Recent orders
Distinctions in colonial America
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Distinctions in colonial America
The three sets of American colonies differed like day and night economically and socially hence there were minimal similarities. This maybe partly attributed to variability in terrain, and different climates compelling them to live uniquely. The three colonies are; the middle colonies, the New England, and the southern colonies.
The middle colonies were situated between the southern colonies and New England. The region was well endowed with fertile agricultural land leading to commercial farming, good ports and suitable drainage. In addition, the middle colonies did well when it came to commercial activities (U.S. Department of Education, pg22). They traded both internally and externally, practiced farming, and owned small industries. The “Holy Experiment” which was established by the Quakers admitted that it was possible to a person to live on his own and function well. This made people to practice religious freedom, thereby making the place a multi cultural.
The New England was situated in northern colony. The landscape was mainly rocky making the region unsuitable for agriculture (U.S. Department of Education, pg22). Hence, their economy majored in shipbuilding and shipping. However, they little engaged in distance trading and fishing activities. It is believed that colonists decided to settle their because of the religious freedom, and the dominant religion was the Puritan religion. Individual, both male and female, were highly educate even in rural areas. The individuals there believed in Winthrop’s covenant theory that their city would be a city that people modeled after for years to come (Parrillo, Pg50). They shared a common ancestry thereby tightening family unit, which had many of members. The region had cultural homogeneity than other regions. Hard work ethics were highly demanded.
The southern colonies were found on the most southern colony with more numbers of slaves, making the region to have larger percentage of African people. The whole economy specialized in farm since this is the region that had the best farmland (U.S. Department of Education, pg22). They had big chunks of land and hired people as indentured servants, who worked on their rice and tobacco plantation. This was the only way to earn a living. However, individuals were not religious, and the illiteracy levels were higher. This was attributed to higher level of poverty and inexistence of formal school (Parrillo, Pg51).
In all the regions, social class and regional residence had more impact on women lives. Majority made candles, soaps, and clothing. They also milked and performed other farm chores (Parrillo, Pg51). Generally, Education, economic endowment, religion practices, differences are key reasons why the three regions have developed uniquely.
Work cited
Parrillo, Vincent N.” Diversity in America” Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, 2009. Print.
U.S. Department of Education. “Made In America: Courage, Imagination, Determination 2006-2007 In Words and Deeds Symposia Series” U.S. Department of Education. 2007.
Distinguish between different types of leadership theories and demonstrate key leadership skills needed to deal effectively w
32645358851265450000
24072853208020RISK MANAGEMENT
0RISK MANAGEMENT
Question 1: Distinguish between different types of leadership theories and demonstrate key leadership skills needed to deal effectively with elements of a disaster
There are various leadership theories that are in-line with the Earthquake Hämelandia, hence for the purpose of this report the following theories will be used. In addition, the theories will be connected to the leadership’s skills that are effective with all the facets of the disaster.
Trait Leadership Theories
This theory is based on the trait of an individual person. The theory believes that a leader is born with leadership traits, this are attributed to the leadership skills and knowledge of the leader or manager (Bennett, 2010). This theory assumes that all the leaders have to have certain skills in order for them to be able to lead others. For the case of the Earthquake Hämelandia disaster, some of the leaders such as Nathan (current Team Lead), Heidi (Current deputy lead), Taku (Head of security), Melanie (Mobile clinic leader), Tarja (Camp Management) were given their first task as soon as the disaster took place, hence this could be attributed to the skills that they already have and have shown. However, the following leadership’s skills must be on board for the disaster leaders to be able to manage it as well as lead others effectively: accept responsibility easily; leaders attending to disaster response should be able to respond easily when such situation happen, as for the case of Hämelandia disaster, effective and efficient leaders should have this skills to ensure the safety of help of the victims (Zook, Graham, Shelton & Gorman, 2010). Able to motivate others; in case of disasters of Hämelandia disaster magnitude, leader should be able to have skills to motivate others to work. A leader should be able to work under the clock to ensure more and more employees or workers are able to come on board to work in disaster situation in order to help people out of trauma of disaster as well as save lives. The last skills that this paper will elaborate as of the case of the Hämelandia disaster is high flexibility skills, since disaster come with various emergency issues a leader in charge should be able to change as pertained (Yates & Paquette, 2011).
Behavioral Leadership Theories
This theory speaks of leaders able to learn leadership styles not something that they are born with. The theory is divided into four styles. This division will help explain the difference that it shows on how Hämelandia disaster should be managed. Focus on the work: leaders with this style are based on how the leaders are able to organize other people so that they could be able to handle their jobs in the most effective and efficient manner. For the case of the Hämelandia disaster, the leaders were able to understand this style, this means they were able to implement this style under the behavioural theory, this is because they were able to organize others people to help in the management of the disaster. For example, I was able to handle the request from the BBC interviewer and advised him to have the doctors as the best person to handle the issues. This was because of technical that the doctor could only address, in addition chain on administration was worth to consider (Yates & Paquette, 2011).
Focus on the people: this means that leaders should ensure that employees’ demands are met, this is so since workers under favourable conditions are motivated to work, hence better production and increased job satisfaction. In the case of the Hämelandia disaster, leaders in charge with the disaster were able to conduct meeting in order to meet the demand of the workers in the field. They informed the staff how to handle the disaster as well as inform them of the changes in management as well as administration (Underwood, 2010).
Direct leader: this are leaders that make decisions on behalf of others and expect them to work based on the decisions made by the leaders. Hämelandia disaster did not follow this style rather it followed focus on people and focus on work. Participative leader: this is a leader who works with others to come up with a decision, early morning briefing and coordination meeting were used during the Hämelandia disaster to get the best approaches to handle the disaster.
Situational Leadership Theories
This type of leadership style depends on other styles of leadership. This leadership theory talks of change of one situation to the other, therefore a leader should be able to change according to the situation as it come. In the case of the Hämelandia disaster, leaders were able to change or to adjust from one case to the other as the event of the disaster help changed from one to the other. The theories also states that just having the different leadership styles does not add to the later concept of success, but the leader must also be able to apply leadership style to various situations in order to influence the others (Solecki, Leichenko & O’Brien, 2011). Hämelandia disaster leaders were able to influence other to come in numbers to be able to help the victims of the disaster, therefore, it is worth mentioning that leaders under these theories much be adaptive to varied situations as well as persuasive to encourage others to take part in a project such as the Hämelandia disaster case. For example, at the start of the disaster I was to address issue on gender and violence but was able to change the situation as took into consideration the flight of the clinic where it needed vast attention.
Management Leadership Theories
This is also known as transactional theories. The theory was developed based on the punishment and rewards for the work undertaken by employees. If employee are successful there are highly rewarded in various ways. In the case of the Hämelandia disaster, employees were reward, after the three some of the employees were assigned task, for example Year 2 associates were assigned work by the leaders while other Year 3 and 4 were also assigned task of higher level that expected but they were able to undertake this task with ultimate performance. This is a promotion to the associates hence a reward (Smith, 2013).
Relationship Leadership Theories
These theories is also known as transformational theories. It is based on the relationship between the leader and their followers or employees. The leader has the obligation of ensuring that others work for the group and not themselves. In the case of the Hämelandia disaster, the leaders had to motivate others employee to work as a disaster team and not for them in order to help the victims of the disaster. At the end the subordinates together with the leaders were able to help the victims of the Hämelandia disaster (Sever, Vanholder & Lameire, 2006).
Critically appraise Risk Management issues that affect management of Disaster Response
Mobilization of people
Staff that will help those in disaster and the nature of the victims is an issues that risk managers during disaster response is a case to consider when managing disasters in the world such as the Hämelandia disaster. Being able to mobilize employees that compose the risk management team is always a hard task as disaster are not planned events. The people are full of activities both domestic and workplace hence being able to bring these people together during disaster is a critical issues when managing risk. Therefore, management of people given such a case is a difficult task that needs special consideration during such events that happen without notice. As in the case of Hämelandia disaster, the risk management team had a credible plan hence did not face problem mobilizing its people (Patterson, Weil & Patel, 2010).
In addition, attending to victims and being able to bring them on board during disasters is also a hard affair that needs serious evaluations. Most of the victims are always injured if not medically unfit while others are always confused or traumatized as a result of such a disaster. For example, Hämelandia disaster risk management team had critical evaluated the best strategies and programs that they easily employed hence able to manage the victims.
Resources
Resource allocation is one of the hardest tasks when dealing with disasters in the world. The resource range from financial resources, social resources, and political resources. The ability to mobilize resources to be able to meet the demands of a disaster situations sounds easy, but the aftermath are always complex. Since disasters are unplanned events, it is always hard to plan the amount of funds to be used to manage disasters hence an issue of great interest amid risk management teams. Therefore, private and government disaster response agencies are always on board to allocate a share of their budget to disasters (Mete & Zabinsky, 2010). This is done in this accord to ensure that disasters are handled with ease. In addition, in case the state is not able to manage a disaster, the risk management team calls for international assistance such cases are called “National Disasters”.
Social Cost
The social impact that come with disaster is always the biggest issue to consider when undertaking such a process of risk analysis and management. As for the case of the disaster risk analysis most of the team of experts are not able to articulate the procedure to ensure that people affected during the disaster are helped. In most cases this is known as social welfare support. For the case of the disaster such as the Hämelandia disaster, there were various victims that faced social problems. The cost of social welfare was overboard and the people could not be able to integer the exert cost needed. This is because some of the victim’s family were traumatized with the issue and also needed social support.
There are various issues that come with critical appraisal of disaster risk management concerns. However, the above are the main issues that occur frequently in most cases during disasters.
Critically evaluate Management Skills needed for assessment of priorities, allocation of resources including manpower and co-ordination of activities in disasters
Risk analysis skills: In order to be considered as one of the best risk manager one should be able to poses a risk analysis skills. This has been one of the key issues that raise problems when determining the resource to allocate ad the priorities to give to risks. A good risk analyst will be able to take into consideration all the facets that come with the risk and able to allocate the right resources needed. In addition, there are various reasons why this skill is needed, priorities are essential in every business not forgetting that it adds value to coordination of resource such a personal during disasters (Guha-Sapir, Vos, Below & Ponserre, 2011).
Communication skills:
The ability to be able to effectively with others members in the disaster is one of the skills highly needed when conducting a risk management. Effective communication will help the team to communicate with others and resource allocation will be easy and will be done in the most efficient way (Cutter, Burton & Emrich, 2010). Without communication there will be limited coordination of issues hence a cause of problem when managing disasters. Therefore, risk managers should have excellent communication skills.
Personal Reflection of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Most victims were faced with the after effects of PTSD. Most of this patients were even not the actual victims or the primary victims but the families and friends of the primary victims. The cause of PSTD was mainly due to death or serious injuries of the family members or friends. Although we hard to place a lot of care to the primary victims were faced with PSTD, we were able to undertake home victims to counsel them and to referrer them for further assistance if there cases were worse. A good number of the victims were able to pick up normality after sometime but most of them could not be able to. The victims underwent various checks up to ensure that they meet medication or diagnosis needed of them. There was a follow up team that ensured all the PSTD victims were in their best health after treatment.
References
Bennett, P. (Ed.), 2010. Risk communication and public health. Oxford University Press.
Birkmann, J., Buckle, P., Jaeger, J., Pelling, M., Setiadi, N., Garschagen, M., … & Kropp, J, 2010. Extreme events and disasters: a window of opportunity for change? Analysis of organizational, institutional and political changes, formal and informal responses after mega-disasters. Natural Hazards, 55(3), 637-655.
Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T, 2010. Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1).
Field, C. B. (Ed.), 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
Guha-Sapir, D., Vos, F., Below, R., & Ponserre, S, 2011. Annual disaster statistical review 2010. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters.
Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S, 2003. Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Natural Hazards Review, 4(4), 176-185.
Mete, H. O., & Zabinsky, Z. B, 2010. Stochastic optimization of medical supply location and distribution in disaster management. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(1), 76-84.
Patterson, O., Weil, F., & Patel, K, 2010. The role of community in disaster response: conceptual models. Population Research and Policy Review, 29(2), 127-141.
Sever, M. S., Vanholder, R., & Lameire, N, 2006. Management of crush-related injuries after disasters. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(10), 1052-1063.
Smith, K, 2013. Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge.
Solecki, W., Leichenko, R., & O’Brien, K, 2011. Climate change adaptation strategies and disaster risk reduction in cities: connections, contentions, and synergies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 135-141.
Tsai, C. H., & Chen, C. W, 2010. An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment information for the tourism industry-a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 31(4), 470-481.
Underwood, S, 2010. Improving disaster management. Communications of the ACM, 53(2), 18-20.
Yates, D., & Paquette, S, 2011. Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 6-13.
Zook, M., Graham, M., Shelton, T., & Gorman, S, 2010. Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Medical & Health Policy, 2(2), 7-33.
Distinctions Between Recent And Older European Philosophies
Distinctions Between Recent And Older European Philosophies
The 18th and the late 19th Centuries played homage to conservative philosophy that was mainly characterised by early philosophers examining the nature of their institutions and seeking to apprehend the principles by which they lived. This kind of philosophy saw various philosophical scholars judge the then peoples’ ways of living based on the principles of human nature (Kirk, 2001, 409). Conservative philosophers sought to let the people discover the best means of upholding their good moral values. Nietzsche was one of the early philosophers who articulated for the conservation of societal values.
On the other hand, the late 19th Century and 20th Centuries saw an emergence of ‘radical’ philosophical scholars who analysed and identified points of arguments from the many conservative works that were already put in place by the early philosophers such as Nietzsche. One of these contemporary philosophers included Julian Young. This paper will use both Nietzsche and Young in contrasting conservative philosophical with radical Continental philosophical ideas.
Julian Young’s philosophical works have been greatly praised for applying real-life examples in their arguments. However, some of his works have been criticised for being manifested with examples that do not reflect the seriousness of the philosophical ideas expressed in them, for instance, he has constantly incorporated global warming ideas as part of his examples in some of his works. He appropriately underlined the view that postmodernism, despite having been embraced with value diversities, was not different from the earlier 19th-century philosophical modernism that Nietzsche greatly hated (Fukuyama, 2010).
In this scenario, Young critiques the philosophical works of Fredrick Nietzsche-a Greek philosopher whose works had borrowed a lot from Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophical works; especially Schopenhauer’s work titled ‘The World as Will and Represented, which was published in 1818 and revised in 1844 (Magee, 1997, p.289). Nietzsche’s works, as noted by Becker (2003), were mainly pre-occupied with the “the problem of morality” and it was from the same perspective that Young developed his criticisms (p. 123).
Young begun by reviewing the contradictions that emerged when Nietzsche engaged in social criticism, especially in his first work titled the ‘Birth of Tragedy’-a title that was to be later renamed ‘Hellenism and Pessimism’(Young, 2003, p.44-45).
In this book, Nietzsche had pointed out that the Greek people known in advance all the sufferings that were associated with their existence or lifestyles in the world. This, he stressed, were revealed in their myths that emphasized more on the negatives that were associated with the existence of their Greek people in the world. For instance, the myth about a vulture which fed on an important member of society (a philanthropist) had showed that the majority of Greek people were fully informed on the ‘terrors and horrors’ that existed in their society (Young, 2003, p.45). The metaphor of a vulture feeding on a philanthropist underscored the vulnerability of the society – vulture is an inherently harmless bird hence its ability to kill a prominent personality only served to outline how vulnerable the Greek society was. As such therefore, it is expected that the society ought to have prepared itself fully to overcome the many challenges and/or sufferings that characterized its daily lifestyles.
On the other hand, while re-telling this chapter, Young wanted to highlight the distinction that existed between the conservative and radical continental philosophy. This is so because though Young strongly believed that Nietzsche had come up with this evocative theory not only to make ‘us’ understand ourselves in the ‘polished mirror’ provided by the Greeks in their myths, but also to promote the works in his field of profession – literature (Young, 2003, p.45). Young felt this philosophical idea (which was conservative in nature) had not, in any way, developed with the right intention by Nietzsche but had just been tailored to achieve Nietzsche’s ulterior motive. He went on justify his assertion by highlighting that by insisting that people had to support music dramas of, his the most trusted German philosopher friend, Richard Wagner to fight their nihilism or “unknowing/or meaningless” notions, he was only promoting Wagner’s attempt to build an opera house at Bayreuth (Young, 2003, p.46). This house was used to host music festivals that were to give praise to philosophical works of various authors. This, according to Young, was not radical, but conservative in nature.
Though many people may disagree with the views of Julian Young in opposing Nietzsche’s and Schopenhauer’s ideas on the need to support their societal values, it should be noted that the fact that the Bayreuth music festivals have been held to regularly in present days to praise conservative ideas points to the fact that their proponents may have achieved their first success in the battle for their recognition. In further justifying his criticism, Young had noted that Nietzsche had used an “ambiguous” solution called Apollonian. This solution called on individuals to enhance their consciousness through art; a requirement that was also to be fulfilled in another way if the same individual expressed his consciousness in the midst of many individuals seated at a place (Young, 2003, p.46). To Young’s view, this argument was just tailored to support Wagner’s music festivals – which required participants to make their performances that supported literary works in front of a large audience – a principle referred to “us” by Nietzsche and by Schopenhauer as “‘principium individuations.” This criticism points to the notion that Nietzsche as a renowned conservative philosopher did not entirely restrict himself within a particular philosophical era and/or genre; he at times veered into completely different genres and/or eras.
Beside, Young disagreed with Nietzsche’s point of view that the Homeric Greeks had erected a ‘transfigured ‘self-portrait that t, according to Nietzsche, symbolized the presence of Jesus in their midst thus seducing the Greeks to continue existing. In using the ‘transfigured’ portrait, Nietzsche wanted to stress how ancient Greeks were strongly involved in upholding Christian principles as opposed to modern day Christians who were ungodly to the extent that they had led to the death of ‘God’. Though Young does not directly question the Christianity principle behind the idea, the fact that she questioned the use of the imagery by stating that Jesus never had sex and even went ahead to state that Nietzsche had contradicted himself when he affirmed that transfiguration referred to ‘illusion’ and ‘lies’ and that Homer’s works, whether good or evil, were deified justified her opposing stance on the whole issue (Young, 2003, p.46-47). Young went ahead to wonder why Nietzsche had taken delight in the ‘beautiful forms’ of Homer even after having discovered that they contained a lot of lies (Young, 2003, p.47). To him, he saw a sinister motive in Nietzsche’s arguments. He compared it to a person who at one instance affirmed that life was terrible, and after a short while reaffirmed that the same life was terrible. Young compared Nietzsche’s case to the lifestyles of “star” or famous persons who, despite engaging in all kinds of evils, for instance drunkenness and prostitution, still attracted positive attention from members of the public who wanted to be associated with their ‘stardom’. This, in Youngs opinion, was not worth it.
Young felt that the adopted Apollonian approach was very poor and that there was no way it could have been used to ‘fight’ nihilism, ‘nausea’ and despair. This was supported when Young stressed that the pain of things affected the victim no matter what power the victims had (Young, 2003, p.48).Moreover, though Nietzsche had associated Apollonianism with negativity, he had contrasted his perception in his view of Dionysian when he associated this second ‘solution’ with rapture, intoxication, ecstasy and frenzy and bringing a sense unity amongst people. However, this view was opposed by Young, who saw it as leading to lose of the individualism hence value (Young, 2003, p.49). To Young therefore, Nietzsche was thus contradicting his first solution.
Conclusively, Young noted that the early Nietzsche’s had adopted a lot from his predecessor, Schopenhauer, but as time came to pass, the ‘later’ Nietzsche had come to acknowledge his “weakness” to the extent that he re-stated that his earlier works had been compiled when he was suffering from ‘romanticism’-a combination of pessimism and world comfort (Young, 2003, p.50). He even went ahead to advise the youths to abandon metaphysics. This showed that his earlier conservative ideas lacked the moral foundation as articulated in them.
Young’s view cannot be sustained in Critchley’s perspective of Nietzsche’s work. To start with, it is vital to note that Critchley, as a 20th Century philosopher, had previously succeeded in putting the philosophical disputes of the 20th Century in a nutshell by applying ‘balanced’ or objective critiques to the philosophical works of the 19the Century philosophers (Critchley, 2003, p.2). It is from this objective assessment that his perspective on Nietzche’s work cannot be sustained with the assessment of Julian Young. This is because though Young, in most of philosophical works, had criticised Nietzsche perspectives on nihilism without deriving any meaningful conclusion from them, Critchley was of the view that Nietzsche’s view of nihilism could be interpreted in two forms-active and passive forms(Critchley, 2003, p.83).
With passive nihilism, he held the view that a person of that nature simply focused on activities that could help in transforming his nature (for instance pleasure), especially when faced with challenges or sufferings of the world. When faced with such challenges, a passive nihilist achieved a mystical stillness or calm contemplation. This was referred to as European Buddhism in the words of Nietzsche (Critchley and Schroeder, 1999, p.12).
Active nihilism was viewed by Critchley as a mere expression of physiological decadence-individuals engaging in acts of wildly creative terrorism (Critchley, 2003, p.83).
Likewise, Critchley saw nihilism as not being the negation of the moral principles of Christianity in the world, but a consequence that led to this negation (Critchley, 2003, p.84). This view fails to sustain Young’s earlier.
However, Critchley and Young’s views corresponded when Critchley stressed that the cultural mood of weariness, exhaustion, apathy and fatigue as was summarized in Nietzsche’s memorable formula dubbed ‘Modern Society’ no longer had the strength to excrete.
From the arguments presented by the two authors, I can side with Julian Young. This is because he has identified and clearly justified his points of disagreement. For example, he clearly highlighted that Nietzsche had affirmed that Apollonianism contained a lot of weaknesses and negativity and yet Nietzsche had strategically advocated for adoption of its principles; with the main intention of coercing the masses into supporting Wagner’s music festivals.
The arguments accompanying Nietzsche’s philosophical work were many. This highlights the fact that his work had knowledge ‘gaps’ that gave its critiques foundations for launching their criticisms. Furthermore, Nietzsche’s “surprising” worldly actions may have contributed in creating knowledge ‘gaps’ in his conservative ideas (Small, 2007, p.203). For example, his decision to walk out of Wagner’s music launch event left many radical and later philosophers arguing that he did not hold firm stands over issues, some of which he had strongly advocated for in his works.
References
Becker, L.C. (2003). A history of Western ethics. New York: Routledge.
Critchley, S. & Schroeder, W.R. (1999). A companion to continental philosophy,USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Critchley, S. (2003). A very short introduction to continental philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2010). Nietzsche: A philosophy in context, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/books/review/Fukuyama-t.html
Kirk, R. (2001).The conservative mind: from Burke to Eliot, Regnery Publishing, Washington D.C.
Magee, B. (1997).The philosophy of Schopenhauer, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Small, R. (2007). Nietzsche and Rée: A Star Friendship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, J. (2003). The death of god and the meaning of life. New York: Routledge.