Introductory Mediation Letter: Fill & Download for Free

one of the essential "moment reject" introductory letter sorts is the one that spends more than one section on the exposition. Keep in mind from this post: look boards of trustees would prefer not to think about your paper past evidence that you composed one and it's (forthcoming) completed and protected. What they need to know is the means by which that paper fulfills particular objectives that serve the enlisting office: ie, delivers refereed distributions, mediates in a noteworthy insightful verbal confrontation, wins allows and grants, interprets into element educating, changes rapidly into a book, moves a reasonable second venture.

I suppose as someone who went to college in the 1970s and now has a daughter in college, and another soon to begin, I have some context. However, I also think it is hard to make broad generalizations because different types of colleges and universities provide different types of experience, so comparing an elite university in the 1970s to a small selective college in the 2010s is a bit like apples and oranges.I would say that one thing has not changed. College is a time for social interaction, forming peer groups, developing a sense of romantic and sexual interaction and relationships, and experimenting in a variety ways, often including alcohol and other drugs, and various forms of having fun. My sense is that the drug culture in the 1970s may have been a bit more widespread and influenced by the 1960s than it is today, and different drugs were popular--MMDA was just starting to be available back then, and it is widespread now, while I'm not sure whether the varous hallucinogens are still as widespread now as they were back then. Both cultures were fueled mainly by alcohol, and while much has been made of the current generation's "hook-up" culture, I'm not sure that sex is any more casual now than it was then. It may just be a media thing and the fact that there's a label for it.Three things seem different two me now. The first is the enormous pressure on pre-professionalism and preparing to find a job and enter the American post-industrial capitalist machine. I graduated in a year--1979-- that was at least as despairing in real social and economic terms as our current period, with high unemployment, higher inflation, Watergate and the fall of Vietnam just four years in the past, a failed presidency, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the Soviet Union's move into Afghanistan. But there still was, back then, at least in my middle-class SES, a sense that things would work out, one would just get some job after college, live on one's own, consider graduate school, etc. Nothing like that now, really--my sense is that the pressure to know what you want to do with your life, have a career track in mind, and a coherent plan, is far more intense for current college students than it was back then.The second is that while the sciences, etc., had their place in that period, they did not have the kind of predominate role that they play now. The idea that majors in the humanities might prepare one more generally for a range of possible careers, from Wall Street to education, was still very powerful. The introductory economics course was the most heavily enrolled, and a lot of students took majors in Econ or Government--each considered pretty easy majors at Harvard. There was a felt sense of assurance that an indifferent degree, accompanied by social connections, would result in good outcomes. In my own social set, which was literary, we figured we would make a living somehow. I'm not praising this--though I do mourn the loss in the current age of a sense of how important a true, deep study of the humanities is to being a genuinely well-educated person. The main point is that there was not this sense that every class one took had to lead to some economic outcome, in a highly competitive world. There was not the same pressure.Finally, we did not have social media or the internet. We did research in the stacks of the library, made phonecalls to set up social engagements, wrote our papers on Smith_Corona electric typewriters, and when we were not doing school work we were hanging out together talking, not communicating through a keypad and screen. In the summer, separated by distance, we wrote letters to one another. I won't say it was better or worse, though I am struck in retrospect by how it was that when one alone, one was truly alone--with no way to reach out instantly to others, the way FaceBook or Quora provide. I wonder sometimes about the loss of that solitude in our technology-mediated experience of reality.In the end, I think what is different is truly different, just as the 1950s, when my own parents went to college, were so different from my own era; and also that what was the same was even more profoundly the same, in the way that basic dimensions of human experience and development do not change very much.

It’s important that we acknowledge an “elephant in the room” when answering any question about attitudes towards the Jews. While Napoleon, for reasons that will become apparent, can be described as a philosemite, the more hostile attitudes of many other historical figures do not put them in the same category as the Nazis. We are, of course, free to hold our own views about how we should consider the prejudices of others. But a certain amount of humility should be exercised when making assessments about the perceived views of other people, particularly if they lived and evolved in an era that predates the horrors of the pogroms of the 19th century, or the Nuremberg laws, the Nazi concentration camps and ghettoes, and the Holocaust.A further introductory point however, has to be the comparison between Napoleon the Great and the most infamous of “anti-Semites” (See Note 1), Adolf Hitler. Despite being consistently debunked by every serious historian since the 1940s, there have been attempts by various interested groups to portray the Emperor as a French Hitler, and it is noteworthy that the Irish Times reviewed Robert Asprey’s two volume biography with the words “Asprey’s biography is well balanced overall in its judgements and does not suffer from the usual Anglo-American myopia which likes to portray Napoleon as the predecessor of Hitler”.One reason why the comparison, which has its origins in British and Soviet (Note 2) propaganda from WWII, falls down, is that it was already being debunked as early as the 1930s. André Maurois, one of the leading Napoleonic historians of the era, pays tribute to the Emperor’s policies, writing, on the subject of religion, “On the contrary, by making France a Catholic country once more, he gave satisfaction to the majority, and felt himself sufficiently strong to protect the minorities. At the least, in such discourses, is there no hypocrisy”.Maurois, who was himself Jewish, was of course only one of many authors to draw attention to this aspect of Napoleon’s convictions and policies. Another contemporary, Philipp Bouhler, also wrote, in his biography of the Emperor, “This tolerance in all matters of faith was also the reason for the great care that he manifested toward the Jews. Profoundly influenced by the theory of the equality of all men proclaimed by the French Revolution, the Jewish question did not appear to him to be a question of race, but the matter of an oppressed religion. He did, certainly often criticise the dissolutive influence of the Jews, but he gave himself over to the misleading hope that one might, by a complete equality of civil rights, incorporate the Jews into the people amongst whom they lived”.Bouhler of course, for those familiar with 20th century history, was a leading member of Hitler’s staff. As the historian Ian Kershaw explains, in The Nazis, A Warning from History, Bouhler was the victor in a battle between two rival services over control of Hitler’s mail. Being in charge of which letters were presented to the Führer ultimately meant control of who had access to him in this way, and the result of one letter that Bouhler transmitted in the hope of furthering his career (see the documentary or read the book for details), catastrophically, meant that Bouhler was ultimately to further become the overseer for the massacre of the mentally and physically disabled, Aktion T4.It’s important to note that Bouhler draws attention to Napoleon’s hostility toward Jewish usurers, while categorically underlining that this does not categorise Napoleon’s attitudes or policies toward the Jews. Anyone reading Bouhler’s book at the time, either in the German text published in 1941, or the French translation of 1942, would have drawn their own sharp contrast between Napoleon’s inclusive policy, and the Nuremberg laws of the Third German Reich, and the Vichy semi-puppet régime’s Statute on the Jews. Bouhler acknowledges that the Emperor believed in the equality of all mankind, and practised what he preached, while, as a leading Nazi party member writing a eulogy of Hitler into the fabric of the book, he describes Napoleon’s conviction that minorities should be assimilated, not excluded or persecuted, as an “espoir trompeur”, or misleading hope. Which of course is one way of saying that, yes, alright, Napoleon was a philosemite… but that, according to Bouhler, it was a rare failure of judgement on his part. The thought that this implicitly “justified” Nazi (and Pétainist) policies excluding Jews from owning property, having jobs in the public sector and so on, by writing off Napoleon’s drive toward making them full citizens as a prejudice of his youth and era, is of course an illustration of how Nazi propaganda never actually treats the Emperor as a model for Hitler. When discussing genocide, Hitler referenced the recent “annihilation of the Armenians”, and when talking of colonisation, said that the steppes of Russia would be to Germany what India (the British Raj) was to the English. And of course, in line with the central message of Bouhler’s biography of Napoleon, the most lavish Nazi propaganda film, Kolberg, presents the French Emperor as the principal antagonist to Prussia and to the seeds of aggressive “Bismarckian” pan-German nationalism.Concerning the British Empire and USA, as the most powerful Western antagonists to the Axis powers in WWII, it’s common for English-speakers who know at least some of their History to be aware of the words of the man who wrote The History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister during WWII, might seem to some to be an unusual speaker to be debunking parallels between Napoleon and Hitler, all the more so from the floor of the House of Commons in a public speech. Yet Churchill, who, throughout his political career, not only admired and respected the Emperor, but quoted him (see Note 3). And it was to be his words that not only paid tribute to Rommel (see Note 4), as an anachronistically chivalrous adversary who had fallen victim to Hitler “and all his works”, but also to the “great Emperor and Warrior”, Napoleon : “It seems an insult to the great Emperor and warrior," he said, "to connect him in any way with a squalid caucus boss and butcher.”Later writers and speakers who have studied both leaders have, if anything, been even more vocal on the subject. David G Chandler, as the author of a book on Napoleon’s campaigns that won him a letter of congratulations from De Gaulle, certainly described the Emperor as “a great, bad man”, quoting a Royalist historian writing of Oliver Cromwell. But he also, like many others before and since, drew attention to Napoleon’s decent nature and operative concern for the helpless, the underprivileged, the downtrodden and the deserving. A description that rather accurately describes the state in which the Jews of Europe were languishing when Napoleon found them. As general, Consul and then Emperor (Note 5), it was Napoleon who had the ghetto gates torn down, banned the Inquisition, and abolished such practices as forcing the Jews to wear a yellow hat and the Star of David. Among other measures alluded to by Bouhler, he gave them a status in society that put them on a par with other faiths, and pushed them toward becoming property owners and members of the national community.Ben Weider, himself Jewish, was famous both as the mentor of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and as the founder of the International Napoleonic Society. Unequivocally grateful to the Emperor for his protection, assimilation and promotion of the Jews he governed, Ben Weider was the author of an article that you can find enclosed below (Note 6) for further reading.In closing, the question could also be put : If the ruler who gave to the Jews the status and civil rights that subsequent European leaders tried to strip them of was not a philosemite, then who is?NOTESWhile preferring the more specific term of “Judeophobia” to that of anti-Semitism, which covers a larger spectrum of peoples, it seems less distracting to the reader to use it here and add a footnote explaining why the author of this essay doesn’t usually use it elsewhere.Soviet propaganda also presents Napoleon in a positive light, as does Marx and Maoist propaganda. But that is a larger issue.Notably in a speech to workers in Dundee.Who was himself, like Mussolini, a genuine and enthusiastic admirer of Napoleon, who deeply disliked incidents of Hitler comparing himself to the Emperor at Napoleon’s expense.He was also King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, and Mediator of the Swiss Confederation, &c., &c. &c, but the underlying point is that his ideas and underlying attitudes on the matter of oppressed minorities remained the same, as Maurois, Bouhler, Madelin (author of a monumental History of the Consulate and the Empire) and Weider (and others) attest.http://www.napoleonicsociety.com/english/pdf/napoleonandjews.pdf