on the royal tennis courts, where the bourgeoisie, with the support of many clergy and nobles, declared themselves the new governing body of the nation, the National Assembly, and  vowed to write a new constitution. Although Louis XVI agreed  in principle to these demands, he began plotting to undermine the Estates-General, stationing troops throughout the country. This alarmed the peasants and middle class alike, and on July 14, 1789, a mob attacked and occupied the Bastille prison in protest, touching off a wave of violent demonstrations nationwide. On Aug. 26, 1789, the National Assembly  approved the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Like the Declaration of Independence in the United States, the French declaration guaranteed all citizens equal, enshrined property rights and free assembly, abolished the absolute power of the monarchy and established representative government. Not surprisingly, Louis XVI refused to accept the document, triggering another massive public outcry. The Reign of Terror For two years, Louis XVI and the National Assembly co-existed uneasily as reformers, radicals, and monarchists all jockeyed for political dominance. In April 1792 the Assembly declared war on Austria. But it quickly went badly for France, as Austrian ally Prussia joined in the conflict; troops from both nations soon occupied French soil. On Aug. 10, French radicals took the royal family prisoner at Tuileries Palace. Weeks later, on Sept. 21, the National Assembly abolished the monarchy entirely and declared France a republic. King Louis and Queen Marie-Antoinette were tried hastily and found guilty of treason. Both would be beheaded in 1793, Louis on Jan. 21 and Marie-Antoinette on Oct. 16. As the Austro-Prussian war dragged on, the French government and society, in general, were mired in turmoil. In the National Assembly, a radical group of politicians seized control and began implementing reforms, including a new national calendar and the abolition of religion. Beginning in September 1793, thousands of French citizens, many from the middle and upper classes, were arrested, tried, and executed during a wave of violent repression aimed at the Jacobins opponents, called the Reign of Terror.   The Reign of Terror would last until the following July when its Jacobin leaders were overthrown and executed. In its wake, former members of the National Assembly who had survived the oppression emerged and seized power, creating a conservative backlash to the ongoing French Revolution. Rise of Napoleon On Aug. 22, 1795, the National Assembly approved a new constitution that established a representative system of government with a bicameral legislature similar to that in the U.S. For the next four years, the French government would be beset by political corruption, domestic unrest, a weak economy, and ongoing efforts by radicals and monarchists to seize power. Into the vacuum strode French Gen. Napoleon Bonaparte. On Nov. 9, 1799, Bonaparte backed by the army overthrew the National Assembly and declared the French Revolution over. Over the next decade and a half, he could consolidate power domestically as he led France in a series of military victories across much of Europe, declaring himself emperor of France in 1804. During his reign, Bonaparte continued the liberalization that had begun during the Revolution, reforming its civil code, establishing the first national bank, expanding public education, and investing heavily in infrastructures like roads and sewers. As the French army conquered foreign lands, he brought these reforms, known as the Napoleonic Code, with him, liberalizing property rights, ending the practice of segregating Jews in ghettos, and declaring all men equal. But Napoleon would eventually be undermined by his own military ambitions and be defeated in 1815 by the British at the Battle of Waterloo. He would die in exile on the Mediterranean island of St. Helena in 1821. Revolutions Legacy and Lessons With the advantage of hindsight, its easy to see the positive legacies of the French Revolution. It established the precedent of representational, democratic government, now the model of governance in much of the world. It also established liberal social tenets of equality among all citizens, basic property rights, and separation of church and state, much as did the American Revolution.   Napoleons conquest of Europe spread these ideas throughout the continent, while further destabilizing the influence of the Holy Roman Empire, which would eventually collapse in 1806. It also sowed the seeds for later revolts in 1830 and 1849 across Europe, loosening or ending the monarchical rule that would lead to the creation of modern-day Germany and Italy later in the century, as well as sow the seeds for the Franco-Prussian war and, later, World War I. Sources Editors of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. French Revolution. 7 February 2018.History.com staff. French Revolution. History.com.The Open University staff. French Revolution. Open.edu.Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media staff. Legacies of the Revolution. chnm.gmu.edu.

Writing Assignment One Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Writing Assignment One - Essay Example This is because numerous people then cited the result of that occurrence was due to the state’s laxity of not ensuring tight laws meant to limit manufacture, importation and selling of 150 military-style weapons (Bowman, 2013). Therefore, this incidence could not have occurred if the current tight laws were in place because some prohibit the access of firearms by a third party (Bowman, 2013). The number of people killed in Connecticut’s school incidence could not have totaled more than 20 people, if Lanza used lesser capacity magazine weapons. Since, the current gun Legislations would have limited both the type and magazines’ high capacities, which citizens ought to possess. For instance, the current Legislations upon their implementation, would have shunned possession of 150 military-style guns by the citizens, which Lanza used to unleash terror on the innocent people (Bowman, 2013). According to the incidence’s investigators, Lanza was capable of termina ting lives of twenty plus people within an extremely short period due to his powerful assault weapons. Besides, the current legislation could have helped shun Connecticut’s shooting due to the increase of constant security patrol in education institutions (The white House, 2013).

Politics of Travel Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Politics of Travel - Essay Example The purpose of the article is to spread awareness about the ways, tourism can harm the traditions and resources of a country. Every tourism agency focuses on attracting tourists to their country, while they should also be educating tourists on how they can be respectful towards the resources of the country they are visiting and not waste water or electricity, while they are on the tour. The audience for this article are tourists, who move from country to country in order to explore different places. However, if we go deeper into the article, the audience is also the tourism authorities of the country, who should make sure that whenever people come from other countries, they don’t waste country’s resources, tourism doesn’t become the reason for reservoirs being damaged or crops being destroyed. It is for the tourists to understand that they need to make better choices when they are traveling to someplace. The thesis statement of the article is in its introductory paragraph, which states that â€Å"Tourism has seriously damaged, fragile ecosystems like the Alps-the winter skiing playground of Europe-and the trekking areas of the Himalayas. The writer begins by directly stating the problem which would be discussed in the article, tourism. The writer then defines and generalizes the different areas of the world which are threatened by tourism like the areas of Himalayas, dunes, mangroves, and forests. The writer then changes his point from areas to how tourists are wasting water of the countries they visit and how this water is not available to the locals of the village. Moreover, the writer links water with electricity, as there are luxury hotels built for tourists, in which they stay; for hot water, electricity is consumed too.

The essay talks of a woman Essay Example for Free

The essay talks of a woman Essay The first essay talks of a woman who loved and treasured her husband even in death. It talks of a widow who was married in Ephesus. The essay highlights her as being very beautiful. It was a culture to mourn your husband by beating the naked breast in front of the crowd and pulling off one’s hair. But this widow went on to follow the dead into his tomb where he mourned for five days. (Heinemann, 1913, p. 229-235). It is ironical that whoever could console her to stop mourning her late husband was a soldier who was guarding the bodies of some robberies that had been crucified after her friends and relatives were unable to do it. It’s also ironical that a dead body was stolen as the soldier was consoling a widow who was also mourning over a dead body. Its also ironical the dead body that made the woman mourns for five days without food or water is the one that was used to replace the lost dead body of the robber. ( Heinemann ,1913, p. 229-235) The second story talks of a man who loved his wife so much that he sacrificed all what he had and sold it to entertain his wife. It is ironical that he sold all the luxuries that gave him pleasure only remaining with a falcon just to please or rather buy the love of his wife and yet remain a poor man the rest of his life. Federigo loved his wife such that he even offered to slaughter his only remaining asset the falcon which he even loved more than any of his wife in order to serve it to the visitors of her wife. (Kaplan, 2006, p. 2 -3) It is too ironical that he sold everything to please his wife and remain poor and at the end his wife did not accept him. It is also ironical that that at his dying moment, the boy asked for the falcon and it lacked, he died. Irony is also seen when Giovanna instead of loving his husband when he was wealthy and having a lot to offer, he loved him most when he was poor and had nothing to offer. (Kaplan ,2006, p. 2 -3,) Both stories relate to denial for love of another person. In the first essay we see the widow has much love for her late husband but opts to give his body to replace the stolen thief’s body and not see another man whom he loves die. It is just funny how loves both them but also wise of her sacrifice the dead in order to save the living. (Heinemann ,1913, p. 229-235) The second essay opted to be poor by selling everything to show his wife love. At the end of the essay the wife appreciates his husbands love and thus reciprocates it by refusing to be re-married to wealthy merchants. This love is seen even in death where both Federigo and Giovanna share the same tomb. (Kaplan, 2003, p. 2 -3). Conclusion, According to my evaluation of the two stories, I think the second story is more effective on how it uses its narration skills and how it describes the whole event of love and fate. Though the story is tragic it end in comic way where there is joy after we note that afterwards the couple loved each other even in death unlike in the first story where the woman was torn between two loves and is why he had to give up one and take in the other. List of Reference: Heinemann W; (1913) Petronius, Satyricon, The Macmillan Company, 1913, ch. 111- 112, pp. 229-235 Kaplan H. L . (2006). Federigo Alberighi and Monna Giovanna SOCAN Available at http://www. thrinberry-frog. com Accessed on June 30, 2008.

The Fall of the Inca Empire Essay -- History, Ecuador, Peru, Chile

The Inca Empire, the massive nation that extended 2,500 miles along the western coast of South America and had a population of over 7 million at its peak. It included all of what is now Ecuador and Peru and most of Chile. Known as â€Å"The Children of the Sun†, they excelled at craftsmanship, weaving, and culture (â€Å"Children of the Sun†). A very religious people, they worshiped the Sun as their supreme god and held religious festivals monthly to appease these gods. Although they did not value it aside from its beautiful appearance, the Inca Empire was home to millions of pounds of solid gold and silver. The Inca had no use for it except to use it to craft decorations and statues. In fact, an Inca citizen valued cloth more than they valued gold or silver. Their collapse would be brought about because of the Spanish invasion, a brutal civil war that weakened the empire, and deadly disease brought over from Europe. The Inca Empire was a combination of many small tribes and nations that the Inca had conquered and placed under their rule. Their government was very well organized and efficient at ruling their subjects. The entire empire, however, was led by an emperor that was recognized by the Inca people as the â€Å"Son of the Sun†. The emperor selected his advisors and appointed governors for all of the territories under Inca control. They also had a very large, highly organized military consisting of around 500 thousand men. The Empire could have lasted centuries, if not for the Spanish invasion. Led by Hernando Pizarro, an accomplished conquistador, the Empire would be brought to its knees in just under thirty five years Before any conquistador had ever step foot in Inca lands, issues that would lead to the Inca’s downfall had been buil... ...ve died and the civil war would not have occurred. Who knows, Huyana Capac may have been a much stronger, brutal leader than Atahualpa and would have killed the Spanish as soon had he heard that they had landed in Peru. Pizarro, being the decisive, military leader that he was, would take advantage of the terrible plague and use it against the Inca. As he traveled from village to village, he would leave a person infected with smallpox in the village so that the whole village would become infected and die. When his men were in Cuzco while it was under siege from Manco Inca, he ordered dead bodies infected with small pox to be thrown into the Inca camps at night. Huge number of Inca soldiers died because of attacks like these. Pizarro and his men were from Europe, so they had some resistance to the diseases they brought with them, so they were not affected by them.