Abstract In this article, the writer looks at the effects made by the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth-century in the United States. The writer discusses this issue for the main part as it relates to economic and political power. The writer maintains that just as Robber Barons dominated American politics and economics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, modern robber barons have been dominating American politics and economics for the past twenty years.
From the Paper "The short and long term impact of the Robber Barons on the Western economy of the late nineteenth-century has been manifested in a number of ways, but particularly in terms of the pervasive economic and political power of Eastern big business and finance. Except for a brief period of progressivism in the early twentieth century and during the New Deal in the nineteen-thirties, powerful businessmen have exerted significant control over America's economic infrastructure, industry, and political establishment. "
A look at the big business boom in the U.S.A. in the early 1900s and a review of whether the owners of these big businesses were robber barons or tycoons.
Abstract The paper discusses the big business boom in the U.S.A. in the early 1900s and notes that there was a difference of opinion between whether the owners of big businesses were robber barons or tycoons.The paper also tells us that the owners themselves maintained that they were doing the world a great service and hence should not be criticized. The paper then examines the political and economic history of the times to determine if the owners of the big businesses were indeed robber barons or tycoons.
From the Paper "The accumulation of the first great fortunes, coinciding with the humanitarian reform movement of the antebellum period, helped to plant the idea that the possession of great wealth carried with it commensurate social responsibilities. Although this concept was not to become generally accepted until a much later date, it probably intensified post-mortem criticism of John Jacob Astor, who died in 1848 without leaving a significant amount of his fortune for public purposes. The Whig aristocrat, Philip Hone, labeled Astor "a self-invented money-making machine," and others went beyond personal criticism to challenge the close relationship of wealth and virtue and the parallelism of private wealth and public gain so often assumed in the past. The acidulous James Gordon Bennett anticipated Henry George's denunciation of unearned increment by asserting that at least one-half of Astor's fortune belonged to the people of New York, whose labors had raised the value of his vast real estate holdings."
Abstract This paper is an evaluation of the legendary 'Robber Barons,' the American capitalists of the late 1800s, and their short and long-term impact on American society. The paper looks at men like Carnegie, Rockefeller and Gould and tries to determine whether they were good or evil men. The author looks at whether their actions caused permanent harm to America, or whether they helped to build the powerful industrial state we live in today.
From the Paper "Finally, if these men were truly ?robber barons,? I do not think they would have disposed of such vast amounts of their "stolen" wealth in positive ways through philanthropy. One cannot ignore the endowments and gifts that some of the early capitalists made that continue to benefit many in the world to this day. Carnegie gave away over $350 million for a large variety of projects, almost all of his wealth, before he died. Rockefeller unleashed $550 million, focusing on medical research that resulted in a treatment for meningitis and a vaccine for Yellow Fever. Both men gave freely to educational endeavors. Josephson touches on this in discussing the generosity of the robber barons, but calls the many millions given (billions in today's money) as attempts to "extend their sway over the social order" and to control higher education and the freedom of expression (324-325). The fact that a fair number of these men did attempt at times to help their fellow man with their riches, led religious and moral personal lives outside of their businesses, and rose from the same poor stock as the rest of their countrymen needs to be taken into account, and Josephson's bitter dismissal of their philanthropy ignores the simple fact that more good came from this generosity than bad."
Abstract This paper explains that Baron von Steuben, known as Friedrich Wilhelm Augustus von Steuben in America, and as Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand, was born in Magdeburg fortress in 1730. The author states that, in February 1778, Baron von Steuben reached York, Pennsylvania, volunteered his services free to the Americans, and teamed up with Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Greene to develop an army training program, which remained the basis for many similar training programs for many the years to come. The paper relates that von Steuben's method of training included simplified drills, which were repeated numerous times until the soldier became quite proficient, and officers who demonstrated a mutual respect and love in dealings with their men.
From the Paper "In order to understand the extent of the achievement of Baron von Steuben, the condition and the working of the soldiers during a war or battle in the eighteenth century must be understood. Warfare in those days was a general free-for-all wherein the emphasis was on firing as quickly as possible, and at the closest ranges possible. It was, in fact, a mass fire combat, where the soldier on one side would find it of utmost importance to fire before the soldier on the opposite side could; he would always try to get the first shot across, before the other could. The rules and regulations for the soldiers were dealt primarily with drill, and firing arms. The sole emphasis was on the conduction of drills for the soldiers whereby they would become more and more proficient at handling the arms, and it would finally become nothing that would take up any sort of effort of concentration; the process of loading and firing a firearm would become totally automatic."
Abstract The paper explains that the term, "Robber Baron," was first used in America in about 1878 to refer to any American capitalist during the late 19th century who became wealthy through the exploitation of various sources, such as natural resources, governmental influence, or by paying low wages for work performed. The author points out that these "Robber Barons", namely, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Henry Ford, were owners and managers of colossal capital and ultimately made themselves and America rich. The paper relates that they all possessed: (1) the true American trait of "rugged individualism"; (2) an overpowering need to acquire material things as a result of their upbringing, which mostly occurred in poverty; (3) subscribed to some type of commonly accepted philosophy, which aided them in (4) understanding the forces at work during their lifetimes; and (5) how to utilize these forces to their own and best advantage.
From the Paper "On January 10, 1870, Rockefeller incorporated the Standard Oil Company of Ohio and then sought to end the refining competition in Cleveland by forcing them either to join him or be eliminated. He also initiated a number of changes, a few being that the railroads must make more favorable "rebate" arrangements with Standard and refuse to export crude oil, due to Standard's plan to become the world's biggest exporter of crude oil. Thus, Rockefeller created the world's greatest oil refinery and literally wiped out all of his competition within the span of several years."
Abstract The following third year environmental studies assignment is a book review of "The Baron in the Trees". The review looks at the story, major themes and evaluates the book. The paper focuses on the themes of nature civilization and freedom oppression.
From the Paper "The Baton in the Trees is the fictional account of Cosimo Piovasco di Rondo the rebellious son of Baron Arminip Piovasco di Rondo. After refusing to eat the snails that he had tried to free, Cosimo decides that he will protest his oppressive situation by moving into the trees and never coming down (Calvino 12-13). Cosimo's relations initially think that he is going through a phase and try to ignore his antics (Calvino 14). However, Cosimo is serious about remaining in the trees and manages to remain in the tree his entire life."
Abstract The paper relates that the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory is described as the most useful emotional quotient inventory available to date. The manufacturer describes this test as measuring an individual's ability to deal with everyday demands and pressures. The paper explains that the scales range from the identification of very high functioning individuals who have no difficulty with issues of compassion or empathy, to those who appear to have significant difficulty in harnessing emotional awareness and developing social skills. The paper discusses how the test appears to be clinically and statistically valid in identifying individual strengths and weaknesses.
Outline:
The Tool
Uses for the Tool
Theory of Emotional Intelligence From a Pathophysiologic Standpoint
Definition of Emotional Intelligence
Clinical Applications for Measures of Emotional Intelligence
Other Emotional Intelligence Scales Which are Available
Conclusion
From the Paper "It has been the tradition in psychological assessments to often attempt to predict a clients' ability to succeed in life by evaluating cognitive ability with things like intelligence testing. As the field of psychological testing continues to become more refined, it has been noted that often times, as well as the assessment of measures of pure intelligence, it is often times useful for individuals to have their emotional intelligence measured as well. To this means, there have been developed several instruments which measure emotional intelligence. It should be noted that not all of these tests are considered to be statistically valid by researchers and still require validation."
Abstract This paper explains that the British comedy "The Ali G Show" revolves around four interviews by three different characters played by the Baron Cohen: Ali G, Borat and Bruno. The author points out that each of the characters come from different countries, have different cultural backgrounds and interests and usually target different aspects of the American society. The paper relates that the goal of the show is to emphasize different underlying traits of the American society and how the influences of the American modern culture are impacting the rest of the world.
From the Paper "This brings us back to Ali G, the character coagulating the entire show. As a hip hop TV show host, I think that Ali G wants to bring together the stereotypes that the other two characters have sought and met throughout the US and summarize the cultural impact of the US culture as simply a culture of ignorant hip-hopers. Ali G is a "completely illiterate, wannabe gangsta, from this streets of Stains, England" who discovers America by being ignorant. By this, Cohen plays into bringing forth the ignorant characteristics of the Americans themselves, in his view. "
This paper discusses in detail the clauses of the Magna Carta and provides background information about King John and the origin of the Magna Carta of 1215.
Abstract This paper explains that Magna Carta (Great Charter) of 1215 was created as a reaction to royal privileges, which have gotten out of hand. It discuses how King John recognized he must appease his barons, with whom he was haggling over grievances and demands, to keep order in the country. The author points out that each detailed clause clearly spelled out great changes in how England was to be governed, which, although meant to appease the barons, had a much more lasting effect on government and royal policy. The paper stresses that the final clause, which may be the most important of the entire document, includes the phrase "men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, ... in all things and all places for ever": This is the clause, which created a democracy in England and found its way across the Atlantic to America and beyond.
From the Paper "To understand the underlying principles and organization of the Charter, it is necessary to understand the feudal system in England in 1215, and especially the barony. King John came into power at a time when England was at odds with France. Eventually, the English lost title to lands they had conquered in France, and this led to the first problems between King John and his barons. One medieval historian notes, "Barons who resented both fighting and paying to keep their king's continental lands resented the loss of them only when they found to their surprise that it meant the loss of their own lands in France as well as the king's." After that, there was never confidence and trust between the king and his barons. It was common practice for the king to levy his barons for his expenses, including his failed campaigns in France that had lost lands and titles."
From the Paper "Worldwide, the industrial revolution is characterized by a shift from a traditional agriculturally based economy to one based on the mechanized production of manufactured goods in large-scale enterprises. However, the American industrialization experience is uniquely characterized by the presence of Robber Barons. The Robber Baron was characterized by exploitation of labor and monopolistic and anti-competitive practices."
Abstract This paper details the life of one of the most influential businessmen in U.S. history, Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie's legacy includes many philanthropic endowments which set the tone for his day, but he is also remembered as being one of the greatest robber barons of his day who controlled the giant steel industry. According to this author, Carnegie was an complex individual, who vocally supported unions in public, but in private did everything in his power to stem their power in his many different factories. It is ironic that, in the late 1800s, the first union in America was formed in one of Carnegie's plants and his actions would lead to one of the most violent strikes in history. The resolution of this strike was the reason the introduction of government regulations involving collective bargaining arrangements in labor disputes that still exist today. The author cites several examples where Carnegie's actions did not match his deeds and only served to fuel the fires of discontent among the union members. The author also discusses how despite the fact that many businessmen, like Carnegie supported the concept of monopolies, by the beginning of the twentieth century, things had begun to change.
According to this author, the unions were drawing attention to the worker's needs and rights and as a result, the government began to develop new regulations for businesses which lead to the eventual demise of monopolies. The author concludes with several comments about how Carnegie eventually came to publically acknowledge that the labor unions and shared wealth were a better option for the country.
From the Paper "Carnegie had created his business empire upon the simple concept that a monopoly is, for the monopolist, the most efficient way to do business. Without competition, the owner can create the most efficient production and delivery system he can without wasting time and money negotiating and competing with others. This was the precept of Carnegie and those like him ? the nation is better off with monopolies. But, the workers, the masses of thousands and millions who filled the factories and mined the ore, who broke their backs and their families for virtually no money, these were the people who brought the reality of the monopoly to the attention of the government. It was the union, and its ability to bring a large voice in the form of unification that could speak as loud as that of the one person at the head of the company. Unions, then, brought about an equalization."
Abstract This paper presents a detailed look at the Persian Letters by Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. The author of this paper takes us on an exploratory journey through the letters and examines their meaning regarding many issues when it comes to customs and women. We look at examples of several letters to get a general feel of the underpinnings of the letters and the author's meaning.
Abstract Language as a tradition and experience illustrates the holistic effect of language to individuals. In the field of social psychology, it is posited that language determines thought, and this hypothesis, called the theory of linguistic relativity, is proposed by Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir. The theory shows how language determines people's perceptions of their social realities as experienced and related to within their society. Chang-Rae Lee ("Mute in an English-Only World"), Dennis Baron ("Don"t Make English Official-Ban it Instead"), and Amy Tan ("Mother Tongue") confront this issue in discourses on language as tradition and experience. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the authors" works and arguments about language and its function and meaning for the individual and society.
From the Paper "Baron uses the academic approach in portraying English as a tradition, a functional system of codes that enables people to interact with each other in the society. Using this as his primary thesis, Baron argues that English should not be implemented as the country's national language, since ?it's hardly even English anymore.? The hybridization of English in America is the result of the assimilation of other languages of people with various nationalities who immigrate and live in America. Because of the emergence of hybrid, pseudo-American languages, it cannot be possible to determine the "purity" of English as a language anymore. Thus, implementing English per se defeats the purpose of language for society?that is, to let people interact and understand each other. However, Baron's argument does not conclude definitively, since as he confesses, "there is no obvious candidate" that would be fitting to become an alternative to English. Thus, Baron's arguments is halted and brought to a standstill, since his arguments against the language pertains only to its function as tradition, and not as an argument against English as a language experienced by its users."
A unique perspective on how Kurt Lewin's Field Theory may be applied to modern day work in the field of autism in respect to Theory of Mind as outlined by S. Baron-Cohen.
Abstract Kurt Lewin's contributions to the current field of psychology are voluminous, however his name may be more obscure from the average student's list of greatest scientific contributors. Nonetheless this paper provides the opportunity to bring Lewin's Field Theory into relationship with the more modern contributions of S. Baron-Cohen's Theory of Mindreading to discuss its current applications with autism. The paper includes figures.
Paper Outline:
Abstract
History of Kurt Lewin
The Lasting Impact of Cassirer
Field Theory
Theory of Mind
Mindreading
Research in Autism and Theory of Mind
Behavioral Treatment for ASD
Discussion
Field Theory, Theory of Mind and Autism
References
Figures
From the Paper "Relating Theory of mind back to the original equation of Field Theory, the Cognitive Attributes of Theory of Mind belong to the person. Being Mindblind or being a Mindreader is not a function of environment, rather it is an innate quality belonging to the person. Baron-Cohen (1995) believes it to be an adaptive process for survival but regardless of it origination it is within the person and is part of his/her unique lifespace. This point will play into how Theory of Mind and Field Theory may explain why ABA (Applied Behavioral Analysis) is the most effective treatment for ASD."
Examines the motivation of philanthropist Baron Edmond James de Rothschild as presented in Ran Aaronsohn's book "Rothschild and Early Jewish Colonization in Palestine".
940 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 0 sources, 2003, $ 33.95
Abstract This paper reports that, because of his tremendous wealth and desire to participate in philanthropy, Baron Edmond James de Rothschild supported massive land purchases and financed Jewish settlements in Eretz Yisrael. The author then describes Ran Aaronsohn's recounting of Rothschild's financial plan to settle Russian Jewish refugees in Eretz Israel by supporting the pioneers of Ekron Rishon Le-Zion, Zikhron Ya'akov and Rosh Pinna. The author argues that Rothschild's many charitable acts, which helped build the Jewish colonization of Palestine, probably also were motivated by his desire to show off his assets and have the Jews somewhat indebted to him.
From the Paper "After hearing about the support Rothschild provided for the two colonies, the Northern colonies of Zikhron Ya'akov and Rosh Pinna asked Rothschild for help. He sent Elie Sheid, the secretary of the Jewish Charity Committee of Paris, to Palestine, where he negotiated agreements in both colonies on behalf of Rothschild. The agreements stated that Rothschild had full financial responsibility of the colonies, once again in exchange for property rights and the colonists' promises to follow his orders."
