Greed of the Pardoner in Chaucers Canterbury Tales :: Pardoners Tale Essays

Canterbury Tales - The Greed of the Pardoner Throughout literature, relationships can often be found between the author of a story and the story that he writes.   In Geoffrey Chaucer's frame story, Canterbury Tales, many of the characters make this idea evident with the tales that they tell.   A distinct relationship can be made between the character of the Pardoner and the tale that he tells. Through the Prologue to the Pardoner's tale, the character of the Pardoner is revealed.   Although the Pardoner displays many important traits, the most prevalent is his greed.   Throughout the prologue, the Pardoner displays his greed and even admits that the only thing he cares about is money: "I preach nothing except for gain" ("Pardoner's Tale", Line 105).   This avarice is seen strongly in the Pardoner's tale as well.   In the Pardoner's tale, three friends begin a journey in order to murder Death. On their journey, though, an old man leads them to a great deal of treasure.   At this point, all three of the friends in the tale display a greed similar to the Pardoner's.   The three friends decide that someone should bring bread and wine for a celebration.   As the youngest of the friends leaves to go buy wine, the other two greedily plot to kill him so they can split the treasure only two ways.   Even the youngest decides to "put it in his mind to buy poison / Wit h which he might kill his two companions" (383, 384).   The greed, which is evident in the character of the Pardoner, is also clearly seen in the tale. Another trait that is displayed by the Pardoner and a character in his tale is hypocrisy.  Ã‚   Although the Pardoner is extremely greedy, he continues to try and teach that "Avarice is the root of all evil" (6).   The characters in his tale display great hypocrisy as well.   As the tale begins, the friends all act very trustworthy and faithful towards all of their friends.   They nobly make a decision to risk their lives while trying to slay their friend's murderer.   As they talk about their challenge, they pledge "to live and die each of them for the other, / As if he were his own blood brother" (241-242).   At the end of the tale, the "brothers" begin to reveal their true nature.   They all turn on each other in an attempt to steal the treasure for themselves.

DBQ on Sectionalism Essay

During the period of 1850-1861, America was struggling to stay united as debates over several major issues started to take the forefront. After the war with Mexico ended in 1848, America gained the territories of Texas, New Mexico, and California through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Soon after, disputes over whether these states should be free states or slave states erupted. By 1850, a solution was found in the Compromise of 1850 where California would become a free state, and New Mexico and Texas would have popular sovereignty, allowing them to decide for themselves whether they would be slave states or not. The Fugitive Slave Act was also written in 1850 in an effort to satisfy southern slave owners by requiring northerners to return any runaway slaves back to their owners in the South. The combination of the Compromise of 1850 and The Fugitive Slave Act, along with debates over the Constitution and popular sovereignty, started to impact the unity of the nation and potentially split the North and South even more. The actions of the government during the period of 1850-1861 contributed to the deteriorating conditions of America, particularly in the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act. In 1852, William Lloyd Garrison expressed the idea that the Constitution influenced slavery in America despite the fact that nothing about slavery was directly mentioned. He feels that a government in support of slavery is corrupt and cannot be trusted and that the people need to overthrow it. The Constitution’s inability to stop slavery leads to division among the people who support slavery and the people who do not. In this way, the government played a part in the weakening of the Union (Doc. E). The Fugitive Slave Act, a part of the Compromise of 1850, helped intensify tension between the pro-slavery South and anti-slavery North. In Boston, freed slaves had to be warned to avoid any interaction with watchmen and police in Boston, who now had the ability to send them back into slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act further divided the North and South because it forced the anti-slavery North to go against its beliefs and involve itself in the institution of slavery instead of preventing it (Doc. C). Ralph Waldo Emerson further describes the immortality of the Fugitive Slave Act by comparing the government’s varying  disciplines on the institution. In 1807, Congress had banned the importation of slaves into America, but by 1850, they encouraged the capturing of freed slaves in the North and sending them back into servitude. This contradiction adds to division because it proved to northerners that the government would bend to the South’s desire to keep slavery. Emerson viewed this act as immoral and felt that if the government implemented it, the Union would immediately fall apart. In a way, Emerson’s view was not wrong, as the Fugitive Slave Act did contribute to increasing division between the North and South over slavery (Doc. D). Another issue that led to the crumbling of the Union was the debate over popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty embodied the idea that the new states coming into the Union should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they would allow slavery or not. This belief is rooted in the Compromise of 1850, which was basically an effort to maintain the balance between the slave states in the South and the free states in the North. A map depicting the Compromise of 1850 shows the slave states in the South, the free states in the North, and the new territories that could be swayed either way. The reason the possibility of popular sovereignty in these territories caused controversy was because whatever way they went, they could potentially upset the balance between the North and South, which could lead to serious conflict over slavery (Doc. A). President Jefferson Davis further explains the debate over popular sovereignty in terms of the Constitution. Although the Constitution does address state power through amendments, it was unable to prevent opinions regarding a lack of state sovereignty from developing in the North. This proves that the Constitution was becoming weak and unable to meet the conditions of that time period. Also, the states are beginning to feel entitled to their rights and are forgetting that the Union existed based on a combination of the states (Doc. H). The Kansas and Nebraska Act of 1854 created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska and gave the settlers of that land the right to decide whether they would be slave states or not. This act increased tensions around slavery amongst the settlers and thus led to violence because some settlers were advocates of slavery and then others were against slavery. The artist of this cartoon depicted a freesoiler being held down by Presidential  nominee James Buchanan and Democratic senator Lewis Cass on the â€Å"Democratic Platform,† which was a shot at the Democratic Party because many blamed them for the increase in violence towards anti-slavery settlers in Kansas. The platform is labeled with â€Å"Kansas,† â€Å"Cuba,† and â€Å"Central America,† which represents the alleged Democratic goals of spreading slavery outside of America. The freesoiler is being fed a slave by Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas and President Franklin Pierce. This cartoon shows that many people felt that the new states were being forced to accept slavery by the Democratic Party (Doc. F). Sectionalism increased tensions between the North and South and thus contributed to the failure of the Union by splitting the nation apart on several key issues. Sectionalism is when a part of the nation, either the North or South, puts their owns interests over the whole nation’s concerns. Sectionalism can often lead to states breaking apart from the Union. From the period 1850-1861, the North and South were split over slavery and whether the new territories being added to the Union should be slave or free. The only way to prevent conflict over sectional issues is to have a strong Constitution that addresses the needs of each area of the country. Without that, the Union will inevitably fail (Doc. B). President James Buchanan, who felt that in order to preserve the Union, the Constitution must protect the rights of the South, further explains this idea. If the needs of the states are not met, then the states have the right to withdraw from the Union because of their own sovere ignty. To prevent the succession of the South, Congress should recognize slavery, protect the right of slavery in new territories, and support the Fugitive Slave Act (Doc. G). President Abraham Lincoln felt that sectionalism and succession would lead to the demise of the Union. To even consider leaving the Union, a state has to feel that it is better than all the others and will be more successful on its own. However, no state in America had ever been on its own, leading President Lincoln to believe that no state can truly fend for itself (Doc. I). Because it was believed that succession would lead to the failure of the Union, sectionalism was discouraged because it would split the country apart. In reality, sectionalism occurred anyway and resulted in the North and South being divided based on slavery. The actions of the government along with conflicts over popular sovereignty in new territories and sectionalism contributed to increasing tensions between the North and South, especially over slavery, and overall weakened the Union. The actions the government took during the period of 1850-1861 influenced the division between the North and South over slavery by passing the Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act. The Compromise of 1850 created controversy over popular sovereignty because it would give new states the right to decide for themselves if they would support slavery or not. The combination of government actions and popular sovereignty resulted in sectionalism, which furthered the divide between the North and South.

Rwandan Rwanda And The Rwandan Genocide - 1896 Words

Introduction In the spring of 1994, more than eight thousand Rwandans were murdered, slaughtered, and bodies piled up upon the streets in less hundred days. But yet, the only reason this genocide had actually stopped, was at the cost of the Rwandan Patriotic Army, a militant group primarily composed of Rwandan refugees whom reclaimed Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. Yet, before the Rwandan genocide occurred, for many years, tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi had growth to extreme measures and lead to far more than just disputes- it lead to the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide was a mass slaughter of Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority in which the Hutu were the ones attempting to overrule the colony in†¦show more content†¦In 1912, there were actually few changes, especially when it came down to the Tutsi and their missionaries. They were entitled and felt as if their had the right to more a aristocracy system rather than a system based off christianity . Therefore this idea began to promote a different ideology and and conversions began. These changes were not only due to the new ideas that that got all of the colonised world, but yet, it tend to be avoided one that consequently altered the way they governed their land, and it was an unforeseen event. But even though this was an unforeseen event, social relationships became more grimmer and full on conflict concerning the structure of society and retaining the terms of power, which for the Hutu, in terms of power, had become less and less in a way of making money for them. The old oppressive forms were seen as too harsh, therefore, they didn’t with stand and began to lose their real power and it was evident that their ‘cultural legitimacy’ weary away. In such an unstable/shifting atmosphere, the church began to favor the growth of a ‘Hutu counter-elite’. Since there was war around this time, the church was thinking about different approaches to bec ome this stable quality state. In 1915, there was as many black priests as there were white.These clergy were mostly Tutsi, since at the time, they were