Month: February 2016

‘ the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany ? ‘ Do you disagree or agree

February 20, 2016 / / 0 Comments

The Treaty of Versailles was created to ensure the downfall of Germany so that they could not start another war. One side of the argument is that the Treaty was extremely unfair to Germany, as it took away some of her most valuable assets to the country and boosted the oppositions of Germany . However, the other side of the argument is that as Germany caused a lot of damage, They deserved to be punished and prevented from making more trouble.The Treaty of Versailles was the peace settlement signed after WW1 had ended in 1918 . The treaty was signed at the Versailles Palace in France by Germany. The three most important politicians in this case were David Lloyd George , Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson.

I strongly agree with the statement ‘ the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany’ because Germany lost a lot of their army , which made the countries life very hard including the citizens in it . The evidence for this is that by restricting the German army of only 100,000 volunteers, the Treaty left them defenceless and vulnerable. For such a large country, an army of 100,000 men was going work to keep order within Germany, but was not large enough to defend Germany from other invading powers. From this I can infer that Germany was a country who largely relied on their military to be a symbol of there pride and nationalism as it was so great, but the treaty took this way and also put the land of Germany at risk. This is the first reason why I agree with the statement ‘ the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany.’

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement ‘the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany’ the reason for this is that a lot of money was taken out of the German economy due to the fact that they had to pay the Allies. The evidence for this is that Germany had to make payments, these payments called reparations, would be paid monthly and would total some £6,600 million. This meant that Germany would suffer at a huge amount because as well was their army being stripped they now have to face paying the other countries large amount of money, which would also had an effect on its colonies. This I agree with the statement ‘the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany.’

Some people may disagree with the statement ‘ the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany’ because it was said by many that that as Germany caused a lot of damage, they deserved to be punished and prevented from stirring up more trouble. The evidence for this is that even though Germany had to pay the reparation ,many people believed that the reparations were fair as the amount was changed to a more reasonable figure in 1929. From this I can infer that Germany having to pay this was fair as it punished Germany as well as giving the smaller countries of Europe a chance to boost themselves. This is why some people may disagree with the statement  ‘ the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany.’

Another reason why some people may disagree with the statement ‘the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany’ is because Germany’s colonies were taken away due to the fact that it would fuel them to become a country that was rich again. The evidence for this is that Germany’s overseas empires were taken away as it was a cause of bad relations between Britain and Germany before the war, and that taking it away, would solve many problems. From this I can infer that this was to make sure that Germany did not have the funds to start another war or rebel against the treaty, to insure the safety of other countries. This is why some people may disagree with the statement ‘the treaty of Versailles is unfair to Germany.’

In conclusion, I think the treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany due to the fact that they were stripped of all their wealth and pride , for a war that was not entirely their fault. It is understandable that they caused a lot of damage during the war but I feel that treaty or the entire subject should of been dealt with in an entirely different way, making Germany’s chance to boost their economy slightly more realistic.

By Kelvin Asamoah

Is the merchant of Venice Anti-Semitic ?

February 19, 2016 / / 1 Comment

In this essay I will explore the question ‘is the merchant of Venice anti-Semitic ?’. Anti-semitisim is the hostility and discrimination towards Jews. There were many forms of discrimination towards Jews , a prime example of this was when they were segregated into the ghetto, away from all the other Christians as Jews were seen as a threat to them, the origin of the word ‘Ghetto’ comes from 2 different places , the first from the Italian word ‘geto’ which means to cast off. Also the other italian word ‘barghetto’ which means small community. In 1611 a man called  Thomas Corbat combined the two words and created the word ghetto. As the Jews were parted into this area they were also restricted from working in certain jobs , but on the contrary they had  jobs to do with the Jewish or Venetian stock exchange also know as The Rialto which was made as stereotype thorough out this period . Jews were often stigmatised and lives made hard as they were treated inhumanly like , they were used as a way of getting money. Throughout my essay I will asses the character who made these points take effect.

One way in which discrimination is shown in the merchant of Venice is in Shylock’s ” I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?” speech where he urges us the audience to understand that Jews and Christians share a common humanity.Shylock also exposes the hypocrisy of the Christian characters who are always talking about Christian love and mercy,  but then go out of their way to put down and divide , Shylock because he’s Jewish and different. From this I can infer that Shylock is saying that although he is a Jew , he is still a human just like a Christian. But a counterpoint to this speech that is often said by many, is that what is the reason for Shakespeare adding this speech to the play if he wanted Shylock to be seen as a villain and not a hero , this is because in this speech Shylock is expressing his feelings that he hates the way Jews are put down and discriminated , compared to Christians , this highly upsets him , So can Shylock be perceived as a villain throughout the whole play or only in certain moments of the play ?

In another area of the merchant of Venice , Anti-Semitism is shown again where Shylock is disgustingly mocked by Antonio in (1.3.121-122; 135-141)SHYLOCK :You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog,And spet upon my Jewish gaberdine,’Fair sir, you spet on me on Wednesday last,You spurned me such a day; another time You called me dog; and for these courtesies I’ll lend you thus much moneys’?
ANTONIO : I am as like to call thee so again, To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too. In this part of the play Shylock wholeheartedly proclaimed the way Antonio has treated like a piece of rubbish , then Antonio shows no sign of sympathy, cold-hearted and is unapologetic , therefore insists that his racist behaviour towards Shylock will never change , not even if he lends him money. From this passage in the play I can infer that Shylock is clearly discriminated by Antonio due to his actions of hatred towards him , once for again for the main reason of ‘HE IS A JEW’. Antonio then goes to say that his ways towards Shylock will not change, even if he is given money by Shylock. But on the other-hand certain people may say that Antonio did this out of his pure jealousy for Shylock due to his riches, but in my opinion he only did this because he is Jew therefore Antonio will not respect him. I strongly wonder if Antonio’s abuse towards Shylock is to blame for his possible downfall later on in the play…

In my opinion Anti-Semitism is shown in an area where, Shylock shows the justice system is corrupt , because throughout the play , people such as Antonio and his associates, as well as other Christians characters in the play constantly try to accuse Shylock of being evil, barbarous and cold-hearted , due to the fact of wanting Antonio’s Flesh, But Shylock declared and proclaimed in Act 4, Scene 1 “You have among you many a purchased slave, which , like your asses and your dogs and mules, you us in object and in slavish parts because you bought them.” Here Shylock is highlighting the non-fictional point of the Christians in Venice being involved in the slave trade in the 1500s. This is where ” Venice had established a thriving slave trade, buying in Italy, amongst other places, and selling to the Moors in Northern Africa, the Venetians began to sell Slavs and other Eastern European non-Christian slaves in greater numbers.” From this Shylock is showing us the audience , that the Christians talk about having love and mercy but were largely involved in a very evil act of slavery. The Christians and Venetian state are discriminating him by saying he is a bad person, but they make there money from slavery , treat Jews like animals and are corrupt , so if Shylock was in Antonio’s situation a pound of flesh would be taken from him, So in this case Shylock is not wrong for wanting is bond.

In conclusion to my essay , I think the merchant of venice is an anti-semitic play due to the points I have highlighted above , where Shylock countless times is brought down by the Christians and mocked because he is Jew. I also think that the Christians are to blame for Shylock’s villainy throughout the play, I think this turned out to be costly for the Christians as there comes a point where Shylock’s understanding and Sympathy is needed but will be over-shone by his revengeful and villainy thoughts.

By Kelvin

References to : Cambridge School Shakespeare Merchant of Venice