Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

Professor`sName

ShortEssays about Dramas

PartA (Hamlet)

Hubrisconnotes a personality quality that of extreme pride andoverconfidence depicted by a character that ultimately brings abouthis or her downfall. A character experiencing hubris more often thannot allows reality to slip away from them (Bianca 59). Theyoveremphasize their accomplishments, proficiencies, and capabilities.It happens especially when a character just gained so much power athis disposal and has the mentality that he is indomitable. WhileHubris is perceived as a character of individuals rather than agroup, the actions of the individual are detrimental to the wholeteam (Bianca 60). Hubris, in literature, is considered as acatastrophic weakness and is saved for protagonists. It serves to letthe reader know that it is the weakness that brings the villain downin the end.

Theplay, Hamlet, is full of characters portraying a hubristic character. Claudius as with all the supporting characters in the play is notadequately developed. He is a dynamic character whose main role inthe play is to stir anger and confusion in Hamlets quest to find thetruth and the ideal meaning of life. King Claudius is the brother tothe Deceased Hamlet and to and husband to Gertrude. He ascends topower by killing his brother and subsequently marries his brother`swidow. The story begins when Hamlet has been summoned to Denmark towitness the funeral of his father. While in Denmark, he is visited bya ghost that informs him that Claudius murdered his father. Thisprompts him to uncover the truth. He acts crazy, mistreats hisgirlfriend and stages a play for the King that reenacts the killingof his father. Claudius responds to the play suspicious. Claudiusnotices that Hamlet know of his deed and sends him to England on amission. Hamlet goes to England oblivious of the plan that Claudiushad in mind. The plan is to have him killed as soon as he sets footin England. This does not, however, happen as Hamlet cleverly escapesand returns home to witness the burial of his girlfriend. Claudius isdetermined to see Hamlet dead. He arranges a contest between him andLaertes. It is during the contest that Gertrude drinks poisonintended for Hamlet. A scuffle ensues between the two, and theyinjure each other with poison rapier. Hamlet, in the end, killsHamlet, avenging his father`s death.

Thereis much evidence to the effect that Claudius is Hubristic. Firstly,he kills his brother King Hamlet to ascend to power. He takes muchdelight in the death of his brother to the point of turning mourninginto celebration in his funeral. He goes ahead to marry his brother`swife. Claudius is arrogant. While he recognizes that he is a sinnerand has done wrong, he is adamant that he will not make amends withGod and is willing to take the ramifications of his brutal actions.Claudius exhibits loss of contact with reality. He manipulatesfortunes and takes what is not rightfully his. He is unapologetic tohis evil deeds and shows no remorse. He openly confesses that hewould commit the same evil deeds if a chance presents itself.

Itis no doubt that Claudius is a villain and is wrong all through. Heis a snitch who murdered and lied who killed and lied to ascend topower. He mitigates his hubris nature by taking responsibility forhis actions. In the end, it is this life that leads Hamlet to killhim and avenge his father eventually.

PartB (The Miser)

Farceis a type of artistic comedy that has its roots in the medievalFrench religious plays. It uses ridiculous and highly unlikely eventsto explain chronology of events. Circumstances in the play areusually funny and quite ridiculous, exaggerated and extravagant. Theprotagonist in the play always starts at the lowest or the highestpoint in his life. He often does not belong to the place of action,and the audience can only appreciate this fact through a carefulfollow-up of previous establishments. There are situations, however,when the character will reasonably belong to the place they areplaced.

Theplay introduces us in scene one to a character named Harpragon. He isa miser and obsessed with the wealth he has amassed over time. He hassome money buried in his garden and consistently lives in fear thatsomeone might find the hidden money. In scene two when his sonCleante wishes to marry, Mariane meets Harpagon. It is their firstmeeting. Mariane calls Harpagon a brute and a Froisine, theintermediary having realized the insults changes and tells Harpagonthat Mariane had said he was cute. Harpagon commits Cleante and Elsieto a widow and a widower for profit. Cleante is determined to marryMariane and arranges to get a loan to service the dowry. To hissurprise, the money lender is his father. Harpagon is much surprisedthat his son wanted to take that huge amount of loan for the purposesof marriage.

Whilethis play is regarded as comedy, it is full of scenes of absurdityand incongruity. It depicts the miser, Harpagon, as inhuman inworshipping money and human in his need for respect, love, andaffection. His obsession for money is ridiculous. He lives his wholelife in constant fear that someone will one day find money that hehas buried in his land. It is so weird that Harpagon can live withoutsocial contact at all as long as he has his hidden treasure toconsole him. His combination of power and obsession for money ittearing apart his family. He is a widower and seeks a new wife togive him an heir who will inherit his property. He hates the idea offinding dowry for his family and is not willing to give money to hisson to marry Mariane (Abrams,Meyer, and Geoffrey 34).He curses his son and is ready to marry off his daughter to a wealthyman for the love of money. In the end, when his money is stolen, hebecomes so much distressed that he toys with the idea of killinghimself.

Thetone of absurdity, incongruence, and highly improbable events areevident in the play. Each trait has carefully been placed at thecenter of the action, and the whole play revolves around thatcharacter. Every time we revisit the play and look at it in adifferent context, it seems more shocking and impossible. The playconfuses money and love in an outrageous way.

WorkCited

Foghel,Bianca. &quotPatterns and Representations of Shakespearean Love:Hubris, Infatuation, Agape in Hamlet.&quot GenderStudies11 (2012): 58-74.

Abrams,Meyer Howard, and Geoffrey Harpham.&nbspAglossary of literary terms.Cengage Learning, 2011.

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

Evaluationof Superhero

Beforethe arrival of the year 2000, there was considerable dismissal ofcomic book superhero films based on the row that they were infantile,B-movie pulp types. On the contrary, the decade of 2000 was greetedby a growth in presence of the filmic superhero to the extent ofbecoming identical to the Hollywood summer blockbuster. The firstreleases of the decade, for instance, X-MenbyBryan Singer in the year 2000, and the Spider-ManbySam Raimi in the year 2002 validated the aptitude of the genre fortoned and complicated resonance among widely held entertainment,borrowing from both the social and political, as well as the previouscomic book content (Guerrero158).Following such transformations, the genre of superhero has burst withrecognition. Striking cases like DarkKnight trilogyof the year 2005 to 2012 by Christopher Nolan, alongside TheAvengers andIronMan havebeen met with unparalleled critical and commercial accomplishment(McEnteggart171).Although most superhero films are produced in such a way that theynurture cultural and emotional resonance for the audience, severaldissimilarities occur in the way each film achieve that mission. Thispaper draws a comparison between two superhero films namely TheAvengers andManof Steelin an attempt to appreciate the techniques used in the two films toabsorb the audience.

Apartfrom the fact that TheAvengersandManof Steel areboth costly superhero films which are extensive in nature, they arequite comparable. TheAvengersby Joss Whedon features the qualities ascribed to its producingcorporation, i.e. Marvel Studios of being witty, scrappy, charmingand silly, giving it a characteristic connection with the viewers. Onthe other hand, Manof Steel byZack Snyder is structured in a way that it is dramatically intenseand big and moody, requiring the audience to consider each frameseriously (Guerrero158).Put another way, TheAvengers representsThe Beatles while Manof Steel issymphonic in nature. What is so common in these two films is theirutilization of action blockbuster approach by their respectiveproducers to tone with the historic terrorist operations of the year2001. The superheroes in the films react to this socio-politicalparameter and are also characterized by narratives that together aidin providing the viewers with conventional fantasy amusement,establishing widespread stories which are well-liked nationally andglobally (Guerrero159).However, instead of clinging to the god-like heroism typical in TheMan of Steel’s Superman(Figure 2),one quality of TheAvengers isthat the heroes or characters in the film appear as flawed characterswho gain power strictly under hostile social or political settings orunder the influence of latest technology and science (Figure 1). Thisunique attribute of TheAvengers absorbthe viewers, motivating sorrow and pity with their actual world oftoils while attracting more fame to TheAvengers relativeto the Manof Steel (McEnteggart171).

BothThe Avengers andManof Steel makeuse of the existence of an alien terrorist to remind the audienceabout the feelings of the aftermath of September 11, 2001 incident ofterrorism. The alien terrorist, in both films, is also meant toinstill the feeling of national pride, hope and unity. However, thetwo films utilize distinct ways to express the above feelings as wasdictated by the filmmakers. Most skeptics have pointed out that inthe Manof Steel, thereis the use of unmistakably dark and gritty, as well as explicitlycynic worldview (McEnteggart171).That contrasts the optimism and uplift offered in the film TheAvengers.While Manof Steel wascertainly the topmost action-based Superman film released in the lastdecade, which played a part in its dazzling performance, itsdisplaced narrative design failed to establish an emotionalconnection between the iconic character and the viewers. By layingmuch emphasis on the cinematic greatness of loud explosions andsevere destructions, Manof Steel isperceived by some skeptics as a tactless effort by Warner Bros totrade on the magic of TheAvengers.On the other hand, TheAvengers displayextraordinary narrative capability, building a cohesive world thatoffers the viewers multiple, emotionally diverse access andidentification points (Guerrero159).

Besides,both the Manof Steel andthe Avengersare big and grand, perfectly short and reckless in a typicalHollywood version characterized by the crumbling of buildings andexplosions with no one batting an eye. The cities in which both filmsterminate, i.e. New York City for TheAvengersandthe fictitious Metropolis city regarding Manof Steel faceconsiderable destruction at the climax of the films, with buildingsshattering. However much the aspect of explosion and crumbling ofbuildings compares between the two films, the intensity in which theatmosphere is presented during climax is distinct (McEnteggart171).

Comparedto TheAvengers,the last 45 minutes of the film Manof Steel isutterly broken. When General Zod liberates the World Engine andbegins to compulsorily terraform the earth, what follows is theunfortunate decimation of a vast chunk of Metropolis, which isanticipated as that is the probable action of bad guys they raidcities and intimidate the innocent and commonly show nefariousbehaviors (it is imperative to note that proceeds to take care of themachine wreaking mayhem in the wild across the earth and disregardsits sister machine that destroys a key city population). At last,Superman gets to the scene of a destroyed metropolis for the closingconfrontation with Zod, a battle in which the two Kryptonians wentahead to punch each other while flying through buildings and parkinggarages, culminating in the destruction of the city in a way similarto the results of Zod’s Earth Engine upon Metropolis (Guerrero161).At least Zod’s actions are justified in the film he is a monsterwith the pure intention of destroying the city and its people. Whatabout Superman? This film has built around the determination ofKal-El/Clark Kent (Superman) to safeguard the population of theplanet he adopted. That contradicts his contemporary behavior inwhich he topples the whole skyscrapers through punches andindifferently hurling the enemy through buildings that are fullyoccupied by the people to be protected. Because of his obligation toprotect, it would be plausible to witness a situation where peopleare evacuated from the city before the battle, or the superhero(Superman) making proper use of his x-ray vision to spot safe areaswhere he could fling the opponents without hurting his subjects(Guerrero160).Put another way, the climax resonance would be great if Supermanendeavored to take the battle away from the many frightenedindividuals, but he overwrites that. Therefore, in the Manof Steel,the protector of the earth, at climax, fails on his role to protectand instead, kill as many persons as the enemies without anyconcerns. It is particularly disturbing when the movie cuts fromSuperman to Zod involved in the breaking of the whole buildings downto the harmless people witnessing the clash from the underlyingstreets.

Onthe other hand, the climax battle of New York involving TheAvengers,though outrageously destructive, takes a rather different turn. Uponthe arrival of the Avengersinthe war field, their initial step is to conceive a plan. CaptainAmerica organizes, positioning every superhero in an area where theywill likely be of most assistance. Above all, his most critical orderlied in his sentiment, i.e. “Containthe battle. Don’t let it spread across the city”(Guerrero164)Hence, unlike in the Manof Steel,the climax set in by the Avengersisnot limited to the crumbling of the buildings but rather, attempts todeter the destruction of more buildings. It is so encouraging towatch Captain America rush to a group of police crew to help inorganizing escape avenues for the innocent people, Iron Man goingaround the battle edges to compel the forces of Loki to maintain theteam’s four to five block radius, a mass implementation for trappedpeople due to Captain America’s critical thinking, and therealization of Black Widow that winning the battle required theclosure of the enemy’s portal and terminate it instead ofmaintaining the fight to the detriment of more lives (McEnteggart171).

Incomparison to the violent-oriented Manof Steel, TheAvengersareportrayed to emphasize in the safeguarding of civilians. In tandemwith that, the film comes to an end with children putting on thet-shirts of TheAvengersand several individuals shaving their facial hair to mimic TonyStark. On the contrary, Manof Steel terminateswith the Superman crying on the thought of his contribution in theruining the city of Metropolis as a result of the relentless war withZod (Guerrero163).Although the Avengerscannotbe branded as innocent because of the involvement in partial New YorkCity destruction in which Hulk and Thor are portrayed to shove a hugerobot worm through several buildings, the destruction is pardonedbecause the film’s superheroes went out of the way to create animage of the ‘protectors.’ Whereas TheAvengersenjoythe praises arriving in the city to secure and contain countlessextra deaths in the city, the Manof Steenendures continuous criticism for causing extra thousands of civiliandeaths which could not have occurred if there was no Superman.

Inconclusion, although both TheAvengers andtheMan of Steel seento have attained growth as major filmic superhero to the extent ofbecoming identical to the Hollywood summer blockbuster, TheAvengers, dueto the use of the heroes or characters who appear as flawedcharacters who gain power strictly under hostile social or politicalsettings or under the influence of latest technology and science, inaddition to properly structured narrative, resonates with theaudience more that the Manof Steel. Inthe Manof Steel, theclimax presents a god-like hero (Superman) who plays a contradictingrole of contributing to more deaths of the people he intended toprotect by fighting without plan, subjecting the film to morecriticism compared to TheAvengers whoplan their battle during the climax, resulting in a reduction ofdeath among the civilians they endeavored to save.

WorksCited

Guerrero,Ed.&nbspFramingblackness: The African American image in film.Philadelphia, U.S.: Temple University Press, 2012. Print.

McEnteggart,Simon. &quotSequelizing the Superhero.&quot&nbspSecondTakes: Critical Approaches to the Film Sequel&nbsp(2012):171.

Appendix

Figure1: The Avengers Teamhttp://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/avengers/232289/avengers-age-of-ultron-everything-you-need-to-know

Figure2: Supermanhttps://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/superman-man-of-steel-vs-thor-the-avengers-1471755/

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

Definitionof terms

Thebelow definition of terminologies is based on Investpedia.com

  • Productivity: realization of value in products sold and products bought

  • Technology: the inovations that facilitate market transactions

  • Efficiency: effectiveness in market operations

  • Principle of absolute advantage: the ability of an entity to produce more quantity using resources than the others

  • Principle of comparative advantage: producing goods/services at lower cost in comparison to others

  • Market equilibrium: the point at which supply and demand intersect

  • Shortage and surplus: shortage occurs when quantity demanded exceeds supply. Surplus is whne quantity supplied exceeds demand

  • Price floor and price ceiling: proce floor indicates the lowest price for a good/service while ceiling indicate the highest possible price

  • Scarcity: the difference between limited wants a nd resources

  • Opportunity cost: An alternative that a prson gives up to take a different course of ction

  • Socialism: Socialism iis about a centrally planned economy

  • Capitalism: a system of economy where private entities own capital goods and circulation of them depends of demand and supply in the market.

  • Scandinavian system: combination of welfare state and free market capitalism with a national level collective bargaining

  • Invisible hands of market: self interested people in a free market economy serving to promote the benefit of the entire society

  • Consumers market: people who buy goods/services at the end of the market chain

  • Producers market: people producing goods/services and sell them to consumers at a profit

  • Circular flow chart: a chart indicating how money flows in an economy

  • Financial intermediaries: an entity that acts as the middle person in a transaction involving money

  • Stocks and Bonds: stocks are equity while bonds are debts

  • Shift and Rotation of Production possibilities Frontier: an outward PPF shift indicates economice growth while an inward shift indicates economy is shrinking

  • Complementary and substitute goods: Complemtary implies service/product that is used in conjuction with another product/service. Substitute goods are different services/products that meet the satisfaction of same consumer.

  • Normal and inferior goods: A normal good experiences increased in demand in quantity when peoples economy grows while inferior good has decrease in demand as economy rises

  • Market demand: The proportion of willingness of consumers to acquire available goods/services at a give price

  • Market supply: the total quantity of good/service that is available to consumers

  • Income doubling formula: also known as rule 70, it is used to determine the length of

Technology

Demandand Supply

Efficiency

GDPper Capita

WorkCited

Investipedia“Economic terminologies.” 2017. Web 27 Mar 2017

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

Thesubmission by Army Waldman

ArmyWaldman’s novel “the submission” is an interesting piece ofwork. Published approximately 10 years after the worst terror attacksof September 2001, the novel reflects on the deeper aspects ofidentity among the US citizens at the period of heightened tensionand distrust among the various races in the country, immediatelyafter the strike. The main controversy is the issue where themajority of Americans from other religious backgrounds perceiveMuslim Americans as terrorists. Therefore Muslim Americans are in astate of shock in the sense of establishing their identity in aclimate where they are attacked by their fellow citizens. Things arequite dramatic and in attempting to portray the whole picture,Waldman basis her novel on the submission for memorial design ofvictims of the attack. Mohammed Khan, an American Muslim wins thecompetition for the designs leading to the rhetoric that acceptinghis submission is like providing terrorist with a victory trophy. Asa result, there is a national discourse on the matter withjournalists fueling the conversation and politicians getting in ittoo. There are no two characters Waldman has presented who providesinsight into the issue of identity as does Mohamed Khan and Claire.This analysis will therefore focus on the two characters in exploringthe issue of identity at this period in American history.

Twoidentities can be established in the novel: one of heroic and theother of villain. When Mohammed khan (Mo) presents his design to thecommittee set to evaluate submissions and choose the best, hissubmission on the Garden, he emerges the victor. This is not untilthe committee discovers he is Muslim American when their attitudechanges . Even Claire who had convinced many members to vote for Mo’sdesign is taken aback. She did not expect that it was from a MuslimAmerican. The identity theme emerging in this case is that non-Muslimquestion the true motive of a Muslim presenting the design.Fundamentally, whenMo’s garden design wins, there is a lot of debate from both Muslimand non-Muslim Americans in the United State. The argument propagatedby non-Muslims is that Mo’s “victory garden was not for peacefulmemorial but a trophy to the terrorists. One of the newscasterscovering the designs submission event happens to say of Mo’s garden“the terrorist remains are in that memorial. Mo’s has made atomb, a graveyard for them not the victims” (Waldman 116). Peoplehave a propensity to believe what terrorists say and they belief whatthis caster says and in the process there are heated sentimentsbetween Muslims and Non-Muslims all citizens of one country USA. Inretrospect, it can be argued that a sense of unity as one nation islost here. Since it is quite easy to fear than to trust, many peopleespecially non-Muslims end up believing the rhetoric spread in thepress that Mo’ an American Architect from Virginia is attempting tohonor terrorists who attacked the country. As a result, many of themare against Mo’s design and fear drives the select jury thatchooses a different winner. When Mo is attacked by the press and thepublic, the Muslim communities in America also feel the heat becausethey identify with Mo as Muslims. This, however does not make themany lesser citizens or inferior to non-Muslims. A times like these,many people mostly not focused on tolerance and equality as well ashonoring the dead, and Mo’s design is not the one to be used. Inthis case, non-Muslims don’t recognize Muslims in the country ascitizens. They tend to question their identity. The non-Muslimstherefore emerge as emergeas the villains represent intolerance and prejudice against MuslimAmericans while Muslim Americans come as heroic and representativesof peace tolerance and democracy. “Jesus fucking Christ! It’s agoddamn Muslim!” (Waldman 19). A juror remarks when he discoversthe winner of the design is a Muslim. The attack that the countryexperienced is in one way or another connected to people who have anappearance of a person from the Middle East. The fact of him being aMuslim, Mo is associated with terrorists and terrorism. In thisidentity perceived by the non-Muslims, one of the jurors says of Mothat “he’s unsuitable by definition” (24). While the situationis unsettling for jurors and many Americans, it is no so for Mo. Heseems to have known his identity as an American and despite his faithand background, no amount public sentiment can disconcert him. Thejurist’s chairman, one Mr. Paul Rubin had the jury close themeeting without deciding the winner. His proposal that “letsadjourn the meeting for a few days so I can further assess Khan’ssuitability, ‘As I would do for any designer’ (27) is quite adisappointment to those who believe in equality. What was there toadjourn for or to further assess and the jury had already voted? Thisreminds of Paul’s view of his cab driver “[D]espite all effortsotherwise [Paul] felt uncomfortable” about his Arab driver, and“relieved, although he hated to admit it” when the driver quits(16). Paul’s feeling on his identity and view of Muslims representsthe big picture of how other non-Muslim Americans viewed themselvesand they attitude towards Muslim Americans. For example, on learningthat a Muslim had won the competition, Sean and his family developedfeelings of having not only victimized but also subjected toinjustice once again:

“AMuslim gaining control of the memorial was the worst possible thingthat could happen–and exactly the rudder Sean, lately lacking one,needed. Catastrophe, he had learned, summoned his best self. In itsabsence he faltered” (71).

ClaireBurwell, the lady who vigorously convinced the jurists to vote forMo’s garden design (which reflects the bright side of things afterthe attack unlike the gloominess of the Void design of anothercontestant) is quite a contrast. In her advocacy for Mo’s design,it can be stated that she was sincere and mostly driven by the factthat she had lost a family member in the attack unlike the othermembers of the jury. She is too vocal in convincing the jury to votefor the garden design (which is quite beautiful) until Ariana, one ofthe jurists tells Claire that a memorial isn`ta graveyard. It`s a national symbol&quot and ought to be accessibleto &quotanyone who visits – no matter how attenuated their link intime or geography to the attack&quot (5). In her response, Claireexplains the memorial by asserting that “Beautywasn’t a crime, but there was more than beauty here… remindersthat a garden, for all its reliance on nature, was man-made…”(4).Sheis worried that the living members of her family may not like thedesign she votes for since the members are &quotso jingoistic, soliteral minded” (5). She is however perturbed on Mo’s win although she portrays a maskof indifference at first. Her statement when Mo’s name is mentionedis, “Look, I’m not pretending this isn’t a surprise” (22).She has a 180-degree turn around due to the focus of their committeeby the media. This is opposite of Mo’s decision to distance himselffrom the psychological creature talked and discussed in the media asthough it was not him criticized and called all manner of names.According to him, the association of Muslim identity to terrorism canbe concluded on “Facts were not found but made, and once made,alive, defying anyone to tell them from truth” (161). Claire lack’sMo’s resilience as her support for Mo and his design declines whenmedia attention is concentrated on it. It is the fabricated facts andinsinuations made about the real motive behind Mo’s design thattakes full grip on Claire and she ends up asking him to withdraw hisdesign from competition for no apparent reason save for the publicdisconcertment about it and her personal feelings and emotions on thesame. Therefore, theClaire seen at the end is a different one than the one seen in thecommencement of the story. In the beginning she is an individual whorepresents and inclusive and liberal view of the United States. It ispuzzling that though a strong advocate for Mo’s design in thebeginning, in the end she rejects him as an American because of ofhis change to become a more religious and mysterious man than he wasat the beginning of the novel. To this end, it is agreeable that thenovel is captivating but also enlightening on critical issues thatprofoundly shape people’s identity especially in turbulent times.

WorksCited

Waldman,A. (2011). The Submission. Random House.

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

CriticalEssay Evaluation

Duboisis the First African American to earn a degree from HarvardUniversity, a qualification that provides him a unique opportunity tohave a respectable voice among his fellow black American people. Hislanguage in the essay he wrote in criticism of Mr. Booker T.Washington Atlanta Compromise Address portrays him as a highlyeducated man who has not only the language but also a deep insightand comprehension of the issues affecting the African Americans inthe United States. It is therefore without a modicum of doubt toposit that he is well placed to pen his concerns on the sufferings ofthe blacks when it is critically needed. Mr. Du Bois uses anexcellent structure of his essay to outline the critical issues hewanted people to understand. Besides, his persuasive tone which issometimes critical, and seems to express anger when he talks of thetribulations the black man in America has endured, plays a vital rolein the application of pathos and logos to convince his audience.

Instructuring his essay, Du Bois began by highlighting the fallacies ofMr. Booker T. Washington. It is by so doing that engages the reader and points a direction to follow. Importantly, Du Bois does not juststate where Mr. Washington is wrong, but he goes further to explainwhy he is wrong. In addition, he uses vocabularies that match thestatements and perspectives that he delves into in the discussion.The whole essay is marked by words such as “civic rights,”“political rights,” and many other terms and phrases that stressthe message of his writing (Du Bois chp.3).

Tobegin with, Du Bois uses pathos in his criticism of the altitude ofsubmission and adjustment. He does so through pointing to variousfallacies that Mr. Booker T Washington has had with regard to hisaddress in Atlanta on compromise. These fallacies includeWashington’s believe that providing work opportunities and creatingwealthy for the blacks as the important in comparison to themfighting for their civil rights, seeking political power andeducating the negro youth (Tanner par.7 Du Bois chp. 3). Mr.Washington, as Du Bois points out, holds the belief that bysubmitting those 3 things is the only sure for the survival of theblacks. According to Du Bois, Washington’s views are not rightdespite the fact that for around 15 years that blacks fought on thoseissues, they had only succeeded in around 5 years. According to DuBois, the result of this policy of submission has only succeeddepriving the Negros their rights and privileges and citizens, lackof support for training their youth from institutions of higherlearning even the institution of a legal framework that legallyaccorded them inferior status in comparison to their whitecounterparts (Du Bois chp. 3). . In highlighting the fallacy ofthought and perspective on the part of Mr. Washington in addition tounderscoring the deplorable state the ideas has landed the AfricanAmerican community, Du Bois is attempting to inspire black angeragainst the status quo. In other words, he is endeavoring to showthem that they cannot observe blind obedience and submission andadjustment when their place in the America society is in jeopardy.

DuBois also utilizes the art of logos to effective disseminate hismessage in the essay. While growing economically is a fine thing asMr. Washington advocates, Du Bois questions if it is possible forapproximately 9 million black people to advance economically when itis legally accepted that they are inferior and they have been deniedascendance to political power or participation in politics in anendeavor to change their status save only the right to work andbecome rich. In this logic, Du Bois is trying to elucidate the factthat it is difficult to make any tangible progress in the economicline if their have no rights to defend themselves. He further decries the lack sense and meaning of Washington’s advocacy forself-respect among the Negros which rationalizes cannot be achievedin in observance of civic inferiority. Besides, he points thatWashington is in error to think that artisanship training for Negrosin his Tuskegee training can flourish without the input from Negroswho have been trained in institutions of higher learning. By sostating, it is illogical that the Tuskegee can survive without college training for Negros, the point Du Bois attempts to make (DuBois chp. 3). .

Tothis end, it cannot be argued that Mr. Du Bois essay is an ultimatesuccess despite his articulate arguments and logical perspectives onthe issues of the day. It would have been important if he would havepointed out the larger issues contributing to the repression of theblack community besides Mr. Washington . Nonetheless, he has done awonderful work in pointing out critical concerns in a structurallyinformed manner. The application of logos and pathos as well as ethoshas enhanced the message and his criticism of Mr. Washington’saltitude of submission and adjustment articulated in the Atlantacompromise Address.

Workscited

DuBois, W.E.B. “Where in the world may we go and be safe from lyingand brute force? In Souls of Black Folk. 1903. Print

PathosLogos.com“Ethos,Pathos, and Logos Definition and Examples” We. 26 Mar. 2017.

Tanner,Henry Ossawa. “ Booker T. Washington.” February 2017. We. 26Mar. 2017.

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

TheCause and Effect of Reading on Malcolm X

“Learningto Read” explores the world that opened to Malcolm X when he beganto be an avid reader in incarceration. The frustrations from hisinability to express himself through writing played a great deal ininfluencing him to commence “Homemade education” (Haley 245). Itwas also something of disappointment that he could command a lot ofrespect and attention in the street for being articulate in streetslang only to be defeated in the art of writing good English. Bimbi(probably a friend of Malcolm X) had also challenged him by hiswealth of knowledge that enabled him to control any communicationexchange he engaged in. Since emulating Bimbi did not bear fruits dueto his limited knowledge, Malcolm had no choice but to decide toeducate himself, having decided “the best thing he could do was toget hold of dictionary-and study” ( Haley 246) something thatpropelled him to heights unimaginable as a political activist inlater years.

Devotionto study fundamentally helped Malcolm X to comprehend what he wasreading. He would later say that after much reading (that spannedstudying a whole dictionary), he could now “for the first time picka book and read and now begin to understand what it was saying”(Haley 246). Besides, it unlocked an alien world of history andreligion he had not known before, triggering an increased interestfor reading that resulted in him delving into deep knowledge on thehistory of black man and the oppression of the white man againstother races of the world. In self-evaluation, Malcolm X would laterstate that “reading had changed forever the course of my life”(Haley 253) as he reflected how his life had transformed in prisonfrom someone who could not write to one who could give lectures andcontest for the rights of black man in America.

Tothis end, it is evident that the frustrations of being unable toexplain himself in writing greatly helped Malcolm X to transform thecourse of his life as they motivated him to delve into study andreading. Devotion to books significantly increased his knowledgeempowering him to engage in political activism in latter years.

WorkCited

Haley,Alex. “Learning to read: in The Autobiography of Malcolm X” 1965.Print

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

CourseName

Self-knowledgeand Self-mastery

Self-knowledgeand self-mastery are terms taken to describe the act of knowing,understanding and having complete control over oneself. Masteringone’s body, mind, and emotions is not an easy task.One can onlyexperience true knowledge of oneself when the mind is freed from‘illusions, distractions, and delusions which it is subject’(Jayaram, par.1). Self-knowledge can also be described as the ways toboth mental and spiritual freedom. According to Jayaram, the mind isusually entangled in duality, mechanical behavior, and mental chainsand once it is liberated from these conditions, one is set to achieveself-knowledge. However, it is difficult for one to achieveself-knowledge and self-mastery and this can be seen in both StAugustine’s Confessions and Montaigne’s Essays. Both authorswrote the stories of their lives (autobiographies) from differentperspectives and each of them tries to respond to the difficultyexplained earlier in different styles. The aim of this paper is tocompare and contrast the responses of both St. Augustine andMontaigne about the difficulty of self-knowledge and self-mastery.

TheDifficulty of Achieving Self-knowledge and Self-mastery

Thebasis for real knowledge is a direct experience. One cannot achieveself-knowledge unless they have a complete experience of thesituation and without duality. If one’s experience is complete,then the quality of their self-knowledge will be high. Another way ofgaining complete knowledge is through overcoming preferences,readiness to associate with anything and the willingness to embracedualities (Jayaram, par.3). However, it is not as easy as it mayappear as there are obstacles to acquiring self-knowledge andself-mastery. According to Jayaram, the most significant obstacle inachieving true knowledge is the knower’s and the known’s duality.This barrier arises because the mind comes in between the observerand their field of observation. The experience of things which issupposed to be complete is interfered with by one’s senses, ego,and many other limitations. The above limitations lead the subjectinto having distorted information about oneself thus limiting theacquirement of self-knowledge and self-mastery (Jayaram, par.5). Thelimitations must be overwhelmed by silencing the mind and the senses,thus experiencing true knowledge.

St.Augustine’s and Montaigne’s responses to the difficulty ofachieving total self-knowledge and self-mastery

St.Augustine of Hippo wrote the autobiographical book titled‘Confessions of St. Augustine’ between 397 and 398 AD and it wasbased on the author’s true life experiences(Customwrittingtips.com, p.1). Augustine was a sinful man before heconverted to Christianity and the autobiography is used to showremorse for his sins. Augustine could be observed to have overcomethe difficulty of achieving self-knowledge in the sense that his lifewas sinful. Augustine was a sinner, and he acknowledges that throughconfessions as portrayed in the book. Augustine accepted the sins,and throughout the autobiography, he uses the subject ‘I,`therefore, achieving the first basis of experiencing self-knowledge.

Augustineadmitted sinning, for example, when his friends influenced him tosteal pears which he later gave to the pigs as a result of guilt(Customwritingtips.com, p.1). One way in which a person can attaincomplete self-knowledge is by being the subject of the wholeexperience and Augustine was the subject of sin. He did not try toevade the guilt of sin by blaming other people instead, he embracedthe whole experience and was able to overcome it at the end. It is byembracing the situation and becoming part of it that one can achievecomplete self-knowledge and self-mastery.

Augustinewas also faced with the crisis of trying to understand Christianityand this confusion led him to come up with his views on God. Again,Augustine never escaped the situation he was in instead, he stayedon and took the time to learn. Augustine’s views on God created abetter understanding of Christianity. However, it was difficult forhim to achieve complete self-knowledge and self-mastery, but with thehelp of his mother’s prayers and his determination, Augustineeventually converted to Christianity (Customwritingtis.com, p.1). IfAugustine had followed and trusted his mind on issues concerningChristianity, plus allowing egoism to take control, then he wouldnever have realized Christ. Therefore, Augustine could never haveleft his sinful ways. Augustine achieved complete self-knowledge andself-mastery by direct experience and embracing the situations hefound himself.

Montaignewrote Essays on various subjects concerning human nature startingfrom 1571. However, Montaigne never repented, and he disregardedconfession as opposed to St. Augustine (Martin, p.1). Montaignebelieved that confession was distorting and therefore, obstructingthe achievement of complete self-knowledge and self-mastery.Montaigne can be seen to be in denial, which could be described asego. Ego is an obstacle to achieving true knowledge of oneself and inline with Montaigne’s Essays ego seems to control him thus denyingAugustine self-knowledge. Montaigne was apparently faced with thedifficulty of attaining self-knowledge and self-mastery as his workslacked philosophical rigor and the conventional narrative form asopposed to the ‘Confessions of St. Augustine’ (Martin, p.1).Montaigne’s work was complex in the sense of illustratingself-representation. Augustine told off his experiences thatcontributed in to converting to Christianity, but Montaigne neverstated them despite converting to Christianity.

Montaigne’srepresentation of self is strange. However, some scholars have readhis essays and found that Montaigne’s self-reflection functions inthe modern times (Martin, p.2). Montaigne states that ‘if onelistens to himself, they are bound to recognize a pattern whichgrapples against education and against the turmoil of the passionsthat defy it’ (811, 615) (Martin, p.2). The above statementdescribes the personality of modern man. The representation of selfby Montaigne is different from that of Augustine. Augustine devotedhimself to be known to God whereas Montaigne wanted to be known toman (Martin, p.2). In the above illustration, both authors’ arededicated to achieving self-knowledge and self-mastery though fromdifferent perspectives.

Conclusion

Itis difficult to achieve complete self-knowledge and self-mastery, andone is required to overcome the obstacles of the mind that hinderacquirement of real knowledge. The same difficulty has beenilluminated in the ‘Confessions of St. Augustine and Montaigne’sEssays’ whereby the two authors are subjects of obstacles.Augustine achieves complete self-knowledge by having directexperience and embracing the sins. Augustine also confesses, thusfighting ego which is instead an obstacle in the case of Montaigne.Montaigne’s way of representing self is different and complex.Unlike Augustine, Montaigne does not believe in repentance andconfession, a trait which poses as an obstacle to achieving totalself-knowledge and self-mastery. Additionally, a guardian, a parentor a peer can assist somebody in acquiring self-knowledge as depictedby Augustine`s mother, who prayed for him to believe and understandChristianity. In contrary, they can also hinder individual`sachievement of self-knowledge and self-mastery.

WorkCited

Customwritingtips.com.‘The ‘Confessions of St. Augustine’ and Montaigne’s Essay.’Customwriting.com.pg 1-3. Accessed on 17thMarch 2017.

Jayaram,V. ‘Self-knowledge, Difficulties in Knowing Yourself.’Hinduwebsite.com.2000-2015. Accessed on 17thMarch 2017.

Martin,John Jeffries. ‘The Confessions of Montaigne.’Sematicscholar.org.15thOctober 2012. Pg 1-14. Accessed on 17thMarch 2017.

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

PersuasiveEssay-A Multimodal Composition

Thefreedom of speech is regarded as the most precious right that anycitizen from any country can enjoy. The benefits of this rights arethat people have the opportunity to express their ideas and mind ofwhat they view as being good or has to be done. The rights to speechhave been facing criticism and this has caused it not to be secludedto a particular location. It is for the benefit of people to utilizethe freedom of speech but not misusing it by inciting people toengage in violence through racism or tribalism.

Fig.1:A billboard on free expression.

(Source:https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&amptbm=isch&ampq=google%20images&amptbs=sur:fmc#tbs=sur:fmc&amptbm=isch&ampq=freedom+of+speech.)

TheU.S constitution has cherished the rights to speech. The citizenshave the privilege to express their views about anything withoutbeing discriminated or victimized.

Fig.2:A citizen is illustrating the importance of the right of speech.

(Source:https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&amptbm=isch&ampq=google%20images&amptbs=sur:fmc#tbs=sur:fmc&amptbm=isch&ampq=freedom+of+speech&amp*)

Forinstance, in this image, it demonstrates how a single thought from anindividual may have much impact than a thousand people who do nothave the right of speech. With the emergence of the internet, it hasdeveloped a platform for personal expression. The use of social mediaand online blogs have enabled the users to free their states of mindsin various topics. The journalists and politicians have the abilityto influence the public opinions, but they are expected to have anethical obligation to avoid misusing the right of speech.

Fig.3:Citizens are demonstrating on their right of expression.

(Source:https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&amptbm=isch&ampq=google%20images&amptbs=sur:fmc#tbs=sur:fmc&amptbm=isch&ampq=freedom+of+speech&amp*)

Everyconstitution has to place some limitation or guidelines on thefreedom of speech to ascertain that people do not violate the rights.The freedom of speech has to be regulated to ensure that otherindividuals are not in a position to invading the rights of otherpeople. The politicians have to represents the interests of thecitizens and so they have to use the power in leading the publictowards success. Nevertheless, the government has to imposerestrictions to regulate the freedom of speech. All people have to becautious of their communication to avoid destroying the society andemergence of violence.

Professor`s Name

  • Uncategorized

StoneTool and Tool Production

Thepursuit for earlier cultures has become one of the foremost researchinsights in evolutionary explorations. Humans show evolved abilitiesfor complicated technological, symbolic, and social acts which aredistinctive amongst the existing species. Earlier evolutionaryexperts appreciated the significance of culture as a majorcontributor to the advanced human behavior. It is argued that thecontemporary human behavior may be a result of cumulative culturalevolution (Foleyand Marta 6).The question has been about what has evolved to give humans theircurrent capabilities. The prime area of change is the brain ofhumans, perceived as the cause of the unique mental powers. Oneresearch study relates to how the use of stone tools affected thecognitive capabilities of Homosapiens.However, the ancient Oldowan relics were too refined to signify thegenesis of human machinery (Hamand et al. 312). On that regard, theartifacts raise concerns as to the earliest makers, as well as thedifference between those tools and the ones made by recent humans.Archaeological evidence offer data vital in understanding humanprogress since the last common antecedent with Pan.Palaeolithic stone implements give a comparatively profuse andunremitting data of technological shift over the last 2.5 millionyears ago, detailing the steady appearance of new behavioral orcognitive capacities (McPherronet al. 857).

Inessence, evolutionary ancestors predetermined the evolution oftechnology through time, which provides evidence that tool productionwas as earlier as 2.5 milion years ago, or even earlier than that.Early people “knapped stones” to make sharp tools, whichrepresent an intermediate technical stage (Harmand et al. 312). Thediscovery shows that the frequent and competent design or productionof sharp tools was a dynamic factor in the development of man.Archaeologists trace the uniqueness of the hominin lineage to theevolutionary ancestors, especially in their use of stone tools, whichpoint out that the earliest man had the knowledge to produce and usethese artifacts skillfully. Therefore, the paper exploits theevolution of man by determining the link between archaeologicalremains, historic behaviors, and the essential cultural and cognitivemechanisms which aided the behaviors, with stone tool production anduse as the center of focus.

Evidenceon Stone Tool Usage and Production

Archaeologyoffers two primary bodies of evidence related to the progress ofhuman cognition, that is, the timing associated with innovation orcognition development, and the actual evolution of thosedevelopments. Particularly, the human evolution can be traced back tothe origins of shaping stone tools by hitting them with other stonesto produce sharp tools, which could then be used to execute varioustasks. The stone tools (lithics) present physical proof of human andpre-human technology, and can be utilized to examine the cognitivecapabilities of those involved in their production (Aeillo and PeterWheeler 201).

Thereis overwhelming evidence that earlier species used debitage productsto assist in daily activities (Harmand et al. 312). As a result oftheir completely inorganic content, lithic tools and debitage areinert and resistant of degradation. Consequently, the twoarchaeological remains (lithics and debitage) the most frequentlydiscovered artifacts in relation to human pre-history. Paleolithicstone tools are available in large quantity and display sequentialand geographic disparity through the entire course of homininevolution. Thus, stone tools are important in comparative studiesconcerning the evolution of humans cognitively and culturally.Initial records of Oldowan stone tools dated 1.75 million years ago(in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania) mapped the Homohabilis(hominins with chimpanzee-sized brains) as the first lithic toolmakers. However, Harmandet al. argued that the discovery of 3.3 million years old tools inKenya’s Lake Turkana shores is enough confirmation that the actualfirst tool makers may have been the Australopithecus(311). Other stone implements, for instance, animal bones located inEthiopia with cut marks dating back to the past 3.39 million years,are indicative of the fact that stone tool production and usecommenced before the Homohabilis(McPherron et al. 858).Finally, another stone tool identified in Gona, Ethiopia, dating 2.6million years ago, only cemented the fact that indeed,Australopithecuswerethe first hominins to produce and use stone tools (Semawet al. 171).

Themost ancient stone tools (dated 3.3 milion years) are associated withAustralopithecus,a group of hominins that had human and ape-like features, but withbrains that were relatively smaller. On the contrary, the lithictools hinted that these hominins had more advanced cognitiveabilities than was assumed. According to McPherron et al.,Australopithecushavetubular bone arrangement consistent with rock knapping andutilization (859). It is argued that the species were intelligentenough to make or knap, as well as use lithic tools. Australopithecusshared some similarities with the apes they had long arms withfingers that were extended and curved, short legs, comparativelysmaller brains, and were arboreal, spending most time on trees(Skinneret al. 396).Their cognitive and manipulative capabilities facilitated the art ofstone tool production and utilization.

Australopithecusproduced stone tools by knocking them with sufficient force tocontinuously detach a set of superposed unidirectional and adjacentflakes. For instance, the tools unearthed in Lake Turkana regioncomprised of sharp flakes of stone thought to have been sheared offfrom relatively larger rocks for use in cutting. These were definedas choppers, flake-like implements created by shearing one or morepieces of a larger stone (Skinneret al. 398).In addition to the choppers, other types of stone tools have beendiscovered along the timeline in different geographical areas. TheOldowan stone implements, with the oldest (dated 2.5 million years)discovered in Gona, Ethiopia, classify as flake tools. These weremade with many flakes, or by chiseling off small pieces a core washit with a hammerstone to smash off a flake (Foleyand Marta 7).Another evidence of stone flakes dates back to the past 1.75 millionyears, and was found in Olduvai Gorge of Tanzania. Apart from thestone flakes and choppers, crude bifacial tools have also beenidentified in Peninj, Tanzania, and dates back to the period 1.6million years. Crude bifacial tools were ax-like carvings from rocks,wood antlers, or bone. They were produced by fragmenting materialfrom two or more sides of a stone, bone, or wood. Finally,archaeologists have also mapped hand axes dated 0.7 to 0.25 millionyears ago, for example, in France and Western Asia. Although the handaxes bear resemblance to bifacial stone implements, they wereproduced from more advanced technology (Semawet al. 169-170).

Evidencesuggests that the use of stone tools by hominins improved theircognitive capability, helping them to advance from one invention toanother and allowing them to easily execute tasks such as huntingwith ease. Notably, the evolution of lithic tools started with simplechoppers, stone flakes, bifacial stones, and hand axes in that order.With these tools in place, hominin species could execute a wide arrayof tasks such as wood cutting, digging up roots, and extractingtubers, as well as other buried materials (Aeillo and Peter Wheeler112), and easy feeding without relying entirely on dentition. Hence,the hominins adapted by eliminating the need for larger dentition,and instead, utilizing most of the energy obtained from the diet toadvance their cognition and motor skills (McPherronet al. 859).

Toolmaking, diet, and the size of brain are all thought to impact eachother. Apparently, the cognition of human evolutionary ancestorsprogressed as an operational capacity to adapt. Stone tools were usedto process food from game meet (Semaw et al. 172), which, in turn,helped in the development of their brains. With increased brain size,the capability to device more complex tools was acquired, therebyenhancing the hominins’ strategies of gathering food. That, inturn, facilitated a better diet quality that could be sustained by asmaller digestives system, and the generation of more energy thatpromoted the development of larger brains over time. As Aeillo andPeter Wheeler noted, meat products helped in the evolution of humanbrains (221). Thankfully, the hominin species manufactured stonetools that were instrumental in the hunting process and cutting ofmeat from carcasses for food. They, thus, provided meat in theirdiets to sustain brain development.

Whilethe concept of how meat helped in the evolution of human brain may beunrelated to archaeology, examining how the need for meat, alongsideother dietary requirement, informed the development of stone tools bythe hominins is essential in tracing of tool production. Choppers andscrapers by early hominins were utilized to break bones and derivemarrow, as well as cut meat off the bones (Domínguez-Rodrigo,Travis and Henry 20930).The hominin tool (dated 2.6 million years) associated withAustralopithecusdiscoveredin Gona was a scraping implement utilized to cut up meat in anattempt to satiate the dietary needs. The tool is argued to have beendeveloped before there was an increased brain size and improved meatdiet for the hominins (Aielloand Peter Wheeler 208).Meanwhile, a jaw bone of an antelope dated 2.5 million years ago wasidentified in Ethiopia’s Lake Yadi. The jaw bone had cut markswhich implied that a sharp stone flake was used to slice out thetongue by the then hominin (Australopithecus) (McPherronet al.858). Therefore, hominins developed tools to aid in their scavengingpractice of obtaining meat and marrow from carcasses.

HomininGenera and Species Associated with Stone Knapping

Increasedreliance on stone tools and enhanced manipulation of sharp objectswas the result of the adaptive shift from evolutionary ancestorsconcerning new foraging strategies. Homosapiens’ supposedlyproduction of particular implements from adapted bones of animals,alongside other aspects like art and distinct hunting tools, hasculminated in the definition of an apparent cognitive and behavioralgap between Homosapiensand the rest of the species belonging to the genus Homo(Domínguez-Rodrigoet al. 20932).

Becausestone tools provide physical evidence of pre-human and humantechnology, as well as the way they evolved cognitively, a lot ofarchaeological studies have been done to verify the human genera andspecies involved in the production and utilization of tools. Initialevidence of Oldowan stone tools dating back to 1.75 million years agoplaced Homohabilisas the initiators of stone tool knapping (McPherronet al. 858).However, the latest discovery of a lithic tool (named Lomekwi 3)dating back to 3.3 milion years ago in Kenya’s Lake Turkana shorespushed back the existing records to near a millennium. These toolswere manufactured nearly one million years before the first knownartifact ascribed to the hominin group or genus Homo(Harmandet al. 313). The revelation invalidated the previous belief thatknapping of stone tools was associated with the arrival of thehominins belonging to the genus Homo.Over the past few decades, ensuing findings backdated the initiallithic implements to the past 2.6 million years and credited theinitial stone tools to first Homoto about 2.4 to 2.3 million years ago (Aeillo and Peter Wheeler 202).Therefore, stone tool production that dates back to the past 2.5million years is attributed to the hominins. Australopithecus hasbeen the genus ascribed to the manufacture of the tools during theperiod, with such species as Australopithecusrobustus,Australopithecusafricanus,and other hominins previously thought incapable of knapping stones.Australopithecusrobustusis attributed to the production and the use of stone tools found inSouth Africa’s Swartkans and Sterkfontein dating back to the past1.8 million years because the remains of the species discovered inthe sites, based on radiocarbon dating, were about 1.8 million yearsold. Additionally, in Zambia’s Broken Hill, several lithicimplements were determined which show proof of shaping by cuttingusing stone tools, as well as polishing. The tools are ascribed tothe first phase of Middle Stone Age, with Australopithecusafricanuslinked to the art (Foleyand Marta 10-11).

TheOldowan stone tools used by hominins or Australopithecus have, atlength, been contemplated to be the simplest forms of tools to havebeen produced about 2.5 million years ago. The stone tool datingabout 2.5 million years located in Bouri, Ethiopia, is attributed tothe works of Australopithecusgarhi asthe skull bones identified from the same area dated back to the sameperiod. In the shores of Turkana, however, an artifact dated 3.3milion years ago has been found and accredited to the homininclassified as Kenyanthropusplatypus. Evidencefrom Dikika, Ethiopia, also identified stone tool artifacts as old as3.39 million years, and is associated with Australopithecines (Semawet al. 171).

Thehominins who used the latest discovered tools reportedly hadconsiderable abilities in relation to manual dexterity, depthplanning, and selection of raw materials. They have been shown topossess tubercular bone patterns that resemble those of humans, thus,able to make and use tools. Through Oldowan technology, homininsprocured raw materials (core and hammerstone) of the necessary size,shape and composition. What followed was the flaking of the toolalongside the examination of core, the selection of target,positioning of the core, the selection of hammerstone grip, andprecise percussion. This provides evidence that the evolutionaryancestors of the modern-day humans not only had the ability toproduce tools but to accomplish other complex things, a sign ofimproved cognitive ability (Harmand et al. 311).

Evolutionin Tool Making Behavior

Adiverse Paleolithic tradition developed by anatomically modernhominins suggests an increased complexity in stone tool productionsuggesting an evolution in their cognitive ability. Between theuncomplicated, prehistoric Oldowan culture built by distant earlyhominins and the latest varied Upper Paleolithic culture establishedby anatomically modern hominins, there occurs a trend of increasingcomplexity of stone tools marked by striking technologicalinnovations through the hominin evolution continuum. The course ofcognitive transformation was certainly steady and occurred throughseveral hominin forms (Aeillo and Peter Wheeler 207).

Theinitial phase was punctuated by the Oldowan technology, in whichsimple stone tools like scrapers and choppers were produced and usedby hominins as early as 1.4 to 2.5 million years ago and beyond. Suchlithic tools were crude, made by simply shearing one or severalpieces off a large stone. By 1.7 to about 0.25 million years ago,termed as the Achuelian period, bifacial flaking technology dominated(Semawet al. 170).During the time, the tools produced were symmetrical, and includedfake tools, crude biface implements, and hand axes. The era marked amajor cognitive and symbolic hominins’ progress, with the speciesinvolved in the production of tools undergoing noteworthy increase inbrain size in relation to reduced increase in body size. On thecontrary, some archaeologists argue that modernization process tookplace after the Oldowan and Acheulean periods, that is, about 300,000years ago (Skinneret al. 397).That was the phase that saw the introduction of composite lithicimplements, marking the beginning of the African Middle Stone Age(MSA). Essentially, composite tool manufacture demands of theplanning and coordination of many separate duties compared to thetechnique of stone flaking in the previous stone culture. The era isperceived as a leading milestone concerning human’s history oftechnology which marked the appearance of modern cognition (Foleyand Marta 12).

Despitethe disagreements among researchers about which tools are moreadvance or date the earliest, the bifacial flaking technology used bydifferent hominins indicate that the stone tools differed in terms oftheir production method and use. Lithic tools were developed throughvaried procedures of knapping to break raw stone material. Forinstance, hominins hit a raw stone core on another stone or organichammer to obtain a flake. However, to get a sharp flake, the homininhad to use desirable force, identify correct core position, andstrike at the right angle. That could only be achieved throughpreplanning and use of considerable skill, indicating that theknappers made use of their brains, thereby resulting in increasedcognition over time (Harmand et al. 315).

Thediscovery of the innovation from different archaeological sites alsosuggests that stone making and usage existed over diverse timelines,meaning that production and utilization occurred simultaneously.Apart from the 3.3 million years stone tool uncovered in Kenya’sTurkana, one of the irrefutable proofs for tool manufacture is the2.5 million years old Gona (Ethiopia) implement. Such early cases ofmanufactured artifacts are not common. However, after 1.8 millionyears, the incidences of sites increased alongside the concentrationof stone tools and typological density (Skinneret al. 399).Varied data from site evidence, relative to the lithics with thecarcasses of animals, show that most hominins relied on stone toolsfor survival during as at 1.8 million years ago. Hominins were notonly producing Oldowan, but also Acheulean tools that dominated theAfrican and Eurasian landscapes by 0.8 million years ago. Furthertechnological shifts occurred during the MSA starting from 500,000years ago and was extensive in Africa’s Central Saharan environmentand beyond by 280,000 years ago (McPherronet al. 859).

Pittingabrasive and fracture damage to the stone tools suggests thatdifferent hominins used different techniques as they produced theirtools with the complexity of these techniques increasing as theymoved up the timeline (Samaw et al. 176). During the Oldowan period,choppers and scrapers were obtained by shearing one or pieces off alarge stone. However, Acheulean technology was characterized byhitting stone cores at precise angles to produce sharp flake tools,fashionably chipping materials off one or both sides of a rawmaterial (stone, wood, or bone) to produce a biface tool, orincorporating more skills and planning to manufacture hand axes. Themarks on such tools are fossilized to provide good insights into howdifferent timelines featured distinct techniques of stone toolproduction by hominins (Skinneret al. 398).

Skillsin Manufacturing and Using Tools

Thehominins controlled and understood the principles of breaking stones,which allowed them to obtain tools from flakes secured through anarray of methods. While producing flakes, hominins made use of theirbrains or cognition. They had to choose a sufficient material for thehammer and the core. In addition, the knappers made use ofabstractedness that facilitated the visualization of the probableflake within the core prior to its production. Furthermore, thehominins appreciated the primary mechanics of fracture and thebehavior of the core under modification. Finally, the knappersreacted to the core material and its changing state, and alteredtheir striking angles and positions are required (McPherronet al. 858).This shows a strong logical and geometrical conceptualization of thehominins’ physical world, with an immense capability to visualizeand envisage future results of the knapping process(Domínguez-Rodrigoet al. 20931).

Usingtheir cognitive abilities, hominins selected stone tools fromdifferent rocks. The selection was based on size and composition. Forinstance, to successfully create an Acheulean blank, hominins optedfor heavier hammerstones as compared to the manufacture of simpleOldowan flake production. It is argued that the large core materialswere supported on the ground during hammering as opposed to holdingthem in the hand. To maintain the core in a desirable position,cobbles or boulders were utilized (Harmand et al. 314).

Theutilization of the tools required large capacities of rocks forhammering and supporting of the core, which, in itself, is a rock tobe modified to attain the required implement. McPherronet al. pointed out that thehominins had the skills to break stones since they depended on thetools for survival (857). They could manipulate and rotate the coreand the hammer using hands and adjusting their body postures. Inaddition, the hominins had the know-how to maintain the required edgeangles during knapping, open the boulder core by eliminating unwantedflake, produce symmetrical stone tools, and chip or fashion theresulting implement to effectively serve its role. Besides, they hadthe knowledge of the best premium sandstone to make the tools,something that was considered during the procurement stage of toolproduction (Aeillo and Peter Wheeler 209).

Otherarchaeological sites have suggested considerable motor skills andsophisticated know-how in relation to reduction sequence. Studiesfrom Paris Basin’s open-air sites identified patterned multistagereduction sequences, precise error restoration, for instance, throughthe termination of hinge fractures, and accurate application of forceby hominins. Oldowan stone knapping is argued to be an involvingsensory motor practice unique to the hominins, and signifies theinitial observable steps amounting to modern cognition (Semawet al. 173).There is a connection between tool production and brain functioningor development. While hominins engaged in flaking of stones, thecortical and subcortical sections of the brain became more activated.These regions are related to motor and somatosensory processing, andare associated with complicated spatial cognition that needsinterceding spatial and sensory information. Therefore, any knappingmethod by the hominins featured the utilization of cognitive skillsand reasoning, thereby causing gradual advancement of their brainsand contributing to the high-level human-like cognition (Foleyand Marta 9).

Thevarying level of evidence may suggest that hominins experimented withthe methods of manufacturing lithic tools, although all casesinvolved significant cognitive and motor skill input. For example,during Acheulean hominins practiced the art of making large cuttingtools through intentional shaping and structured flaking. They alsoproduced advanced scrapers (e.g. Karari scrapers identified atKenya’s Koobi Fora) by intentionally getting rid of flakes thatoccurred around the circumference of fractured cables. Through suchexperimentation and practices, hominins designed tools that aidedtheir scavenging and hunting activities, while their cognitionincreased (Domínguez-Rodrigoet al. 20932).

Advantagesof Using Stone Tools

Severalbenefits are associated with the use of stone tools among hominins.First, besides altering or improving the cognitive ability of thehominins, the utilization of stone tools also modified theirbiological predisposition lithic tools increased the fitness ofhominins to adapt in various environments. Second, stone tools wereinstrumental in the hunting process and cutting of meat carcasses forfood in the form of flesh and marrow. Likewise, through the use oflithic tools, hominids could easily chew their food without the needto use heavy dentition they adapted by eliminating the need forlarger dentition (Aeillo and Peter Wheeler 220).

Conclusion

Whilearchaeological sites were previously associated with archaictechnology, the recent findings have proven otherwise. Evidencecollected in a number of archaeological sites suggests that humanevolutionary ancestors (hominins) had more complex capabilities andskills. They had knowledge of how to reduce rocks and fracture themfrom certain angles to produce sharp cutting objects such as flaketools, scrapers, hand axe, and bifacial stone tools. Equally, theyhad planning skills and could procure and move rocks to themanufacturing sites. Hominins successfully manufactured stone toolsbecause they possessed motor skills and cognitive abilities theycould select and manipulate core materials using force to come upwith functional hunting and cutting tools. Although the initialevidence ascribed the first tool makers to Homohabilisas early as 1.75 million years as discovered in Olduvai Gorge ofTanzania, latest findings in Turkana shores (Kenya) presented a stonetool aged 3.3 million years, indicating that Oldwan lithic implementswere first produced by Australopithecines and other ancient hominins.

WorksCited

Aiello,Leslie C., and Peter Wheeler. “The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: TheBrain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution.”CurrentAnthropology36.2 (1995): 199-221.

Domínguez-Rodrigo,Manuel, Travis, Rayne Pickering, and Henry, T. Bunn. “ConfigurationalApproach to Identifying the Earliest Hominin Butchers.” Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences107.49 (2010): 20929-20934.

Foley,Robert A., and Marta, Mirazon Lahr. &quotLithic Landscapes: EarlyHuman Impact from Stone Tool Production on the Central SaharanEnvironment.&quot&nbspPloSOne&nbsp10.3(2015): 1-15.

Harmand,Sonia, et al. “3.3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools from Lomekwi 3,West Turkana, Kenya.” Nature521.7552 (2015): 310-315.

McPherron,Shannon, et al. “Evidence for Stone-Tool-Assisted Consumption ofAnimal Tissues before 3.39 Million Years Ago at Dikika, Ethiopia.”Nature466.7308 (2010): 857-860.

Semaw,Sileshi, et al. “2.6-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools and AssociatedBones from Ogs-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia.” Journalof Human Evolution45.2 (2003): 169-177.

Skinner,Matthew M., et al. “Human-Like Hand Use in AustralopithecusAfricanus.” Science347.6220 (2015): 395-399.