Curriculum Development Process Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 3

Curriculum Development Process - Essay Example Engagement – students are allowed to post more entries than required in the blog and comment on the texts of more students. The level of participation evidences their initiative and interest in the activity. Cultural knowledge – students search for supporting materials which can be related to Spanish-speaking culture and communities, and they acquire new cultural knowledge by sharing materials and experiences with others. Knowledge integration – writing posts in a blog and researching for it helps students develop ICT skills; students are given opportunities to find and read information on history, geography, society, art, and literature of Spanish-speaking countries. According to the expectations of the stage 6 syllabus, students have acquired a significant understanding of the function of grammar in Spanish (Board of Studies NSW, 2009: 17), a deep basis for the approach to complex authentic texts in this language. Additionally, they have practiced listening, reading, writing and speaking skills, they have studied Spanish for many hours, and they have acquired knowledge and experience on Spanish language and culture. This unit of work covers the topic Lifestyles within the theme The Spanish-speaking communities, and it relates to the theme The individual as well, because the own experience and the experience of other individuals is considered. I will show students that they have access to a variety of resources to regulate their own learning process since they can find bilingual and monolingual dictionaries, read newspapers and magazines in Spanish, and watch videos, among others.

A Poem from Aeon Entelechy Evangelion by Earthscorpion Essay Example for Free

A Poem from Aeon Entelechy Evangelion by Earthscorpion Essay Many a star must have been there for you so you might feel it. A wave lifted towards you out of the past, or, as you walked past an open window, a violin gave of itself. All this was their mission. But could you handle it? Were you not always, still, distracted by expectation, as if all you experienced, like a Beloved, came near to you? (Where could you contain her, with all the vast strange thoughts in you going in and out, and often staying the night. ) But if you are yearning, then sing the lovers: for long heir notorious feelings have not been immortal enough. Those, you almost envied them, the forsaken, that you found as loving as those who were satisfied. Begin, always as new, the unattainable praising: think: the hero prolongs himself, even his falling was only a pretext for being, his latest rebirth. But lovers are taken back by exhausted Nature into herself, as if there were not the power to make them again. Have you remembered Gastara Stampa sufficiently yet, that any girl, whose lover has gone, might feel from that intenser example of love: Could I only become like her? Should not these ancient sufferings be finally fruitful for us? Isnt it time that, loving, we freed ourselves from the beloved, and, trembling, endured as the arrow endures the bow, so as to be, in its flight, something more than itself? For staying is nowhere. Voices, voices. Hear then, my heart, as only saints have heard: so that the mighty call raised them from the earth: they, though, knelt on impossibly and paid no attention: such was their listening. Not that you could withstand Gods voice: far from it. But listen to the breath, the unbroken message that creates itself from the silence. It rushes towards you now, from those youthfully dead. Whenever you entered, didnt their fate speak to you, quietly, in churches in Naples or Rome? Or else an inscription exaltedly impressed itself on you, as lately the tablet in Santa Maria Formosa. What do they will of me? That I should gently remove the semblance of injustice, that slightly, at times, hinders their spirits from a pure moving-on. It is truly strange to no longer inhabit the earth, to no longer practice customs barely acquired, not to give a meaning of human futurity to roses, and other expressly promising things: o longer to be what one was in endlessly anxious hands, and to set aside even ones own proper name like a broken plaything. Strange: not to go on wishing ones wishes. Strange to see all that was once in place, floating so loosely in space. And its hard being dead, and full of retrieval, before one gradually feels a little eternity. Though the living all make the error of drawing too sharp a distinction. An gels (they say) would often not know whether they moved among living or dead. The eternal current sweeps all the ages, within it, through both the spheres, forever, and resounds above them in both. Finally they have no more need of us, the early-departed, weaned gently from earthly things, as one outgrows the mothers mild breast. But we, needing such great secrets, for whom sadness is often the source of a blessed progress, could we exist without them? Is it a meaningless story how once, in the grieving for Linos, first music ventured to penetrate arid rigidity, so that, in startled space, which an almost godlike youth suddenly left forever, the emptiness first felt the quivering that now enraptures us, and comforts, and helps.

Strawson Has Shown Russells Theory Of Definite Descriptions Philosophy Essay

Strawson Has Shown Russells Theory Of Definite Descriptions Philosophy Essay Sir Peter Strawsons ironically titled paper of 1950 On Referring argues that expressions do not refer in themselves but rather people refer when using expressions.(Lycan, 2008:20) Influenced by Wittgensteins Use Theories, Strawson did not consider a sentence to hold a truth value in its abstraction but rather it is in virtue of the way in which Human Beings utter and react to the sentence that give it the attribute of truthfulness and as such he considered his theory to be more adaptable than Russells Theory of Definite Descriptions in regard to ordinary language use. (Austin, 1978:531) In this essay I will critically analyse Peter Strawsons argument in relation to Bertrand Russells theory with the intention of demonstrating that Strawsons position on ordinary language is unsubstantiated and that the consequences of his language model has deeper philosophical implications which marks his theory, not Russells, as untenable. I will initially outline Russells argument in the light of St rawsons critique of the Theory of Descriptions to determine the flaws it uncovers in Russells theory. I will then attempt to offer Strawsons alternative theory through his objections to the Theory of Descriptions, to prove that his attempt to justify his theory as less problematic to the use of ordinary language is misguided. I will then finally attempt to engage in Keith Donnellans solution to consider whether it proposes a more successful and balanced approach to Russells and Strawsons theoretical problems of meaning and reference. The most efficient model for demonstrating the dilemma concerning Russell and Strawson is through Russells famous example; The present king of France is bald (Russell, 1905:485) This sentence appears to be of a subject predicate form with the grammatical subject present king of France forming the denoting phrase that Russell profoundly analysed in his paper of 1905 On Denoting. Russell proposed that there are three types of denoting phrases, however for the context of this essay I will deal exclusively with those denoting phrases that denote a single definite person or object also known as definite description akin to present king of France above. According to Russell declarative sentences of the structure of (1)do not possess the object represented by the grammatical subject in the sentence but rather conceal the more complex existential expression in virtue of their logical structure; there is one and only one x that is y, with x representing the grammatical subject and y representing the predicate. It is when the expression is altered into logical form that Russell makes the distinction between the logical subject and the grammatical subject of the sente nce which he proposes as the solution to the puzzles of non-referring definite descriptions. (Morris, 2007:51) So if we convert (1) into formal logic; 2) à ¢Ã‹â€ Ã†â€™x(F(x) à ¢Ã‹â€ Ã¢â€š ¬y(F(y) à ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ x=y) G(x)) (Ludlow 2007) Russell proposes that in instances at least of denoting phrases being the grammatical subject of the sentence, the misunderstanding that leads to the puzzles occurs in virtue of the denoting phrase being an incomplete symbol on logical analysis. (Perkins, 1972:201)This is deceptive in that it is not obvious in ordinary language and as such it is in fact x that is the logical subject of the sentence. Consequently Russell contends that denoting phrases never have meaning in themselves, but that every proposition whose verbal expression they occur has meaning.'(Russell, 1905:480) In other words whilst the sentence (1) may appear to be of a subject -predicate form, it is in fact not in virtue of the logical proposition concealing the quantifier of the expression and subsequently Russell argues that the denoting phrase contributes meaning above its referent in that it is not actually a singular term but a quantificational structure. (Lycan, 2008:14) With this in mind, if we analyse the co mplex existential claim asserted by the definite article the in (1) a)(à ¢Ã‹â€ Ã†â€™x)Fx b)(â‚ ¬Ã‚ ¢x)( Fx à ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Gx) (Fy à ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ y= x)) c)(â‚ ¬Ã‚ ¢x)( Fx à ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Gx) (Lycan, 2008:14) It is necessarily the case that each condition needs to be satisfied in order for the proposition to be true, however in this instance condition (a) is false in virtue of nothing in the world satisfying the condition of being the present king of France and consequently conditions (b) and (c) cannot be satisfied . As a result of uncovering this logical structure it is evident that the grammatical subject in these classes of sentences are not singular terms in so much as the king does not feature in the logical form of (1) and as such denoting phrases cannot hold meaning independent of the proposition . Russell argues that this demonstrates how it is possible for sentences that express a non-referring denoting phrase to be meaningful and hold a truth value despite not referring. (Russell, 1905:484) Conversely Strawson contended that the statement was not false but rather devoid of truth value in that it misfired in its attempt to refer, and further argues that this mistake occurs in virtue of Russells disregard to the distinction between uniquely referring expressions, that which mentions or refers to some individual person or single object, (Strawson, 1950: 324) and a sentence beginning with such an expression. He formulates the distinction between the expression itself, a use and utterance and similarly a sentence, its use and utterance. (Strawson, 1950: 325) If we reconsider example (1), and suppose that it is uttered once during the reign of Louis XIV and once during the reign of Louis XV, in this instance the same sentence has been uttered on two difference occasions of use (Strawson, 1950:327) and it would be logical to admit that it was uttered about different men and as such the statement asserted could either be true or false on either occasion. That is the man who utt ered it during the reign of Louis XIV may have been true in virtue of the King being bald whilst the other man may have been incorrect in asserting such a statement. Subsequently it is clear that the same sentence can be used differently on two different occasions of the utterance. Furthermore, if the same sentence (1) had been uttered concurrently during the reign of Louis XIV, then it could be said that the same sentence had been used to express the same statement to the extent that as a result of successful reference to a present king of France the statement must necessarily hold a truth value, however the utterances of sentence (1) would have been different. (Strawson, 1950: 328) Therefore it must be the case, on the evidence presented, that it is possible to use the same sentences to make different statements with altering truth values, and it is in virtue of not recognising the distinction between sentences and expressions and their uses that Russell does not appreciate that i t is only through the token use (Cohen,2008:1) of a sentence that one can make a statement and similarly through the use of an expression or sentence that one can refer to a particular person through context laid out by the statement made and as such an (Lemmon,1966:90) Expressions cannot be used to mention, or to refer to, anything, any more than a sentence can be said to be true or false. The same expression can have different mentioning uses, as the same sentence can be used to make statements with different truth values.mentioning is not something an expression does, it is something that someone can use an expression to do. (Strawson 1950: 327) Accordingly, Strawson concludes that just as the use of a sentence generates the truth value of a statement, referring or mentioning is the function of the use of an expression or sentence in that it is the speaker who uses the expression or sentence that refers and therefore it is illogical to speak of the same things about sentences their uses and utterances and about unique referring expressions their uses and utterances for they belong to different categories. (Lemmon, 1966:91) So if we again reconsider; The present king of France is bald (Russell, 1905:485) From the distinctions demonstrated in On Referring Strawson challenges Russells assertion that this statement is false. He argues that as a result of Russell confusing expressions with their use in a particular context (Strawson, 1950: 326) it appears that the sentences appear meaningful and false. However as for mentioned, Strawson considers that whilst the sentence itself holds meaning it is the token use of the sentence on a particular occasion that alters the sentence into a statement which holds truth value.(Cohen, 2008:3) Consequently Strawson argues that in virtue of (1) being a sentence in itself that it is in fact meaningful in so much as it provides general direction for use, however since any present token use of it does not refer then it is not false but rather lacks truth value in so much as it misfires in its attempt to refer to the (nonexistent) present King of France. (Strawson, 1950: 327) Unlike other false statements such as, the present Prime Minster of England is female, which is defective as a consequence of the speaker incorrectly referring to Gordon Brown as female, (1) is defective since the speaker has failed in his attempt to identify a referring subject and as such it should be disregarded as spurious use (Strawson, 1950:327) rather than considered false. (Lycan, 2008: 20) Strawson further develops his objection by demonstrating that it is the grammatical subject of the sentence that refers to the referent whilst it is the predicate that attributes a characteristic to the referent. However when reference fails it is inconceivable to attribute something to which we cannot refer and as such no attribution take place and therefore the statement cannot hold a truth value. (Cohen, 2008:3) Unlike sentences akin the present Prime Minister of England is female (1) does not attribute anything to the king of France since he does not exist. Consequently Strawson takes up a position which is strikingly similar to Frege who distinguishes between the referent and the sense of a sentence and as such it is possible for a sentence to express more than one sense, or furthermore a sense can be expressed by different sentences. As a result sentences akin to (1) which have a sense but no referent are meaningful in so much as you can understand them, however they lack the q uality of truthfulness. (Lemmon, 1966:94) Strawson perceives Russell as ignoring this distinction and as a consequence he misapprehends the identifying role of the grammatical subject between entailment and presupposition in that anyone who use the sentences (1) to make a statement implies that there is a present king of France. (Strawson, 1950:332) The notion of implies is equivalent to presuppose but it is in no way comparable to the formal logical notion of entails that Russell uses to state the existential conditions asserted by the definite article the that necessarily needs to be fulfilled in order for the statement to be true. On the contrary it is to imply in the special sense that the existential conditions are satisfied.(Cohen, 2008:3) If we use example (1) Russell would argue that The present king of France is bald is true if and only if There is a present king of France is true and vice versa, however Strawson contends that it is the case that The present King of France is bald only holds a truth value if and only if there exists a present king of France, if this condition is not met then the statement holds no truth value. So once more I draw the conclusion that referring to or mentioning a particular thing cannot be dissolved into any kind of assertion. To refer is not to assert, though you refer in order to go on to assert. (Strawson, 1950:335) It is in this that Caton (1959) realised that Strawson did not recognise the distinction between failing to refer to or to mention something and referring to or mention something (Caton, 1959: 540) in ordinary language usage and as such it is apparent that Strawson has not actually accounted for the way in which we use refer in ordinary language. In other words, when using language we use it the same regardless of whether we are referring to something which exists or does not exist. (Caton, 1959:540) Consequently, it is only possible to use a sentence or expression thinking it refers even though it does not, and surely even if one did use a non referring expression without intention surely it would appear as if one has referred? Consequently it appears as if it is not that the speaker fails to refer but rather he uses a sentence or expression with the intention of referring to something he believes to exist but actually does not. (Caton, 1954:542) The implication of this position is that when a speaker utters a statement which intends to refer to an existing thing but fails, the speaker will be corrected by someone as there is no existing king of France. It is just not substantive of our approach to ordinary use of language to suggest that a speaker could use a referring expression successfully or conversely unsuccessfully and furthermore is it not the case that when we utter a sentence, unless we are consciously aware that it is factious, that we would believe that what we are referring to is successful given the linguistic and social conventions that govern our language and thought? Strawson argues that this failure of reference could occur, however given the account above how often would a speaker refer to something believing it exists when it does not, surely even if this was the case, given our social pedigree for awareness, it would be so rare that surely it would be absurd to accept it as a foundation to a critique?(Caton, 1954:543) Furthermore if Straws on argues that his proposal is less problematic to ordinary language then surely the counterexamples used need be to be more inclined to towards our natural intentions of speech, and as such it seems that a Gricean distinction between intended and expressed propositions could almost accommodate for Russells Theory of Descriptions in this instance in that the meaning of the sentences that appear object-dependant studied by Russell are incomplete without the context of use that Grice studied through speaker-meaning. (Ramachandran, 1993:1) If we consider the example; (3)The book case is filled with DVDs Strawson uses awkward example such as (3), which expresses that there is one and only one bookcase and it is filled with DVDs when applied to Russells analysis, to devalue Russells theories but Neale (1990) developed ideas from Grice and argued that if (3) is applied to the notion of restricted quantification the absurd illusion disappears. That is the domain over which we take the quantifier is adequately altered and consequently the quantifier silently recognises the context of the speech act. Whilst this is by no means a solution it is evident that when a sentence such as (3) is used a contemporary, Russellian could argue that it is in its use that the statement is completed and furthermore this is through the restriction of quantification.(Lycan, 2008:22)I admit that there is still an ambiguity and awkwardness about the non-existent reference however it has become apparent that in ordinary language it would highly unlikely that a speaker would use (1) with the intention of referr ing but could it be as a condition of the non-intention of the speaker that the uncomfortable nature of truth arises? (Ramachandran, 1993:4) Keith Donnellan (1966) attempts to offer a pragmatic approach to the problem by suggesting that both Strawson and Russell are incorrect in their analysis of definite descriptions by claiming that they both commit to the error that when nothing satisfies the condition of being the referent that the truth value of the sentence or use or the sentence is affected. (King, 1984:14)Donnellan argues that this is not the case but rather a speaker could use a non-referring expression to express a true sentence despite the grammatical subject being a non-referring expression and this misunderstanding occurs in virtue of neither Strawson nor Russell appreciating both the referential and the attributive use of a definite description as a consequence of not analysing the interpretation of a sentence on specific occasions of use in the specific context.(Lycan, 2008:24) If we consider the example; (4) The person who bought that Ferrari is rich Donnellan argues that that statement could be uttered twofold; It could refer to the fact that the Ferrari was  £300,000 and as such it must be the case that the person who purchased the vehicle was wealthy, this is known as the attributive use of the description. It could also refer to Henry the man who purchased the vehicle after haggling the price down to  £250 000, this is known as the referential use of the description. Russells theory is an application of the attributive use of definite description in speech acts, whilst Strawsons argument against Russell is on the basis of him not recognising the referential role of definite descriptions, however Strawson neglects the attributive use and as such his theory is similarly problematic. (Cohen, 2008:2) Furthermore, the distinction between the referential use and the attributive use runs deeper, in that the truth values are different given there being nothing that satisfies the condition of being the referent in a use of a sentence as a direct consequence of the presuppositions in each case being different. In the case of the attributive use the assertion misfires as a result of their being nothing to satisfy the condition of the referent however in the referential sense it may still have a truth value given that the object that is being referred to may satisfy the description given and if it does not then the given speech act is misleading. As a result Donnellan demonstrates that out of context it is ludicrous to try and determine what a definite description is, because it is context dependant in that within a particular speech act it could be used for either referential or attributive use and as a consequence both Strawson and Russells arguments are deficient in some capacity. (Cohen, 2008:3) However, given that the question at hand is whether Strawsons critique has deeper philosophical implications for Russells theory, and that we have accepted that both theories are not sufficient if we accept Donnellans theory then could it be the case that given that Strawsons theory is not practical for ordinary language, is it worth accepting in light of the detrimental effect it has on the analysis of language given the arise of truth gaps? Subsequently by accepting Strawsons thesis on the non truth value of non-referring expression then we permit for these truth value gaps, whereby certain sentences cannot be subject to logical analysis because they lack a truth value. (Quine, 1953: 439) By analysing sentences under the scrutiny of formal logic there is the possibility of refraining from ambiguity because all sentences are ascribed a truth value through the proposition expressed by their existential logic properties. (Lemmon, 1966: 105) According to E.J Lemmon (1966) this is only sufficient if logic is not liable to imitate ordinary language to the effect that it manifests itself in the same manner. As Russell seemed to acknowledge this is not the case and in fact the role of logic is to control language under conditions where ordinary language cannot be regulated and therefore surely it is a given that it does not necessarily accurately represent ordinary language in every respect? Besides is it harmful to accept a situation whereby the logician is aware of the problem of non-referring descriptions, would it not be adequate to merely realise this and maintain the logical structure which has been demonstrated as efficient and practical? As far as the difficulty demonstrated by Strawson in this instance it only holds if and only if Russells intention was for the logical proposition to mimic ordinary language. (Lemmon, 1966:107) In conclusion I would argue that whilst neither Strawson nor Russells argument provides a wholly adequate account of definite descriptions, if we evaluate the purpose of each theory they are of differing successes. Russell provides a scientific approach to analysing definite descriptions which generally provides a sufficient measure for reference whilst still encompassing difficulties. Strawson on the other hand attempts to offer an improved theory in regard to ordinary language use however, the counterexamples he provides are not intuitive uses of language. Furthermore the implication is that it is unlikely that such occurrences would occur intentionally and as a consequence the position Strawson takes up is not philosophically practical given the arise of truth gaps when accepting his theory. Word count (3032 exclusive of reference and quotations)

A Leader: Love and Hatred, Fear and Love Essay example -- Literary Ana

Many philosophers have discussed, written, and influenced the implementation of their ideas of the perfect qualities of a leader, and the techniques that one must use to improve and perfect their leadership abilities. Majority of these philosophers conclude that a leader must demonstrate favourable traits, which will in turn generate the public in which he is ruling over to love him. This will result in a successful leadership. These philosophies are also devised as if the real world was a perfect world. However, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book, named, The Prince, which introduced the realistic idea that the world is not perfect and people do bad things. Because of this, leader must act differently to take charge of the naturally bad behaviour of the human race (The Prince 1). In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, there are numerous leaders who apply these ideas, and many who don’t. Although The Prince discusses many dark and relentless ideas of the perfect leader, his philo sophy is proven true by the characters from Shakespeare’s playwright, Julius Caesar, and the cause and effect of their actions. Brutus is a perfect example of a leader who did not follow Machiavelli’s advice, and did not succeed as a leader. For instance, Brutus’s main concern was pleasing the public and doing what was best for Rome. He did this by killing Julius Caesar (3.2.23-28). â€Å"If you want to acquire a reputation for generosity, therefore, you have to be ostentatiously lavish; and a prince acting in that fashion will soon squander all his resources, only to be forced in the end if he wants to maintain his reputation†¦to impose extortionate taxes.† (The Prince 2). Machiavelli stated that to be generous will have damaging effects on the leader. The damaging co... ...owed Machiavelli’s idea and as a result, killed anyone that was a threat to him (the conspirators). Machiavelli said that this was a good technique for a leader to use, because if a man does this, then everything that could possibly put him out of leadership is out of his way, leaving his leadership roll open to only him (Fears). Killing the conspirators was a great advantage to Antony because it gave him the opportunity to become a leader in the second triumvirate. Weather the characters of Shakespeare’s playwright, Julius Caesar followed or did not follow Machiavellian traits, each of the previous examples prove Machiavelli’s philosophy in The Prince true. Even though many philosophers conclude that a leader should have all positive traits such as kindness and generosity, a leader can be cruel and feared and be a better leader than one that is kind and loved.

Indian Curries Essay

Indian curries are, with no doubt, a famous part of cuisine to be found almost everywhere around the world. They are popular for their great taste and wide variety. It is no wonder then to find restaurant and other forms of eateries specializing in Indian cuisine. An Indian cuisine is not complete without the curry. In fact, the word curry is synonymous with Indian cuisine. Apart from the variety and great taste of Indian curries, they also have tantalizing colors that are appealing to the eye. There is a misconception about the Indian curries that is held by the public, especially American public. Many people think that they are always spicy. This is not the case. Some curries have sour flavors, and even sweet in some cases. It is not true that curry powder is the only ingredient of curry food in India. There are other ingredients like pepper, chillies and others. However, it is true that spices are a central part of Indian curry dishes, but not the sole component. This paper is going briefly look at the historical background of Indian curry. The different types of Indian curries will also be analyzed. The writer will also analyze the incorporation of Indian curry in American cuisine, and the popularity of this curry amongst the American public. Indian Curries: A Brief Background When the word curry is used in the Indian context, it refers to sauce (Panjabi, 2006). As such, any kind of Indian food that is accompanied by a sauce is referred to as a curry. Curries in India are used as a side dish, meaning that they accompany other meals like rice, chicken or lamb (Sanmugam, 2003). On the other hand, curry powder is a combination of various spices. These will include turmeric, coriander and other powders like chillies and ginger. The term curry is derived from a word that is found in the southern Indian community of Tamil (Panjabi, 2006). This community used the word â€Å"kari† to describe the same kind of dish that Indians refer to as curry (Panjabi, 2006). Curries have a very long history in the Indian culture. By the year 3000 B. C. , most of the ingredients of curry powder were to be found in Indian farms (Raghavan, 2006). These include turmeric and pepper. Also, mustard and cardamom were to be found in these farms. It is important to note that these were the basic ingredients of curry powder, meaning that this powder existed that early in this civilization. But the earliest evidence of a recipe that can be described as curry dish appeared much later. This is the period around 1700 B. C (Raghavan, 2006). It was in form of a meat dish that was accompanied with a spicy sauce, the hall mark of Indian curry (Raghavan, 2006). This was found in Mesopotamia, and it was a recipe written on tablets. Archeologists and other analyst of the early civilizations contend that this dish was an offer to the Marduk God (Raghavan, 2006). Curry became a component of British cuisine in the late 18th century (Peterson, 2007). It was brought to this land by merchant ships sailing from India. The first recipe for what we refer to as â€Å"curry† today appeared in 1747 in Britain (Peterson, 2007). It was composed by Hannah Glasse. This was in her book â€Å"Glasse’s Art of Cookery† (Peterson, 2007). Before 1780, curry could be found in some restaurants in the city of London. Curry powder, the chief ingredient of curry dish in India, is made by combining at least a dozen spices. This combination is referred to by the Indians as garam masala (Hayden, 2009). This combination is used in the Indian curry dish to bring out the distinct flavor and taste that is associated with Indian cuisine, as well as to add to the tantalizing flavor. Early Indian curry dishes did not contain peppers. This is because peppers were not grown in India at that time. They only came to be incorporated into the dish after the Indians started trading with merchants who had access to red and chili peppers (Panjabi, 2006). Curry dish can be varied to cater for the need of vegetarians as well as the meat lovers. Types of Indian Curries  These are the type of curry dishes that can be found in restaurants of nowadays that specialize in Indian cuisine. The dishes, together with the accompanying recipe, originated from India and her environs, but are sometimes adapted to fit to the local environment. For example, beef is not used by Indians in their cuisines, as it is against the Hindu religion. However, one tends to find Indian curry accompanying beef in most contemporary restaurants in our society. Rogan Josh The chief ingredient of this curry dish is lamb (Panjabi, 2006). The spices in this dish are moderate. The dish has its roots in the cuisine that is practiced in the Kashmir. This is especially the northern region of this country (Panjabi, 2006). To spice it up, the chef uses conspicuous amounts of dried red chillies. This gives it its characteristic deep crimson color. Fresh tomatoes are also used. The tomatoes are accompanied by a dash of coriander. Jalfrezi This is another Indian curry dish that is moderately spiced, lacking the distinctive hot taste that many people like to associate with Indian cuisine (Hayden, 2009). The curry sauce is composed mainly of tomatoes. They are stir fried, then garnished with sweet pepper (Hayden, 2009). The individual can add more peppers to make the curry sauce hotter, instead of its original flavor of slightly sweet. This sauce can then accompany other dishes like fish with rice and bread. Vindaloo This dish will perhaps give the consumer the envisioned image of Indian curries. It is a very fiery curry that has conspicuous amounts of red peppers and vinegar (Hayden, 2009). This dish is not native to India. It came with the Portuguese who colonized this country. This was in the late 1400’s (Hayden, 2009). Originally, this dish was a combination of wine and garlic. Today, cardamom and mustard seeds can be used to add to the distinct hot taste of the sauce. Dopiaza These curry dish is based on onions. First, onions are browned. Then the chef will add ginger and garlic. These are the three main components of the sauce (Hayden, 2009). After this sauce is prepared, it is then combined with the beef, fish, chicken, lamb or any other kind of meat that the person desires. It is moderately dry. The above are just some of the common curry dishes that are to be found in our society. It is an indication of how Indian curries have influenced contemporary food preparation and habits in America. This can be gauged by the number of Indian restaurants that are to be found around the cities. Each city has at least three Indian restaurants (Raghavan, 2006). Though the dishes are of Indian origin, it is important to note that the restaurants serve both Indian and non-Indian clientele. Importance of Indian Curries Food serves a number of functions in the human society. It is not only used to satisfy the hunger pangs of the individual, but can also be out into a myriad of other many uses. For example, food can be used as a means of socialization, whereby people meet and socialize over a plate of food or a cup of tea. Food can also be used for cultural practices, for example when it is used by Indians as offerings to their gods. Indian curries serve these purposes and many others. However, the notable benefit of Indian curries is to be found in their use as medicinal agents. Indian curries have been known to fight common illnesses like Alzheimer and cancer. This is perhaps the reason why there are less cases of Alzheimer in India and her neighboring societies. For the curries to have the desired medicinal value, the chef is advised to use fresh ingredients, as opposed to the processed ingredients like curry powder found in many supermarket shelves today. Caraway seed is one of the oldest ingredients of Indian spices (Sanmugam, 2003). These seeds contain limonene oil (Sanmugam, 2003). This is very useful in boosting the individual’s immunity system. It also helps in soothing dry and itchy skin. This oil has been known to relieve many conditions, especially after been combined with olive oil. These include bronchitis and eye infections (Sanmugam, 2003). When used in food, this spice helps lactating mothers to produce more milk for the child. It can also be used to contain oral infections like halitosis. Cardamom pod is another very useful ingredient of Indian curry. It contains cineole (Peterson, 2007). This is a potent antioxidant. It boosts the immune system. It also detoxifies one’s liver. People who consume curry containing this spice regularly have been known to have reduced risks of getting cancer, especially stomach cancer (Peterson, 2007). It is also known to fight asthma and can be used to fight bad breath. Clove contains elements that are also of medicinal value. It has eugenol, another form of an antioxidant agent (Peterson, 2007). It relieves toothache and sore throat. Fennel seeds are also very helpful. They have antioxidant which helps in fighting infections like cancer. Anethole is one antioxidant contained in these seeds. Kaempferol and rutin are other antioxidants of the same seeds. Turmeric root contains curcuma. This is what gives it the signature orange taint. It is an antioxidant and a pain killer. Conclusion Indian curries have a very long history in the Indian civilization. The ingredients of curry powder were cultivated in this society three millennia before the birth of Christ. This is an indication that they were probably used in these times. Indian curries have greatly influenced the cuisine of contemporary western societies. This can be gauged by the profusion of Indian restaurants in the country. Indian curry can accompany a number of dishes, and the preparations and ingredients of this curry vary from one place to the other. Like any other form of food, Indian curry can be put into several uses apart from the conventional one of satisfying hunger. The writer noted the medicinal use of this curry, an indication of its popularity.

Debate on Indian Removal Essay

In the contemporary world the idea of removal of an entire people from its native land would sound wickedly and would perhaps be considered a genocide, yet in the XIX century this idea was quite permissible and corresponded to the ruling concept of civilized nations which were to rule those uncivilized and determine their existence. Therefore, in our estimation of pro and contra Indian removal arguments I shall attempt to evaluate the named arguments first and foremost from the point of view of the time and base my conclusions on such evaluation. The first argument proposed by Andrew Jackson to the Congress in 1829 is that that no new state may be established without consent of the people of that state, and since Indians are living on the territory of existing states and do not constitute a majority, they may not establish their own government and have to obey the laws of the state or immigrate. A harsher version of the argument is provided in the North American Review, January 1830, blaming that Indians are barbarous people â€Å"incapable of sustaining any other relation with the whites, than that of dependence and pupilage. † Francis J. Grund is even more acrid, as he claims Indian’s cruelty towards the Founding Fathers. A counterargument can be found in the â€Å"Memorial of the Cherokee Indians†, published in the Weekly Register vol. 38, and it is that a white man is a ruler of the land, and the red man is weak, yet there were times when whites were week and reds were strong, and the whites received warm welcome from the Indians. Also the Indians argued that previous treaties guaranteed their rights to land. The situation with the Indians is similar to the one with the colonists before the Revolution. The colonists appeared to be weak and Britain was strong, yet the colonists were able to gain their independence by force. However, the Indians were unable to win the war and they had to obey those who are strong. Therefore, the US Government argument was nothing but a sword law, not a just law. This is well confirmed by the Decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832), where the Court has found that treaties between the Indians and the Government, as well as Indian self-government are guaranteed as long as the Indians obey the general laws of the state. Since the Indians did not obey, all they privileges have to be annulled. Yet the laws of the state themselves made the Indians chose between â€Å"becoming civilized† in other words not leading their traditional lifestyle and immigration. So, it may be concluded, that removal has logically followed from the previous relations between the Indians and the Government, in which the Government used sword more frequently than justice. The second pro argument proposed by Andrew Jackson in 1830 were advantages of immigration both for the whites and for Indians. For the US government is was an opportunity to protect the frontiers, for the states of Mississippi and Alabama these were new territories and opportunities for development, and for the Indians, under Jackson, it was an ability not to have contacts with the civilized people, follow their customs and live under the government supervision, gradually becoming a civilized community. A counterargument of the Indians is explained in the mentioned Memorial, as well as in the article published in the North American Review, October 1830 where they claim their right to stay on their land and continue their traditional life same as any nation has title over its land. In fact, we once more face the sword law: the Government determined what is â€Å"civilized† and what is â€Å"law† and the Indians had to obey or disappear. Another Indian argument may be found in the letter from John Ross: the Government was just willing to get rid of the Indians. This is an argument with no counterargument. Government’s desire to make away with the Indians was undisputable. Concluding my analysis I have to recognize that the arguments of the Indians look stronger even for the XIX century. An independent international tribunal of the time would perhaps take their side. Yet there was no such tribunal, but only the will of the Government which caused Indians to be removed.