Oedipus – a True Leader Is Born

A leader is like a guide; because others depend on him, he must be confident in his own abilities and be able to direct his followers towards their goal. While anyone can be a leader, a true leader is born, not made; although certain qualities can be taught, a natural-born leader possesses the intrinsic skill to command respect in a way a taught leader cannot. In Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, Oedipus shows himself to be a true leader. He is a great king and leader, as shown through the eradication of the Sphinx and the cleansing of the city’s miasma.While Oedipus is ultimately the source of the city’s woes, he still did all he could to find and purge the pollution from the city. Unlike Oedipus, Moses was not a natural-born leader. Moses did not possess faculty of commanding others; rather, his capacity for leadership was endowed upon him by God. Before his life changing encounter with God, he was a meek man, aware of the injustice of the world but incapable of doi ng anything about it. Thus, in comparison with Oedipus, Moses cannot be called a true leader. Their difference lies essentially in the source of their powers. Oedipus is born to be a leader; he is completely self-reliant.No divine involvement bestows his abilities upon him. More than anything, the gods are against him. Since his father violated the sacred pact between the guest and host, he has been cursed and doomed to a tragic end. Despite this, Oedipus’ innate skills are still able to bring him to his high status. With his intellect, he correctly answers the Sphinx’s riddle that countless others failed to solve, thus saving Thebes from the Sphinx and becoming king. Oedipus also possesses great resourcefulness. With all of the problems plaguing Thebes, he is not foolish enough to try to do everything by himself.He always knew the right people to ask for help. For example, he sends Creon to ask the Oracle of Delphi the reason behind the plagues. Also, after hitting a dead-end, he sends for the blind prophet, Tiresias, to aid in the investigation of Laius’ murder. Moses, on the other hand, is not a born leader. While Moses killed an Egyptian in defense of a Hebrew, he only wanted to pretend it never happened. He was incapable of leading the Hebrews in rebellion; the only thing he could lead was sheep. He even admits his inability, making excuses to God and imploring, â€Å"’O my Lord, please send someone else. ’(Ex. 4:13). It was only with God’s instruction that Moses was able to become a leader with the power to free the Hebrews. Compared to Oedipus, who relies on his own powers, Moses pales in comparison, as everything he does is reliant on God. God commands Moses to free the Hebrews; He allows Moses to perform miracles; He sends the ten plagues and parts the Red Sea. Moses just uses His words and power, essentially acting as His puppet and the bridge between Him and His people. The distinction in strength between t he two leaders is apparent through their respective relationships with their followers.Like a true leader, Oedipus has an overwhelming presence and commands the respect of his followers. When Oedipus says he will find and bring to justice Laius’ murderer, the citizens never waver or question him. Whether or not Oedipus has proof of god to support him does not matter to them; in fact, they even believe in Oedipus over Tiresias, saying, But that a mortal seer [Tiresias] knows more than I know–where Hath this been proven? Or how without sign assured, can I blame Him [Oedipus] who saved our State when the winged songstress came, Tested and tried in the light of us all, like gold assayed?How can I now assent when a crime is on Oedipus laid? (Socrates) Although Moses is also a successful leader in that he reaches his goal, his relationship with his followers is frail. When Moses goes up the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments from God, problems arise following his absen ce. Without his presence, his followers stray from the right path and begin worshipping a golden calf, which contradicts their covenant with God. Moses can not hold the complete faith of his followers like Oedipus can. While anyone has the potential to become a leader, a true leader is one that is born.Without God, Moses would be nothing more than another of the Hebrews oppressed by the Egyptians. In reality, God could have chosen any of the other Hebrews and led them to the same result. Moses cannot be called a true leader because, although he leads the Hebrews, he is nothing more than an intermediary for God. The true leader is actually God. He is Moses’ guide and the perpetrator of the liberation of the Hebrews. Oedipus, on the other hand, proves himself to be a true leader. He achieves everything—defeating the Sphinx, becoming king, saving Thebes—through his own abilities and controls the complete respect of his followers.

Gender Equality Essays - Gender, Social Constructionism, Free Essays

Gender Equality Essays - Gender, Social Constructionism, Free Essays Gender Equality Tyrone Cloyd Baltimore, MD Gender equality has been a social concern since man step foot on earth. When we think of gender equality discrimination against women is what comes to mind, but in recent years psychologist and sociologist have began to study how men are discriminated against. It is considered general knowledge that men still make more money a year then women, and it is true that men hold most of the position of power in society. Recent studies have concluded that there is an aspect of society that discriminates against men. This aspect of society is deeply rooted in the American culture, and it is hard to name, to discuses, and to study. Gender roles for men, then are viewed not as biological givens, but as social constructions created from the expectations of social forces such as parents, teachers, peers, and the media about what constitute masculinity (Pleck, 1995) Mahalik 1998}. Men are socialized to believe in the importance of success, power, and competitiveness. Because the male socialization experience is theorized to create negative feelings such as anxiety and shame related to all things feminine, the development of rigid traditional male roles, or male gender role conflict (ONeil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986) Mahalik 1998}. Looking at male emotional socialization from the framework of the gender role strain paradigm, many boys are required to block their feelings and restrict the expression of their vulnerable and caring emotions (Levant) Mahalik 1998}. Because of this, a man experiences any particular facet of self that he considers feminine with great conflict and anxiety, because he believes it threatens his manhood (Mahalik, Cournoyer, Defranc, Cherry, and Napolitano 1998). As a result of this fear of femininity, men are believed to over conform to traditional male roles as a coping strategy to avoid femininity (Pleck, 1995) Mahalik 1998}. Men are taught to use their roles prescribed by society as a psychological defense. When a man is confronted with an situation instead of dealing with the problem, men tend to fall back on the stereotypical masculine gender roles. Men hold their emotions inside and although they may not be immediately affected our health and well - being suffers in the long run. The improper socialization of males in American society affects all demographics of society. It affects men across socio - economic classes, and races and cultures. Improper socialization of males is an interesting topic to research and study because it affects the entire male population and it is going to take society as a whole working together to correct the problem. One way to began changing how males are socialized is to make the population aware of the psychological effects gender role conflicts. In mental health institutions, at hospitals, and colleges and universities there is an array of journals, pathlets, and articles written about how women are discriminated and socialized. With the new millennium approaching the effects of male socialization needs to be an equally important issue on the public policy agenda. More research needs to be done and published so that the message can spread throughout the country and the scholarly community. For background information two articles from the Journal of Counseling Psychology will be discus. The first, Mens Gender Role Conflict and Use of Psychological Defenses by James R. Mahilik, Robert J. Cournoyer, William DeFranc, Marcus Cherry, and Jeffrey M. Napolitano examines the way males are socialized and the way that their socialization affects how they respond in anxious situations. Specifically, the researchers are trying to determine if there is a relationship between stereotypical macho male roles and psychological defense mechanisms. There were one hundred and fifteen participants in this study. All participants in this study were males. Some of the participants were college students, others were from various clubs and organizations, and others were from church groups. The average age of the participants was 26.45 years. The participants were from a variety of cultural backgrounds, but the vast majority were white. The participants were first asked to complete the Gender Role Conflict Scale. This scale measures success, power, and competition; restrictive emotionality; restrictive affectionate behavior between men; and conflicts between work and family relations. The Defense Mechanism Inventory was used to measure the use of

The Redesigned SAT Math Test

The Redesigned SAT Math Test    In March of 2016, the College Board administered the first Redesigned SAT test to students who want to apply to college. This new Redesigned SAT test is very different from the SAT of years gone by and one of the major changes is the SAT Math Test. Different test types, content, and test format abound.   Confused about whats in store when you take the test and how the Redesigned SAT relates to the old SAT? Check out the Old SAT vs. Redesigned SAT chart for an easy explanation of each tests format, scoring and content, then read Redesigned SAT 101  for  all  the facts.   Aim of the Redesigned SAT Math Test According to the College Board, their wish for this math test is for it to demonstrate that students have fluency with, understanding of, and the ability to apply the mathematical concepts, skills, and practices that are most strongly prerequisite and central to their ability to progress through a range of college courses, career training, and career opportunities. Format of the Redesigned SAT Math Test 2 sections: Calculator Section and No Calculator Section80 minutes57 questions3 types of questions (multiple choice, grid-in, and extended thinking grid-in)4 content areas 4 Content Areas of the Redesigned SAT Math Test The new Math test focuses on four different areas of knowledge as described below. The content is divided between the two test sections, Calculator and No Calculator. Any of these topics can appear as a multiple choice question, a student-produced response grid-in, or an extended-thinking grid-in. So, on both test sections, you can expect to see questions related to the following areas: 1.  Heart of Algebra Analyzing and fluently solving equations and systems of equationsCreating expressions, equations, and inequalities to represent relationships between quantities and to solve problemsRearranging and interpreting formulas 2.  Problem Solving and Data Analysis Creating and analyzing relationships using ratios, proportions, percentages, and unitsDescribing relationships shown graphicallySummarizing qualitative and quantitative data 3.  Passport to Advanced Math Rewriting expressions using their structureCreating, analyzing, and fluently solving quadratic and higher-order equationsManipulating polynomials purposefully to solve problems 4.  Additional Topics in Math Making area and volume calculations in contextInvestigating lines, angles, triangles, and circles using theoremsWorking with trigonometric functions The Calculator Section: 37 questions | 55 minutes | 40 points Question Types 30 multiple choice questions6 student-produced grid-in questions1 extended-thinking grid-in question Content Tested 13 Heart of Algebra questions14 Problem and Data Analysis questions7 Passport to Advanced Math questions3 Additional Topics in Math questions The No Calculator Section: 20 questions | 25 minutes | 20 points Question Types 15 multiple choice questions2 student-produced grid-in questions Content Tested 8 Heart of Algebra questions9 Passport to Advanced Math questions3 Additional Topics in Math questions Preparing for the Redesigned SAT Math Test The College Board is working with the Khan Academy to offer free test prep for any student interested in practicing for the Redesigned SAT. In addition, other companies have great, reputable practice tests and questions to help get you ready.

War Crimes and crimes against humanity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

War Crimes and crimes against humanity - Essay Example Turkish officials killing Armenians during the war, Germans committing atrocities on Jews, Polish people and others, cases that came up during Nuremburg trials, Russian treatment of German prisoners all came under war crimes. Crimes against humanity include genocide, mass murder, en mass slavery, mass executions, enslavement, deportation, extermination etc. This means any atrocious act committed on a large group could be termed as crimes against humanity. Sometimes these two overlap one another. Paul Touvier, Klaus Barbie, and Maurice Papon in France, and Imre Finta in Canada are a few examples. The origins of the war crimes must have started as soon as the war started and that was immediately after the Stone Age when people began grouping together and individuality ended. The groups fought against one another and heaped atrocities on the vanquished men and women. In recent centuries, after the advent of social Darwinism, people have understood the sufferings and harshness that the wars have imposed on Mankind. In Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism, there are dictums against war and war crimes, especially so, in Buddhism and there are historical stories that inform us about the emperors who gave up the war path to avoid atrocities on ordinary soldiers and civilians. But in recent centuries once again, wars have been glorified and war crimes have taken place in many regions of all the continents. In first and second world wars, Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy like countries practiced war crimes. In later years, former Yugoslavia became another example of crimes against humanity. I t is the duty of International law not only to punish war criminals, but also to prevent such happenings. "Essentially, international humanitarian law has a two-fold purpose. It is intended to protect non-combatants, or those who are not now or never were, taking part in the fighting. It also limits the methods and means by which the fighting is carried out," Chuter (2003, p.59). War crimes could be of many kinds. It should involve 'cataclysmic, direct acts of violence', there should be 'logical connection between these events and the discipline of criminology' Yacoubian (2006, p.5). War crimes and crimes against humanity are not limited to only governments and armies. "The framework is not restricted to crimes committed by governments. Criminal acts committed by individual members of society, or corporations therein, are also eligible for inclusion" (Ibid). Genocide, ill-treatment of prisoners of war, ill treating women including sexual assault, mass murder, torture all come under this category of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The main purpose of International Criminal Court is to try war crimes and crimes against humanity and punish the deserving war criminals. Violations of Geneva convention like wilful killing, inflicting serious injury, inhuman torture, or starvation, confinement, wanton destruction of property, forcing a prisoner of war to serve the opposite side, torturing him or denying him a proper trial come under war crimes. In addition, taking hostages and using them for ransom, direct and purposeful attacks on civilians, attacking, injuring or killing peace workers, NGOs, charity organisations and humanitarian organisations like Amnesty international or Red Cross, killing doctors who are on duty as doctors also

Comparative and Contrast Essay Christianity and Islam

Comparative and Contrast Christianity and Islam - Essay Example   Jesus is the â€Å"Christ† which means the â€Å"anointed one†.   Jesus is the anointed one from God the Father who came to this world, fulfilled the Old Testament laws and prophecies, died on the cross, and rose from the dead physically (Slick, n.d.). The religion teaches that there is an existence of only one God. According to Christianity, God made the universe, the Earth and created Adam and Eve. Therefore, the best way to answer what Christianity is about is to say that it is a relationship with the true and living God through the person of Jesus Christ by whom we are forgiven of our sins and escape the righteous judgment of God (Slick, n.d.). Islam is regarded as one of the three central Abrahamic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity (Duncan, n.d.). Islam is derived from the word salaam which means â€Å"peace†, â€Å"submission to God†, and â€Å"way to peace†. The followers of Islam are the â€Å"Muslims† or those who â₠¬Å"submit† to God’s will. Duncan (n.d.) described Islam as a universal religion that teaches that God is merciful and compassionate, and that promises the faithful worldly peace and equality and entrance to a sublime eternity. It is a monotheistic religion which believes only in the existence of one God. Comparing and Contrasting Islam and Christianity These are some of the main similarities between Christianity and Islam. Peter Jackson (n.d.) stated that both religions say that there is only One God. This God is the most sovereign and he rules the history. The two religions also believe in Jesus. However, there are quite differences in how they believe him. Another similarity is the existence of Angels. Both religions believe in the existence of angels which are the referred to as the messengers of God. Both religions have Prophets and prophecy which includes many of the same characters such as Abraham, David, Noah and the like (Jackson, n.d.). The two religions also b elieve the concept of Heaven and Hell and God’s future judgment (Jackson, n.d.). Heaven is often portrayed as the holiest place in which people who have died continue to exist in an afterlife. Hell, on the other hand, is a place of suffering and punishment afterlife. God’s judgment will determine whether a person will be sent to heaven or hell after death. Although these two religions are similar in many ways, we can’t deny that they differ in a lot of ideologies and theologies. In both religions God is the creator of everything and he is loving and forgiving (McLean, 2007). One major difference between the beliefs of Christians and Muslims regarding God is that while Christians believe in the Holy Trinity, or three persons in one divine nature, Muslims believe that God is only one person and that the Trinity is the belief in three Gods (McLean, 2007). The two religions differ in their founder. Muhammad is the founder of Islam and believed by Muslims to be perfe ct and sinless. In Christianity, the founder is Jesus. For Muslims, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but also a political leader, which explains the common practice of integrated church and state in many Muslim countries (McLean, 2007). Both religions recognize Jesus but their beliefs about him vary. Islam and Christianity believe that Jesus was sinless, perfect and born of the Virgin Mary (McLean, 2007). The two religions accept that Jesus performed miracles and was ascended, or raised up, to God. McLean (2007) stated that Muslims see Jesus as a highly regarded prophet, while Christians see Him as God himself.

Greek society Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Greek society - Assignment Example Few philosophers show that historians have not understood the vital role played by women in Greek society. Women in Greek owed property and were respected in the society. By law, women were not prohibited to take part in activities of life (Burckhardt 67). Presence of water channel allowed ancient Greek to focus on trade. Access to Africa, Europe and Asia through see route allowed Greek to become commercial society. Extensive trade gave a touch of westernization in the society. Middleman became prosperous and new trends in weapon and armory were introduced (Burckhardt 71-72). Loans were given to ship owners as banking activity and financial transactions were part of ancient Greek life. Revolution in banking never stopped and different ways of commerce and trade were introduced (Sotiropoulos & Karamagioli 54). Arts were part of old society and marks of Greek arts are still visible in ancient civilization. Gender distinction played minimal role in ancient Greek as women also enjoyed freedom of practicing all visions of

Late Imperial Russia Essay Example for Free

Late Imperial Russia Essay How was Russia set up to be the nation it is today? Introduction: Imperial Russia all started in the 17th century where a man named Tsar Ivan IV the terrible battled and defeated the Mongols which were the previous rulers of Russia. He appointed himself the emperor of Russia and his heirs would carry on his principles and his way of ruling throughout the centurys to build a strong nation. The Tsars of the Romanov dynasty would carry on ruling till the last reign in 1890-1917 which was held by Tsar Nicholas II son of Tsar Alexander Ill, it was his and is fathers reign which changed Russia from having its own system (tsarism) to become a nation with a fair government Just like the European nations of their time. At first glance the Tsars were thought to be grateful to Russia e. g. ictory over the swedes which transformed Muscovy into a great power of Europe and Alexander II the liberator ended serfdom and restored the government of Russia after losing the Crimean war. However there were many situations, problems in governments and people that caused Russia to change from having Tsarism to having an official government such as parliament. Tsar Tsarism: The system of Tsarism was governed through three organisations: Firstly there was the imperial council, which were a group of advisers to the Tsar. Secondly there was the Cabinet of Ministers, which ran the government departments of the Tsar. Thirdly there was the Senate, which were the supervisors of the law. All three of these governmental bodies were ranked under the Tsar so every organisation they run, laws they make or suggestions, the final word or decision has to be from the current Tsar ruler, e. g. To quote Reaction and Revolution They were appointed, not elected nd they did not govern. This is because their roles are basically to give advice because whatever they say has to go through the Tsar. The Tsar which caused most problems were as I mentioned above Nicholas II and Alexander Ill because of what they tried to do to the Russian empire as well as what they didnt try to do, unlike their reforming heirs, they didnt fight for Russia or change for Russia, they only did what they did to benefit them, not the rest of Russia. By the time of Nicholass reign Russia stretched a distance of 5000 miles from west to east and 2000 miles from outh to north, this of course made ruling Russia even more difficult because one family couldnt possibly enforce their system on their own unless they had an actual government like other European countries of their time. Even though the sheer size of Russia gave it a well-known powerful image that its a nation of strength, it didnt prove that because parts of the landscape are either unreachable, uninhabitable or just not worth the time to build upon. Considering these facts Tsar Nicholas II wasnt indeed that powerful as well as the Tsarism system which soon lead to changing into communist government ruled by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Overall the system of Tsarism is the system the Tsar family ran to rule the nation of Russia, this involved only them having command and if any governmental bodies have any ideas to change/improve Russia they could only advise it as only the Tsars nad control. How did the geography of Russia compare to other nations in Europe and effect the Tsar: As IVe mentioned above, Russia consists a land mass of 16,093,440 Kilometres Squared which makes it 2 and a half times bigger than the USA and a whole lot harder to rule, this is because Russia of this time is being ruled by one family which nly cause poverty, social segregation and a failed work force, if you compare it to the USA of its time its doing far better than Russia because the USA is a democracy unlike Russia which is a socialist nation. The differences are that the USA vote and elect, they have different Parties which have different Jobs to run the country when Russia is run by one family which tries to do everything and when they do make laws or enforce something, it only rewards them not the nation. The advantage the Tsars had is that the size of Russia made them seem untouchable which explains the lack f countries invading or taking over Russia, this is the only way that the geography of Russia affects it positively, IVe mentioned how it affects Russia negatively e. . bad landscape, too much to rule over, cannot handle to control such a large area. Ruling Russia back then was difficult even with the Trans-Siberian Railway, sure it provided a way to cross the 5000 miles from west to east but it still caused neglect to places like Vladivostok and Irkutsk because they arent at all near the capitals such as Moscow and St Petersburg. How did the people of Russia effect the Tsar and what did they do to respond to the ays of the tsar: The people of Russia were so constricted because of Tsarism it caused many problems, one of the catalysts to the problems was that it was a criminal offence to go against the Tsar or Tsarism, therefore if anyone decided they wanted to reform the tsarism system they had to go through the Tsar themselves and of course if it goes against their wishes theyll say no and arrest the person responsible. There has been Reforming Tsars which improved transport, improved efficiency of the army, re-built cities so they could change Russia for the better, but ventually it was all done for nothing because whenever an heir gained the throne from a reformed Tsar they always went back to the strict ways. This did effect the nation greatly but not as much until the last Tsar ever: Nicholas II, he was meant to carry on the rulings his tatner made to help build Russia into a stronger nation e. g. mproving standard of living, education, employment etc. but he decided to go back to the old socialist ways that caused poverty, distrust of the nation and weakening the barrier between a fair command and compete domination of the people of Russia. People didnt Just stand around been ruled or told off by the tsars, there have been a few moments where theyVe risen up, worked together to eradicate the current Tsar leader or went underground to discuss what differences they could make on their own without the permission of the Tsar. For example since free speech was a common myth in the reigns of Tsar, various people most likely in political activist groups decided to go to extremism. They thought the only way they could get their word out or make a change is through threats or by force, for example in 1881 Tsar Alexander II was blown up by a bomb thrown from the Peoples Will hich were a terrorist group, they went this far because they didnt want to be plagued by the Tsar or Tsarism anymore. However other people of the nation went down low and created societies or non-activist groups which wouldnt allow the Tsars to see how theyre changing Russia in a non-obvious fashion, but eventually after they started to plan a revolution the Tsar caught on and decided to infiltrate them with their own secret police known as the Okhrama. They were issued to perform raids, arrests, imprisonments and infiltrations to stop the secret societies so the Tsar could carry on running the government. The only thing that was good that the Tsar provided to the people was an Orthodox Church in every city (ST. Petersburg Moscow), the people encouraged this because the church was a part of Russian culture and because it didnt rely on any foreign influence or governmental body. Of course the Church supported the tsarist system throughout the centurys right up to the 19th century where it became well opposed to political/governmental change which caused it to so low in growth, unlike the industrial part of Russia. Consider the fact the only 0. 5% of Russia is the Tsar and their advisors, 12% is military and the last 3. 9% is the public, the public consist of merchants, factory workers and owners, land owners and mainly peasants. This causes issues because of course the Tsar allow the chance that people can buy/own/sell land, but it comes with a price, considering most workers soon save up to buy a farm land but then it comes with a mortgage thus causing them to be in debt and nearly as poor as the peasants. This effected the economy massively because by these statistics 80% of the population were peasants, and they knew peasants were illiterate and have a lack of skills, this portion of the opulation was the catalyst to everything the people did in response to what the Tsar did to Russia. This made the Tsar lower the ranks of the army so they could be filled with conscription (the forcing of large numbers of peasants to Join the armed services), these were often called the Dark Masses. The problems caused by botn Tsarism and the People ot Russia : The issues that were caused by the Tsar effect Russia more frequently and at a higher scale after Alexander the seconds reign, this is because he was the first reforming Tsar for a while and what he did was for the better interest of the nation not himself; People tarted noticing his reforms in 1861 when he emancipated the Serfs, he restored Russias governing structure after the loss in the Crimean war and he set up a network of elected councils in the rural areas which were called Zemstvos, even though it seemed with these elected bodies that anyone could vote, that wasnt the case because of strict voting regulations only the land owners not the peasants could take part in the voting. Alexander II has obviously made a difference to his nation because of this evidence, but it still did solve the problem that there might be a hance that the next Tsar could ignore his reformative ways and create discipline, poverty and all the other problems again like other Tsars before him. He also feared that since hes doing all of this, hes not committing to his Tsar duties, so near the end of his reign he goes back to the old ways which doesnt affect much but leads to his assassination in 188111880. His successor Alexander Ill caused all sorts of problems, problems so bad that everyone in the nation felt oppressed during his whole reign, after he was replaced by Nicholas II things got even worse because he didnt like the eforming that alexander II did, so he carried on the repressive policies of his predecessor, which made Alexander the seconds reformation worth nothing, this of course angered the intelligent, richer and educated class of Russia known as the intelligentsia. The army of Russia was weakened by Nicholas II because he decided to lower ranks in the military so that even peasants could Join, this made becoming a high ranking officer easier therefore more of a chance to affect the tsarism system that Nicholas II has moulded. This weakened the force or strength of the military reatly, so much that the people created their own group called the Militia which basically had their own form of Justice against criminals. If the military was going downhill so was the Tsar because Just about 50% of their expenditure was funding the army which was only able to produce a million and nalt me, which does sound powerful but most of which were peasants and land owners. People of Russia had less specific reasons of why the army, or their nation is so bad, they thought that the Tsar civil service was corrupt and the evidence to show it was that its the nation hose tried and tried again to reform itself but always goes back and corrupts itself again. Many citizens accused the Tsar of sucking the blood of the people which refers to the fact that they control them, they corrupt them and they use them. Overall many people of Russia either appreciated the reformation to be on par with other nations or hating the reformation, the people which wanted the reformation were known as the Westerners because they wanted Russia to adopt aspects of European nations so they wont live in horrendous conditions e. g. destroyed towns/ cities because of wars. Or have economic problems e. g. iving in poverty. The people who wanted Russia to stay the same were known as Slavophiles they wanted to preserve the best aspects of Russia, yes solve the problems but not via adopting features of other European nations. Conclusion: The system of Tsarism is the system the Tsar family ran to rule the nation of Russia, this involved only them having command and if any governmental bodies have any ideas to change/improve Russia they could only advise it as only the Tsars had control. The geography of Russia effects its government greatly because it made them seem stronger when actually the tsar couldnt possibly control the whole of Russia, also because of the vast landscape they couldnt industrialise as fast as other nations could therefore putting them at a disadvantage as a nation. The people of Russia lived in poverty because of the strict rulings of the tsar, that the tsar couldnt control all of them, they were in debt if they paid for land, even if theyre factory workers everyone couldnt possibly benefit the whole nation. Because of the constant change of reforming tsars to cruel tsars the people of Russia didnt know what to do and what they can do, which lead to assassinations, societies being created and being invaded by military or police.