A Time of Change in the Market Revolution Essay Example for Free

A Time of Change in the Market Revolution Essay 1815 to 1860 was a crucial time for American commerce and urbanization that not only had strong economic influences, but also altered social and political perspectives. This time period, known as the Market Revolution, stemmed largely from the advancement in technology which led to transportation improvements and the building of railroads. Banks also contributed to the growing economy by increasing economic input and providing loans to merchants, manufacturers, and farmers. The rapid expansion of commerce and transportation had profound effects on American individuals socio-economic goals; a sense of self-confidence and domestic ideology surfaced, perpetuating westward expansion. Along with the spread of urbanization came the circulation of literary publications that fostered the spread of popular opinions; this eventually became an essential component to the many reform movements ultimately caused by the Market Revolution. All of these factors contributed to the republican ideal of individual freedom. Although the Market Revolution promoted economic and social growth through the development of technology and industry, it also led to actions threatening to republican liberties like equality and the inherent rights of man. Concerns of tyranny and disregard to the American Constitution caused many to focus on preserving the American republic through reform movements. The main driving factor of the reform movements that took place following the Market Revolution was the obscurity of republican values. Despite the positive influences the Market Revolution had on quality of life and transportation, many Americans feared the corruption of their individual liberties. They had proper reason to believe that this would be an occurrence caused by the unbalanced power that was established during the Market Revolution. One example of this unbalance was the increasing power of banks, more specifically addressed by Andrew Jackson when he vetoed the Second Bank of the United States. He asserts that the monopolized bank system undermines the rights of ordinary people because it establishes significant distinctions between classes where the upper class holds the power and dominates over the lower class. In a way, he attempts to reform the government-established powers instilled by the Second Bank of the United States by voicing how it is an abuse of power and limits economic opportunity for ordinary people. In addition to the unbalanced power created by the banks, a prominent deterrent from republican autonomy was the inequality that this instability of power caused for individual Americans. The rapid expansion of agriculture and population corresponded to the growth of slavery, which is the most pronounced example of the inequality America experienced during and after the Market Revolution. Slavery was seen by many as a direct violation of the Constitution and the inherent rights of man, which defy republican values. In the Republican National Platform, Abraham Lincoln brings to light that the inequality of slavery threatens national sovereignty, â€Å"That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, †¦ is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved.† A nationalistic togetherness, while still maintaining individual freedom, is eminent in establishing and fulfilling republic ideology. Slavery was a direct violation of man’s inalienable rights, and therefore many abolitionist movements took place in order to reform the corrupt nation. Acts of slavery and other injustices initiated by the Market Revolution that defied republican values were identified as needing reform, in William H. Seward’s speech in 1855 he said, â€Å"We must restore the demoralized virtue of the nation. We must restore the principle of equality among the members of the State the principle of the sacredness of the absolute and inherent rights of man.† The emerging Democratic party was host to many of the promoters of personal reform and social problems, while the Whig party advocated the reform of moralism and state-sponsored entrepreneurship. One of the initial influences of the reform movements was the moral mending that was deemed necessary by Protestants in order to overcome the sins occurring in society, and enact a sense of righteousness. These ideas of self-virtue and societal justice were reflected in the Second Great Awakening and the Temperance movement in the early 1800’s. The Second Great Awakening was a religious revival that had a strong influence on women, giving them a voice in society and the ability to make an impact for the salvation of American values. The Temperance movement had a similar purpose, to promote self-perfection and eliminate the many sins that became prominent in society during the Market Revolution. The movement focused on alcohol abuse and sexual sin, and although it bolstered self improvement for many individuals, a main impact of both the Temperance movement and the Second Great Awakening was the eminent duty of women to speak out against controversial happenings. Both of these movements had strong positive effects on the preservation of the republic because they fostered public regard to individual goodness, which in turn led to other reform movements and the ability for both women and men to speak out against injustices. Both women’s rights and slaves rights were distinguished issues that violated the equality of the republic, and therefore certain groups sought reform these corrupt aspects of American society. In the 1830’s, the abolitionist movement was initiated in an attempt to dissolve the sin of slavery. Although abolition became the source of immense controversy and even violence, the movement against slavery allowed slaves like Robert Glenn and Frederick Douglass to share their stories in an attempt to bring to light the corruption taking place in America. These movements did in fact help persuade many groups of people, mostly Democrats, of the Constitutional and moral violations that slavery inhibits. However, westward expansion and distinct divisions between the nation made it difficult to prevent the spread of slavery. Despite the fact that abolitionist movements did not have immediate effects on the eradication of slavery, it did open doors for public opinion and womens righ ts. In 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott spoke out at the Seneca Falls Convention against the unequal status of women and how it reflects tyranny rather than the individual liberties of a republic. They emphasize the main point of both slavery and women’s rights reformations, â€Å"The world has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation, because in the degradation of woman the very fountains of life are poisoned at their source.† These movements did impact the protection of republicanism through the expression of activists who exposed the exploitation and inequality occurring due to slavery and unbalanced privileges of women. The Market Revolution had a domino effect on the fabric of the republic. It propelled economic growth and industrial expansion which then perpetuated unbalanced power within the government. This obscured the political values of individuals and brought about such a dramatic shift in thinking regarding opportunity and personal liberties that many people were concerned about the loss of republicanism. Members of the public like the Grimke sisters, as well as members of the government like Andrew Jackson, identified the injustices of inequality that were caused by the Market Revolution and felt as though reform was necessary to preserve the republic. The reform movements that took place, such as the Second Great Awakening and the abolitionist movement, exposed the pollution of republican ideals like individual freedom and egalitarianism. Although these messages were controversial between the sectional division of the North and South, reform movements still established a voice for the republic and eventually managed to preserve the prominent aspects of the republic. [ 1 ]. Andrew Jackson, â€Å"Veto Message,† in John Majewski, History of American Peoples, 1840-1920: A Primary Source Reader (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt 2006), 5. [ 2 ]. Abraham Lincoln, â€Å"Republicans Adopt a Strong Anti-Slavery Platform,† in Majewski, 50. [ 3 ]. William H. Seward, â€Å"The Dangers of Extending Slavey, and the Contest and the Crisis,† in Majewski, 41. [ 4 ]. Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, Hartmann, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 330. [ 5 ]. Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, Hartmann, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 322. [ 6 ]. Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, Hartmann, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 323. [ 7 ]. Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, Hartmann, The American Promise: A History of the United States, 324. [ 8 ]. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, â€Å"The Seneca Falls Convention Advocates Complete Equality† in Majewski, 24.

Ice Cube :: essays research papers fc

O’Shea Jackson, also know as Ice Cube was born in 1969. He was growing up in South Central Los Angeles. Ice Cube’s interest for Rap started showing in high school. Ice Cube went away to Phoenix Arizona to study architecture. When He returned he began his raping career. In return to Los Angeles in 1987 He released a few 12 inches with â€Å"My Posse†. He worked with his crew C.I.A , World Class Wrecking Crew and then the contentious N.W.A. This crew know as N.W.A was The first group to bring gangster rap to mainstream. This crew was very triumphant. This crew generated a lot of controversy by the media and their trademark aggressive, chauvinist, homophobic words. They sold millions of albums ,although it was the only album they released together. Ice cube was not happy with the group’s management. As a result he quit the N.W.A. In 1989 he moved to New York, there he joined Da Lench Mob. After that recorded his solo album 1990’s â€Å"Americas Most Wanted†. Ice Cube Produced an album for rapper Yo-Yo, â€Å"Bonnie to his Clyde†. He has produced and remixed albums for other artists including K- Dee as well as Anotha Level. In addition Ice Cube appeared in the popular movie Boyz N The Hood. There are as well other not so popular movies he has appeared in such as the Glass Shield, Trespass, Higher Learning and also the unwatchable Anaconda. Ice Cube In also co-wrote and appeared in Friday. He wrote and produced The Players Club. Finally his number one Pop and R&B charts was â€Å"Today Was A Good Day†. In 1991 his number two Death certificate went platinum even though it contained an anti-Semitic rant. In 1993’s â€Å"Lethal Injection†. Then he formed a group Westside Connection. He appeared on the Lollapalooza tour.

Disraeli’s policy during the Bulgarian Crisis of 1876 Essay

To what extent was Gladstone’s religion the driving force behind his attempt to ‘sabotage’ Disraeli’s policy during the Bulgarian Crisis of 1876? ‘Of all the Bulgarian atrocities perhaps the greatest’1 was the label Disraeli ascribed to Gladstone’s 1876 pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, which ‘concentrated into a single utterance a profoundly excited public mood struggling for articulation’.2 With the publication of this pamphlet, Gladstone effectively undermined Disraeli’s policy of unwavering support for the Turks in the face of the Bulgarian massacres, and emerged at the forefront of the Bulgarian Agitation. The popular pressure that ensued ultimately forced Disraeli to abandon any overt military support of the Ottoman Empire, and to declare neutrality in the issue. While the consequences of Gladstone’s action are known, his reasons for involving himself in the debate are questionable. Gladstone’s fervent religious beliefs could have provided the main impetus for his involvement, but other arguments, such as his intervention being an anti-Conservative political strategy, are perhaps more plausible given an examination of the evidence. In examining this issue, it is important to understand the depth of contempt that Gladstone and Disraeli held for each other’s foreign policy. It was not their principles that differed: both believed in a policy of non-intervention in European affairs except for in those that could impact British interests. However, their methods were entirely different. Disraeli believed very strongly in the ruling right and superiority of the established aristocracy in Britain, and this certainly transferred across to his foreign policy, as illustrated by his endorsement of Austrian aristocratic Habsburg rule in Italy in 1851. He felt that Britain had a duty to Europe as the wealthiest and most powerful Empire, and that this would best be served by preserving British influence and furthering the spread of the British Empire. Gladstone also wished to preserve British interests, but often found this to conflict with his nationalism, ‘sympathy with the unalienable rights of smaller nations to their nationhood’3. In terms of Italy, therefore, Gladstone could not support Austrian rule because it contravened his nationalistic beliefs, despite the fact that Habsburg domination could have proved more beneficial to Britain. This is mirrored in his stance in the arbitration of the Alabama settlement: Gladstone appeared to capitulate to American demands as opposed to supporting British interests, as he believed that it was the most moral course of action. It was from these differences that the deep opposition to each other’s foreign policy was born. Disraeli saw Gladstone’s policy as counter-productive in terms of British interests, accusing him of wanting to dismantle the Empire, while Gladstone found Disraeli to be far too much of an imperialist and insensitive to the rights of foreign nations. Disraeli not only poured scorn on Gladstone’s foreign affairs, but also disliked his dogmatic religion. It is possible that the modern focus on Gladstone as a highly religious politician was brought about by Disraeli’s very public attacks on his fervent religious beliefs. Disraeli held nothing but scorn for Gladstone’s religion, and talked with disdain of him always ‘preaching, praying, speechifying or scribbling’4. For Disraeli, Gladstone used his religion to mask his true intentions – to appear pious while actually manipulating and manoeuvring his way through politics. Perhaps it is Disraeli’s emphasis on ridiculing Gladstone’s religious beliefs that has inspired the concept that he was first and foremost a highly religious man. However, the general consensus is that Gladstone’s Evangelical upbringing led to a strong sense of religious morality that could be said to have permeated all aspects of his life, including his politics. In modern Britain it would rarely be expected for a Prime Minister to admit to religion colouring their policies: as Alastair Campbell famously declared, ‘we don’t do God’. Blair’s revelation that he ultimately looked to religion for his decision in declaring war on Iraq was frowned upon by many who felt that personal beliefs and convictions should not have an impact on decisions that will affect whole countries. However, in the far more religious Britain of 1876 this was not so controversial. Religious issues permeated every aspect of life, including law and politics. The attitudes of the day are clearly demonstrated in the Bradlaugh Case, in which confirmed atheist and elected MP for Northampton Charles Bradlaugh was barred from taking up his parliamentary seat because of his refusal to take the religious Oath of Allegiance required for entry. This issue was disputed regularly in parliament, showing the height of religious feeling of the time. Gladstone in particular made no secret of his religion, or of his beliefs that it was entirely applicable to politics. In his book The State in its Relations to the Church (1838), Gladstone raised the idea that religion and politics were inextricably linked: the Church was the conscience of the State, while the State had a duty to lend its consistent, unwavering support to the Anglican Church. Although his views later changed to reject the exclusivity of the Church of England, throughout his life he retained the belief that religion should be firmly ingrained in the running of the country. Gladstone’s beliefs caused him to take an ethical stance in foreign policy, which contrasted greatly with Disraeli’s firmly imperialist ‘Beaconsfieldism’ that attempted to secure the best outcome for Britain, sentiments that prefigured the practical criticism of mixing religion and politics today. Disraeli and Gladstone held the greatest of contempt for each other in their foreign affairs, each believing the other’s policy to be entirely nonsensical and unworkable, attitudes that stemmed from their differing interests. While Disraeli held British interests at heart, Gladstone had ‘a catholic largeness of vision and sympathy embracing Europe as a cultural and spiritual community’5 stemming from his views on the unity of the Christian church, and believed that European affairs should be conducted with the best interests of the community at heart. Although Disraeli felt that it was necessary to support the Turks despite their actions in Bulgaria in order to deter Russia from gaining power on territory on the pretext of moral intervention, Gladstone would have found this inexcusable according to his personal moral code and ‘European sense’, principally derived from ‘the intense fervour of his Christianity’6: as Magnus perceptively states, Gladstone felt that Disraeli’s ‘interpretation of [British] interests excluded considerations of justice, or of humanity’7. It was not only Gladstone’s ‘European sense’ that would have rendered support of the Turks inexcusable, but the very nature of the events taking place in Bulgaria. Gladstone consistently cast himself as a moral crusader in his policies, particularly regarding Ireland and in his opposition and criticisms of ‘Beaconsfieldism’. Following the brutal massacre of 15,000 Bulgarians, Jenkins’ argument that the moral Gladstone was ‘spontaneously seized with a passionate sympathy for the sufferings of the Balkan Christian communities’8 seems plausible. Gladstone would most likely have been incensed by Disraeli’s initial denial of the rumours of the massacres, already believing Disraeli’s foreign policy to be aggressive, expensive and unprincipled. However, Abbot refutes Jenkins’ claims in stating that ‘the part played†¦by Gladstone’s ‘high moral principles’ has tended to be exaggerated’9, and states that the vast majority of his moral outbursts in terms of foreign policy were made when he was in opposition. As a moral stance in foreign policy was a common one for the opposition to take at the time, this indicates that Gladstone’s intervention was possibly not entirely fuelled by religion. Gladstone’s role as a cabinet minister during the Crimean War could have provided another factor in his intervention. The Treaty of Paris that brought the war to a close increased the necessity for co-operation within the concert of Europe, as it had substituted a ‘European conscience expressed by the collective guarantee and concerted action of the European powers’10 for a pre-Crimean war guarantee of the protection of Christian minorities by the Russians. Turkey had promised better treatment for the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, and Gladstone felt morally obliged to ensure that the terms of the Treaty were not breached, particularly with reference to the protection of the Balkan Christians. Following Russia’s breach of the Black Sea clauses in 1870, Gladstone was even more determined to ensure that the European Concert continued to function in its protection of the minorities. It seems unlikely that Gladstone wanted to preserve the terms of the Treaty of Paris for purely political reasons, as the maintenance of the balance of power within Europe required Russia to be contained, not encouraged to expand into the Balkans supposedly in order to protect the inhabitants. It is possible then that Gladstone intervened for the same reason as the Russians gave: in order to protect the Christians from an alien nation with an alien religion that mistreated them. A sample from his pamphlet gives a clear indication of his attitude towards the Turks – ‘Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Bimbashis and their Yuzbashis, their Kaimakams and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall I hope clear out from the province they have desolated and profaned’11. While this has racist overtones, it is difficult to determine whether this is due to a difference in religion. Jenkins raises the possibility that Gladstone could have felt sympathetic towards the Christians, but quashes it with the statement that ‘Gladstone was stronger on the rhetoric of indignation than on detailed knowledge of what was happening in the Balkans’12, never having visited the area or displayed any previous interest in it. Indeed, on the subject of previous massacres of Christians, Gladstone had remained suspiciously quiet, despite episodes like the massacre of the Maronite Christians in 1860 which left between 7,000 and 11,000 dead. It seems unlikely that a wild desire to protect those of the same religion only appeared during this particular occurrence, particularly as Gladstone failed to intervene when the news of the massacres initially broke, waiting another two months to bring himself into the limelight. Although Feuchtwanger claims that Gladstone’s ‘life in politics was a constant quest for God’13, the historian’s emphasis on Gladstone as a singularly moral, religious politician is overly simplistic, and does not take into account Gladstone’s practical, political nature. There is an obvious practical angle for Gladstone’s participation in the Bulgarian Agitation: propping up a declining Ottoman Empire was not a viable long term policy for Britain. The tradition of Palmerstonian foreign policy supported Turkish rule in the East, partially in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe, but mostly as a matter of self-interest: in order to protect trade routes in the Mediterranean. Particularly following the Crimean War, the expansion of a hostile Russia would have been detrimental to British trade and to British power and influence within Europe. In the short term a strong Turkey would act as an efficient barrier to Russian expansion, but th e Ottoman Empire had become increasingly corrupt and weak; the Bulgarian uprising and subsequent massacre was not the only such occurrence. Moreover, overtly supporting the Ottomans would anger the Dreikaiserbund of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia: although it was best not to allow the alliance of these three countries to grow too powerful, neither was it sensible to pursue a policy of mindless support for the Turks whose influence was already declining. Prior to the confirmation of the truth of the massacres, Disraeli, advised by the pro-Turkish British ambassador Elliot, had made moves towards supporting the Turks against Russia, and even went so far as to dismiss the rumours of the massacres as ‘coffee house babble’. In sabotaging Disraeli’s policy by stirring up public opinion, Gladstone effectively limited the options open to the prime minister and possibly prevented him from forming a dangerous alliance with Turkey. Furthermore, it has been suggested that Gladstone in fact saw a better solution to the problem of Russian expansion than bolstering Turkey. From his attitudes towards Italy it is clear that Gladstone favoured nationalism, and believed that all people had the right to national self-determination. Blake claims that Gladstone was ‘hostile to any sort of forward policy’14, an unnecessarily harsh statement from the pro-Disraeli biographer: in fact, in supporting nationalism, Gladstone proposed a solution ahead of his time. The creation of Balkan states was the solution used in 1935 to contain Russia, but it would have been equally applicable here. It could be argued that Gladstone was contradicting Disraeli’s policy because he could see a flaw in the reasoning. It is evident from his pamphlet that he wanted the Turks removed from Bulgaria, but further to this, Magnus claims that ‘he repeatedly urged that the matter should be taken out of Russian hands’15 and that this was a solution more ‘realistic’16 than Disraeli’s. Ever politically expedient, Gladstone intended to attack British support of the Turks as well as advocating Russian containment, reasserting the balance of power in Europe. Of course, it is entirely possible that Gladstone was simply launching a direct attack on the policies of the government without any real moral or religious reasoning. A response not born out of righteous indignation or passionate sympathy for the suffering of the Bulgarians but of an attempt to make the government appear weak or badly led would explain his delay in joining the Agitation. Gladstone’s particular rivalry with Disraeli would have provided motive enough for such an attack: the two men held the greatest contempt for each other, stemming from the repeal of the Corn Laws and the split of the Conservative party in 1846. Although their practical aims were often remarkably similar in foreign affairs, their ideologies differed vastly and each held the other’s principles in utter contempt. It would not be beyond the bounds of rational thought to assume that in sabotaging Disraeli’s policy the only thing that Gladstone intended to do was to make him look like a fool. It could be argued that even in this there was a religious motivation. Disraeli’s Jewish background has led to the suggestion that his anti-Russian foreign policy had more to do with anti-Christian feeling. Feuchtwanger claims that Gladstone was aware of this and distrusted Disraeli for it: ‘all his deep suspicions about Disraeli were aroused; he now even suspected him of being influenced by Judaic sympathy for the Turks and hatred of Christians’17, although Blake dismisses such suspicions as ‘absurd’18. At a stretch, the poor relationship of the two politicians could also be said to have its roots in their differing religious views. Gladstone may have resented Disraeli’s conversion from Judaism to Christianity, which could be interpreted as only having been undertaken for social gain and not true faith. Shannon suggests that Gladstone’s return to the political arena could have been for selfish reasons; that he wanted to restore his ‘bond of moral rapport with the ‘masses†19 and adds that ‘it was less a case of Gladstone exciting popular pressure than popular pressure exciting Gladstone’20: rather than Gladstone carefully crafting his attack on Disraeli, he merely saw an opportunity to join ‘the virtuous passion’21 sweeping the nation and manipulate it to his advantage. Again, this would explain the delay between the beginning of the Agitation and Gladstone’s involvement. His action in publishing the pamphlet drew him back to the forefront of political life, and his continuing focus on the Midlothian campaign throughout the next four years was an important factor in ensuring his re-election as Prime Minister in 1880. Many historians agree with Shannon’s interpretation that Gladstone wanted to ‘reforge his links with†¦.mass audiences’22, but disagree on the reasoning for this. Shannon and Blake are both of the opinion the Gladstone simply seized upon the opportunity to ‘take part in†¦a moral crusade’23 in an attempt to inject himself back into the contemporary political field. Although the consequences of his action suggest that this is a realistic motive, and that he could have chosen to speak out against Disraeli to ensure his own self-advancement, this does seem unlikely considering Gladstone’s character; Blake’s portrayal of Gladstone is excessively negative, probably due to his pro-Disraeli sentiments. The perhaps more reliable Jenkins contradicts these claims of intervention for self-advancement, as ‘It did not follow that what he did was contrived for his own convenience’24 and claiming that he ‘was driven on Bulgaria by the same sort of elemental force which had seized him at the time of his Neapolitan pamphlets’25. This is a far more accurate judgement given the evidence: Gladstone constantly looked to his moral principles in seeking to do what was best for Britain and for Europe, and it seems unlikely that he would have stirred up such a commotion merely to return himself to the forefront of political affairs. Shannon states that Gladstone’s ‘first love had been the Church, and to the Church he remained ever faithful’26, but despite the politician’s overt Christianity historians are unable to agree on the extent to which his religion impacted his policies. In terms of his reaction to the Bulgarian Atrocities alone, numerous theories have been put forward as to the cause: his animosity towards Disraeli, his strong belief in nationalism, a wish to unite with the masses protesting a cause. Although these theories are superficially disparate, a closer examination reveals that they are all underpinned by Gladstone’s strong sense of morality. This morality caused him to reject Disraeli’s policies as unprincipled, to campaign for the creation of the Balkan states and to view Europe as a spiritual community that Britain had an obligation to protect and preserve. Ultimately, Gladstone’s politics were motivated by morality; a morality derived from his fundamental, unwavering religious beliefs.    1 Blake, R., Disraeli, St. Martin’s, 1967, p.602 2 Shannon, R.T., Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation 1876, Nelson, 1963, p.110 3 Abbot, B.H., Gladstone and Disraeli, Collins, 1986, p.95 4 5 Shannon, R.T., Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation 1876, Nelson, 1963, p.4 6 Shannon, R.T., Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation 1876, Nelson, 1963, p.5 7 Magnus, P., Gladstone, Penguin Books, 2001, p.240 8 Jenkins, R., Gladstone, Macmillan, 2002, p.401 9 Abbot, B.H., Gladstone and Disraeli, Collins, 1986, p.22 10 Magnus, P., Gladstone, Penguin Books, 2001, p.239 11 Feuchtwanger, E.J., Gladstone, British Political Biography, 1975, p.183 12 Jenkins, R., Gladstone, Macmillan, 2002, p.404 13 Feuchtwanger, E.J., Gladstone, British Political Biography, 1975, p.13 14 Blake, R., Disraeli, St Martin’s, 1967, p.760 15 Magnus, P., Gladstone, Penguin Books, 2002, p.241 16 Ibid. 17 Feuchtwanger, E.J., Gladstone, British Political Biography, 1975, p.181 18 Blake, R., Disraeli, St Martin’s, 1967, p.600 19 Shannon, R.T., Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation, 1876, Nelson, 1963, p.13 20 Ibid. p.110 21 Ibid. p.107 22 Jenkins, R., Gladstone, Macmillan, 2002, p.406 23 Blake, R., Disraeli, St Martin’s, 1967, p.600 24 Jenkins, R., Gladstone, Macmillan, 2002, p.401 25 loc. cit. 26 Shannon, R.T., Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation 1876, Nelson, 1963, p.3

Borderline Personality Disorder Essay - 532 Words

Borderline Personality Disorder, often reffered to as BPD, is a mental disorder that causes unstable emotions and instability in relationships, poor self-image, and impulsive actions. With Borderline Personality Disorder, self-image is distorted, making a person feel inadequate or worthless. A person with BPD often pushes others away with their anger, impulsiveness and frequent mood swings, though they desire loving relationships. The cause of BPD is unknown, but is credited to genetic, family, and social factors. Risk factors for BPD are abandonment in childhood or in teen years, a disrupted family life, poor communication in the family, and sexual abuse. This personality disorder tends to occur more in women more so than men. The†¦show more content†¦BPD individuals have a fear of being alone. Extreme efforts to avoid abandonment may include impulsive actions like self-injuries or suicidal behaviors. Some people with BPD suffer from chronic emptiness associated with lonel iness and neediness, which is described as a pain or bloating felt in the chest or abdomen. Individuals with BPD have moments where they are suspicious of others without reason. BPD individuals also have moments where they feel unreal or feel that the world is unreal. Borderline Personality Disorder is difficult to treat because relapse is a common problem, but it is possible to recover from the damaging behaviors of BPD. Psychotherapy or professional counseling, is the initial form of treatment for BPD. Other forms of treatment include: Cognitive-behavioral therapy that focuses on changing thoughts and behavioral patterns. This therapy teaches healthy ways to cope with challenges faced with BPD . Family therapy helps to educate the families of people with BPD about the condition and teaches them how provide support. Group therapy, led by a professional, allows people with this condition to talk about their common problems. Psychiatric medications are helpful in treating BPD by addressing some of the symptoms but don’t control the condition. Hospitalization of people with BPD is usually only necessary when the individual’sShow MoreRelatedBorderline Personality Disorder ( Borderline )1274 Words   |  6 PagesPaper: Borderline Perso nality Disorder Borderline personality disorder is a serious mental illness that directly affects one’s behavior, moods, and relationships/socialization skills. Borderline personality disorder often is associated with co-occurring disorders like depression, suicidal behaviors, anxiety, abuse of drugs and alcohol, as well as eating disorders. The behavior of a person diagnosed with borderline is also described to erratic and impulsive. The cause of borderline personality disorderRead MoreBorderline Personality Disorder ( Borderline )1749 Words   |  7 Pages Borderline Personality Disorder Could you picture yourself being brought face to face with an individual who has a personality similar to a mine field? In other words where or when he/she will explode is never known. This type of personality disorder is called borderline personality disorder. Borderline Personality Disorder is one of the most scariest and hidden disorders that have baffled our society as well as many health professionals for many years. The DSM IV defines borderline personalityRead MoreBorderline Personality Disorder ( Borderline )1361 Words   |  6 Pages Borderline Personality Disorder is named borderline personality disorder because at one point in history they considered this disorder to be on the â€Å"borderline† between neurosis and psychosis. Borderline personality disorder is a severe mental disorder that impacts an individual’s behavior, relationships, and mood. The disorder usually begins during adolescence or young adulthood. People with BPD have a tendency of rapid change in attitude or feelings toward others because they cannot regulateRead MoreBorderline Personality Disorder ( Borderline )872 Words   |  4 PagesBorderline Personality Disorder is a mental disorder characterized by instability in mood, impulsiveness, unstable relationships, and chronic emptiness. Borderline Personality Disorder affects approximately two percent of the population, and is predominately found in women. This disorder makes it difficult for people to understand social norms and the dynamics of relationships, so unpredictable a nd erratic behavior are common. Although Borderline Personality Disorder is incurable, it is treatableRead MoreBorderline Personality Disorder ( Borderline ) Essay1792 Words   |  8 Pagesin a cloud of static. No matter what I know to be true, the fear of having my mother discredit me severely impedes progress. I have known about Borderline Personality Disorder for some time, and I knew my estranged mother was diagnosed with it at one point, but I didn’t really start researching it until a friend lent me a copy of Surviving a Borderline Parent. Part of me was afraid if I learned more about it, I would only feel sympathy for her, and guilt for going no contact. As awful as it soundsRead MoreIs Borderline Personality Disorder? Essay1818 Words   |  8 Pageswill examine the benefit and indications of applying one of a contemporary organized psychological theory to a patient that the writer has already worked with as a summative case study. A brief history of the patient ailment which is borderline personality disorder (BPD) will be discussed as well as treatment plan and choices in accordance with a chosen psychotherapy (mentalisation base therapy MBT). The author will legitimize the purpose behind the chosen treatment and conclude his discussion. ForRead MorePersonality Disorders : Borderline Personality Disorder2908 Words   |  12 Pages　　A personality disorder is characterized by a distinct pattern of behavior that does not meet normal standards of behavior within one’s culture. This pattern is ingrained as the norm to the person affected, and the characteristics of the affected person deviate markedly from societal standards (Hebblethwaite, 2009). The two main features that help to identify a personality disorder are chronic interpersonal difficulties and persons with one’s identity or sense of self (Livesly, 2001). Within thisRead MoreBorderline Personality Disorder : Borderline Disorder1466 Words   |  6 PagesBorderline Personality Disorder Overview Borderline Personality Disorder is characterized by impulsivity, unstable self-image, mood, and trouble with interpersonal relationships. One major characteristic is impulsivity, which is characterized by rapid responding to environmental triggers without thinking (or caring) about long term consequences (Paris, 2007). Some people may engage in self-injurious activities including attempting and completing suicide. People with borderline personality disorderRead MoreBorderline Personality Disorder ( Bpd )932 Words   |  4 PagesBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is an emotional disorder that causes emotional instability, leading to stress and other problems. With borderline personality disorder your image of yourself is distorted, making you feel worthless and fundamentally flawed. Your anger, impulsivity and frequent mood swings may push others away, even though you desire loving relationships. It is an often misunderstood, serious mental illness characterized by pervasive ins tability in moods, interpersonal relationshipsRead MoreBorderline Personality Disorder ( Adhd )1659 Words   |  7 Pagesenigmatic condition. The term â€Å"Borderline,† coined by Adolph Stern in 1938 (Optimum Performance Institute), refers to the behavior exhibited by these patients who are on the borderline between neurosis and psychosis. The oscillating nature and unknown concrete cause of this disorder makes it difficult to treat. Due to this, Borderline Personality Disorder, or BPD, has become one of the most controversial disorders to work with in the psychiatric community. Often time Borderline patients are avoided entirely