Geoffrey Robertson Conflicting perspectives Essay Essay Example

Geoffrey Robertson Conflicting perspectives Essay Essay Example Geoffrey Robertson Conflicting perspectives Essay Essay Geoffrey Robertson Conflicting perspectives Essay Essay We are positioned to agree with his perspective through his use of selective anecdotes and witty language such as puns that are incorporated to mock the conflicting perspective. The fiction novel, Rosy Is My Relative by Gerald Darrell, also explores the easily manipulate nature of the legal system, positioning a conservative English prosecutor against a witty defense counsel. It does so in a satirical manner, and uses humorous character stereotypes to persuade the responder to support the protagonists case. In both, The Trials of Oz and Romans in Britain, Robertson resents the responder with the overzealous nature of conservatives in politics and law In their prosecution of pornography, the censorship he feels threatens the human rights of the defendants. He does this by representing the judge Justice Argyle as prejudice and out of touch with the time. This is shown by his careful selection of anecdotal evidence including the Judges motto, We Just dont do this kind of thing in Birmingham. Through this we understand Robertsons attempt to show the narrow-mindedness of the Judge in this way. He mocks him through his description of the Judges verdict on the Oz Case with the metaphor with the relief of man making a bowel movement after weeks of constipation, which effectively conveys both the Judges perspective on the Oz editors as well as Robertsons perspective on the Judge which can be seen as an Incompetent and self-important fool. As the judgment is handed down, Robertsons rhetorical question where were we, the Soviet Union? Brings an image of the English legal system as an oppressive censorious power, opposed to once that Is Just. It powerfully asserts his view of the case for the responder to understand that the censorship of Oz magazine was similar to the oppressive Soviet regime and therefore must be opposed. Through this, we recognize that the conflicting perspectives presented by the composer are fundamental in enabling our human desire to raise questions about s ignificant issues. : Robertson in the -Trials of Oz, and Darrell through Rosy is My Relative, both portray the law as a game, a fluid process whose outcome can be significantly influenced by the perspectives that contend for justification within it. Thus, it can be seen as unjust at times. Duresss fictive narrative and Robertsons non-fiction novel compellingly give an account of the conflicting perspectives In their texts through satirical representations of their characters. The simile used to describe the Judge, looking like a surprised mole shows the legal system as blind and therefore easily Magnums, by calling the Judge Lord Turkey, as tops, mocking his reputed befuddled nature. Darrell sets up the law as a confused entity to reinforce his argument that it can be subject to manipulation. The superiority of Sir Magnums perspective over the prosecutions case is summed up with combined metaphor and truism, Remember that a spider spends hours weaving a web which you can destroy with a flick of the wrist. This metaphor implies that the laws perspective on an issue (the web) can be rover wrong simply by an act of dramatic oratory flourish, as he is prone to throughout the novel. In Sir Magnums explanation of the law to his client Adrian, working on the extraordinary system that twelve men are better than two or six or four, nobody takes into consideration that twelve imbeciles might be more dangerous than two, Darrell aptly sums his interpretation of the law. Similar to Geoffrey Robertsons interpretation, Darrell uses Magnums rhetoric and truisms to convey how the law is a game that is played, and is played to be won by the man who exploits the weaknesses of the system. The satirical tone in his writing is a key factor in humorously presenting this perspective and thus our human desire to raise questions can be evoked. The Romans in Britain echoes the central issue of The Trials of Oz, except this time Robertson shows a private prosecution with the intent to censor and discredit the defendant. Again, Robertson mocks the conservative British attitude towards pornographic expression through his extensive use of satire to simultaneously mock the ludicrous nature of the case and ridicule Mary Whitehorse; the morally pompous cultural vandal, which assists in persuading spenders to support his opinion on censorship of the theatre. Robertsons disdain for She who must be dismayed is ubiquitous, categorizing Whitehorse as a fundamentalist religious crusader through a accumulation of biblical allusions devout legal battalion, divined and Rapturously. He cleverly combines prosecutor with the sexually connotative dominatrix to or the pun prosecutors, thus ridiculing and deflating Hothouses status and condescending her perspective that the 1981 production in the Royal National Theatre was obscene and liable to corrupt audiences with its demonstration of buggery. The responder is provided with an undistorted view of the play as extracts of the play are included to convey its moral and cultural significance and essentially demonstrate the emetic, opposed to erotic nature of the scene, which Robertson appreciates as a puritanical work. Robertson, through his satirical portrayals of Justice Argyle and Mary Whitehorse as cantankerous old conservatives with outdated views of society, and the contrasting of them in his book with his own conflicting liberal perspective, attempts to convey that such dogmatic pursuit of the censorship presented is a waste of time. Robertson invites responders to share his amusement of the dramatic and pretentious nature of the British legal system through the extended metaphor of comparing the courtroom with the Theatre, thus allowing responders to fulfill their fundamental desire to raise questions about issues and persuading them to support his opinion on censorship of the theatre by dismissing the case and appreciating the play for its cultural value. In conclusion, Robertson and Darrell effectively demonstrate their ability to convey perspective allows the composers to raise particular issues from different contexts, enabling our human nature to inevitably raise questions.

Raid on Deerfield in Queen Annes War

Raid on Deerfield in Queen Anne's War The Raid on Deerfield took place February 29, 1704, during Queen Annes War (1702-1713). Located in western Massachusetts, Deerfield was targeted by Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouvilles French and Native American forces in early 1704. The attack was typical of the small-unit actions that frequently occurred along the colonial frontier and saw the inhabitants and local militia attempt to defend the settlement with mixed results. In the fighting, the attackers killed and captured a significant number of settlers. The raid gained lasting fame when one of the captives, Reverend John Williams, published an account of his experiences in 1707. Fast Facts: Raid on Deerfield Conflict: Queen Annes War (1702-1713)Dates: February 29, 1704Armies Commanders:EnglishCaptain Jonathan Wells90 militiaFrench and Native AmericansJean-Baptiste Hertel de RouvilleWattanummon288 menCasualties:English: 56 killed and 109 capturedFrench and Native Americans: 10-40 killed Background Situated near the junction of the Deerfield and Connecticut Rivers, Deerfield, MA was founded in 1673. Built on land taken from the Pocomtuc tribe, the English residents in the new village existed on the fringe of the New England settlements and were relatively isolated. As a result, Deerfield was targeted by Native American forces during the early days of King Philips War in 1675. Following a colonial defeat at the Battle of Bloody Brook on September 12, the village was evacuated. With successful conclusion of the conflict the next year, Deerfield was reoccupied. Despite additional English conflicts with the Native Americans and French, Deerfield passed the remainder of the 17th century in relative peace. This came to an end shortly after the turn of the century and the beginning of Queen Annes War. Pitting the French, Spanish, and allied Native Americans against the English and their Native American allies, the conflict was the North American extension of the War of the Spanish Succession. Unlike in Europe where the war saw leaders like the Duke of Marlborough fight large battles such as Blenheim and Ramillies, fighting on the New England frontier was characterized by raids and small unit actions. These began in earnest in mid-1703 as the French and their allies began attacking towns in present-day southern Maine. As the summer progressed, colonial authorities began to receive reports of possible French raids into the Connecticut Valley. In response to these and the earlier attacks, Deerfield worked to improve its defenses and enlarged the palisade around the village. Planning the Attack Having completed the raids against southern Maine, the French began turning their attention to the Connecticut Valley late in 1703. Assembling a force of Native Americans and French troops at Chambly, command was given to Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouville. Though a veteran of previous raids, the strike against Deerfield was de Rouvilles first major independent operation. Departing, the combined force numbered around 250 men. Moving south, de Rouville added another thirty to forty Pennacook warriors to his command. Word of de Rouvilles departure from Chambly soon spread through the region. Alerted to the French advance, New Yorks Indian agent, Pieter Schuyler, quickly notified the governors of Connecticut and Massachusetts, Fitz-John Winthrop and Joseph Dudley. Concerned about the safety of Deerfield, Dudley dispatched a force of twenty militia to the town. These men arrived on February 24, 1704. de Rouville Strikes Moving through the frozen wilderness, de Rouvilles command left bulk of their supplies approximately thirty miles north of Deerfield before establishing a camp closer to the village on February 28. As the French and Native Americans scouted the village, its inhabitants prepared for the night. Due to the pending threat of attack, all of the residents were residing within the protection of the palisade. This brought Deerfields total population, including the militia reinforcements, to 291 people. Assessing the towns defenses, de Rouvilles men noticed that the snow had drifted against the palisade allowing for the raiders to easily scale it. Pressing forward shortly before dawn, a group of raiders crossed over the palisade before moving to open the towns north gate. Swarming into Deerfield, the French and Native Americans began attacking houses and buildings. As the inhabitants had been taken by surprise, fighting degenerated into a series of individual battles as the residents struggled to defend their homes. With the enemy swarming through the streets, John Sheldon was able to climb over the palisade and rushed to Hadley, MA to raise the alarm. Blood in the Snow One of the first houses to fall was that of Reverend John Williams. Though members of his family were killed, he was taken prisoner. Making progress through the village, de Rouvilles men gathered prisoners outside the palisade before looting and burning many of the houses. While many houses were overrun, some, such as that of Benoni Stebbins, successfully held out against the onslaught. With fighting winding down, some of the French and Native Americans began withdrawing north. Those who remained retreated when a force of around thirty militia from Hadley and Hatfield arrived on the scene. These men were joined by around twenty survivors from Deerfield. Chasing the remaining raiders from the town, they began pursuing de Rouvilles column. This proved a poor decision as the French and Native Americans turned and set an ambush. Striking the advancing militia, they killed nine and wounded several more. Bloodied, the militia retreated to Deerfield. As word of the attack spread, additional colonial forces converged on the town and by the next day over 250 militia were present. Assessing the situation, it was determined that a pursuit of the enemy was not feasible. Leaving a garrison at Deerfield, the remainder of the militia departed. Aftermath In the raid on Deerfield, de Rouvilles forces suffered between 10 and 40 casualties while the towns residents incurred 56 killed, including 9 women and 25 children, and 109 captured. Of those taken prisoner, only 89 survived the march north to Canada. Over the next two years, many of the captives were freed after extensive negotiations. Others elected to remain in Canada or had become assimilated into the Native American cultures of their captors. In retaliation for the raid on Deerfield, Dudley organized strikes north into present-day New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In sending forces north, he also hoped to capture prisoners who could be exchanged for Deerfields residents. Fighting continued until the wars end in 1713. As in the past, the peace proved brief and combat resumed three decades later with King Georges War/War of Jenkins Ear. The French threat to the frontier remained until the British conquest of Canada during the French Indian War.