Failure At The Battle Of Britain History Essay

Failure At The Battle Of Britain History Essay In the summer of 1940, the Battle of Britain was fought between the Royal Air Force of Great Britain and the Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany. The assault was Hitlers attempt at decimating Britains air force and morale, enabling a full-scale seaborne invasion of Britain. The failure of such an ambitious undertaking marked Germanys first significant defeat and became a turning point in World War Two. More than seventy years later, historians continue to debate over the reasons for the failure of the Luftwaffe, prompting an investigation to answer: To what extent was the Luftwaffe responsible for their failure at the Battle of Britain? This essay analyses both sides of the debate; either that the RAFs successes were the most important cause of Germanys failure, or that it was the errors of the Luftwaffe that proved decisive in Britains victory. Utilizing the views of historians such as Stephen Bungay, RJ Overy and JP Ray, this essay also employs some primary sources to consolidate both arguments, and forms a conclusion to the investigation. Although the Luftwaffe were not perfectly suited to the task of singlehandedly eliminating Britains key defences, being a support force rather than a strategic one, the sheer number of pilots and planes that they had at their disposal, combined with the fact that they did not have to defend anything themselves, should have guaranteed a German victory. Instead, the constantly shifting strategy and bad leadership combined with flawed intelligence complicated the operation. Additionally, Britain benefited from the leadership of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Air Marshal Hugh Dowding, while being aided by their radar early warning system and the advantage of fighting within friendly territory. In conclusion, however, the Luftwaffe was still the clear favourite and it was only through their mistakes that the RAF was able to survive. Introduction The Battle of Britain, part of the Second World War, began in the summer of 1940, on the 10th of July. An entirely aerial battle, Hitler initiated the assault as a preliminary phase of his invasion of Britain, codenamed Operation Sea Lion. The Luftwaffe was meant to neutralize the RAF and Britains other key defences, enabling the German Navy to land and discharge troops. Not only was this failure a psychological blow to the Nazi war effort, but also more significantly it thwarted Hitlers planning for the German invasion of the USSR, for which timing was crucial. The Luftwaffe was overconfident as a result of its successes across the rest of Europe, but it failed to anticipate the conditions of a battle fought exclusively in the air; understandably, since the Battle of Britain was the first entirely aerial conflict. Hermann Goering, the commander in chief of the Luftwaffe, assured Hitler that he could guarantee control of the skies above the channel, protecting the German invasion for ce from the RAF. Not only did the Battle last far longer than intended, but also the Luftwaffe failed their objective, forcing Hitler to postpone Operation Sea Lion indefinitely  [1]  . Both during the Battle and in the years following it, the British cleverly capitalised on the propaganda value of their success. This gave rise to the initial popular view that it was the courage and resilience of the RAF that had repelled the Luftwaffe through sheer determination, overcoming the numerical odds. Indeed, Churchill would often mention in his speeches and later his memoirs the importance of the Few  [2]  . However, orthodox historical investigations adopted a more analytical and less sensationalist view that Britains inherent advantages of radar and friendly territory tipped the scales in their favour, combined with the heroism of the pilots and Britains impressive fighter production and sound leadership  [3]  . An alternative revisionist view emerged later as records out of Germany came to light, stating that despite all of this Britain would still have lost if the Luftwaffe had not conducted their campaign so poorly  [4]  . After all, it is undisputed that the Germans had greater numbers of planes  [5]  and more importantly, capable, experienced pilots. The fact that such a key event continues to be a subject of intense debate merits an investigation into what actually was the more decisive factor. Therefore the following research question is still very relevant today: To what extent was the Luftwaffe responsible for their failure at the Battle of Britain? While both sides of the debate provide compelling evidence, ultimately, for all of the RAFs courage and advantages, the Luftwaffe should have been able to overwhelm them with sheer brute force and elementary tactics, but the extent to which the Luftwaffes mistakes altered the course of the Battle led to Britains victory. The RAFs responsibility for the result There can be no doubt that the RAF showed an unprecedented level of resilience and intelligence in dealing with the German threat, and despite all of the propaganda associated with it, there is a great deal of evidence that supports this orthodox view. One of the major contributors to this success was the system implemented by Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, aptly named the Dowding system of defence. Dowding organized a structured system of command and networked intelligence, with several scattered Sectors reporting to four groups, and each group then filtering and passing on the necessary information to the central Fighter Command Headquarters  [6]  . The Dowding system ensured that Fighter Command was able to receive a clear and updated picture of the Battle at all times. This was in no small part due to the implementation of Radio Direction Finding (RDF) also known as radar, which was instrumental in ensuring that Fighter Command knew exactly when and where the Germans were attacking. Since its inception in 1935, Dowding had personally championed the radar system. Furthermore, the use of radar was cleverly organised; Fighter Command controlled the radar, but each sector was able to control its airfields and observers, enabling local control that avoided the potential delay of waiting for Fighter Commands directions. Additionally, as Fighter Command directly received radar, if the Luftwaffe succeeded in bombing a station, Fighter Command would continue to function unimpaired. On the 7th of September 1940, the Luftwaffe attacked London with 400 bombers escorted by fighters. This attack tested the efficiency of the system; once the Germans were detected by the radar and confirmed as three waves of aircraft, the commander of 11 Group, Keith Park, sent six of his squadrons to combat the first wave while holding the remainder of the group for the other two, saving fuel. Meanwhile, 12 Group and 10 Group were deployed to protect 11 Groups vulnerable airfields from German bombers  [7]  . Dowdings system was able to eliminate the Luftwaffes advantage of surprise  [8]  , allowing the British to send out the precise number of aircraft exactly where they were needed to thwart the Germans; and this became a vital component of Britains victory, especially since the Germans refused to recognize the threat of it. Another factor in the result of the Battle was the ability of the British factories to replace lost and damaged aircraft. Britains fighter production was far better than Germanys, approximately 500 per month against just over 150 per month by the Germans  [9]  . In addition, these aircraft were Hurricanes and Spitfires, high quality planes that were more than a match for Germanys own Bf 109s and 110s  [10]  . The rapid rate of production ensured that the RAF never had a shortage of operational aircraft, although the same could not be said of their pilot reserves.  [11]  . This impressive level of production was primarily due to Lord Beaverbrooks ability to deregulate the processes used for aircraft production, in his capacity as Minister of Aircraft Production. With Churchills help, Beaverbrook managed to persuade British citizens to donate pots, pans and even fences and railings to be used in factories in a scheme dubbed Saucepans to Spitfires  [12]  . Churchill ofte n lauded Beaverbrooks success, during these weeks of intense struggle and ceaseless anxiety, claiming that his personal buoyancy and vigour were a tonic  [13]  , and on the 2nd of August 1940 he appointed Beaverbrook to the War Cabinet. The results of Beaverbrooks efforts were directly reflected in the number of operational airplanes, which rose from 560 to 730 between June and November  [14]  . The orthodox view gives great importance to Dowdings excellent tactical deployment of his aircraft in determining the RAFs victory. Dowding was aware from the beginning that the number of trained pilots available was always dangerously scarce; a notion supported by accounts from fighter pilots that emerged after the war, claiming that they were often scrambled three or four times a day  [15]  . Despite strong suggestions from 12 Group Commander Trafford Leigh-Mallory and the leader of 242 squadron Douglas Bader to attack the Germans head on in a massive fire fight, Dowding held firm with his strategy of utilizing his early warning system to send out a small number of planes to intercept the Germans where they were most needed. Furthermore, during the last days of the Battle of France, Dowding refused to send out any more squadrons to the aid of the French, recognizing that Frances defeat was inevitable  [16]  . During the Battle of Britain, 11 Group, which often bore the brunt of the German attack, frequently requested Fighter Command for support from the other Groups. Indeed, some of the pilots in 11 Group who later recounted their experiences have criticized Dowding for putting too much strain on Air Vice Marshal Park  [17]  , although it is unlikely that these pilots would have sympathized with the general strategy after the ordeals they were put through. Dowding also understood that the RAF had an essential advantage in fighting over friendly territory; firstly, an RAF pilot who ejected from his plane could easily be rescued and returned to the front-line, whereas German pilots would become prisoners of war, or drown in the Channel. Considering that out of the more than 800 planes shot down, only 507 RAF pilots were killed, this was extremely valuable given the RAFs lack of reserve pilots  [18]  . Secondly, the Luftwaffe was operating out of France, which meant they had to waste precious fuel crossing the English Channel, whereas the RAF planes took off much nearer to the points of interception.  [19]   Another aspect of the RAFs ingenuity that worked in their favour was their quick adaptation of aerial combat tactics. The nature of the Battle of Britain was such that both the RAF and the Luftwaffe were initially unprepared for the scale and pace of the fighting that was conducted. As per the training manual, RAF pilots initially used a conventional formation with two wingmen flying behind the leader at a fixed distance, which limited their ability to defend the leader  [20]  . By contrast, the Luftwaffe sent fighters operating in a two pair formation around their bombers, and towards the end of July the RAF had already adopted this strategy. Wing Commander H. R. Allen of 11 Group believed that if the RAF had used this method from the beginning, they would have been several times more efficient at destroying German aircraft  [21]  . Since Allen was a pilot who actually fought in the Battle, it is reasonable to assume that he would have been able to evaluate this effectively. Also, the RAF modified their standard squadron formation, using part of the squadron flying in three lines, while the rest flew above and to the rear, offering better defence and ready replacements for any losses in the front  [22]  . Another important tactic employed by the RAF was to send their faster, more agile Spitfires against the German Messerschmitt 109s, while allowing their Hurricanes to eliminate the slower and more vulnerable German bombers. Britains adaptability helped to conserve their limited resources and efficiently engage the enemy, offering crucial tactical gains. While the RAF were busy fighting the Germans in the skies, Britains Prime Minister Winston Churchill was equally active in rallying Great Britain behind their courageous Royal Air Force. Churchills skills as an orator and motivator undoubtedly played a part in Britains victory. Although Hitler could be equally charismatic, he showed very little interest in the Battle, deferring responsibilities to Goering while he focused on Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR  [23]  . Churchill wrote in his memoirs Their Finest Hour how he cannot speak too highly of the loyalty of Mr Chamberlain, or of the resolution and efficiency of all of my Cabinet colleagues, and yet Churchill himself was constantly visiting various Group stations and Fighter Command, asking for updates and estimates of progress  [24]  . A notable example of this was Churchills arrival at 11 Groups Headquarters in Uxbridge on the 15th of September, and remained in the Group Operations room with Air Vice-Marsh al Park for most of the battles duration  [25]  . In addition to this, Churchills address to the House of Commons on the 18th of June famously spoke of Britains finest hour and of how never has so much in the field of conflict been owed by so many to so few. These speeches helped to boost the morale not only of the public, but more importantly that of the overworked RAF pilots  [26]  . Moreover, Britain also benefited from the intelligence it received. During the Battle, both sides overestimated the enemys losses while underestimating their own, partly to increase morale, but also due to the chaotic circumstances that made it extremely difficult to gather reliable intelligence. According to Stephen Bungay, Britain also overestimated the overall strength of the enemy force, judging Luftwaffe front line strength to exceed 5000 when in reality there were around 3000 German aircraft with 900 reserves. This discouraged an all out Big Wing assault, which would have negated Britains advantages and caused careless losses  [27]  . Furthermore, by the time of the Battle the British were able to decode German messages using their Enigma machine; although some historians argue that Fighter Command was unaware of the Enigma breakthrough until as late as October  [28]  . The RAF were also aided by a branch of the observer corps known as Y Service, which yielded unprecede nted results simply by listening in to various German radio frequencies  [29]  . These aspects of the RAFs intelligence network compounded by the Dowding early warning system ensured that the RAF were alerted of the Luftwaffes moves as much as possible. The many advantages that the RAF both inherently began with and later cultivated enabled them to put up a strong defence, resulting in the Luftwaffe coming off worse in nearly every exchange. In a stark contrast to the Luftwaffe, the RAF prospered under an efficient system of intelligence, tactical adaptability and reliable leadership. There can be no doubt that these were important contributors to their victory, to a limited extent. The Luftwaffes responsibility for the result Hitler commanded his Luftwaffe to maintain air superiority over the Channel and Island.  [30]  While the Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF, an important point to note is that of the 3000 aircraft sent to Britain, only 1200 of those were fighters, while the 1800 bombers were far more vulnerable against the Hurricanes and Spitfires  [31]  . One of the most costly failures of the Luftwaffe was their wayward tactics and strategy. This was explicitly demonstrated in the inexplicable gap in the offensive between the British evacuations of Dunkirk on the 4th of June and the final launch Operation Eagle Attack (the codename of the assault) on the 13th of August  [32]  . During this period, both sides were able to replace their losses after the Battle of France, however since Britains production was much higher than Germanys, the Luftwaffe effectively weakened their position by waiting. Moreover, the minor intermittent raids conducted by German aircraft gave Britain a chance to test and perfect the Dowding system  [33]  . Additionally, this delay was compounded by a lack of focus in the German plan of attack; the Luftwaffe was attempting to attack merchant convoys on the Channel, British airfields and radar stations in the South as well as fighting a war of attrition by engaging RAF airplanes. The overall result of the se endeavours was that while there was some success in each of these objectives, it was very limited  [34]  . No targets were actually crippled beyond repair, especially since Hermann Goering considered attacking the radar stations a waste of time and resources, a clear display of ignorance that made the system all the more effective for the RAF. Perhaps the single most detrimental decision made by the Luftwaffe was the decision to switch bombing targets from the RAF airfields to the British cities. Many historians have attributed this to an accidental German bomb dropped on London, which prompted retaliation against Berlin, thus enraging Hitler to the point of ordering the destruction of London  [35]  . This proved to be a turning point in the Battle for a number of reasons. Firstly, it gave the RAF much-needed breathing space to repair airfields, train new pilots and deploy them. Secondly, Fighter Command could now organize its groups around London and concentrate its forces, instead of having to stretch them across the south coast. Thirdly, in London air raid shelters had already been constructed throughout London which somewhat limited civilian casualties, as the attacks on the countryside were abandoned  [36]  . A further point is that the journey to London took the German fighters and bombers, who were operating out of Normandy and Belgium, to the limit of their fuel capacity, offering them mere minutes of flight time over the city. Ironically, even Goering seemed to immediately realize this, commenting its stupid to drop bombs on cities.  [37]  While the orthodox views confidently identify this as the saviour of the RAF, revisionists have argued that although it gave Fighter Command some breathing space it was an inevitable tactic given that the bombers damage to the airfields was limited  [38]  . Although there is disagreement over the extent to which this affected the outcome of the Battle, it was a factor that cannot be ignored; this respite was complemented by the RAFs high fighter production that allowed them to recoup their losses quickly. While Great Britain was able to rely on Churchill and Dowding to bolster their resolve and devise effective strategies, the Luftwaffe deteriorated under the command of Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering. Not only did Hitler overestimate the Luftwaffes capabilities as an attack force by expecting them to singlehandedly eliminate British defences, he made matters worse by ordering the Luftwaffe to bomb London, purely as a result of his political outrage over the raid on Berlin. Churchill publicly denounced Hitlers inability to grasp aerial warfare, Herr Hitler is using up his fighter force  [39]  . Goering on the other hand did not actively coordinate his forces as his British counterpart Dowding did, nor did he make any effort to motivate his pilots; as German ace Adolf Galland claims, he went about it the wrong way  [40]  . However, being a contemporary German source, it is important to note that a pilot like Galland would prefer to blame the strategy of his officers for the de feat rather than the performance of pilots such as himself. As the tide of the Battle began to turn, the leadership flaws were exposed and this made the Luftwaffe even more impotent, which proved to be a necessary component of the RAFs success. Another aspect of the Luftwaffes failure was their unsuitability as a force for the task that was put to them. This view is supported by many revisionists, who investigated German records after the war and came to the conclusion that the Luftwaffe was a support force, designed to aid the Wehrmacht (Army) by bombing key targets ahead of the armoured advance on the ground  [41]  . The only Air Force the Luftwaffe had to contend with prior to the Battle of France was the Polish Air Force, who fought valiantly but ultimately had too few planes, all of which were also obsolete  [42]  . Furthermore, despite Goerings confidence that he could destroy the RAF, the Luftwaffes planes were unsuited to the task. While the Bf 109 could outmanoeuvre a Spitfire at high altitudes, it was limited both by a low fuel capacity, and the fact that it had to protect the low flying Ju 87 dive-bombers  [43]  . By 1940 Germany had not yet developed long-range heavy bombers, since Goering believed t hat dive-bombers were sufficient for any assault. While the Ju 87s and 88s were accurate, they were unable to defend themselves against Hurricanes and Spitfires, which allowed the RAF to pick them off with ease once their fighter escorts had been dealt with. This became a huge problem when the Luftwaffe began bombing London, which was even further north, as the Bf 109s only had an effective range of 125 miles  [44]  . This problem was highlighted on August 15th 1940, when 30 German bombers were shot down at the cost of two Hurricanes, which also demonstrated that in daylight, the German aircraft were even more vulnerable  [45]  . Furthermore, Keegan believes that because the Luftwaffe had more bombers than fighters, their fighter strength was insignificantly greater than the RAF condemning their operation from the beginning. Clearly, the Luftwaffe was completely unprepared for their operation, and in the war of attrition they came off worse as a result. Many of the tactical errors made by Goering were based on faulty intelligence received, and this was responsible for much of the self-inflicted damage. Firstly, in the Air Intelligence Departments report, the Dowding system was labelled as rigid and inflexible, and this was partly the reason that Goering dismissed the radar stations as insignificant targets. This was undoubtedly a costly mishap; the radar eliminated the Luftwaffes much-needed element of surprise and there were only six proper attacks against the radar stations during the course of the Battle  [46]  . Not only was Britains overall fighter strength underestimated, but fighter production itself was also underestimated, with intelligence estimating 230 planes a day while the reality was well over 400  [47]  . The intelligence department suffered from managerial deficiencies; there were several different agencies attempting to curry favour by providing positive (and false) reports, which would even conflict with e ach other at times. Goering received a report that the Bf 110 could hold its own against the Hurricane, which complicated battle tactics later when the reality emerged and the Bf 110 squadrons had to be reinforced with the superior Bf 109s  [48]  . This was a key flaw that separated the Luftwaffe from the RAF, and this allowed the RAF to maximise the useful implementation of their intelligence without facing effective retaliation. In addition, while Britain may have benefited from overestimating German losses by boosting morale, the same did not apply to the Luftwaffe. The overestimation of RAF losses bred complacency, and Goering was often made to look foolish by confidently asserting that the RAF would be destroyed within the week only to have the Battle continue to drag on  [49]  . At one point Goering was under the impression that the RAF only had 100 operational fighters, while the reality was more than 700  [50]  . The bad estimates of numbers, the underestimation of radar and the overestimation of German fighter capability all created an atmosphere of arrogance and complacency, which proved detrimental to the Luftwaffe. Although the Luftwaffe should have prevailed through sheer force of numbers, it was constantly let down by unfocused strategy, distracted leadership and incorrect intelligence. Also, the overconfidence of Goering ensured that crucial problems were not rectified in time, and this created a sluggishness that was uncharacteristic of the nation that had Blitzkreiged across Western Europe, and unacceptable given the circumstances of the Battle. Conclusion There is a great deal of sound evidence and judgement on both sides of the argument. It would have been unfair to entirely discount the orthodox view in favour of the revisionist. After all, the RAF was fighting on friendly territory, their early warning system eliminated the German element of surprise, they were highly motivated by their leaders and any tactics which may have initially been obsolete were quickly adapted, turning the RAF into one of the best Air Forces of World War Two and certainly one of the most experienced. Additionally, a high rate of fighter production supported by civilian initiatives enabled the RAF to maintain and expand its front-line strength over the course of the Battle. The Luftwaffe, meanwhile, benefited from superior numbers and experienced personnel. However, the Luftwaffe were more suited to providing support for the Army, rather than engaging another air force, as indicated by their large quantities of outdated and unsuitable bombers. During the Battle, the Luftwaffe suffered a number of setbacks, as a result of their lax leadership, meandering strategy, and faulty intelligence from sycophantic and competitive agencies. The most debilitating demonstration of this was the decision to switch bombing targets from airfields and other military installations to British cities, allowing the RAF time to recover and replace their losses, while accomplishing very little instead. Although the RAF put up an excellent defence, the objective that the Luftwaffe were assigned, to pave the way for the invasion force and weaken or destroy the RAF should have been possible based on their numerical superiority; certainly prior to the Battle there was very little hope for Britain. Furthermore, it is important to understand that rather than two separate developments of the Battle, the German mistakes and British successes

Huck Finn in Education Essay

For education to serve its purpose of helping students develop an understanding of themselves and the world around them, it must provide uncensored information and ideas. Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn undoubtedly supports that goal of education. The classic novel discusses issues regarding society’s greed and cowardice through a young boy’s, Huck Finn, perspective. Huck Finn is born into the American, white south during the mid 1800s when slavery and racism towards blacks was the norm. He is influenced by his surroundings to believe that slavery is right. The â€Å"civilized† adults dictate to him the nature of blacks as property. However, as a rebellious adolescent, Huck runs away from his home and journeys down the Mississippi river with a black slave named Jim. Across this adventure, Huck develops a different set of morals from his culture and slowly comes to view Jim as a person and a friend. America’s past white, southern cult ure is a testament to the gruesome reality of society’s ability to institutionalize its selfish nature. Mark Twain emphasizes in a genuine manner the ignorance of America’s slave-holding past and the importance of questioning the morals of society and as such, the novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is worthy of belonging in compulsory education. Unlike many other novels, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn delivers an unromanticized depiction of the racist, white south and slavery in the early part of American history. As seen through his characters, Mark Twain is not afraid to show the true nature of racism present in the 1800s. One of the most unsympathetic characters in the book is Pap, Huck Finn’s drunkard and abusive father. Pap’s dialogue contains the image of the thoughts of the average racist southern man in America during that era. In one instance, Pap says: â€Å"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger there from Ohio – a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain’t a man in that town that’s got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane – the awful- est old gray-headed nabob in the State. And what do you think? They said he was a p’fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain’t the wust. They said he could VOTE when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to?†(35) Pap’s words clearly show the hatred he has towards blacks and his belief of white supremacy. He finds the idea of a black man, even a half black man, having the right to vote, a stable job, and an education, absolutely repulsive. This prejudicial perspective of Africa Americans was as common as the modern belief that slavery is wrong. In fact, though slavery in the United States was abolished after the Civil War, the intrinsic racism in America would not be truly called to question until the mid to late 1900s, more than a century later. The inability of white Americans to come to terms with black rights is a portrayal of the wrongs of society. Society is not perfect and young members of society should understand that in order to later on change society for the better. Education in America should provide insight to the hardships of African Americans, and the struggle of Jim living in a society filled with minds like Pap exemplifies the struggle and history of Black Americans. Furthermore, in Pap’s statement is the word â€Å"nigger†. Throughout the entire novel, Mark Twain controversially used the derogatory term over 200 times. Many feel that the use of â€Å"nigger† causes the book to be unacceptable in compulsory education. However, a more accurate view would be that the word â€Å"nigger† is not used in the novel for the purpose of demeaning blacks; rather the word is used to make the story accurate to the time. Words get their meaning from the intent of the speaker. Twain’s intent was not for the word to criticize blacks as it is well known that Mark Twain was an advocate against slavery and racism. He used the word because back in the 1800s, the normal word for slaves was â€Å"nigger†. By using the word, Twain painted a realistic picture of the southern culture of America. Although other books exist that discuss the nature of slavery without the term, for example, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin are not as effective of delivering a view of the past. In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the slave Uncle Tom is unrealistic for a slave of the time period. He speaks in an educated manner, and his obsession with religion turns him into an allegorical religious figure. Uncle Tom’s characterization takes away from the true battle of slavery in the south. On the other hand, Jim in Huck Finn is characterized more realistically. He speaks in a lower class way, and his journey with Huck for freedom depicts slavery and racism in that era. The book does not hide the sad truth of bigotry and the dehumanization of African Americans. Instead the book highlights it and educates students the history of American slavery. Moreover, the character of Huck Finn goes through a journey that expresses the important idea of an individual going against society’s rules to act on an unhindered set of morals in order to do what is right and good. Young teens often end up conforming to society in order to fit in. This conformity creates a loss of new and innovative ideas. Twain poses an important lesson of individuality and questioning society. Huck Finn is a boy living in a world where all his adult guides would tell him that befriending a black man and helping free a slave would be completely immoral. Born in such a culture, Huck accepts the view as the truth. Black people are bad. His conformity can be seen when he says: â€Å"Conscience says to me ‘What had poor Miss Watson done to you, that you could see her nigger go off right under your eyes and never say one single word? What did that poor old woman do to you, that you could treat her so mean?†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ I got to feeling so mean and so m iserable I most wished I was dead† (91). Instead of pitying Jim’s status as a slave, Huck pities Miss Watson for losing a slave. This illustrates slavery’s prominence and integration into society, along with Huck’s own ignorance and inability to shake off society’s influence. Society’s strong grasp on Huck is similar to modern pop culture’s grasp on teens. Every day, the media bombards the youth of America images of what is right and wrong. Sometimes society gives off the wrong message. For example, the attitude towards rape in America is society being wrong and the youth following the rape culture without questioning. Students should learn from this novel to stand up for their conscience as Huck does as the story progresses. Through involvement with Jim, Huck discovers Jim’s humanity. This discovery of blacks being human just like whites leads Huck to a higher moral understanding. Huck writes: â€Å"It was a close place. I took . . . up [the letter I’d written to Miss Watson], and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: â€Å"All right then, I’ll go to hell†Ã¢â‚¬â€and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming†(207). When Huck tears the letter up, he is actively going against society and the white southern culture. This change is a depiction of not only the message of fighting society’s corruption, but also of Twain writing his opposition to slavery and racism. He calls out from his narrative for people to strip away their cultural influences. The influence of society can be harmful and slavery is a prime example. The whole of the south fought to uphold slavery, when today, the thought of legal slavery in the US is unthinkable. Mark Twain’s novel educates people to stand up for freedom from societal influences. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a classic American piece of literature that should be part of compulsory education. The book contains a strong message and a realistic portrait of the time era. Mark Twain does not cover up information. He narrates it in a compelling story. Students learn from this novel the flaws of society and the importance of questioning ideas through a young boy and slaves’ adventure away from slavery and societal rules.

Compare and Contrast of Sylvia Plath and Sharon Olds

Sylvia Plath vs. Sharon Olds Katherine Waldman A traditional American household has changed throughout the years to the point where ‘traditional’ isn’t even politically correct to depict anything about a family anymore. But if we look back to the standard traditional household and there was always a father, a mother, and a 2.5 children. The father has always been designated as the head of the household and something that Sylvia Plath and Sharon Olds have in common is just that, that they grew up during a father-dominated time, in a father-dominated family, and this lifestyle is reflective in their poetry as well. â€Å"The Colossus† by Sylvia Plath is about the pain and hardships she experienced with her father’s death. Sylvia’s†¦show more content†¦With using these mythological gods as metaphors for the father’s we can take a step back and see how damaged these women were from their relationships. Olds’ had to deal with an alcoholic father, something that I know is not easy and what’s worse than alcoholism is what Plath had to go through, being completely ignored and neglected from your father and that wound will take longer to heal. Both poems come from terrible relationships from young women with their fathers. And again, this can go to show that no matter how absent a father may be from your life and how he might treat you, when you are part of a father dominating family structure, you cannot escape his influence on your life and these emotional damages will follow you forever. Works Cited Jonas, Shari. â€Å"The Effects of the Father Daughter Relationship on Self Esteem – From First Love to Self Love.† EzineArticles.com. 22 Apr. 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. Olds, Sharon. Cheap. Web. 15 Dec. 2011. lt;http://b2bwise.blogspot.com/2002/04/saturn-by-sharon-olds-he-lay-on-couch.htmlgt;. The Colossus - A Poem by Sylvia Plath - American Poems. American Poems - YOUR Poetry Site. Web. 15 Dec. 2011. lt;http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/sylviaplath/1441gt;. A Celebration, This Is - Www.sylviaplath.info. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.Show MoreRelatedBusiness and Management2600 Words   |  11 Pages | | | | |The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T. S. Eliot (pp.199-203) | | | | |Daddy, Sylvia Plath (pp. 524-526) | | | | |Before the Mirror, John Updike (pp. 564-565) |

Essay Teens Emotional Reactions after Parents Separation

American Journalist, Helen Rowland said, â€Å" When two people decide to get a divorce, it isn’t a sign that they don’t understand each other, but a sign that they have, at last, begun to† (1). Divorce means the ending of a marriage by legal separation, thus, a couple that were once bonded together have now separated for opposing reasons. Divorce has hurt and destroyed many families across the world and can cause a lot of negativity. Teens often do not know how to deal with the fact that their family is no longer whole and they will transition into a depression. Teens may experience emotional damage by seeing the two most important people in their lives fight constantly. There is a good side and a bad side to seeing parents go through a†¦show more content†¦Having protection of one parent or blame one for the situation is common. It can also be a good thing of relief, especially if there has been a lot of tension or fighting at home (â€Å"Dealing...à ¢â‚¬ 1). With all of these emotions, it is best to try to help them through this situation. Parents affect teens by influencing them to keep secrets from one another to protect their parents from any harm. â€Å"Parents staying together for the children may have another person in their lives and children learn to keep secrets, or protect mum or dad from the infidelity. Parents are modelling something that perhaps is not very good for the kids, says Northam (Barkham 1). Keeping secrets from each other destroys families even more. A teen’s home life changes when going through divorce and their environment becomes very unfamiliar. â€Å"Home life can become unfamiliar, painful, difficult to manage, and virtually non-existent. After the damage is done, it can be extremely difficult to repair. After a divorce, teens may have lost their sense of family plus, adding to the instability of their already fragile lives (â€Å"Our†¦Ã¢â‚¬  1). The worse the home life becomes the more difficult it is for teens to manage. Parents have a bigger influence on their children then they realize. Going through a divorce takes major responsibility in the parent’s role of guardian to their children. More often than not, parents seem to believe that if their teens are older, that theyShow MoreRelatedThe Effects Of Deployment On Ones Mental Health1500 Words   |  6 Pagesdeployment, and how it impacts the family emotionally, mentally and physically. On a daily basis military spouses and children face the emotional transitions of deployment. We began to discuss the importance of deployment and â€Å"identify specific challenges and transitions that parents face in their parenting roles as they and their children cope with prolonged separation and reintegration† ( DeVoe 184) . While recognizing the issues the family faces , we re-examine the deployment cycle and how familiesRead MoreWhile The Rate Of Divorce Has Rapidly Increased In Recent1659 Words   |  7 Pagesdoes not affect children in a n egative way. The effects result more often from the feeling of uncertainty of what is going to happen after the divorce, from the level of conflict between the parents and from how the parenting after the divorce is done. According to The Heritage Foundation, Individuals may marry for several reasons including legal, social, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Who they decide to marry may be influenced by socially established rules, marriage rulesRead MoreAdolescent Separation and Individuation Essay1687 Words   |  7 Pages Adolescence serves the purpose of reorganizing the self and abandoning the security of childhood in the quest to forge a new identity. As adolescence sets in, teens naturally proceed through the ongoing task of separation and individuation from the family unit. Even under optimal circumstances, some teens face anxiety surrounding the new sense of responsibility; others appear to seamlessly leave this phase behind prepared for the accountability that comes with adulthood. Regardless of how difficultRead MoreResearch Paper on Suicide1571 Words   |  7 Pagesheart. Regardless if I know the person or not, once I have heard of them committing suicide or ev en attempting, it makes me feel like I could have made a difference. As a child growing up in horrible situations, and even the fact that both of my parents have attempted to commit suicide as young adults, it’s hard for me not to be so taken by it when another teenager or another person has taken their precious life. This is one of the reasons why it has affected society the way it has. Suicide is aRead MoreMarriage Is Not Like A Fairytale1441 Words   |  6 Pagesunfortunately, become the victims of this decision. As children of divorced parents grow, they will develop negative emotions and behaviors. Often these children will perform poorly in school, have bad attitudes, and suffer from poor health. The best way to help these children overcome the effect of their parents’ divorce is through the state and school. An article published in New York Times in 1920 defined divorce as the â€Å"legal separation of a husband and a wife that is made effective by the judgment ofRead MoreDivorce And Its Effects On Children1343 Words   |  6 Pages2008). Children with divorced parents struggle with negative consequences emotionally, mentally, and academically compared to those children from intact families.] Divorce can cause a life transforming experience on children that includes struggles in many areas. Divorce of the child s biological parents in detrimental to a child s well-being. Marlene Eskind Moses, a principal of MTR Family Law in Nashville, states children not living with both biological parents are more likely to experienceRead MoreEating Disorders Among Children And Teens1216 Words   |  5 PagesEating disorders in children and teens cause serious changes in their health. Eating disorders are characteristics and cause by eating behaviors, also people with this disorder use eating, purging or restructuring with their issues. Eating disorders is divided into three parts as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, compulsive overeating, etc (Eating Disorders,n.d.).Eating disorders can overlap between and alternate of anorexia and bulimia. Eating disorders around the adolescence, but it can also startRead MoreHow Divorce Impacts Children Under the Age of 182153 Words   |  9 Pag esa child adjust after divorce. Infants The first age group is infants.   Not too much is known on the affects of divorce for children under the age of 3. Some have speculated that children under the age of 3 does not always suffer from their parents divorced. Thus, sociologist and psychologist agreed that problems in personality can developed if the child had a strong bond between the parents and those bonds are broken due to the divorce.   Professionals highly encourage parents to make arrangementsRead MoreThe Rye Is One Adolescent Boy s Search For Identity1465 Words   |  6 Pagesculture, and the neglect parents showed their children then, adolescents are expected to assume more mature responsibilities. This culture is hence one in which ‘parents regress to become more like children, and the children, through abandonment, are forced to become adults too soon’. The result is a society in which adults and adolescents are less differentiated. Holden is the ugly duckling of the family; incapable and unwilling to take advantage of the opportunities his parents have bestowed uponRead MoreEffects of Separated Parents to Their Children3692 Words   |  15 PagesPREFACE A separation is a difficult time for both parents. But through the eyes of a child is not only difficult but traumatic and confusing. Anyone of us don’t want to be a victim of this situation, because it has a terrible effect The paper is future-focused; it will apply a social analytical perspective to the issues, and a focus on children’s needs and paternal / parental responsibilities to these needs. The research defined the point of physical parental separation, different effects