Ben Johnson free essay sample

Ben met his coach Charlie Francis at the Scarborough Optimists track and field club. Charlie was also a Canadian 100 metre sprint champion himself and a member of the Canadian 1972 Summer Olympics Team. Charlie was also Canada’s national sprint coach for nine years. Ben Johnson had his first international success in the 1982 Commonwealth games winning two silver medals. He came second in both the 100 metre sprint and the 400 metre team relay. In the 1984 Summer Olympics, he reached the 100 metre finals grabbing himself a bronze medal. In 1985, after eight consecutive losses, Ben finally beat Carl Lewis. After his victorious win, Ben was unstoppable, winning many more important races. On September 24, 1988, Ben Johnson beat Carl Lewis in the 100m final at the Olympics, lowering his own world record to 9. 79 seconds. Johnson would later remark that he would have been even faster had he not raised his hand in the air just before he finished the race. We will write a custom essay sample on Ben Johnson or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page However, Johnsons urine samples were found to contain stanozolol and was disqualified three days later. He later admitted having used steroids when he ran his 1987 world record. Ben and his coach Francis complained that they used doping in order to remain on an equal playing field with the other top athletes on drugs they had to compete against. Later, five of the finalists of the 100-meter race tested positive for banned drugs or were implicated in a drug scandal at some point in their careers. Later on, Charlie freely admits that his athletes were taking anabolic steroids, as he claims all top athletes at the time were taking drugs. The numerous athletes using performance enhancing drugs at the time understood how long before a race they should stop using the drugs. In 1991, after Ben’s suspension ended, he attempted to regain his fame and his responsibilities. He failed to achieve his dream of redeeming himself, knowing that taking anabolic steroids was the wrong thing to do. He ruined his ethics, trust in family, friends and fans as well as his responsibilities. He then retired in 1993, unable to find a race that he was accepted in. After all of the commotion, he became a wonderful coach for his son’s football team.

Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows Essays

Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows Essays Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows Paper Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows Paper Rousseau endeavours to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with others, obeys no-one but himself, and remains as free as before (p. 60). The solution to this conundrum is Rousseaus social contract where each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole (p. 61). The people become a single unity with a will of its own and a common purpose. In effect man gives up completely his natural liberty and in return receives civil liberty. By renouncing natural liberty we are giving up the ability to indulge our animal desires but in return we gain a civil liberty, something we aspire to as an intelligent being and a man (p. 65). When man has civil liberty he is truly free because this requires obedience to a law that is his own. Civil liberty is not giving in to impulsive desires but instead the being faithful to second order desires. Real freedom does not lie in the satisfaction of animal impulses but in the satisfying of desires that men as rational beings desire. Mans interaction with others will require the use of reason and the use of will in order for him to subordinate immediate personal desire to a higher social good. When Rousseau talks of taking men as they are (p. 41), he doesnt insinuate the corrupt beings of contemporary society but instead natural man, men who are capable of rational thought and who are subject to morality. It is important to understand mans desire for self-preservation and his own self interest, it is the consideration of these factors that men will enter into a political society. The positive advantages gained from such an agreement will guarantee self-preservation and secure proprietorship but more importantly man acquires moral freedom. Rousseau maintains that to be governed by appetite alone is slavery, [but] obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom (p. 65). As soon as man follows order instead of impulse his existence is given elevation and importance that are unknown to man in his state of nature. Rousseau is clear in his belief that it is only the participation in political society that can transform man from a stupid and limited animal (p. 65). Man having surrendered his natural liberty now submits himself to the general will (p. 61). Consent is no longer sufficient to establish the legitimacy of the acts of sovereign, a man has no right to call another his slave, but only through consent of the slave which is indeed absurd1. Mans intrinsic freedom is realised by a submission to the general will because it can neither alienate any part of itself (p. 60) nor offend against any one of its members without offending the body (p. 60). If this social contract is adhered to then there cannot be a manifestation of any particular will or interest in conflict with the common interest. The social contract makes men equal by covenant and by right (p. 68) and it is Rousseaus intention to bring together individuals in a way that gives them a collective expression and a collective force. It is with this knowledge that the individual will surrender his own limited power for the protection given by the combined power of the whole community. The concept of the collective force and sovereignty is irrelevant unless everyone without exception accepts it, for if any individual were to be considered exempt genuine political freedom is impossible. With the conditions being equal for all, namely the total alienation by each associate of himself and all his rights to the whole community (p. 60) and because all freely accept them; in obeying the supreme direction of the general will (p. 61), the citizens are obeying themselves and this is truly freedom. The citizens commit themselves on the same conditions and must enjoy the same rights; sovereignty becomes the guarantor of freedom but Rousseaus account of freedom is paradoxical. Man has to understand that his view point is false and his real will is to be identified with the community as a whole, whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole of society, which means nothing less than he will be forced to be free (p. 64). How can it be legitimate to force someone to be free? Such a statement seems to advocate a form of totalitarianism but despite any dark undertones conjured from such a statement there is an inclination to be sympathetic. Rousseau presents us with a situation where we all participate in governing ourselves as one body, what else are we to do when, in society someone wishes to undermine a system so legitimately formed? Natural freedom cannot be granted to individuals who would use it in a manner as to undermine the civil freedom we encompass as a body politic. We cannot allow democratic freedom to destabilise democracy itself. BIBLIOGRAPHY Penguin Classics, Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract Ronald Grimsley, The Philosophy of Rousseau, Oxford University Press, 1973 Anthony Harrison-Barbet, Mastering Philosophy, Macmillan Press, 1990 Asher Horowitz, Rousseau, Nature, and History, University of Toronto Press, 1987 1 Mastering Philosophy, Anthony Harrison-Barnet, Macmillan Master Series, 1990.

History of black education in the british north american colonies Research Paper

History of black education in the british north american colonies - Research Paper Example Thus with the formation of the colonies in the North America, diversified people came under the same government and its respective policies. Given the state of the colonies soon after its formation and the entire political scenario of the North America, it was very important to construct a uniting force and direct the future of the citizens into a better direction ensuring equality, human rights, and better quality of living. Moreover, Todorov (1999) states that it was necessary to make an effort to erase the memories of the darker days and instill hope in the citizens. Education was the available means to fight the approaching problems and destroy the seeds of discrimination. Since the North American colony had a good number of black populations against a considerable number of white people so, it was very important to bring them at par with them and not let them feel being discriminated. Hence, this paper â€Å"Black Education in British North America† came into being which will refer to several data and information to study the formation of the British North American colonies, the prevalent education system, the history of educating the ‘black population’. It would focus on the structural differences that the black children face in their education, the measures taken to diminish the differences, the extent of its success and the factors which brought about the change. Formation of the British North American Colonies The colonization of North America by the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland was a culminated result of a lengthy series of attempts and colonization drives by claimants more than one. According to Taylor (2001) the colonization drive in North America began in the year 1607 in the place called Jamestown, in Virginia and gradually colonies were established throughout the entire stretch of America. In America, British were considered as one of the most important colonizers since they established colonies over the largest area and posed a rivalry situation with the Spanish American Colonies in respect to economic and military power. As a result colonization of the America spread over a larger area, with a formidable reach, the British colony in North America gave room for the existence of three types of colonies, namely, charter colonies, proprietary colonies and the royal colonies. The diversity in the types of people, social, economical, and background provided the reasons for chaos and conflict among them on minor or major scale. The colonization drive by the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland, before the Acts of Union in 1707, led to the formation of the British North America colonies that was comprised of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania and New York. The formation of the thirteen colonies, with brought together people from not only different states but al so people with varied backgrounds – social, economica