In the Billy Jack film there were various intentional torts executed also by different characters. The intentional torts included Trespass to Chattels,Assault, Battery and Trespass to Land. First it was obvious that the man did not want to serve the group for a reason. The reason later became known and it was racism. One group member took the cones from underneath the counter and Trespass to chattels occurred first.
With no signs of the czar’s attempt to solve the complications, Russia banded together and filled the streets with strikes and riots. A revolution was peaking among the peasants. The uprising brought Nicholas ll no choice but to abdicate his throne. This was an opportunity
During the 20th century, Russia was experiencing turmoil in war and the country was deeply affected with Tsar Nicholas’s wrong decisions and lack of experience in politics. After the 1917 revolution in Russia, Lenin became the ruler of Russia and the USSR and proved to be the best Russian ruler of the 20th century. Before then, Tsarism dominated and Nicholas II was in power until he foresaw many revolutions against his methods of ruling. He remained as the supreme ruler and did not take actions for reforms. However, after the 1917 revolution, which Lenin masterminded, the Tsar was overthrown and the Bolsheviks established a stable government which took control in Russia.
Although Russia was once again in a terrible position for war the fought in the first World War and their country and its people faced further hardships. The people began to revolt and took over the government and then assassinated Nicholas II’s entire
To do this, he used his totalitarian government to set up a secret police that would carry out his dirty work. He gave them unlimited power to convict or even murder people that swayed from his beliefs. This caused people to think that he was power hungry and not fit to rule. They wanted him to be replaced by someone that was less rude and more thoughtful of the Russian citizens. (Document One)
Maybe he thought that by copying other successful tsars he could be one too. He much preferred spending time with his wife and children, a devoted ‘family man’, as shown in source 7, a royal portrait. The Russian economy was also declining and crumbling because of factors out of his control such as a series of failed crop seasons, which caused a lack of food sources, leading to inflation. There were also some political factors which may have led to the end of the dynasty, like the faulty legal system, which had no formal court of appeals who could look at and assess the Tsar’s laws. I also find it hard to believe that one person alone could cause such a downfall of a long established line of rulers, after all there were plenty equally, if not more, incompetent Romanov tsars who didn’t cause the collapse of the family.
The October Manifesto of 1905 as shown in Source 6 was a significant stride towards unity, the Tsar allowing his people “civil freedom[s]”. In announcing that his health is “inseparable from… the nation[’s]” he is generating genuine connection with his people. This is apparent in Source 4(a), which depicts the strong, protective, and kind Tsar Nicholas, offering his kind hand and raising the sword of “autocracy” against those who threaten them. While peace was promoted in Tsarist Russia, it was consistently short-lived and left the majority craving more. Russia soon reverted to its original state prevalent in the 19th century as shown in Source 2.
Nationalism is the pride for one’s country, the love that one has for its country and it is the want for the good of all people in the nation. This love is not conditional, it does not depend on race religion or economic standing. When a leader is chosen, when a country is coming out of great national change, this requires a particularly strong leader who only wishes for their countries greatness and success in the future. However, this can quickly turn into ultranationalism, or expose ultranationalistic motives. The two concepts of one’s love for their country have similarities, one is formed from the other, or that each can be provokers of change in either direction in the political spectrum.
Similarly, Czar Nicholas II was an unfit ruler since he was never properly taught how to rule. Due to both of their inability to rule, it resulted in the animals and people being neglected and forgotten
Furthermore, the KKK combined Protestant ideology with American nationalism in order to justify the KKK’s existence as an organization and the superiority of the White race. The Imperial Wizards of the KKK, William Simmons and Hiram Wesley Evans, believed that the KKK was an order to defend “100 percent Americanism and Protestantism by intermixing them together.” In 1915, William Simmons, the first Imperial Wizard of the KKK, led a group of Klansmen up Stone Mountain, Georgia where they set fire to a cross and built a temple claiming that they were re-enacting the forefathers that committed themselves to the U.S. constitution and the Protestant religion. The re-enactment on Stone Mountain, done by William Simmons and KKK members, illustrates
The Russian Revolution, which was started by Lenin and his followers, was a rebellion that occurred in 1917 which forced higher powers to act to the needs of the lower class. For instance, many citizens were worried for their protection in consequence to the lack of survival necessities due to an early drought. Furthermore, their current czar during the time was incapable for his position as a czar and made horrendous decisions as czar. For example, when the czar, Nicholas, entered in World War I, he sent untrained troops into countless battles of failure which costed in mass amounts of lost life (paragraph 23).
The Russians did not hate the Tsar at first as they blamed their troubles on the government, however an event called Bloody Sunday changed their minds. Citizens began to protest outside of Tsar’s palace where many were shot and killed by soldiers. This turned them against the man they once trusted. World War I also occurred during Tsar’s reign and ultimately killed many unskilled and unequipped Russian soldiers. This caused the citizens to dislike Tsar even
Instead, a strong sense of ‘state nationalism’ emerged in the United States, leading citizens to identify as primarily members of their state before their country. In the 1760s the first inklings of an ‘American Nationalism’ came forward from the push to gain political representation within the British government, which then quickly turned into the need to separate from England to form a new government and nation. When England passed the Stamp Act of 1964, the colonists were prompted to fight together against an unfair government. This united front helped them to form a national identity concerning what they would and would not stand for against a tyrannical government.
The Warwick debate provides approaches to the study of nationalism. It laid the foundation for the development of two approaches to the study of nationalism. The first approach is Smith’s primordial approach and the other is Gillnets modernist approach. Smith’s argument begins with the definition of nationalism and the difference between a state and a nation.
Moving on to the idea of nationalism, Ernest Gellner (1997) understood nationalism as a product of industrial society. He defines nationalism as “primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent” (Guibernau and Rex 1997: 52). Nationalism, Gellner says is either a product of feeling of anger when the principle discussed above is not fulfilled or a product of feeling of satisfaction aroused by its fulfilment. Therefore, “nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy” (Guibernau and Rex 1997: 52). Gellner justifies the repercussions of the idea of “nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy” by discussing how the political effectiveness of national sentiment impairs the sensibility of the nationalists to realise the wrong committed by the nation.
