My Little Bit Of Country Essay Essays

My Little Bit Of Country Essay Essays My Little Bit Of Country Essay Essay My Little Bit Of Country Essay Essay My Little Bit of Country As humans we are always haunting the feeling of belonging. Not only the feeling of belonging to someone we love, but also figuring out the place where we feel home and safe. The feeling of belonging clarifies the ideal lifestyle for every individual. Some people find the feeling of belonging in a small suburb surrounded by an untamed nature. Others belong to a life surrounded by millions of people and skyscrapers. Once again, the feeling of belonging is a mindset that makes us value different kinds of lifestyles a feeling that makes us diverge from each other. In the essay My Little of Country (2012) written by Susan Cheaper, the thoughts about living and belonging to the city-life are being divulged to the reader. The essayist is arguing from her point of view of living her ideal life in the big city. Throughout, the essay is composed from a strict personal point of view. The personal point view and form of argumentation is being clarified from the beginning by the title My Little Bit of Country. The essay is following a chronological structure and is composed of two sections. The first section is representing the past where Cheaper is recalling old memories from her holding in New York City. The old memories of New York City are loaded with positive feelings, which appeals to the readers emotions. My earliest memories are of summer mornings in Central Park with my father after he came home from fighting World War II (P. L -l. 1-4). By the use of this as an opening line, and the mentioning of her father fighting in World War II it clarifies her feelings, and the strong importance of the memories from the big city creates sympathy from the beginning. Susan Cheaper starts off in the first section by comparing herself with a yak rapped in the Central park Zoo. Something about him suggested a great acceptance of the world in which he found himself so far from his snowy native mountains and bubbling brooks (p 1. I. 24-27). By using the yak as an example to amplify her feelings and the situation when she is forced to go living on the country with her parents her feeling of belonging in the city gets clarified. The use of an animal that is locked up in a place it does not belong to, appeals again to the readers emotions. Susan Achievers argumentation is build up with a unilateral positive opinion f the city-life supported by the use of negatively and positively loaded contrasts. The contrasts illustrate her strong opinion of her ideal life in the city and the differences between the life in the country and in the city. The city is stated as a place Of dreams -? a safe place to be a place where pieces Of nature also exist. Later in my life I heard Andy Warhol say that it was better to live in the city than the country because in the city he could find a little bit of country, but in the country there was no little bit of city (p. 3 -? l. 40 -149). Susan Cheaper arguments that the city contains the best of both sides, and by that she refers to Central park and The Central Park Zoo as the pieces of nature. In the same time this quotation also amplifies the meaning of the essays title, and how she feels that the city contains everything she needs to contain a successful life. People often associate the nature with an idyllic and peaceful place where people escape to when things get rough, but in Susan Cheaper s essay nature and country are depicted with an ironic attitude. When we went to visit my parents friends who had already made the move to Westchester or New Jersey, the so-called idyll of suburbia seemed a shabby comedown from Central Park (p. 2- l. 105-110). In the same way Cheaper uses negatively loaded adjectives to depict the country as a dangerous and rough place to be contrasting to the city. Why would want to scrape around the rough, dangerous ice of a country lake when I could glide around the smooth ice (p. 2- I. 115-117). The last section is representing the present. The use of both memories from the past and experiences from the present, amplifies her strong opinions and feelings toward the life on the country and in the city. In the last section Susan Cheaper mentions how great an importance Central Park has had during her life, and how the park has turned into a tradition for special and memorable occasions. For the past fifteen years, on New Years Eve we have we have gone to the Central park Our summer traditions happens on or around my birthday at the end of July (p. 4- l. 142-44 / 159-161). Her use of contrast, her unilateral opinions and experience-argumentation that appeals to the readers feelings, depicts the mindset Of most modern people who lives their lives in the big city. In todays socio most modern people no longer associate the country and the nature with a place where the human being belong. Still belonging to either the lifestyle in the city or on the country is an individual feeling and choice. Furthermore it is a statement that the modern society a result of the arbitration has made great changes to the human mindset and values in life. The modern people have now adapted to the life in the big cities surrounded by millions of people and grey skyscrapers that either makes us feel more powerful and successful or small, alienated and alone in a big city as New York.

The Death of Emperor Montezuma

The Death of Emperor Montezuma In November of 1519, Spanish invaders led by Hernan Cortes arrived in Tenochtitlan, the capital city of the Mexica (Aztecs). They were welcomed by Montezuma, the mighty Tlatoani (emperor) of his people. Seven months later, Montezuma was dead, possibly at the hands of his own people. What happened to the Emperor of the Aztecs? Montezuma II Xocoyotzà ­n, Emperor of the Aztecs Montezuma had been selected to be Tlatoani (the word means speaker) in 1502, the maximum leader of his people: his grandfather, father and two uncles had also been tlatoque (plural of tlatoani). From 1502 to 1519, Montezuma had proven himself to be an able leader in war, politics, religion, and diplomacy. He had maintained and expanded the empire and was lord of lands stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Hundreds of conquered vassal tribes sent the Aztecs goods, food, weapons, and even slaves and captured warriors for sacrifice. Cortes and the Invasion of Mexico In 1519, Hernan Cortes and 600 Spanish conquistadors landed on Mexicos Gulf coast, establishing a base near the present-day city of Veracruz. They began slowly making their way inland, collecting intelligence through Cortes interpreter/mistress Doà ±a Marina (Malinche). They befriended disgruntled vassals of the Mexica and made an important alliance with the Tlaxcalans, bitter enemies of the Aztecs. They arrived in Tenochtitlan in November and were initially welcomed by Montezuma and his top officials. Capture of Montezuma The wealth of Tenochtitlan was astounding, and Cortes and his lieutenants began plotting how to take the city. Most of their plans involved capturing Montezuma and holding him until more reinforcements could arrive to secure the city. On November 14, 1519, they got the excuse they needed. A Spanish garrison left on the coast had been attacked by some representatives of the Mexica and several of them were killed. Cortes arranged a meeting with Montezuma, accused him of planning the attack, and took him into custody. Amazingly, Montezuma agreed, provided he be able to tell the story that he had voluntarily accompanied the Spanish back to the palace where they were lodged. Montezuma Captive Montezuma was still allowed to see his advisors and participate in his religious duties, but only with Cortes permission. He taught Cortes and his lieutenants to play traditional Mexica games and even took them hunting outside of the city. Montezuma seemed to develop a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, in which he befriended and sympathized with his captor, Cortes: when his nephew Cacama, lord of Texcoco, plotted against the Spanish, Montezuma heard of it and informed Cortes, who took Cacama prisoner. Meanwhile, the Spanish continually badgered Montezuma for more and more gold. The Mexica generally valued brilliant feathers more than gold, so much of the gold in the city was handed over to the Spanish. Montezuma even ordered the vassal states of the Mexica to send gold, and the Spaniards amassed an unheard-of fortune: it is estimated that by May they had collected eight tons of gold and silver. Massacre of Toxcatl and Return of Cortes In May of 1520, Cortes had to go to the coast with as many soldiers as he could spare to deal with an army led by Panfilo de Narvaez. Unbeknownst to Cortes, Montezuma had entered into a secret correspondence with Narvez and had ordered his coastal vassals to support him. When Cortes found out, he was furious, greatly straining his relationship with Montezuma. Cortes left his lieutenant Pedro de Alvarado in charge of Montezuma, other royal captives and the city of Tenochtitlan. Once Cortes was gone, the people of Tenochtitlan became restless, and Alvarado heard of a plot to murder the Spanish. He ordered his men to attack during the festival of Toxcatl on May 20, 1520. Thousands of unarmed Mexica, most of the members of the nobility, were slaughtered. Alvarado also ordered the murder of several important lords held in captivity, including Cacama. The people of Tenochtitlan were furious and attacked the Spaniards, forcing them to barricade themselves inside the Palace of Axaycatl. Cortes defeated Narvaez in battle and added his men to his own. On June 24, this larger army returned to Tenochtitlan and was able to reinforce Alvarado and his embattled men. Death of Montezuma Cortes returned to a palace under siege. Cortes could not restore order, and the Spanish were starving, as the market had closed. Cortes ordered Montezuma to reopen the market, but the emperor said that he could not because he was a captive and no one listened to his orders anymore. He suggested that if Cortes freed his brother Cuitlahuac, also held prisoner, he might be able to get the markets to reopen. Cortes let Cuitlahuac go, but instead of reopening the market, the warlike prince organized an even fiercer attack on the barricaded Spaniards.   Unable to restore order, Cortes had a reluctant Montezuma hauled to the roof of the palace, where he pleaded with his people to stop attacking the Spanish. Enraged, the people of Tenochtitlan threw stones and spears at Montezuma, who was badly wounded before the Spanish were able to bring him back inside the palace. According to Spanish accounts, two or three days later, on June 29, Montezuma died of his wounds. He spoke to Cortes before dying and asked him to take care of his surviving children. According to native accounts, Montezuma survived his wounds but was murdered by the Spanish when it became clear that he was of no further use to them. It is impossible to determine today exactly how Montezuma died. Aftermath of Montezuma's Death With Montezuma dead, Cortes realized that there was no way he could hold the city. On June 30, 1520, Cortes and his men tried to sneak out of Tenochtitlan under cover of darkness. They were spotted, however, and wave after wave of fierce Mexica warriors attacked the Spaniards fleeing over the Tacuba causeway. About six hundred Spaniards (roughly half of Cortes army) were killed, along with most of his horses. Two of Montezumas children - which Cortes had just promised to protect - were slain alongside the Spaniards.  Some Spaniards were captured alive and sacrificed to the Aztec gods. Nearly all of the treasure was gone as well. The Spanish referred to this disastrous retreat as the Night of Sorrows. A few months later, reinforced by more conquistadors and Tlaxcalans, the Spanish would re-take the city, this time for good. Five centuries after his death, many modern Mexicans still blame Montezuma for poor leadership which led to the fall of the Aztec Empire. The circumstances of his captivity and death have much to do with this. Had Montezuma refused to allow himself to be taken captive, history would most likely have been very different. Most modern Mexicans have little respect for Montezuma, preferring the two leaders who came after him, Cuitlahuac and Cuauhtà ©moc, both of whom fought the Spanish fiercely. Sources Diaz del Castillo, Bernal. . Trans., ed. J.M. Cohen. 1576. London, Penguin Books, 1963. Hassig, Ross. Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. Levy, Buddy. New York: Bantam, 2008. Thomas, Hugh . New York: Touchstone, 1993.