Cultural Influences on Myths: Legend of the Menehune People

Cultural Influences on Myths: Legend of the Menehune People Introduction Myths, being narratives about early history (Barker, 2014, p.4) explains social occurrences which involves supernatural events. When it comes to myths, people can be very opinionated when deciding if the myth is true or not. Some people believe it because it is a tale they have been told while growing up or simply because it sounds fantastical, other people choose not to believe it until there is proof of whatever it is they have been told. It has become the responsibility of social scientists, namely Archaeologists and Anthropologists to uncover the truth about these myths. One of the most infamous myths in Hawaii involves the Menehune people and the structures that are believed to have been built by theme. The legend of the Menehune people takes different versions in Martha Warren Beckwiths’ book, Hawaiian Mythology (1940, pp.227-37). According to Brien Foerster (2000, pp.15-20) the term Menehune is just a tale which was altered and confused with the factual accounts of the Manahune, the first settlers of the island who were lower in social status compared to the Tahitians. The Menehune people however are believed to have been small figured beings with a height of 15 to 90 centimetres that lived on Kauai before the Polynesian settlers and lived in caves and valleys (Mugner, 2013). Just as any other myth, the legend of the Menehune differs when it comes to the physical description of the Menehune, according to Eberhart (2002, p.326) they were well dressed, well-built and hairy beings, compared to Mailly (1998) the Menehune had straight long hair that covered their undressed bodies. This is just minor differences between sources on the Menehune people. What many of the sources do agree on is that these beings enjoyed bananas, fish and starch. Even though they were playful beings who liked playing games, diving, dancing, making music and singing, they were good at heart as they were known for shooting magical arrows at people who were infuriated, stirring up emotions of love instead. What makes the legend of the Menehune famous is that they were believed to have been exceptional craftsmen, extremely strong, fast and nocturnal (Eberhart, 2002, p.236). The Menehune have allegedly constructed houses, fishponds, ditches, roads and temples all in one night and if by chance these structures were not complete by sunrise, they would desert the structure. The most famous structures said to have been built by the Menehune is the Alekoko Fishpond, Kikiaolo Ditches, Necker Island Structures, Pa o ka Menehune breakwater and the Ulupo heiau (Foerster, 2000, pp.15-20) (Paul, 2007). Even though the pond is no longer in use today for fishing, instead it is a wetland for threa tened birds. Archaeologists estimate the pond to be over a thousand years old (Foster, 2008, p.193).the Kikiaolo ditches were built using the same stone used in the Alekoko pond, the ditches lead water to other ponds for irrigation (Foster, 2008, p.203). Necker Island has to be the most spoken about archaeological site in Hawaii, compared to the other two islands which surround Necker that could have supported a permanent population, the conditions on Necker Island suggest that a permanent population could not be sustained but there is proof of activity on the island (Kirch, 1997, pp.94-98). There has always been conflict between science and culture, science being a field whereby something can be proved or disproved, culture on the other hand is something that has been embedded in us, and culture is a way of life. Just like any other myth, the Menehune myth is believed by some and not by others. There is not much scientific evidence to prove that the Menehune did exist besides the archaeological sites that are said to have been built by the Menehune, but archaeologists are not one hundred percent certain about this. Individuals that are in favour of this myth usually have biases for this notion, culturally it might be that this was a tale that they have grown up with being told which have led them to believe that that the Menehune did in actual fact exist. Others might believe it for the sake of believing it; this can also be considered as a social factor which contributes to the bias. For those that do not believe the myth, they base their opinion on lack of evidence mo st of the time. It’s no lie that how we perceive the world is namely based on our social and cultural biases (Boundless, 2014) to make something more favourable in the world we live in but this can be seen as a problem in some scientific fields such as archaeology and anthropology, because the world today is not the same as it was a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, there is a major difference in how history is viewed. Scientific theories are in place to prove or disprove a notion and if a researcher is bias towards a specific notion, it is reflected in their work which in turn doesn’t provide the desired outcome. In context of the Menehune myth, researchers ultimate goal is to find out if they did or still do exist, they would do this by listening to the local population and their narratives about the Menehune, This can be seen as bias because locals tell researchers what they have heard and what they have been told as part of folklore, this affects how researc hers conduct their investigation. It would be incorrect to say that scientific theories are based on what people believe in, but looking at it logically, what people believe in form the basis of scientific theories, which then form a broader picture to conduct scientific research to prove or disprove the theory, so in essence, science is not a worthless way of looking at the world, but one must consider how people view the worth culturally. The world is viewed in many ways, science is just an added way of looking at the world, and the only difference is that science has authenticated justification. This is accomplished through repetitive testing, observation and investigations. Science answers unsolved mysteries, prevents the present generation from making past mistakes to create a better future and most importantly provides a better understanding of humanity. Science might not solve all our problems but it most definitely is a start. The one quality that any person needs to have when evaluating a scientific theory, is that they need to be open minded because science has endless possibilities. Conclusion Judging from the above mentioned, it is easy to see that science plays a valuable role in society today, it does not only uncover the truth but new discoveries are made using science. One must not forget however that social and cultural biases also play an important role in society and when it comes to issues regarding myths of any kind, there will always be two sides to the story, the truth that hasn’t been uncovered yet and the tales that have been told over the many centuries and the Menehune myth is far from the truth, Works Cited Barker, G., 2014. What is a myth? Britannica Educational Publishing. Beckwith, M.W., 1940. Hawaiian Mythology. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Boundless, 2014. cultural influences on perception. [Online] Available at: https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/sensation-and-perception-5/advanced-topics-in-perception-40/cultural-influences-on-perception-174-12709/ [Accessed 14 march 2015]. Eberhart, G.M., 2002. Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. ABC-CLIO. Foerster, B., 2000. The Real History Of Hawaii: From Origins To The End Of The Monarchy. Lulu.com. Foster, J., 2008. Frommers Kauai. 3rd ed. John Wiley Sons. Kirch, P.V., 1997. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Mailly, H.D., 1998. Menehune. [Online] Available at: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/menehune.html [Accessed 13 March 2015]. Mugner, S., 2013. Sean Mugner. [Online] Available at: http://seanmunger.com/2013/12/01/the-menehune-of-ancient-hawaii-did-they-reaally-exist/ [Accessed 14 march 2015]. Paul, P., 2007. Were there menehune in Hawaii? [Online] Available at: http://ahistoryofmigration.blogspot.com/2007/07/were-there-menehune-in-hawaii.html [Accessed 14 march 2015].

With reference to the headscarf debate in France, analyze the extent to which laicite has played a major role in the French law 2004-228.

Introduction On March 15th, 2004 the government of French Republic passed a law that banned the wearing of â€Å"conspicuous signs† of religious affiliation in public schools (Bowen, 2007). Whilst this law affected Jewish skullcaps, large crosses, Sikh turbans, many scholars (i.e. Wing and Smith, Tarhan) believe that its main purpose was to ban the wearing of the headscarves, known also as hijab by young Muslim girls. Currently there are approximately 5 million Muslims living in France (CIA, 2012). The majority of them are the immigrants from former French colonies in North and West Africa. Muslims constitute 5-10% of the French population, while Islam is the second largest religion in France (Tarhan, 2011). Hence, the law from 2004 led to objections and protests amongst French Muslims. They regarded the decision of French government as a sign of discrimination and violation of religious freedom in France (Wing and Smith, 2006). French government, in turn, emphasized that French secularism (known also as laicite), assuming separation between state and religion, was a main reason standing behind its decision (Astier, 2004)). Until nowadays the French law 2004-228 is very controversial. The supporters of this law believe that a ban on religious symbols confirmed a secular character of French Republic and defended French national identity. They also postulate that a ban contributed to a greater equality amongst women and men within Muslim society. The opponents, in turn, emphasize a largely symbolic character of the ban, as it affected only Muslim girls attending public schools and did not apply to Muslim women on the streets or university students. The opponents often also rejected laicite as a basis of the French law 2004-228. Instead, they postulate that a fear of multiculturalism and growing division within the French society, especially after September 11th, had a key impact on the governmental decision (Scott, 2005). The following essay aims to examine whether French secularism, laicite, was a key factor responsible for the banning of headscarves in France. First, the essay explains the role of female headscarf in Muslim religion and tradition in order to understand a strong objection against a ban from Muslim side. Second, the essay presents shortly a debate on wearing headscarves in France that had its beginning in the 1980s. Further, the essay considers the concept of laicite in France and its impact on passing the French law 2004-228. The essay analyzes other factors that influenced on the banning of religious symbols in France in order to compare their role and the role of laicite in passing the law. Finally, the essay considers the ban as an unsuccessful reform and presents policy recommendations. The role of headscarf in Muslim tradition The headscarf[1] is an important religious symbol in the Islamic tradition. The Quran, perceived as the source of Allah’s command by Muslims, states that: â€Å"believing women (†¦) should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.† (Quran 24:31)Therefore, following Allah’s law, Muslim women are obligated to remain modest and to cover their beauty. Moreover, the Quran says: â€Å"O Prophet! Tell Thy wives And daughters, and the Believing women, that They should cast their Outer garments over Their Persons (when outside): That they should be known (As such) and not Molested† (Quran 33:59). It indicates that there are two purposes of the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women. First, headscarf should protect Muslim women from gazes of strange men and from being an object of stranger’s desire. Second, headscarf should help to distinguish Muslim women from women of other religions (Syed, 2001). It is worth adding that the Quran does not state precisely which parts of woman’s body should be covered. Hence, there are different types of head (and body) coverings amongst Muslim women in various countries, depending on Quran’s interpretation and culture. They range from the simple hijab, covering the head and neck to Afghani burqa, covering the entire body and leaving only so-called mesh screen so th at the woman is able to see (Wing and Smith, 2006). Further, the following sentence from the Quran: â€Å"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better so that they may be recognized and not annoyed† (Wing and Smith, 2006, p.751) indicates that Muslim men are also obligated to Quran to make sure that their wives have got appropriate covering when they leave their houses. With the beginning of decolonization in the 1950s and the 1960s, the European countries, in particular France and the United Kingdom, had experienced massive immigrations from the Middle East and African countries. Most of the immigrants were Muslims. Hence, the Western countries, characterized by Christian roots had to face different religion, culture and values brought to the Europe by Muslims. Headscarf has become one of the most visible elements of these differences in the European’s public eyes (Wing and Smith, 2006). Headscarf debate in a contemporary France There are currently around 5 million of Muslims in France, constituting 5-10% of the total French population (CIA, 2012). Mostly they are immigrants from the regions such as the Maghreb, the Middle East, Turkey and Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Additionally there is an increasing number of people of European descent in France who are deciding to convert into Islam. In the recent years, Muslims in France has strongly manifested its cultural and religious separateness. They aimed to â€Å"create an Islamic identity with local institutional, societal and cultural structures† (Wing and Smith, 2006, p.753) and they focused on building new mosques and loud practices of their religion. It led to Islamophobic tendencies in France which were often manifested by hostility, discrimination in employment and housing as well as larger socio-economic exclusion of Muslim society. Currently Muslims continue to be separated from the rest of French society. Key indicators of this exclusion are li mited access to the education for Muslims, houses in the urban ghettos (known also as the zones of economic and social exclusion) but also lack of involvement in French political life and culture from the Muslim side. The debate on headscarves in France has got its root in 1989 and is known as the affaires de foulard (Scott, 2005, p. 1). At that time, three Muslim girls were expelled from their secondary state school in the town of Creil after they refused to take off their headscarves. Although it was not a first such a case (the director of this school had earlier banned Jewish students from wearing the Kippah in school), it brought an extensive attention of French media. The director of school argued that he made a decision on the basis of French laicite[2], a concept postulating separation between the state and religion (Tarhan, 2011). Muslim society was supported by Catholic, Protestant and Jewish leaders. Together, they postulated that laicite should have been regarded as toleration for other religions rather than condemnation of religion (Scott, 2005). This approach was also accepted by the former Minister of Education, Lionel Jospin. He announced that religious symbols and clothing at sch ools were allowed as long as they did not threaten other religious beliefs (Tarhan, 2011). Despite this governmental announcement, a number of similar cases has dramatically increased between 1989 (400 cases) and 1994 (3000 cases), what led to racial and religious violence in France (Bowen, 2007). In 1994 the tensions were so intense that education staff were sending letter to the French government, asking for advices on how to deal with the situation. In result, new Minister of Education, Francois Bayrou implemented new rules on religious symbols in schools. He allowed only discreet symbols in schools, while he prohibited ostentatious symbols. Discreet symbols were defined as those that â€Å"demonstrated personal religious conviction† (Tarhan, 2011, p.18), while ostentatious – as those that led to discrimination and differences into the educational communities. Bayrou’s claim was controversial and brought the attention of French media. In result, the Conseil d ’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, decided to investigate the controversial issue. The court rejected Bayrou’s decision and obligated school administrations and teachers to make decision on the actions of their students. The French government appointed a Muslim woman, Hanifa Cherifi, as a governmental mediator responsible for handling the wearing of headscarves. In result, the issue has grown quiet for nine years (Scott, 2005). The issue of headscarves was brought to the public attention again in 2003, when the Minister of Interiors and Cults, Nicolas Sarkozy postulated that Muslim women should take off their headscarves while posing for official identity photographs. As Muslims became an important minority in France with the beginning of the twenty first century, Sarkozy’s claim reflected growing frustration and intolerance towards visibility of religious symbols in public places amongst French politicians and society. It also brought back the issue of headscarves in schools. In effect, French President, Jacques Chirac formed a commission led by Bernard Stasi in order to investigate the implementation of laicite in French educational institutions. . Students, teachers, intellectuals and also the European Commission got involved in the work of Stasi’s Commission. Muslim girls chose to be interviewed undercover, as they wanted to voice their opinions about wearing the hijab anonymously. The report produced by Stasi’s Commission presented an in-depth study on the role that the hijab plays in the Muslim community. In reference to Islam, one of the most important results was that young Muslim girls, that used to grow up in a society dominated by western culture and values found difficult to reaffirm their identities as Muslims by the way they had to dress. Further, it showed that young Muslim girls were often not participating in classes such as P.E (physical education) as they were afraid of violence and assaults from Muslim men’s side. Moreover, Muslim girls often confessed that they were being forced to wear the hijab by their families and peer groups. The Stasi’s Report also drew open other issues su rrounding Muslim women such as female genital mutilation and forced marriages (Vaisse, 2004). The Stasi’s Report pointed out that the existence of religious symbols in schools was not compatible with the concept of laicite. The Report postulated that the veils were responsible for the alienation of women. As secularism and gender equality were regarded as the important features of laicite, the Report recommended banning religious symbols in schools[3] (Wing and Smith, 2006). It is important to add that the critics of the Stasi’s Report aimed to undermine the validity of the report. They postulated that the report was mainly based on western perceptions on the hijab and Muslim women. The link between forced marriages, female genital mutilation and the hijab, were all based upon the commission negative image of Islam, there was no empirical research to back their findings (Schiek and Lawson, 2011). Muslim women argue that the hijab is worn voluntarily and it brings them a sense of belonging and community (Schiek and Lawson, 2011). Following the Stasi’s Report, on February 10th, 2004, French National Assembly passed the law on the banning conspicuous religious symbols in schools. A huge majority of the Assembly, 494 members, were in favour of the ban, while only 36 members voted against the ban. At the same time, 31 members abstained from voting. Similarly, on March 3rd, 2004, the French Senate also passed the same legislation. 276 voters were in favour of the ban, while 20 of them voted against the ban (Weil, 2009). The implementation of the new law was preceded by three demonstrations, respectively, on December 21st, 2004; on January 17th, 2005; and on February 14th, 2005 that aimed to stop passing the law 2004-228. Mohammed Latreche, an Islamist activist mobilized and encouraged French citizens to participate in these demonstrations. He established a political party, Pati des msulman de France (the Party of French Muslims) with the headquarters in Strasburg. The demonstrations, showed the Muslim publ ics outrage at the law that was about to be passed. The legislative ban was regarded as an attack on Muslims with the Muslim society. Two girls even went as far as hunger strikes to show their opposition to the ban. Some posters propagated slangs such as ‘Stasi killed me’ and ‘1 veil= 1 vote’ (Bowen, 2007). Officially, the law was implemented on March 15th and it is known as the law 2004-228. Despite the demonstrations, the legislative ban in France has been largely supported by the French society. According to Pew Research Centre (2006) 78% of the French population have supported the ban, while only 22% of the population have regarded the banning as a bad idea. The concept of laicite and its impact on the banning of headscarves in France Many scholars (i.e. Wing and Smith, Scott) believe that the concept of laicite was a key factor behind the decision on the banning of headscarves in France. Laicite has a long tradition in France and hence, it is crucial to analyze its influence on the ban of religious symbols. As it was mentioned above, laicite, known also as a French secularism, postulates separation between the state and religion as well as freedom of religion (Tarhan, 2011). It can be viewed as passive neutrality or non-intervention by the state in the private religious domain. This interpretation suggests that the exercise of religion in the private sphere is permissible, and that the French state will not openly support overt religious practices in public spheres (Scott, 2005). Another interpretation of the laicite’ can be viewed as a more active secularism, in terms of which the nation is promoted as a fundamentally political society fiercely independent of any religious authority (Wing and Smith, 2006), and one in which the values of the state can be defended through the concept of Là ¢â‚¬â„¢ORDRE PUBLIC in order to justify interference where necessary with some religious organisations. This definition of laicite’ gives the government more control over public institutions and the amount of religious activity that goes on there, for example schools (Weil, 2009). The concept of laicite was developed during the French Revolution (1789). Initially it concerned the separation between the state and the Catholic Church, which played a major role in France in the seventeenth century. Revolutionaries aimed to redefine citizenship and nationhood and hence, to separate Catholicism from the French identity. New citizenship was meant to be universal, secular and inclusive. Instead, the French Revolution led to ‘xenophobic nationalism’ (Tarhan, 2011, p.4) which targeted foreigners as well as priests, rebels, political opponents and noblemen. Similarly, the Revolution started to reject religion rather than tolerate it. The laicisation of French public schools began with an article that was passed on June 28th, 1833. This law entailed that primary school teaching should have no religious affiliation. Further, laicite was implemented in France through the creation of the public school system, in the years 1881-2 with Jules Ferry’s public school laws (Bowen, 2007). However, despite these steps Catholicism remained an important element of French regime until the end of nineteenth century. More significant changes started in 1901 when France passed a new law, Law of Association according to which religious associations became obligated to have a state supervision. Further, in 1904 the religious communities were forbidden to provide education. In result, approximately 30,000 of clergy lost their teaching jobs and stopped taking salaries from the state. Nonetheless, the legislation passed in 1905, known as the Separation Act, is regarded as first meaningful success of secularists in France (Tarhan, 2011). The 1905 law has become the legal guideline for the separation of the state and the church. The word laicite did not appear in the 1905 law. However, the first article of the law emphasized freedom of religion in France, as it stated that: â€Å"the republic ensures freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exerci se of religions with the sole restrictions decreed hereafter in the interest of public order† (Tarhan, 2011, p.7). The second article, in turn, declared that â€Å"The Republic does not recognize, fund or subsidize any religion. [†¦]State, departmental and commune budgets, together with all expenses relating to the exercise of religions will be abolished.† (Tarhan, 2011, p.7) and hence, it guaranteed state’s neutrality towards religions. The legislation from 1905 gave a political and legal character to the concept of laicite in France. More importantly, it indicated that laicite was a process that had emerged in France through the confrontation about national identity between Clerics and Republicans (Scott, 2005). Although the concept of laicite in France does not show any historical links to the Islam religion, the ban on religious symbols from 2004 seems to emphasize an impact of laicite on the French politics and tradition. Nowadays laicite is regarded in France as one of the foundations of French Republic and the French collective (national) identity (The Economist, 2004). It represents a sharp contrast to Anglo-American model of multiculturalism. French believe that laicite guarantees tolerance, freedom of religion, peace as well as social cohesion. Further, laicite postulates a sharp division between public and private spheres. Religion and ethnicity can be manifested in the private sphere. However, the only visible legitimate identity in the public sphere should be French national identity. Further, the laic state has right to interfere in the religious issues if the national unity and common values of the French Republic are threatened (Weil, 2009). According to the concept, Muslim soc iety should accept French norms and culture in order to become a part of French political unity. Nonetheless, Muslims have become a significant minority in France, unwilling to adopt French tradition and lifestyle. Instead, they strongly manifested own culture, tradition and identity (The Economist, 2004). Islam was perceived not only as a religion but also as a rigorous lifestyle that rejected Western values such as liberty, freedom and laicite. Muslims were often regarded as the extremist group. Hence, French started to perceive Muslims and Islam religion as the threads to the French national unity that had to be addressed and resolved. The debate on headscarves in France confirms this negative perception of Muslims within French society (Tarhan, 2011). With the exception of laicite, there were also other factors that had an influence on the ban of religious symbols in France. As stated in the Stasi’s Report, the ban aimed to empower Muslim women and to guarantee greater equality amongst the Muslim women and men. However, in this case, the ban was just a symbolic gesture, as it only applied to the young Muslim girls in public schools and did not affect adult Muslim women, working in some public places or just walking on the streets (Bowen, 2007). In contrast, there are several external factors that might have influenced the timing of headscarves debate in France. When the first debate on headscarves took place in 1989, the Communist system in the Central and Eastern Europe collapsed. Instead, the Europe experienced massive inflows of Muslim immigrants and spreading Islam religion across the European countries. Hence, Islam quickly started to be perceived as a thread to the Western values that replaced an old thread, communism . Further, in 1994 there was a civil war in Algeria, a former colony of France that was caused by the conflict between the secular military government of Algeria and Islamic fundamentalists. The Algerian conflict indicated a possibility of similar problems between the state and its largest religious minority in France. Finally, in 2003 the Europe was still strongly affected by the consequences of September 11th (2001). Additionally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the worsening of the conflict between Israel and Palestine resulted in sharp divergence between the West and Islam culture. At that time, French Muslims definitely identified with the Muslims in other parts of the world and the wearing of headscarves manifested such identification. French government, on the other hand, faced real threads of terrorism. Hence, the main principle of French defense became to prevent French citizens and institutions from potential challenges to their integrity (Scott, 2005). Conclusions To sum up, the ban of religious symbols in schools implemented in France in 2004 was very controversial and led to numerous protests and demonstrations in France. The supporters of the ban underlined the secular character of France and the need to separate religion from the public sector. The opponents, in turn, postulated a minor impact of the ban, as it only affected Muslim schoolgirls, constituting relatively insignificant percentage of Muslim female population in France. Without a doubt, laicite had a key impact on the legislative ban. However, the main factor behind the governmental decision was not separation between the religion and the state, regarded as a traditional element of the concept of laicite. In the contemporary France, key elements of laicite have become nation identity and unity. As the French society was characterized by a strong division on Muslims and non-Muslims as well as by strengthening Muslim influences, the French conservative government of Chirac has become responsible for protecting the French national identity. The ban was believed to be a successful tool to achieve this goal. Except laicite, there was a number of international events such as Afghan war, Iraqi war or Israeli-Palestinian conflict that strengthened Islamophobic in Western countries, in particular in secular France that has always been characterized by the opposition to multiculturalism and foreignness. Although some scholars postulate that gender equality wa s also a factor influencing French decision on the ban, there is no strong evidence to support this claim. In fact, the ban affected only small number of young Muslim girls being in public education. Nowadays it is certain that Muslims have to accept cosmopolitan values and freethinking if they aim to stay in the Western countries. Currently a number of Western countries such as United Kingdom, Spain or Germany have been characterized by a trap of two conflicting cultures. However, forcing Muslims to go against their religious practices, as applied in France seems to be counterproductive. The ban of religious symbols in France led to the riots (2005) in so-called les cites, ghettos focusing North Africans and Arabs that spread around the major French cities. During these riots two Muslim teenagers were accidently killed. However, the ban of religious symbols could have disastrous consequences. Young Muslims, rejected by the French government and regarded as a second-class society, often accept extremism and violence as the solution of their problems. The example of the United States demonstrates prominently the negative consequences of rejecting and underestimating its ethnic min ority. The young, radical Muslims in the US, trained by the conservative European imams became responsible for the dramatic events from September 11th (Kiersh, 2008). The French government should have learnt a lesson from the United States and should stop pushing its Muslim society towards extremism and encouraging violence amongst them. Instead, the French government should establish a long-term strategy in order to incorporate their Muslim minority into the environment they regard as unfriendly. The government must develop new, comprehensive measures that will help Muslims to identify with the rest of the French society and to become involved in various aspects of French lifestyle. In order to achieve these goals, the French government must focus on the reduction of job and housing discrimination in the first place as well as on changing the attitudes within the French policy towards Muslim male immigrants. The French government can expect that other European governments (in particular British, German and Spanish governments) will be also willing to address the problem of separation between Muslims and mainstream society, as they struggle with the same problem. Together, these countries have enough resources to implement reforms and changes so that the Muslims can assimilate with the rest of the societies. Also the United States could probably get involved in such a cross-countries program in the framework of the War on Terror. Without a doubt, the European governments would be more willing to accept such a form of terrorism fighting rather than military interventions in the Middle East. The following concept requires in-depth analyzes and detailed policy planning. However, it would definitely bring larger and more positive outcomes than the ban of religious symbols in public schools (Kiersh, 2008). List of references: Astier, H., (2004). The deep Roots of French Secularism [online] available from: (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Bowen, J., (2007). Why the French do not like the Headscarves. New Jersey: Princeton University CIA, (2012). The World Factbook: France [online] Available from: (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Kiersh, A., (2008). Why the Headscarf Ban is wrong for France [online] Available from: (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Morin, R. and Horowitz, J., (2006). European debate the Scarf and the Veil [online] Available from: (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Scott, J., (2005). Symptomatic Politics: The Banning of Islamic Head Scarves in French Public Schools. New Jersey: Institute for Advanced Study. Schiek, D and Lawson, A., (2011). European Union Non-Discrimination Law and Intersectionality: Investigating the Triangle of Racial, Gender and Disability Discrimination. London: Ashgate Publishing. Syed, , (2001). Women in Islam: Hijab [online] Available from: (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Tarhan, G., (2011). Roots of the Headscarf Debate: Laicism and Secularism in France and Turkey. Journal of Political Inquiry, 4, p. 1-32. The Economist, (2004). The war of the headscarves [online] Available from: (Accessed on 25.04.2012). Vaisse, J., (2004). Veiled Meaning: the French Law Banning Religious Symbols in Public Schools. Washington: The Brookings Institute. Weil, P., (2009). Why the French Laicite is liberalCardozon Law Review, 30(6), p.2699-2714. Wing, A. and Smith, M., (2006). Critical Race Feminism Lifts in Veil?: Muslim, Women, France and the Headscarf Ban. California: UC Davis. [1] The headscarf wore by Muslim women is commonly known as hijab in the Europe. However, Quran uses two Arabic terms: â€Å"khimar† and â€Å"jilbaab† in reference to headscarf or veil. [2] The concept of French laicite will be discussed in details in the next chapter. [3] It is worth adding that Stasi’s Report also postulated the recognition of majority religious feasts as public holiday. However, this law was not passed.

Argumentative Essay Topics about Slavery Tips

Argumentative Essay Topics about Slavery Tips The introduction contains an explanation of the matter, background info, and the author's position. It's crucially important to completely engage yourself in the subject you will write. It isn't a must, but should you care about your topic, it is going to be resembled in your writing. A great method to tell if your topics is an argument topic is to see whether you can debate your topic utilizing the info you find. Bear in mind an argumentative essay is based more on facts instead of emotion. Argumentative essays utilize logic, facts, and reasoning to set the victor. In order to really convince readers of your standpoint, the argumentative essay must also check at the opposing views. Writing a persuasive, argumentative essay can be challenging, and at times it can find a little confusing. A comprehensive argument As mentioned before, an argument does not need to be formal. Your hypothesis assertion needs to be written at the conclusion of the introduction. You should consistently stay on a single side of the argument. Every claim needs to be explained in a different paragraph. An essay arguing that income inequality is the most essential issue of our time as there are large gaps between the wealthy and the poor. Another last component is having the ability to draw out the advantages and disadvantages of the opposition and disprove their argument. While the focus is largely on your side, there's also a discussion concerning the opposing side which goes far beyond a single sentence or a paragraph. You will then have to approach the subject by gathering, generating, and evaluating credible sources to back up your evidence. You could also see academic essay. The essay ought to have a little bit of structure, unlike a normal essay. Your essay should consist of recent statistics and data from reliable sources. You might also see descriptive essay. There are four key components to each argumentative essay, and you're likely to have to include them should you need your essay to convince your readers. There are a few specific elements which are necessary in an argumentative essay. Argumentative essays have to be well-organized. Writing an argumentative essay can occasionally be confusing since you don't necessarily understand how to compose a convincing argument. It is crucial to check reviews about essay writing services in order to be confident they can deliver your task before the deadline. Care ought to be taken that the data utilised in the essay is related to the topic. You may examine the further information on the best way to compose an eye-catching essay introduction with a hook. Then you need to endeavour to choose an appropriate argumentative essay format. Before writing, it's important to bring a different sheet and put down all ideas you have been able to find on a particular issue. The absolute most essential part of your paper is the introduction. The matter here is that it takes so many parts of paper to write just 1 textbook. Below, you will discover an impressive collection of research paper topics on slavery. When people online aren't polite, they don't be concerned about their tone in any way, and it offends people. A lot of people find writing as an effective method to share their suggestions and opinions. You wi ll need to realize that different individuals have various points of view regarding the identical topic, so be patient. Choose from popular topics that folks are passionate about. 1 leading area that students have a tendency to go stumped on is the best way to provide proof to support their claims. You select the topic we'll supply you with high-quality academic help. Various folks need different approaches. There are several of individuals who don't wish to understand what's in their food.

The Chemical Reaction That Causes Rust

Rust is the common name for iron oxide. The most familiar form of rust is the reddish coating that forms flakes on iron and steel (Fe2O3), but rust also comes in other colors, including yellow, brown, orange, and even green! The different colors reflect various chemical compositions of rust. Rust specifically refers to oxides on iron or iron alloys, such as steel. Oxidation of other metals has other names. There is tarnish on silver and verdigris on copper, for example. Key Takeaways: How Rust Works Rust is the common name of the chemical called iron oxide. Technically, its iron oxide hydrate, because pure iron oxide isnt rust.Rust forms when iron or its alloys are exposed to moist air. The oxygen and water in air react with the metal to form the hydrated oxide.The familiar red form of rust is (Fe2O3), but iron has other oxidation states, so it can form other colors of rust. The Chemical Reaction That Forms Rust Although rust is considered the result of an oxidation reaction, its worth noting not all iron oxides are rust. Rust forms when oxygen reacts with iron  but simply putting iron and oxygen together isnt sufficient. Although about 20 percent  of air consists of oxygen, rusting doesnt occur in dry air. It occurs in moist air and in water. Rust requires three chemicals in order to form: iron, oxygen, and water. iron water oxygen  Ã¢â€ â€™Ã‚  hydrated iron(III) oxide This is an example of an electrochemical reaction and corrosion. Two distinct electrochemical reactions occur: There is anodic dissolution or oxidation of iron going into aqueous (water) solution: 2Fe  Ã¢â€ â€™Ã‚  2Fe2  Ã‚  Ã‚  4e- Cathodic reduction of oxygen that is dissolved into water also occurs: O2  Ã‚   2H2O 4e-  Ã¢â€ â€™Ã‚  4OH-  Ã‚   The iron ion and the hydroxide ion react to form iron hydroxide:   2Fe2   4OH-  Ã‚  Ã¢â€ â€™Ã‚  2Fe(OH)2 The iron oxide reacts with oxygen to yield red rust, Fe2O3.H2O Because of the electrochemical nature of the reaction, dissolved electrolytes in water aid the reaction. Rust occurs more quickly in saltwater than in pure water, for example. Keep in mind oxygen gas, O2, is not the only source of oxygen in air or water. Carbon dioxide, CO2, also contains oxygen. Carbon dioxide and water react to form weak carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is a better electrolyte than pure water. As the acid attacks the iron, water breaks into hydrogen and oxygen. Free oxygen and dissolved iron form iron oxide, releasing electrons, which can flow to another part of the metal. Once rusting starts, it continues to corrode the metal. Preventing Rust Rust is brittle, fragile,  progressive, and weakens iron and steel. To protect iron and its alloys from rust, the surface needs to be separated from air and water. Coatings can be applied to iron. Stainless steel contains chromium, which forms an oxide, much like how iron forms rust. The difference is the chromium oxide does not flake away, so it forms a protective layer on the steel. Sources Grà ¤fen, H.; Horn, E. M.; Schlecker, H.; Schindler, H. (2000). Corrosion. Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH. doi:10.1002/14356007.b01_08Holleman, A. F.; Wiberg, E. (2001). Inorganic Chemistry. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-352651-5.Waldman, J. (2015). Rust - The Longest War. Simon Schuster. New York. ISBN 978-1-4516-9159-7.