The Politics Of Secularism In India

The Politics Of Secularism In India Secularism in India has always been more of a political than a philosophical phenomenon. Secularism may be one of the basic features of the Preamble but its validity as one of the basic features of the Constitution and its practicability in Indian society is questionable. There is an increasing use of religion in the social construction of ethnic and communal identity which is made the basis for the articulation of common economic interests and political mobilization. There is also the construction of a pan Indian Hindu consciousness that cuts across caste and regional divisions. While secularism has been integral to Indias democracy for more than 50 years, its limitations implementations are indeed matters of acrimonious debate even to this day. Discussions on the place of religious community in Indian society have turned on the opposition of secularism communalism and of modernity tradition. Secularism is unalterably linked with modernity, but the ideal of equal respect for all religions has not been translated into social reality, and the end result is something termed as pseudo-secularism. Modernity was characterized by the emergence of public, civic and privatized religious entities, concepts of a liberal democracy and a nation state, and the secularized individual who is unfettered by ascriptive identities. But such a trajectory of human development and social transformation required an understanding of humanity that was fundamentally ahistorical. Both the Round Table Conferences as well as the Constituent Assembly Debates struggled with the dilemma of formulating a liberal democracy for people who had historically been represented, and in turn came to represent themselves, as determined by the ascriptive identities of sect and caste.  [1]  Whenever critiquing secularism, the question of caste has always been sidelined by the preoccupation with religion. But the politics of secularism in India is integrally reliant and revolves around the co-optation of untouchables into an upper caste Hindu identity. The crucial fact that needs to be clarified is that, rather th an being distinct from the categories of community and caste, nationalism and communalism, liberalism and democracy, Indian secularism emerged as the nexus of all of these.  [2]   The Indian Constitution has spelt out several provisions regarding the secular state even before the term secularism was introduced into the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976. Articles 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 325 all incorporate the principles of 1. Freedom of religion to individuals as well as to religions. 2. Equality of citizenship and no discrimination on grounds of religion. 3. Separation of State from religion. It is evident that the intention of the Constitution is neither to oppose religion nor to promote a rationalization of culture, but merely to maintain the neutrality and impartiality of the state in matters of religion. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 stated that Secular means a republic in which there is equal respect for all religions, but the Supreme Court of India has been interpreting secularism in the Constitution differently over the years in its various judgments. To examine the vicissitudes of the Indian experiment with secularism, one needs to understand that there is a dichotomy in Indian society- Firstly, the political society comprising parties, movements, non party political formations which channelise popular demands through a form of mobilization termed as democracy- and secondly the civil society for whom the affirmation of secularism has been through the state and its institutions, schools, universities and the English media. In Indian society, the merits of secularism have been familiarized only by the academy and intellectual circles (civil society) whereas Hindu communal history has pervaded the streets and common sense (political society).  [3]   The relations between state, society and religion are not well defined, personal laws vary with religious communities, the precarious position of religious minorities, the affiliations of political formations with religious fundamentalists, increasing importance of the Hindu and more importantly the Hindutva philosophies pose severe challenges to the success and future of secularism in India.  [4]  It must be conceded that secularism in India today is too politicized and statist acting as an ideology of the state and an instrument of power. It is necessary to find ways to depoliticize secularism and to move it further into the domain of civil society. The project will put forward and comparatively analyze both the Gandhian and Nehruvian approaches to understanding secularism, the way secularism has been interpreted by the judiciary at times even contravening constitutional provisions, and finally the researcher will attempt to discuss whether a coexistence of democracy and secularism can be successful in a diverse and plural society like that of ours. Through the research paper, the researcher attempts to advocate the following: Secular means a Republic in which there is equal respect for all religions In the light of this remark, comparatively analyze the Nehruvian and the Gandhian understanding of the concept of secularism? Referring to the Constituent Assembly Debates 1946-1950, and landmark Supreme Court Cases, discuss the changing perceptions to the concept of secularism and whether such decisions have been a reflection of the Nehruvian or the Gandhian understanding? Can Secularism in India survive the functioning of democracy where the will of the majority is imposed on the minority and their consent is gained by a mere strength in numbers? Chapter 1. Secularism: Nehruvian Understanding Vs. Gandhian Understanding. Religion, Nehru wrote to Gandhi in 1933, is not familiar ground for me, as I have grown older I have definitely drifted away from it. I have something else in its place, something older than just intellect and reason, which gives me strength and hope. Apart from this indefinable and indefinite urge, which may just have a tinge of religion in it yet is wholly different from it, I have grown entirely to rely on the workings of the mind. Perhaps they are weak supports to rely upon, but, search as I will, I can see no better ones  [5]   Gandhis use of the term secular in relation to the state is such as may, in contemporary political discourse, be described as Nehruvian.Likewise, Nehrus positions on the definition of the Indian nation are the same as Gandhis.  [6]  That is, Gandhi does not attach any meaning to the term secular that would have been unacceptable to or unintelligible to Nehru.  [7]  Both possessed a remarkable steadfastness of faith. Even though they had strong mutual synergies on vital issues, nonetheless there was a creative tension in the Gandhi-Nehru relationship.  [8]  Gandhi and Nehru had differences. Gandhis religiosity and non violent principles was not shared by Nehru. Although he opposed the concept of theocratic statehood, Gandhi strongly advocated the importance of religious ethics in political practice. Perhaps no single leader has succeeded to the same extent as Gandhi in terms of effectively appealing to the Indian masses from all walks of life.  [9]   Gandhi expressed the opinion that the state should undoubtedly be secular.  [10]  It could never promote denominational education out of public funds. Everyone living in it should be entitled to profess his religion without hindrance, so long as the citizen obeyed the common law of the land. There should be no interference with missionary effort, but no mission could enjoy the patronage of the state as it did during the foreign regime.  [11]  This understanding came subsequently to be reflected in Articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution. . In the last years of Gandhis life, a withdrawal from the political sphere to that of private moral experimentation is evident. . Unlike Gandhi, Nehru was hurled into the ruckus of politics, in command of a state, the most powerful structured concentration of modern instrumental reason that exists. He subjected Gandhis principle to scrutiny could the principle of non-violence make sense in politics, where governments are notoriously based on violence which is indeed the very lifeblood of the modern state. Nehruvian secularism was characterized by an equal contempt for all religions. Secularism as an element of modernity, required therefore a non-discriminatory rejection of all religions and all religiosity from public, as distinct from private, affirmation. Nehru was neither irreligious nor antireligious but his approach to religion was influenced by 3 basic assumptions of humanist liberal tradition- individualism, rationalism and universalism. Nehrus secularism meant freedom of religion and conscience, including freedom for those who have no religion, subject only to their not interfering with the basic con ceptions of our state. Nehru envisaged for India a secularist programme that gave religion little role in national affairs. Nehrus political wisdom was based on a theory of democracy, socialism, secularism and non-alignment. His strategy lay in an all-out attack on those forces that threatened disunity: provincialism, separatism, communalism and above all casteism. He could claim credit for making democratic secularism Indias pathway to the modern world. In his opinion Indias encounter with the Wests humanism, skepticism, and its ascendant science and technology, demanded a radical evaluation of all that India knew and was, and in that effort Indias outstanding religious heritage must correspondingly bear the strain of the encounter because in the final analysis the encounter of civilizations is a matter of spiritual discernment and active exchange.  [12]  Nehru was acutely aware and reflected expansively on the meaning of religion in the history of Indian civilization, but interestingly he was far from attempting a philosophy of religion but talked about religion in an anecdotal fashion, allowing others to distil from his remarks a refined Nehruvian theory of religion.  [13]   To summarise, analogous to post modernitys concern with immediacy and the present-Gandhi was a relentless explorer of immediacy- immediate needs, immediate means, immediate ends. In a very short span of time Gandhi introduced new themes in Indian politics with mass effect. But throughout his long career as a political thinker and activist, Gandhi encountered the dilemma of either remaining faithful to his non-violent principles and risking the failure of the Indian nationalist movement, or focusing at the seizure of political power at the expense of his moral message. Nehrus writings reveal full awareness on his part of the need to strengthen nationalism and democracy in a multireligious society characterized by arrested development while his style of functioning is an acknowledgement of the limitations under which he had to work.  [14]  A point that deserves mention is that Nehru did not intervene even once in the discussions on the clauses related to religious freedom in the constitution assembly debates. An in depth analysis of Nehruvian philosophy reflects his strong belief that the crucial choice for society is not between a fixed present and a proposed innovation, but more importantly it is concerned with an uncritical abandonment and structural engagement. The essence of Nehruvian philosophy lies in his intellectual and political understanding, in his struggles trying to base public life on a reasoned morality.  [15]  When dwelling on the thought provoking question of whether secularism has a future in India or not, the Nehruvian analysis regarding the parallel streams of the material and the spiritual which he identified as the fundamental matrix of life, for persons and civilizations alike, seems particularly relevant even to this day. Chapter 2. Secularism: Constituent Assembly Debates Landmark Cases. Constituent Assembly Debates [1946-50]: A look into the Constituent Assemblys debates clearly reveals that the general understanding amongst members of the assembly was that India was to be a secular state. They have emphasized the secular foundation of the Indian state. They also declare that secularism as adopted in the Indian constitution is not an anti-religious concept; rather it prevents discrimination against the citizens on the basis of religion. According to H V Kamath, When I say that a state should not identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean that a state should be anti-religious or irreligious. India would be a secular state but according to me a secular state is neither a godless state nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious state. During the debate in the Constituent Assembly, Prime Minister Nehru declared that secularism was an ideal to be achieved and that the establishment of a secular state was an act of faith  [16]  . It is unfortunate that he failed to identify what faith the faith that he was referring to actually meant and in an unfortunate turn of events and circumstances it has been progressively interpreted by the courts to mean the Hindu faith. The dominant position on secularism that a democratic Constitution find place for religion as a way of life for most Indians triumphed over those who wished for the Assembly to grant only a narrow right to religious freedom, or to make the uniform civil code a fundamental right.  [17]   The crucial questions that arose by way of discussions in these debates were: Was a state secular only when it stayed strictly away from religion, and could such a secular state survive only if society was secularised as well? Did a state that equally respected all religions best capture the meaning of secularism in the Indian context? How could a democratic state represent a religious majority at the expense of the rights and liberties of a minority? The issue of religious freedom and secularism was discussed in the light of three alternative theoretical positions: The no-concern theory of secularism saw a definite line of separation between religion and state. Given the principles of religious liberty and freedom of expression, it was up to the individual to decide whether to be a believer or not, or to adhere to this religion or that.  [18]  Based on a doctrine of intolerance it confined religion to the private realm. This approach led to a conception of a secular state as one that stays away from religion per se. India was engaged in creating a modern nation state and in this enterprise, religion which seemed to be an obscurantist and divisive force, had no place. The second position was that no links between the state and religion should be permitted, not because it would weaken the state, but it would demean religion. Religion could not be made subject to the whims of changing majorities by allowing the democratic state to intervene in religious affairs.  [19]   The third position termed as the equal respect theory began with the principle of religious liberty, but held that in a society like India where religion is integrally related to the lives of the people, the state should not stay away from all religions equally but that it respects all religions alike. Thus it is evident the in these Constituent Assembly Debates the main issues of contention were: Whether the right to religious freedom should be the right to religious worship or to religious practice; Whether the state should recognise only linguistic minorities or religious minorities as well; The dispute over the Uniform Civil Code, over political reservation of religious minorities; Whether there should be religious instruction in state-aided schools. What is finally reflected in the articles of the constitution is a broad definition of the right to religion as the right to religious practice, but nonetheless there were no political safeguards for the religious minorities. Landmark Cases In Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Sahib v. State of Bombay  [20]  , the apex court claimed that Art. 25 26 serve to emphasize the secular nature of the Indian democracy which the founding fathers considered to be the very basis of the Constitution. Although in Kesavananda Bharati case, it was declared that secularism was a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, but interestingly a year later in St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat  [21]  , Supreme Court ruled that it was only by implication that the Constitution envisaged a Secular State.  [22]  For the first time there seemed to be an apparent contradiction between the judicially constructed concept of secularism and that in the text of the Constitution. In 1976 the court adopted a more philosophical and utilitarian approach in the Ziyauddin Bukhari  [23]  case. In the S.R. Bommai  [24]  case it was reasserted that secularism was a part of the Basic Structure and that it was based on principles of accommodation and tolerance. Herein what is evident is a euphemistic approach an espousal of a soft secularism.  [25]  In this case it was ruled that The State has the duty to ensure secularism by duty or by executive order. It is the duty of the court to bring every errant political party in line if it goes against secular ideals like casteism and religious antagonisms Jus. Ramaswamy. The State has the power to legislate on religion including personal laws under Art.44 and secular affairs of places of worship Jus. Jeevan Reddy. If a political party indirectly espouses a religious cause, it will be considered unconstitutional Jus. Agrawal. It is interesting to note that the Court withdrew from most of these commitments in the subsequent years. In the Ramjanmabhoomi case, the court went on to elaborate on secularism in terms of Indian scriptures thereby going back to the Gandhian Sarva Dharma Sambhava tolerance of all religions. In resorting to religious scriptures the court seems to have rejected the western concept of secularism of separation of church and state as propounded in S.R. Bommai case and has gone back to initial approach of equating secularism with tolerance and the fact that state has the power to take over any religious place.  [26]   Lastly with reference to the latest Hindutva judgements  [27]  the court enunciated, contrary to the Bommai decision that a speech with a secular stance alleging discrimination against any particular religion cannot be treated as an appeal on the ground of religion . Moreover the court seemed to have conveniently shifted its stance to uphold the constitutional duty to get political parties in line with secularism and most importantly it equated Hinduism and Hindutva with Indianisation and are not to be construed in a narrow sense. Thus what is clearly evident is the lack of consistency in these abovementioned Court decisions. The court has mostly stuck to secularism not being a wall between the church and the state but a sense of toleration between people of different religions. There have been frequent deviations from the Bommai decision, but it seems that the Ramjanmabhoomi case encapsulates the essence of Indian secularism toleration based on tradition. The Hindutva judgements reassert the recognition and increasing importance of the essential Hindu identity of tradition.  [28]   Clearly the judiciary in India is a significant site where contests under the banner of secularism have been taking place over the last sixty odd years. Though landmark judgements of the apex court of the nation has been interpreting secularism in the Constitution differently over the years in its various judgments  [29]  reiterating the fact that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that secularism involves liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, even though secularism as a term appears in very few Supreme Court judgements yet it is evident that a crisis of secularism indeed exists in the worlds largest and most fractious democracy. With reference to the Constituent Assembly debates and the landmark cases the following interesting observations can be deduced: When discussing the concept of religious freedom in the Debates, there arose a paradox- it is precisely some of the advocates of a broad right to religious freedom who were also the most vociferous opponents of any political rights for religious minorities. The no-concern and equal-respect positions on secularism clashed constantly during the debates in the Constituent Assembly as the question of secularism cropped up in discussions about innumerable articles. The distinction between tolerance and secularism has never been made by the Indian judiciary. The apex court conveniently avoids exact direct mention of the word secular in its various prior judgements eg. Kesavananda Bharati case. A valid argument could be that the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of secularism for the simple adjectival reason that it is a thorny issue with also the Constitution being suitably ambiguous would never permit a justifiable interpretation. The interpretation by the court reflects the interpretation of the Constitution which society is more likely to accept. As opposed to the prior cases such as Kesavananda Bharati and S.R.Bommai , post the Hindutva cases, the line of thinking of the Court has gradually been inclined towards secularism being tolerance based on tradition but the interpretation of tolerance is more in terms of grudging accommodation than wholehearted notions of acceptance. What is most extraordinary about the courts reasoning, from a strictly legal point of view, is that it can draw such an unequivocal conclusion as to the meaning of Hindutva without having cited virtually any authorities-judicial or otherwise in its support. Even when the apex court has addressed the issue of secularism it has not been uniform in its judgements. On the one hand it has effectively legitimized the Hindu Rights understanding of secularism and supported its nonsecular agenda, but on the other hand it has also in no uncertain terms condemned the practices of several members of the Hindu Right. Thus the decision given by the court in the Hindutva cases is a contradictory one, wherein it has both condemned as well as condemned the Hindu Right. Chapter 3. Secularism Democracy: A Misunderstood Relation. Sixty years ago, 565 princely states and 13 British-ruled states became united into one sovereign nation, with a secular democracy as its Constitutions primary guiding principle. In our country, eight major religious communities co-exist ,namely the Hindus(82%), Muslims(12.12%), Christians(2.6%), Sikhs(2%), Buddhists(0.7%), Jains(0.4%), Parsis(0.3%) and Jews(0.1%). The single-most defining element of the Indian democracy is the acceptance of all religions in the nations Constitution, granting explicit freedom to all its citizens and residents to practice their faiths without violating the others right to do so. It is from this explicit freedom that citizens experience other freedoms necessary to realize their lives. In stark contrast to some 90 percent of Asian nations, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, India guarantees that right. A state that arises from democracy need not be strictly secular. Democracies are perfectly capable of giving an important role to religion in the affairs of the state. It is the problem of aggregation that is of utmost importance. A democratic state will tend to reflect in its own makeup the complexity of the individuals it represents.  [30]   The challenge facing the theorists of Indian secularism is therefore to devise an answer to the problem of intolerant religions. If one or more religions in a pluralistic society preach their unwillingness to co-exist with the others, and insist on religion as the unitary framework for individual, society, and state, how do we define a secular regime for such societies? No viable model of secularism can be built on terms defined by any one religious group even if it is the majority community, especially so since its mode of toleration has historically included absorption, subjugation and marginalisation of religious minorities. The Indian democracy provides mechanisms, available in a secular democracy, to temper extremism and intolerance inherent in most religions; it leads diverse religious communities, especially the Hindu majority, to accept that the well being of all human beings consists in respecting the others religious and civil rights, particularly that of minorities. Many critics  [31]  reject secularism as radically alien to Indian culture and tradition and advocate a return to genuine religion and the indigenous traditions of religious tolerance as the best means to preserve a pluralist and multireligious Indian society. On the contrary Nehruvian theory suggests that democracy would have never been possible in a non-secular India. Nehru claims that if democracy requires a minimum consensus about the basic values and institutions of society and the rules of the political game, then such a consensus could not have been built on a religious basis in a pluralist nation like India.  [32]  This fact is clearly reflected in the failure and subsequent removal of the communal electorate system in the wake of Indias independence. Whether India is a sufficiently secular state and whether circumstances are favourable for the survival of secularism depends ultimately upon the readiness and ability of its people to maintain an autonomous political community. The challenges of casteism, communalism and religious fundamentalism involving separatism in India are the major threats to our Secular state. They weaken the working and stability of our democratic secular Federal state and militate against the basic principles governing our national life and providing means to our new identity. Communal riots and caste carnage has to stop if India has to emerge as a secular and democratic polity. Large-scale communal riots broke out in India after the demolition of Babri Masjid by the Sangh Parivar in Ayodhya . Both Hindus and Muslims were killed in the communal backlash that followed. The attacks on Christians in Orissa and Gujarat made headlines in electronic and print media. The grouse of the Sangh Parivar is that the Muslims had demolished their temples, humiliated Hindus during Muslim rule and partitioned India and thus justified their animosity and attacks on Muslims. The Godhra and Post-Godhra incidents pointed to the absence of political sanity in Gujarat. Nothing could represent a more provocative insult to the national commitment to communal harmony and pluralist co-existence than Narendra Modis repeated taunts of the Muslim minority people of his own state, his insinuations that they are susceptible to the supposedly adventurous designs of Pakistan and his final desperate suggestion that if the opposition Congress wins the election, it would represent a victory for Pakistan. The terrorist attack on Indian Parliament on December 13,2001, was unprecedented not only in the history of India but also in the annals of democracy in the world. It manifests utter disregard and contempt for parliamentary democracy by Pakistan which only can boast of a military democracy. Thus it is evident that during the last 60 years of independence, India has witnessed both successes and failures in running the secular democratic processes. It has evolved a lasting secular constitution, a viable political system and a functional federal secular polity and with strong democratic traditions on the one hand, but on the other hand it has also garnered several communal riots and caste wars. However, it is politics, which proved to be divisive and not religion. It is not religious leaders by and large (with few exceptions) who divide but politicians who seek to mobilise votes on grounds of primordial identities like relig

Human and Disturbed Young Member Essay

I do so loathe writing essays, especially a descriptive one, but for the grade I’ll just have do it. The topic I chose to write about as you read in the title is myself. To describe how I am and the way I am should prove an easy task. To explain why I am this way is a different story. Furious, despondent and hopeless I have felt, and have endured feelings similar for a rather long period of time. In the end, like it or not this essay will be completed. For starters, emotionally I am not considered a very cheery or content individual. My mood for half of an average day is cantankerous, or rather irritable. The other half is I would say filled with cheerless and heartbreaking misery. On the rare days that I am in high spirits, habitually my short ill temper will devastate my day along with anyone else’s if I am amongst others. I don’t seem to make nor keep friends very well due to my offensive attitude. I am moderately unpleasant to be around and somewhat unkind to those around me. One must realize that to be friends with me is reasonably difficult chore. Next, following my emotions is my state of mind. I regret to announce that the stability of my mentality is delicate and unreliable. Not to indicate that I am mentally ailing or handicapped nevertheless I do not speak of my brain literally for that is a stronger and different matter. I as a person am fragile and feeble although my faà §ade shows to the contrary. Pushed too hard and reluctantly I will not last for too long. I lack determination and willpower when it comes to my mind and aiding in its recuperation. I’d rather lock it all up inside and bury it deep down never to resurface again until it just detonates. Through my neglect, I have fractured my mind and made myself a very disturbed young member of society. Apart from all the consolers and therapists, my family tries to show their love and support. Though it doesn’t help much, I just put on a smile and present them with what they want to see. My brain on the other hand is stronger and more resilient than my mind or will. I once thought of myself as naà ¯ve and unaware of society as a whole growing up in a small town alone. People and their actions or what they said, even how they looked, was mysterious and unknown to me. Un-relatable I thought the human race to be. Moving to the very overpopulated city, I now realize that not only was I not naive, but that I knew more than I cared to know. All the same, all predictable, the only difference is that here I fit in because no one cares to notice. When you live in a town where everyone notices, one feels very inexperienced, childish almost under the watchful eyes of others. Growing up alone, one is obligated to solitude and when you are watching everyone else, observations are what one’s childhood is based on. From just examining a setting or situation, even people, I can analyze it and bring myself to hypothesis that ends up being fairly close to the actual occurrence . Experience wise, I am somewhat an aware young citizen of the community. Living my life has been no easy job although I’m sure the rest of the world feels the same. My skills learned throughout life are quite a handful. Book smarts was one of my highest assets and at one point based my life around it. I grew up with nothing but my books and thought they were everything I need and would ever need. In this world it’s better to fill your head with knowledge, for when all materialistic items have passed your brain still remains. To this day however I play the part of an idiot, truth be told it makes things far less complicated when they think you are an incompetent moron. Another motive behind my opinion that I was naà ¯ve was that I generally did not get along with kids my age. No matter how hard I tried, relating to them was a vast issue. I believed that I was too immature for them to relate to. Only came to discover that I was the one too mature for them. My circle of friends is a very small one and the people it consists of are all over the age of about twenty. For a reason unpronounced to me I get along famously hand in hand with them. Perhaps it is that their maturity is vastly to the contrary of any stubborn adolescent. I couldn’t hold a conversation with a fellow teen for any extended amount of time, even if I genuinely sought to. My motto now is that if they want to talk to me, they will get up and try. If they want to befriend me, they will make the effort. No longer will I strain myself trying to talk to someone who doesn’t give me the time of day nor upset myself when I’m alone again. In the end, along with a descriptive essay in full, I have expressed to thee my thoughts and my opinions. I am a seriously distressed human being with pretty severe mood swings. Incorporate my rigid attitude, weak state of mind, hidden knowledge and the combination is thick with incompatible components. Collaborate my experiences with the fact that I am now a stronger and better person through previous anguish, and I you have a very strong and resilient victim. Being accustom to seclusion was what made me such an awful person. I admit my mental health is perchance unstable and my maturity prohibits me to make teen friends on a substantial level. This is who Elisa Soto has molded into throughout time and I don’t regret to say I absolutely love her!

The Battle Of The Confederate Flag - 2086 Words

Throughout the years there has been many flags that represent something unique of a nation. Flags that symbolizes our freedom and pride of becoming part of that nation. These flags give us the motivation and strength to fight until the end for the protection of our nation. However, as years went by, many different flags have brought about many controversies that have resulted in the fall and disappearance of them, all except one, the Confederate Flag. The Confederate flag is a well-known historical flag all around the United States and possibly around the world. However, this flag has provoked many controversial situations in the nation due to the way individuals interpret it. The Confederate flag, also known as the Confederate Battle flag for others, was created during the 1860s when the United States split up into the South and the North. The reason for their split was because the North and the South could not come to terms whether slavery should continue in the United States. This would then create the American Civil War between the Confederates and the Union. Before the war began, the Confederates needed a flag different from the original United States flag. For this reason, â€Å"On April 30,† as said by Thomas G. Clemens, a retired history professor at Hagerstown Community College, â€Å"the Virginia Convention of 1861 adopted a new state flag modeled on a different Confederate symbol: The Bonnie Blue Flag† (Paragraph 4). This flag was all blue with a really White big star inShow MoreRelatedThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag1070 Words   |  5 Pagespride or statement of hate? Many people have strong opinions when it comes to the Confe derate Flag; many others are not as educated as they think they are on this topic. When it comes to what the civil war was really caused by, and what the Flag really stands for, people tend to make up their own conclusions. There is much about the Confederacy’s side of the war that isn’t taught in schools or reported on the news. The Flags of the Confederacy are prominent figures in American History. The Civil WarRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag1695 Words   |  7 Pagestrifles, Americans cannot seem to agree upon anything. One of these seemingly pointless issues is whether the rectangular Second Confederate Navy Jack and the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia, or as many people call the â€Å"confederate flag†, should be banned. It is difficult to discern what exactly set off this movement, the fact of the matter is that the confederate flag has been used for years with no apparent backlash, but has become an issue of controversy. This debate has raised legitimate concernRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag1719 Words   |  7 PagesThe confederate flag has been a symbol of power that has caused oppression throughout its existence, but recently, more than ever, it has come under fire due to its association with racism. In June of 2015, Dylann Roof executed nine people inside of a Black church in South Carolina. As the media began to dig into this homegro wn terrorist s background, they uncovered symbols that he attached his ideologies to. One prominent symbol was the confederate flag. In the immediate following weeks there wereRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag1106 Words   |  5 PagesThe Confederate flag remains to be a hot topic that is drawing a lot of controversy in the state of Mississippi. Some individuals feel that the flag has a right to be flying all over the state; while, others can see it removed completely. The purpose of this paper is to discuss in detail four important topics as follows: (1) the history of the Confederate flag, (2) the economic impact, (3) state agencies and municipalities’ stance and (4) the Legislative position concerning the issue. The flag originatedRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag977 Words   |  4 PagesWhen I first came across the Negative Views assignment, I immediately thought of the Confederate Flag. It was an obvious choice considering all the attention and the controversy surrounding it in the past few weeks. For me personally, if I was asked six months ago what I thought about the Confederate flag, I would say I loosely associated it with the term â€Å"redneck.† I looked up the definition of â€Å"redneck† on Internet Slang and it said redneck means, â€Å"Unsophisticated rural person from Southeast USARead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag954 Words   |  4 PagesMany, in the new era, do not know the history behind the meaning of a true rebel. The definition of rebel has changed in America from patriot in the time of the American Revolutionary war to confederate in the Civil War and to redneck in today’s societal controversy concerning the image of the Confederate flag. The first definition of rebel originates from the term of patriot from the Revolutionary War. The definition of rebel in the colonies during the Revolutionary War time was a person who wasRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Battle Flag1367 Words   |  6 PagesExtinction All the conflict the Confederate battle flag has raised in the past month elevates the question â€Å"should the flag stay up or be taken down.† Many states have already taken it down from official buildings. Other questions appear asking if the flag symbolizes racism or heritage. As said by Coulter â€Å"Think of all the actual people you know, Southern or Yankee. Have any of them ever expressed support for slavery? Ever, ever, ever? No they haven t† (Battle Over Flag).No one wants to see slaveryRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag956 Words   |  4 PagesAlabama today is full of discrimination, confederate flags, and hatred towards black people. Many white Americans in the south will argue that the confederate flag represents their â€Å"culture† and their historical background, which I find ludicrous. The confederate flag flew under the laws of the confederacy where racism and slavery were openly accepted, if not encouraged, in the states of the confe deracy. People that encourage the flight of the confederate flag have not considered that part of historyRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flags1118 Words   |  5 PagesThe Confederate flags those hung in the campus of Harvard University on March, 1991 triggered many controversial disputes among the faculty of the Harvard community. Many students argued with the hanging of those offensive flags in the window of the dormitory are the symbols of Slavery and offer many offensive message, while others claimed that those symbols are the form of freedom of speech and it should be protected according to the First Amendment. The Harvard faculty did not react to the incidentRead MoreThe Battle Of The Confederate Flag1208 Words   |  5 Pagespresence of the Confederate flag. Apparently, there is a common perception among Democrats that the Confederates are associated with racial crime and hate in America. The suspect behind the shooting in Charleston has confessed that he acted about the idea of white supremacy in the South. A large section of the American population agrees the flag is a symbol of racism since it was established in honor of white civil war soldier who wanted to preserve slavery in the region. Interestingly, the flag has remained

The Rights Of Female Sexuality - 1626 Words

The Restoration Period in England began in 1660 when Charles II was restored to the throne as monarch of England, Ireland, and Scotland. Charles II rapidly did away with the strict morals that defined the Puritan Commonwealth, and his court became characterized by its licentiousness and extravagant spending. While men during the period enjoyed the libertine culture that was introduced, women continued to be restrained by boundaries that had constricted their social and sexual freedom for centuries. Aphra Behn, the first woman in England to identify as a professional writer, challenged sexual inequality by reforming the female image through literature. She addresses themes of female desire, sexuality, and homosexuality in amatory fiction†¦show more content†¦This, however, is a product of the modesty of seventeenth-century England, during which erotica could not be overly candid and graphic. Aphra Behn’s description of a female’s unrestricted desires within the poem enables her to construct the revolutionary model of a liberated female. In contrast to â€Å"The Willing Mistress†, â€Å"The Disappointment† portrays a woman who does not acquiesce to the seduction of a male but instead displays a form of power over him by refusing. Through Cloris, the female protagonist in the poem, Aphra Behn is able to reveal the sexual power women hold over men. While Cloris conforms to a more conventional depiction of chaste femininity in the seventeenth-century, the power she exacts over Lysander, her lover, is uncommon. She conforms in that she holds â€Å"My dearer Honour, ev’n to you† (Behn, â€Å"The Disappointment† 27), refusing Lysander’s sexual advances for the sake of her purity. In spite of her refusals, Lysander persists and Cloris subsequently swoons â€Å"half dead and breathless lay† (55). While Lysander attempts to rape Cloris, she â€Å"snatches his Pow’r, yet leave him the Desire!† (80) leaving him impotent. Cloris is seemingly able to deprive Lysander of â€Å"all his pow’rful Fires† (95). Her capability to disarm Lysander of his ability to fulfill his sexual desires gives her character a sense of sexual power over men. While still a victim, Aphra Behn does not victimize her. She is not portrayed asShow MoreRelatedFemale Sexuality Essay examples1744 Words   |  7 Pages| Activism Project | Female Sexuality | | Leisa Thornton | 5/2/2011 | The pleasures and rights of a woman’s sexual freedom, and doing it safely was my activism project main objective. I endeavored to educate woman concerning these issue in a fun and comfortable atmosphere. This topic can be simultaneously controversial and exciting. What is female sexuality? Female sexuality encompasses a broad range of topics, including female sexual identity and sexual behavior, the physiologicalRead MoreSocial Constructionism : Sociology, History, And Philosophy940 Words   |  4 PagesSexuality is the capacity of human beings to have sexually stimulating responses towards another human being. A person’s sexual orientation can influence their sexual interest for another person. However, in society, many people want to see the opposite sex dating the opposite sex, such as a female dating a male. Whenever someone acts against that notion, such as a female dating a female or a male dating a male, people would see that as being deviant. This connects us back to history when differentRead MoreGender and Human Sexuality1375 Words   |  6 PagesGender and human sexuality has major importance in lives. This can determine whether a person is healthy or not; not only physically but mentally as well. Also, having a certa in gender can change the way feelings are obtain their own character. It is about finding yourself within the gender given and personal human sexuality. Gender can determine actions made by either a male or female called it gender norms. The human sexuality could be defined as thoughts, fantasies, morals, relationship, and attitudesRead MoreWhy Do We Fall in Love?1359 Words   |  6 Pagesattraction between the sexes? Sexuality is a subject about which no one is neutral. Everyone has a sexual nature, everyone has a need for sexuality, everyone has a sexual personality that has been formed by home, schooling, the trial and error of life experience, and whatever they pick up along the way from the subtle and notosoosubtle influences of the society in which they live. In seeking to make sense of our sexuality we must look to its origins. Where does our sexuality come from? In this articleRead MoreFeminism: The Advocacy of Women ´s Right Essay example1300 Words   |  6 PagesFeminism, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Persepolis Feminism: the advocacy of womens rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Feminism is both a human rights movement and an ideal that has been gaining steady momentum for centuries, and a major theme throughout Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis, in which her coming-of-age occurs during one of the most oppressive historical moments in modern history for women: the Iranian Revolution. The protagonist, Marjane, experiencesRead MoreExploitation Of Gender And Sexuality963 Words   |  4 PagesExploitation of Gender and Sexuality in Ex Machina The ever-evolving cinematic myth of Frankenstein has been recreated in various forms that parallel Mary Shelley’s original novel. Director Alex Garland transforms the cinemyth as a modern interpretation in the film Ex Machina through the character, Nathan, and his AI machines. The tensions of their relationship highlight the notorious creator/created dynamic of the cinemyth. Through the rapport between the main characters, Nathan and Caleb, and theRead MoreFeminist Theory : A Feminist Perspective1558 Words   |  7 Pagesstay home and participate in housekeeping responsibilities, while men would go out in the world to work and provide for his household. Feminist theory also includes the formation of the â€Å"classic move that identifies the male with the mind and the female with body† (Price and Shildrick 1999, 79). Due to the fact that we live in a male dominant society, women have always felt subordinate to men. As a result, the goal of feminist theory, is to invite individuals who are interested in becoming feministRead MoreFemale Sexuality Within Charlotte Bronte s Jane Eyre1689 Words   |  7 Pagesexample of female sexuality in the Victorian era. The title character confronts herself with her feelings for Mr. Rochester and her growing throughout the novel. She eventually finds the courage to embrace herself as she is. Jane’s independent mind and nature contradict the grain of Victorian society. She defies historical notions of female sexuality and Victorian codes and rules on sexuality. Brontà « reimagines the Victorian notion of marriage as she emphasizes Jane’s education and female work. TheRead MoreThe Importance Of Studying The Relationships And Subject Formations1688 Words   |  7 PagesAmerican, bisexual female studying at a historically black college. In my household, according to society I would be labeled as the middle class. I have no preferences other than Christianity for my religion. Growing up I always lived in predominantly white communities, I’ve always attended in predominantly white schools, and I have a regular American name. So by being African American I always had to prove myself to people. My mother always had this mindset that since I am a female, an African AmericanRead MoreGender, Gender And Social Norms Essay792 Words   |  4 Pages Historically, sexuality has been a source of oppression, as well as pleasure and empowerment. The manner in which law recognizes sexuality is important for it produces a standard to be adhered to. From this standard, norms are established. The legal system acts a regulatory and governance body that acknowledges and legitimized cultural norms influence gendered identities. Cultural feminism suggests that gender disparities can be justified through biological differences. Gendered assumptions are