Truman Doctrine And The Marshall Plan History Essay

Truman Doctrine And The Marshall Plan History Essay On the eve of their victory in World War Two, the leaders of the so-called Big Three nations (Winston Churchill from Britain, Joseph Stalin, from the Soviet Union, and Franklin Roosevelt from the United States) met to negotiate the post-war administration of the vast European territories liberated from Nazi occupation and the captured territories of the Axis nations themselves. The two meetings at Potsdam and Yalta were actually the second and third (respectively) following the first of the Big Three meetings at Teheran in 1943. At the time of the final meeting at Yalta, all three leaders expressed genuine optimism that a peaceful and fair collaboration that had begun of necessity in their combined effort to defeat Hitler could last beyond the war years and into a prolonged period of international peace thereafter (Alterman, 2004). However, there were fundamental conflicting interests and concerns that had begun to develop even before the conclusion of the war. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had already begun to view one another as rivals in Europe, both for territory captured from the Germans as well as for the technological spoils of war, such as German aviation and ballistic rocket technology in particular (Roberts, 2000). During the last year of the war, the Western Allies had feared that Stalin would continue his advance well into central and western Europe and all the way to the Mediterranean (Alterman, 2004). To a large degree, those fears were unfounded as Soviet troops halted after occupying the Baltic States and territories in Germany, Poland and the Balkans (Alterman, 2004). Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did also exert continual pressure elsewhere, particularly in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, and Turkey. When Britain could no longer afford to support the needs of Greece and Turkey, the U.S. stepped up and in 1947, announced a broad approach to providing economic support to those regions (and others believed by the Truman administration to be potentially at risk of Soviet domination) economically in what came to be referred to as the Truman Doctrine (Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon,). That same year, U.S. Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall, introduced an even broader approach, that came to be called the Marshall Plan which included all of the mechanism outlined in the Truman Doctrine, in addition to a comprehensive fight against hunger, desperation, poverty, and chaos and whose aims included the revival of a working economy across the European continent but also in all the nations of the world ( Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon,). In fact, the principal motivation for this plan was a policy analysis authored by George C. Kennan, counselor in the U.S. embassy in Moscow entitled The Sources of Soviet Conduct (Roberts, 2000). That analysis led directly to the adoption of a containment policy by the Truman administration (and subsequent U.S. presidential administrations designed expressly to oppose perceive Soviet expansionist aims everywhere in the world (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Roberts, 2000). Throughout the Cold War, the official position of the U.S. was that its policies with respect to the U.S.S.R. were strictly defensive and designed, of absolute necessity, to prevent the global domination sought by Soviet Communist leaders (Alterman, 2004; Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon, ; McNamara, 1995). In truth, the U.S. policies to oppose Soviet Communist expansion and the imposition of Communism beyond Soviet borders were not unfairly viewed by the U.S.S.R. as an expansionist attempt to export and impose Western Democracy beyond U.S. borders. The Deterioration of Relations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. after 1945 Even before the end of World War II, the provisions of the February 1945 Yalta Conference set in motion conflicting priorities and zones of occupation that helped trigger the eventual deterioration of the wartime alliance between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Specifically, the agreement left Britain, France, and the United States in charge of Western Germany, Italy, and Japan while the Soviets controlled Eastern Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. By comparison, the territory controlled by the Western Allies was much more valuable in terms of its economic potential than that held by the Soviet Union. The same was largely true in connection with the relative economic potential of Western and Eastern Germany. Under the terms of the Yalta Agreement, the Western Allies administered what later became West Germany and the U.S.S.R. controlled what later became East Germany. Even the capital city of Berlin was divided into zones o f occupation; within a few years, the geographical layout of Berlin and the shared occupation between the Western Allies and the U.S.S.R. would trigger a prolonged crisis as well (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Although perceived by the West as being stubborn and acting out of a specific motivation to dominate Europe, Stalin expressed genuine confusion over the inability or unwillingness of the Western Allies to appreciate the importance of Eastern Europe from the Soviet perspective, particularly with respect to Poland (Alterman, 2004; Judge Langdon, ). Recent and not so recent history demonstrated full well the vulnerability of the Soviet Union to hostile invasion through Poland. Moreover, Stalins liberation of Poland from the Nazis had cost the Soviet Union as many as 20 million dead, making it the costliest war campaign in the entire history of warfare, by far. From the Russian point of view, Poland should rightfully have remained under Russian control for those two specific reasons alone (Alterman, 2004; Judge Langdon, ). In other respects, the Western Allies may have been right to question Stalins motives. During the war, both Churchill and Stalin had sent troops to occupy portions of Iran to prevent their rich oil fields from falling into the hands of the Nazis (Alterman, 2004; Roberts, 2000). Already at Yalta, Stalin had begun demanding oil concessions as a condition of removing Russian troops from Iran. Likewise, Stalin had insisted that Turkey permit the Russian Navy permanent unrestricted passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through the Dardanelles. Stalin yielded on both accounts only after the U.S. expressed its intentions to back Iran and after the U.S. sent its own Naval warships to the region. Nevertheless, U.S. foreign policy thereafter would reflect the growing fears over such incidents that Stalin expressly intended to capitalize on any perceived weakness on the part of the West to oppose Communist grabs for global territories and resources (Roberts, 2000). The Importance of Kennans The Sources of Soviet Conduct In 1946, the U.S. State Department received a very long telegram from George C. Kennan, counselor in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, detailing his analysis of what he called The Sources of Soviet Conduct (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Among other conclusions, Kennan wrote that the Soviet Union was eternally committed to global expansionism and to the spread of Communist ideology at all costs. Kennan warned that the Soviet Union would never stop probing non-Communist societies for weaknesses and that the Western democracies had no other choice but to remain vigilante in their opposition to Communism lest is spread throughout the entire world to the extent efforts toward that end were not opposed appropriately by the West (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Kennan concluded that what would be necessary and appropriate to prevent Communist expansionism from dominating the word would be a comprehensive policy of global containment of any efforts toward that end by the Western democracies (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). At approximately the same time, also in 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his infamous Iron Curtain speech in which he warned of the same danger with respect to the European continent and advocated a strong opposition on the part of the Western democracies. (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000; Westad, ). In principle, this containment strategy would be adopted by the West, most immediately in the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. The Truman Doctrine By 1947, Greece was in the midst of internal warfare between the government and Communist rebels (Alter, 2004; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Roberts, 2000). Britain had been funding the counterrevolutionaries but eventually announced that it could no longer do so for economic reasons. The U.S. administration argued to Congress (and to the American people) that the fall of Greece to Communism would lead inevitably to the subsequent fall of Italy, France, and the entire Middle East to Communism as well (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Truman succeeded in obtaining congressional authorization for $400 million to fund anti-Communist rebels in both Greece and Turkey as well. This was the first implementation of what came be known as the Truman Doctrine, according to which It must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pres sures. Truman went on to say that this support from the U.S. should be primarily through economic and financial aid, which is essential to economic stability and orderly political process (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Officially, the Truman Doctrine focused on economic assistance to the needy populations of the struggling nations; unofficially, the real purpose of the Truman Doctrine was to fund anti-Communist forces and virtually any related effort to undermine Soviet attempts to spread Communism anywhere in the world. While being promoted primarily as a humanitarian gesture, the principal purpose of the Truman Doctrine and the reason for its existence was to oppose Soviet Communism (Gaddis, 1997). To be fair, there were reasons that the West was right to be so concerned about Soviet Communist expansion but there were also reasons that, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the West in general and the U.S. in particular overreacted in implementing the Truman Doctrine. The Western Allies had only recently learned a very difficult lesson after failing to respond appropriately to the rise of Nazism throughout the 1930s and to the expansionist aggression demonstrated by Hitler for years before the outbreak of World War II. Undoubtedly, that was foremost on the minds of Churchill and Truman and everyone else in foreign policy-making positions in the post-war era (Alterman, 2004; Roberts, 2000). The Soviets were hardly innocent either. In addition to the attempted exertion of influence in Iran over the removal of their troops and over control over shipping lanes in the Dardanelles, they also aggressively supported Communist revolutions anywhere they could in Eastern Europe, particular ly in Bulgaria and Romania in connection with Communist takeovers and in Poland by helping to eliminate the last source of political opposition to Communism (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). On the other hand, and again, in retrospect with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the Western Democracies were also somewhat blind to apparent signs of Soviet restraint and concessions to the West. After initially insisting on shared control over defeated Japan, the Soviet Union eventually accepted exclusive American control over that nation (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Likewise, they withdrew their troops from Manchuria, allowed free elections in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and a neutral democratic Finnish government, and they also withdrew significant numbers of their forces that had been assembled in Eastern Europe since the end of the War (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). It may be unfair to re-evaluate tensions of the time with the benefit of historical records available today (including those pertaining to Stalin that only became available after the collapse of Communist Russia). However, objectively, and with the benefit of hindsight, it would seem that a more measured and objective response on the part of the U.S. and her allies in the post-war years other than the full implementation of the Truman Doctrine might have allowed for a much less costly and potentially dangerous outcome than a four-decade-long Cold War with the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan One of the major initiatives implemented within the general framework of the Truman Doctrine was General George C. Marshalls European Recovery Plan, which quickly became known as the Marshall Plan (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). In principle, the Marshall Plan aimed to do the same thing (i.e. contain Soviet Communism from global expansion) although through incentivizing cooperation and conciliation on the part of foreign nations in return for U.S. economic assistance. It was, in essence, a tremendous carrot instead of a stick-based approach to encouraging foreign nations to implement democratic governments and to reject Communist overtures (Roberts, 2000). The U.S. even invited the Soviet Union to participate but they refused, believing (probably correctly, given the overall objective of the Truman Doctrine) that the terms in connection with which Soviet participation was being welcomed would have undermined Soviet control over the Eastern European countries under Soviet influence (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ). Two years later, the Soviet Union would create Comecon, their own plan for an Eastern European Mutual Economic Assistance organization. The Marshall Plan was an unparalleled success in Western Europe: it facilitated infrastructure recovery in war-torn countries; it enabled economic growth while simultaneously reducing class conflict. More importantly, from the U.S. perspective, it established an economic dependency for U.S. goods and industrial machinery and for the U.S. goods, services, and labor to support it (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Certainly, the Marshall Plan was a more humane approach to expanding U.S. influence and discouraging Communist tendencies among Western European populations than the Soviet Union had employed in Eastern Europe. However, its fundamental purpose was much more similar. Moreover, the U.S. was guilty of the same degree of meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations as was the Soviet Union, albeit through much more peaceful means that relied upon the carrot rather than the stick. Nevertheless, from the point of view of exporting its own political ideology to other nations, the U.S. was actually engaged in the same business as the Communists that the West continually portrayed as expansionist (Hunt, 1987; LeFeber, 1994; McDougall, 1997). For example, because of the dependence of Italy on American foreign economic aid and supplies of goods and services, the U.S. was able to convince the Christian Democrats to oust the Communist Party out of it governing coalition. In fact, General Marshall personally warned the Italians that continued economic aide was directly dependent on the Communists not succeeding in the elections of 1948. At the same time, the U.S. State Department recruited Italian relatives in the U.S. and Italian-American organizations in the U.S. to influence Italian political outcomes as much as possible (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; LeFeber, 1994; Hunt, 1987; McDougall, 1997). Ultimately, the U.S. cannot claim to have meddled or micromanaged Western European political affairs any less than their Communist counterparts in Moscow. While there is a strong argument that the methods chosen by Moscow were less humane, it would be a fiction to suggest that the Soviet Union exported Communism and was expansionist while the U.S. merely supported political self-determination and opposed the imposition of political ideology from abroad. Certainly, from the Soviet perspective, Washington was engaged in very similar processes that differed much more in their means than in what they hoped to achieve. Moreover, whereas the U.S. had the choice between brutality and economic pressure and incentivization, the U.S.S.R. had no such choice, at least not that could have competed against the economic and industrial strength of the U.S. Conclusion Throughout the Cold War, the predominant view in the Western hemisphere was that the Soviet Union was continually engaged in an aggressive campaign to export Communism while the West, led by the U.S. was merely resisting that expansion by supporting the freedom and self-determination of those nations that would otherwise have been at the mercy of Communist takeover. In reality, the U.S. was no less aggressive in exporting Democracy, although it had the economic means to do so much more gently and humanely, and by inviting membership in their democratic vision rather than by coercion and brutality. However, in terms of precipitating what became a four-decade-long Cold War between East and West, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the policy of containment first articulated and promoted by George Kennan in 1946 were no less responsible than Soviet expansionism through intimidation and force. The Cold War eventually resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union by virtue of the strength of the U.S. economy and industrial capacity. However, it was really only a matter of luck and restraint on the part of Soviet leaders that prevented the Cold War from suddenly becoming anything but cold particularly in connection with the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In both cases, Soviet forces were armed with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons and authorized to use them on U.S. forces. Ironically, those facts only became public as a direct function of the fall of the Soviet Union and the doctrine of Glasnost instituted as a result (Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon, ). The Cold War grew out of a combination of factors and was probably not as inevitable or as much the result of aggressive Soviet expansionism as is widely believed in the West. To be sure, its roots were partly the result of the paranoid personality of Joseph Stalin. Similarly, the U.S.S.R. had given the Western Allies reason for concern over Stalins intentions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) even before the end of the war. The historical record suggests that at the time of the final Big Three meeting at Yalta, Stalin genuinely hoped for a collaborative and cooperative relationship with the American and British governments. On the other hand, even during those most hopeful of times, Soviet spies were busily at work successfully and thoroughly infiltrating the Top-Secret U.S. Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. However, the relative insensitivity of Western leaders to appreciate the legitimate historical basis and geographical realities facing the Soviet Union, especially in Eastern Europe is equally to blame. To a much greater degree than is often acknowledged by Western historians, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan were, in fact, less about achieving the specific objectives laid out publicly as their fundamental purpose than they were about implementing a global containment strategy designed expressly to counter perceived Soviet expansionism. It is likely that but for paranoia and overreaction on both sides, the legitimate geopolitical concerns of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could have been negotiated more successfully and at far less cost to both sides. In that regard, the long-term effects and consequences of the American foreign policy approach with respect to the U.S.S.R. that was outlined and established by the Truman Doctrine and by the Marshall Plan within the first few years after the cessation of World War Two hostilities would have to be considered as responsible for the development of the Cold War as Soviet Communist expansionism.

Dumping of Products in Third World Countries Essay

Made in the USA- Moral JudgmentFor years, the United States has been dumping export materials and goods that have been banned or found to be hazardous to the health of the people the United States. In the case Made in the U.S.A. – Dumped in Brazil, Africa, Iraq†¦, the case informs about how the United States dumped fire-retardant children’s pajamas, baby pacifiers, chemicals, etc. in third world countries without their knowing of the danger they were exposing themselves to by accepting the export goods. The U.S. had this great idea to come up with a children’s pajama that would resist catching on fire. After careful examination by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission products and by products of the chemical in the material called Tris was found to cause kidney cancer in children. Then the US came out with baby pacifiers that were found to cause choking. The pacifiers were exported overseas and 400 Iraqis died and 5,000 were hospitalized after eating the fungicide on the pacifiers. Then we have Winstrol, which was a male hormone product was banned after it was found to stunt the growth of American children. Lastly when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the sale of Galant, which was to be used as a weed killer, found that this weed killer caused cancer the EPA banned the killer in the US, but the manufacturer of the product still continues to sell the same product in Mexico City. Although the U. S. has been allowing the business practice of dumping by products and products that have been banned by the US for human use on third world countries dumping is wrong and needs to stop immediately for the betterment of all human well-being. The safety of children is very important, but does it have to cost the price of third world children to save the lives of the children in the United States? I think not. The United States had no right to dispose of the children’s pajamas without even talking to the other countries before exporting bad goods to them. The non-consequentialist theory best describes this judgment. Non-consequentialist theory is â€Å"right and wrong are determined by more than the likely consequences of an action† (Shaw 2008, 44). The wrong of the action is that children, precious children are being harmed by these pajamas. Then to pass them on to other children on other countries does not make the action right. It is still wrong. Just as the children of the United States are important so should the children of other  countries as well. Third world countries have their own problems and the US giving them harmful contaminated pajamas does not make the state of the country any better. Next, the U.S. manufactured 450,000 baby pacifiers and they were known to cause babies to choke to death. So what does the U.S. decide to do with these pacifiers? They decide to export the pacifiers overseas where these children were exposed to the fungicide and either died or had to be hospitalized due to the organic mercury that was on the pacifiers. â€Å"Four hundred Iraqis died in 1972 and five thousand were hospitalized after consuming the by-products (pacifiers) of eight thousand tons of wheat and barley coated with an organic mercury fungicide, whose use had been banned in the U.S.† (Dowie, 1979). This action is wrong. This is showing that the U.S. kids are better than the children of other countries and this is not true. What makes the United States kids better than any other child in the world? The U.S. has no right to put certain children over others. If the shoe was on the other foot the U.S. would not allow other countries to dump products and by-products on them. It should be the United States’ moral obligation to see that all children are safe from harm or harmful things by banning the business practice of dumping hazardous products and by products to third world countries. Winstrol, when it first came in existence in the United States was to be used as a â€Å"synthetic male hormone† but was found to stunt the growth of the children in the United States. After the product was banned in the U.S. it was then dumped to third world countries where that promoted the product as an appetite stimulant for children. In India thirty percent of the children are malnutrition and one-third of the children in the Philippines are considered malnutrition also. This product was advertised in these countries as a cure for children who are not able to get the nutrition from the foods they eat. The advertising for this product included phrases like â€Å"‘a delicious syrup flavor children love †¦ a remarkable appetite stimulant and builds body tissue.'†(Tiranti, 1983), which if promoted in these countries where food is hard to get and children are dying each day. The parents of the children in the third world countries would do anything they could to  keep their children alive and healthy as possible. In the United States Winstrol was found to stunt growth and in the third world countries it was thought to be the cure for malnutrition children. What choice is better for children? The choices to stunt their growth or build up their appetite are both misleading. America misleads the third world countries to think and believe that a drug can cure hunger and that is wrong. What the third world countries children need are food and not a pill. This drug should not be used for that purpose and dumping the drug on countries who do not know is simply wrong. Through a consequentialist point of view, the consequence of this drug being promoted as a good product is wrong so the action of the U.S. dumping this product on others is wrong too. Galant is a chemical used in a lot of products and by-products. Galant is used in everyday products such as baby blocks, nail polish, weed killer, kitchen cabinets, plywood, etc. Europe banned this chemical from products, but the United States did not. The US is always out for a profit, so if it can export these products to other countries and still make a profit then that is what the US will do. As more and more health agencies started to see that Galant was dangerous they stopped using the chemical. What makes Galant so dangerous is the dipyrone that is given off by the by products and products mentioned. This is the agent that is said to cause cancer. It is also linked to asthma and headaches too (Gardner, 2006). â€Å"Michael Wilson at UC-Berkeley claim the United States risks becoming a â€Å"dumping ground† for toxic products as other nations clean up their acts. U.S. chemical laws are weak, he complains. Instead of forcing industry to prove a chemical is safe, the burden is generally on the EPA to prove it endangers people and places. And that legal standard of proof, he says, is too high† (Gardener, 2006). The practice of the United States putting the burden of their mistakes on other countries is wrong and needs to be stopped. It is not the responsibility of other countries to dispose of the mess the U.S. makes. Galant, this cancer causing blood disorder product is a mistake and is not the responsibility of other countries to take the load for products that the United States find to be dangerous to human health. â€Å"Manufacturers that dump products abroad clearly are motivated by profit† (Shaw, 2008). The United States is all about profit and companies in the U.S. cannot stand to lose money. So if they can find another way to get a profit on a product that they have produced be it safe or unsafe they will do it. Now, should this profit be at the expense of human health and well being. This should not be the case at any time by any one country. The business practice of dumping products and by products in other countries is wrong and needs to change. The U.S. needs to find a better way to dispose of products that are found to be harmful the human health or consumption. The U.S. has no right to push banned products on third world countries. The U.S. is no better than any other country when it comes to the welfare of its people and they need to think about that. If the products can harm the U.S. citizens what makes third world countries any different for them. The effect of dumping has started to come back and haunt the United States. The same chemicals that we banned in the United States to use on our crops are being used in third world countries and when we import products from these countries the chemicals are on the products and by products that they produced for us. This goes to prove that the U.S. is no better than any other country when it comes to finding products and by products not good for human use or consumption. The business practice of dumping is dangerous, dangerous to the U.S. and dangerous to other countries and it has to stop and stop now. References Dowie, M. (1979, Nov/ Dec). The Corporate Crime of the Century. Mother Jones. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1979/11/dowie.html. Gardner, S. (2006, November). US becoming a toxic dumping ground. Marketplace. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/11/13/us_becoming_a_toxic_dumping_ground/Shaw, W.H. (2008). Business ethics (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Chapters 1 & 2.

Kurtz’s Downfall in Heart of Darkness

Sophocles once said, â€Å"Money: There’s nothing in the world so demoralizing as money.† Since the beginning of time, humans have associated money with tearing away people’s goodness or, for a more known example, the saying that money is the root of all evil. In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Kurtz exemplifies this exact situation of becoming somewhat addicted to gaining riches and lets his darker side take control. This tragic obsession eventually leads to his character’s downfall. Kurtz is a character who takes his success in his job and his power over the â€Å"savages† very seriously and accepts darkness into his life because of the hunger for money. Making money is like a religion to him. He uses this power in the business as an intimidation tool. Marlow recalls a conversation with a chap on the boat in which the man states, â€Å"He declared he would shoot me unless I gave him the ivory and then cleared out of the country, because he could do so, and had a fancy for it, and then there was nothing on earth to prevent him killing whom he jolly well pleased† (Conrad, 315). The people underneath Kurtz are complaisant because he had been put up so high on a pedestal and was so incredibly intimidating. Through his job, Kurtz is put into a position of power and was able to choose the path he wanted to take. Obviously, he chooses to respond to that inner darkness deep inside of him. Kurtz is not afraid to hurt anyone who stands in his way. He abuses the â€Å"savages† with his lack of morality and takes away their native riches. His family life, with his intended, slopes downhill as he has another mistress amongst the tribe. She never knows this, but the idea and regret of it is one of the things that eventually drives Kurtz to be somewhat insane. Marlow is extremely perplexed by Kurtz and wishes to understand him, although he does not know why. He sees what Kurtz is doing is wrong and, in a sense, I think Marlow wants to save him from himself. Marlow recognizes that Kurtz’s biggest problem is what lies within him. However, towards the end of Kurtz’s life, Marlow seems to have given up hope for him ever finding the goodness. Conrad writes: â€Å"But his soul was mad. Being alone in the wilderness, it had looked within itself and, by heavens! I tell you, it had gone mad! I had- for my sins, I suppose- to go through the ordeal of looking into it myself. No eloquence could have been so withering to one’s belief in mankind as his final burst of sincerity. He struggled with himself, too. I saw it- I heard it. I saw the inconceivable mystery of a soul that knew no restraint, no faith, and no fear, yet struggling blindly with itself.† (325) Marlow clearly recognizes the fact that the love of money has taken over Kurtz and his demons all come from within. Realizing this, he sees the need to do a little soul searching. He looks within himself to assure that he has not become a victim to the darkness as well. Through a story about a search for the riches of ivory from Africa, Conrad is able to teach the reader many very important life lessons. In a way, he gives the reader an ultimatum. A person can either choose a life like Kurtz’s, a money hungry and selfish one taken over by the darkness of one’s soul, or a life of light such as Marlow’s. Hopefully after reading of Kurtz’s death during which he spoke his last words, â€Å"the horror,† the reader will see which lifestyle Conrad is encouraging. Kurtz dies in regret for all of the horrible things he had done. Marlow sees this and knows that he cannot submit to his darkness within for fear of having the same fate. Marlow was able to learn by example of how not to end up with a life that is â€Å"hollow at the core.† I find it very ironic that even though Kurtz was in search of something so beautiful and appealing, he ends up finding death and darkness instead. In conclusion, it is apparent what caused Kurtz’s tragic downfall. His love for money, power, and success drives him to a point of madness and, ironically, failure in life as a whole. He affects those around him, such as Marlow and the â€Å"savages†, by exemplifying his darker side. This submission to the darkness of his soul, caused by the love and hunger for money, demoralizes Kurtz’s character until his life is no longer anything of importance.

The Environmental Group Cleaning Up The Oil Spill

Introduction There was an oil spill, the environmental group cleaning up the oil spill wanted to find the best soap or detergent to use to clean, they also wanted something that was not made from animal fat. From the oil spill many birds were covered in oil and the environmental group needed to find the best soap or detergent to clean the birds and make sure it was environmentally safe. The environmental group suggested recipes for making the soaps and testing the soaps so they were safe to use. Soaps are made by hydrolysis, from sodium hydroxide (a polar carboxyl group), glycerol, and a fat or oil. Figure 1. Soap [6] A soap consists of the polar carboxyl group and the long chain of non-polar carbons. The type of fat or oil depends on the length of the carbon chain, this affects the cleaning and solubility of the soap. The longer the carbon chain the harder it is to dissolve the soap which is not very good at cleaning. Soaps dissolve or dissociation in water because the polar end of the soap interacts with water, which is also polar. [4] Detergents are structured in the same way soaps are, one end is hydrophilic, polar, and one end is hydrophobic, nonpolar. Detergents consist of a carbon chain and a negatively charged sulfate end. The whole structure of the detergent is negatively charged because the charge on the sulfate group. [4] Information regarding the chemical synthesis of the soaps and detergents were found from outside sources and provided vital information onShow MoreRelatedBp And Corporate Social Responsibility1584 Words   |  7 Pagesused Buffet’s quote as a recipe for succe ss. British Petroleum best known as BP, a leading billion-dollar oil corporation is just one of the organizations who participates in corporate social responsibility (CSR). According to their code of conduct â€Å"we are committed to avoiding damage to the environment and related impacts on communities.† BP has put themselves on the line when the oil spill of 2010 occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, with consumers questioning their true meaning and intentions of corporateRead MoreBp Oil Spill : Business Law1601 Words   |  7 PagesMISERICORDIA UNIVERSITY BP Oil Spill Business Law Evans, Rebecca 10/23/2015 This paper includes information regarding the BP Oil spill. References are listed at the bottom. â€Æ' Currently headquartered in London, BP is one of the largest producers of both oil and natural gas. BP provides its customers with fuel for transportation and energy for heat and light. BP’s core business is gas exploration and production division and their main sources of production include Angola, Argentina, AustraliaRead More Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on the Environment1549 Words   |  7 PagesThe Deepwater Horizon spill occurred on 20 April 2010 and was caused by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers and injured 17 more. The drilling rig, located 66 kilometers southeast of the Louisiana coast, left an oil gusher that was finally capped on July 15, almost 2 months later. This was the largest accidental marine oil spill in history and the largest offshore environmental disaster in the United States (Telegraph, New York Times, BBC News). It is estimatedRead MoreThe Long Lasting Effects Of The Deepwater Horizon On The Gulf Of Mexico1544 Words   |  7 PagesThis essay will discuss the long lasting effects on the economy from the explosion on the DeepWater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The events that took place on April 20, 2010 would go down in history as the worst deep sea oil spill in history. British Petroleum would suffer its greatest lost to date when one of its drilling rigs the Deepwater Horizon would blow up in the Gulf of Mexico (Crandall, Parnell Spillan, 2014). In the days and weeks following the explosion there were signs ofRead MoreBp Oil Spill Analysis Essay6383 Words   |  26 PagesResearch The spectrums of oil spill issues are diverse and large. They range from environmental issue to economic, ecological, ethical, politics and policies. Among many other oil spills, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, occurred on April 20, 2010 was recorded as the greatest environmental disaster in our history (BP leak the worlds worst accidental oil spill, 2010). The goal of our research is to seek possible solutions to reduce the risks of offshore oil spills. To attain this goal, weRead MoreEssay on Shell Company Oil Spills in Nigeria4561 Words   |  19 Pagesï » ¿ SHELL COMPANY OIL SPILLS IN NIGERIA By MOHAMMAD MOHIB SIDDIQI H00034532 Executive Summary Shell is one of the global energy and petroleum companies around the world. The strategy of Shell Company is to generate more profit for the organization and to move forward the business investments so that Shell Company is sustaining a competitive situation in the Global market and to provide revenues to the shareholders by meetingRead MoreBp ( British Petroleum )1344 Words   |  6 Pagessavings in the hunt for oil in the Middle East. After several years of drilling, D’Arcy’s money and patience were about to run out, when oil was found about 1,200 feet down. This changed the outlook for the company and D’Arcy became a rich man (Thorne, p. 587 2014). Because of the difficulty in trying to drill for oil in this undeveloped land, by 1914 BP was almost bankrupt again. The company had oil, but no one to sell to. Because of the insistence of Winston Churchill, the oil would be used by theRead MoreSoaps and Detergents By: Nicole Renzi Chemistry 102 Laboratory Section 24, Project 17 final lab report Instructor: Fan Yang February 27th 20122910 Words   |  12 PagesThe goal of this project was to make, and test four soaps, and two detergents. The purpose of making four different soaps and two detergents was needed in order to decide which one would be best for the environmental group to use in the future that would allow for the safest cleanup of an oil spill while not harming the animals or the environment in the process. It was necessary to test the impact of the four soaps and two detergents by analyzing their different properties based off of their specificRead MoreHealth And Safety Effects From Large Oil Spills And Their Clean Up 2482 Words   |  10 PagesHealth and safety effects from large oil spills and their clean-up Introduction: Oil spills have been a treat to man and its environment since the discovery of oil as a source of energy. In history, there have been several massive oil spill disasters have occurred within the last century. (1) It is obvious crude oil is an important source of energy to man and that there are dangers associated with but unfortunately despite the outstanding technological advancements, man has been unable to preventRead Moreoil spill4253 Words   |  18 Pagesï » ¿ Oil Spill Group 3 Vera Lois A. Decano Kriceal Viz B. Saldon Mia Tagle Sam John F. Luison Kathe Unabia Chayya Margaret P. Golez Dominic M. Concillo Oil Spill Introduction In the recent years there have been occurrences of oil spills in several locations within our country. Knowing that these have adverse effects on our environment and the ecosystem as a whole, we’ve always been in search of ways to counter this major problem. The damages we receive from an oil spill