¿Como es La Navidad en Mexico y Etiopia?
La celebracion de navidad es diferente en Etiopia. En Etiopia la navidad se celebra en 7 de enero. Tambien, las actividades del día y las tradiciones son diferentes en los dos paises. En Etiopia, toda la gente va a la iglesia por la manana. Después, van a sus casas y pasan tiempo con la familia. Sin embargo, en Mexico, La mayoría de la gente realiza la ‘Posada’. Tambien, la comida es diferene en etiopia. En etiopia La comida mas popular se llama “ doro wot”. Es un estofado con el pollo. También, la comida se llama “kitfo” es mas popular. Es el carne cruda con muchas especias. Sin embargo, En mexico, “ Rosca de Reyes” es mas popular. En adición, los decoraciones son diferentes. En Etiopia, no hay arboles de navidad y en Mexico muchas casas tienen los arboles.
Explore the performance of gender and its consequences in at least two texts you have studied What is the role and performance of gender in Tennessee William's "Streetcar Named Desire" and Edward Albee's "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"?
In Tennessee William’s “Streetcar Named Desire” and Edward Albee’s “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”, the performance of gender is at the heart of both plays. Both plays explore American society’s viewpoint towards gender roles in the 50’s. In “Streetcar”, Williams deals with gender stereotypes as well as society’s reaction to those who question those stereotypes. In “Who’s Afraid” Albee analyzes and questions the damaging consequences of traditional gender stereotypes. Both playwrights use various techniques such as dialogue, stage direction, symbolism, and irony to showcase gender stereotypes. While Williams seems to conclude that gender is indeed destiny, Albee challenges this statement more evident as the ending of the play reveals that the characters are all damaged as a result of attempting to live up to these gender stereotypes. In “Streetcar” Stanley is represented as violent, brutal, and “bestial”. The audience’s first impression of him is that he is dominant and in absolute control. At the start of scene one, the stage directions direct that Stanley “heaves the package at her.” Stanley throwing the package of meat of his wife symbolizes his male dominance and his feeling of superiority over Stella. When Stella reacts by, “crying out in protest” the stage directs directly that “her husband and his companion have already started back around the corner.” This insinuates that Stanley is selfish as he neglects Stella’s concerns. The fact that Stanley does not even acknowledge that he embarrassed his wife suggests that he is accustomed to being selfish and dominant as society is patriarchal. The audience understands this as Stanley states, “be comfortable is my motto.” This statement suggests that Stanley does as he feels and disregards the consequences of his actions. Stella, on the other hand, is characterized as the “ideal” wife at the time. She is obedient to her husband and her character is often repressed. She is constantly belittled by her husband as he calls her “baby” or “sweetie” instead of by her name. Stella, however, does not react to his aggressive actions. She allows Stanley to abuse his role as her husband in order to remain to the status quo and remain as the “ideal wife”. However, Williams challenges these stereotypes through the behaviors of Blanche and Mitch. At the start of the play, Blanche appears to display stereotypical feminine attributes as she first appears on stage “dressed in a white suit with a fluffy bodice, necklace, and earrings of pearl, white gloves, and hat.” She also appears as a stereotypical woman as she is flirtatious and is obsessed with her appearance. However, it is clear that Blanche is performing this role. She exaggerates these qualities to cover up her guilt of her past. The audience knows this as she is constantly bathing herself as a way to “cleanse off” her mistakes. Blanche’s qualities that are stereotypically masculine such as her drinking habits seem to overshadow her more feminine qualities. As soon as Blanche enters Stella and Stanley’s home she immediately, “pours a half tumbler of whiskey and tosses it down.” However, she “carefully replaces the bottle and washes the tumbler” suggesting that she is ashamed of her alcoholism. Blanche is an English literature teacher also challenges gender stereotypes as Blanche’s advanced vocabulary and knowledge threaten Stanley. Like Blanche, Mitch’s character challenges the stereotypes of males. Mitch appears as soft, considerate, and he thinks more highly of women compared to Stanley. The audience can see that Mitch’s sensitivity is not valued by the other characters in the play. For example, in the poker scenes Stanley, Steve, and Pablo disrespect Mitch by mocking him and constantly telling him to “shut up.” It suggests that those who challenged the stereotypes of men in society during the fifties were met with contempt. Like Blanche and Mitch in “Streetcar”, in “Who’s Afraid” Martha and George seem to criticize American values of gender roles. Martha has failed to live up to the ideal wife. Throughout the play, the audience can see her drinking. When she is talking about alcohol she says, “never mix – never worry.” Suggesting that unlike most women at that time she did not want to drink “girly drinks”. When George says that Martha used to “drink crème de cacao frappes and seven-layer liqueur things” he suggests that Martha used to be more feminine. Although Martha says that “they were good… I liked them” she changed as a way to challenge these stereotypes. Although Martha challenges these stereotypes, the audience can still see that she is damaged by 1962’s society of a perfect woman. The audience knows that Martha was unable to have children so Martha and George have to depend on illusions by creating a son that they referred to as “the bit.” And when George decided to kill their son Martha responded in “rigid fury” shouting, “YOU CAN’T DO THAT!” Like Martha, George is also damaged by society’s values of gender roles. Throughout the play, the audience can see that he is disappointed in himself for not being the head of the History Department. Although Martha attempts to challenge gender stereotypes, she contradicts herself by constantly calling George a “flop” and reminding him that he isn’t “manly” enough by calling him “a blank, a cipher…a zero.” And when Martha begins to compare her husband to Nick, it causes George to become lose confidence and become jealous. Nick and Honey’s characters show that even those that strive to be the ideal man and women are damaged. At first, the audience assumes that Honey is the perfect housewife as she is young, “thin-hipped, and beautiful. Despite this, at first, Albee makes her appear us boring and mindless. Similarly, Nick appears as intelligent, attractive, and athletic. But the audience later learns that even he is flawed and not “man enough.” In “Streetcar” the consequence of gender roles is that those who do not conform to these roles are cast out and destroyed, while those who conform to these roles succeed. The audience sees this as at the end it is Stanley who “won.” Stanley wins as he rapes Blanche and makes the final call of her leaving. Stanley wins Stella over as Stella chose to believe him over Blanche. At the end of the play Stanley, Stella, and minor characters Eunice, Pablo, and Steve are unscathed, while Blanche is taken to a mental asylum. Mitch the other character that attempted to challenge gender roles is damaged at the end as the “collapses at the table, sobbing.” On the other hand, in “Who’s Afraid” the consequence is that all four characters are destroyed by gender roles. Even Nick who appears to be the perfect is flawed as he only married Honey because he thought she was pregnant. It is clear to the audience that their relationship is loveless when Nick talks to George about his marriage saying, “I wouldn’t say there was any…particular passion between us, even at the beginning.” Honey is discontent as she resorts to alcohol escape her problems. The audience learns that she did not want children and had several abortions. By the end of the play, the audience knows that gender roles have caused chaos in the marriages all of the characters. But unlike in “Streetcar” the ending of “Who’s Afraid” has a sense of hope as George is suggesting that they do not need to rely on illusions and to conform to society’s ideals to be happy. The idea of “gender is destiny” is relevant to “Streetcar” as it was Stanley’s masculinity that determined his fate and allowed him to “win”. This idea, however, is irrelevant to “Who’s Afraid” as George and Martha overcome this idea by the end of the play. In conclusion, both Williams and Albee question the accuracy of gender stereotypes. Both playwrights do this through the dialogue and behaviors of the characters. However, Williams leaves the audience to answer whether or not gender stereotypes are relevant while Albee implies that they are irrelevant.
To what extent did German and Italian expansion between 1933-1940 lead to the collapse of international peace?
German and Italian expansion between 1933-1940 had similar causes and their effects both resulted in the collapse of international peace. Before Hitler rose to power he made it clear that he hated the Treaty of Versailles and that if he got to power he would do all that he could to reverse it. The Treaty of Versailles was a major cause of German expansion. The German people and Hitler thought that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. The mainly were unhappy with the fact that they had to accept the blame for causing the war. They believed that they were not responsible for causing World War One.Historians have argued endlessly on the fairness of the Treaty of Versailles. Some historians such as William Carr believed that the Treaty of Versailles could have been much worse. He said, “Severe as the Treaty of Versailles seemed to many Germans, it should be remembered that Germany might easily have fared much worse. If Clemenceau had had his way instead of being restrained by Britain and America the Treaty could have been much worse for Germany.” On the other hand, historians such as AJP Taylor thought that the Treaty was too harsh in Germany. In his book “The Origins of the Second World War” Taylor argues that “the Versailles Treaty was destabilizing” Germany. Another cause of German expansionism was his policy of “lebensraum”. Hitler claimed that the German-speaking people all over the world needed more living space and it would be a way to “unite” them. However, it is likely that Hitler just used this as an excuse to expand his empire. The most significant effect of German expansion from 1933-1940 was World War Two. However, even to this day historians argue whether or not Hitler planned his aggressive foreign policies to cause war or if he “gambled” his way through his foreign policies. It could be argued that Hitler was seeking domination before he even rose to power. This is evident in his book “Mein Kamph.” Hitler continually talked about how the German people need to "reach their ultimate happiness". According to historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, “Hitler had a clear vision that involved a master plan for war and he completely controlled the events that culminated in his attack on Poland in 1939.” However, on the other hand, historians such as AJP Taylor believe that he was an “opportunist” and that he had no plan for aggression. Instead, the war was caused by political and diplomatic mistakes on both sides. One of Mussolini’s reasons to expand Germany was because of their weak economy. After World War One Italy economy hadn't recovered and its population was growing rapidly. This started to cause social unrest amongst the population. Mussolini knew that if he wanted Italy to become a major European power, their economic situation needed to be handled. Mussolini thought that for Italy’s economy to recover expanding would be the best solution. Another reason for Mussolini’s attempts to expand was because he wanted to create a new “Roman Empire”. Mussolini wanted Italy to have an empire just like Rome did. Mussolini had a lot of pride and believed that he was capable of making Italy a superpower. Mussolini chose Africa and Ethiopia in particular because he wanted to redeem Italy after the humiliating loss during the Battle of Adowa in 1896. Italian Historian Renzo De Felice argued that “Mussolini’s ambitions were to be a statesman with the mission of restoring Italy’s greatness.” Contrasting to this, other historians such as Denis Mack Smith argued that Mussolini was an “opportunist” and that he relied on propaganda. An effect of Mussolini’s expansionism was the Abyssinian Crisis. The Abyssinian Crisis was significant because it proved that the League of Nations was ineffective and that I was a failure. Historians have debated whether The Abyssinian Crisis caused the failure of the league or if it simply inevitable due to reasons. Historian AJP Taylor argued that Abyssinia was solely the reason why the League of Nations failed in his book “Origins of the Second World War.” The counter-argument is that the League was unsuccessful even before the Abyssinian Crisis. For example, the league was unsuccessful during the Manchurian Crisis. And even when the League was first set up it was bound to fail because two superpowers; the United States and Russia, were not present. Ruth Henig argued that League was doomed from the beginning saying “given the unstable and impoverished condition of large parts of Europe after 1919, and the growing antagonism between Britain and France it is hardly surprising that the League…should have failed to make a significant political impact.”