Recent orders
A Raisin in the Sun and Fences
A Raisin in the Sun and Fences
Student’s Name
Institution
A Raisin in the Sun and Fences
Why “A Raisin in the Sun” and “Fences” are coincidence plots.
The plots of both “A Raisin in the Sun” and “Fences” are a coincidence. In both the texts, the central characters who are Walter and Troy respectively portray the same characterization of causing misunderstanding in the families as well as reverse fortunes which significantly brings confusion and irony at the climax of both stories. Coincidentally, in both the texts the authors depict the collapse of the African-American families around the mid-1950’s where the settings are in poverty based black residential in the United States.
The climax of “A Raisin in the Sun” arose as Walter gets into a disagreement with his wife and mother after the insurance money left by their deceased father. The ten thousand dollars confused the family as Walter seen it as an opportunity to venture into liquor business that he believed could earn him significant profits. Mama and his wife were for the money be used to pay Beneatha’s medical school expenses, and the rest could be used to find a new apartment where the family could comfortably settle (Hansberry, 1994). It is ironical that despite Walter going against the family will of paying his sisters fees, the money ends up being stolen and they ended up moving to the new mansion. Considering the text “Fences,” Troy get involved in a conflict with his Son Cory by being a hindrance to the boy being register to a college football scholarship forum. It is ironical that the unfinished fence around their backyard signifies incompletes of the family which is portraying by the protagonist act of straying with another woman and misunderstanding in the family leading to its breaking. Also, the irony is depicted by the action of Gabriel wishing his deceased well and sings that the doors of heaven to be opened for him despite his mistreatment.
Stagecraft description.
Stagecraft efficiently depicts the author’s skills in writing stage plays. Stagecraft in both “A Raisin in the Sun” and “Fences” does not only portray the settings and other literary devices in the plays but also essential in suggesting the actions in the play through physical elements. Minimal use of the stagecraft in both plays significantly leaves the audience in suspicion not having the precise information regarding what will happen next in the play, hence creating attraction. It is right that in both texts the devastating power of poverty, segregation, and oppression of the black American are portrayed to affect the families depicted throughout the plot. For instance, in the “A Raisin in the Sun” Ruth tells Travis that Mama could not give him fifty cents to go to the supermarket because they do not have the money. However, how have they portrayed the theatre epic? The use of right costume and other traditional elements that could postulate the culture of Africa-American during this decade would be significant for the audience.
In suggesting the actions and plot of the plays, both the writers depict their skills in staging. In consideration of the “Fences,” August Wilson’s has significantly applied the art by symbolically using the undone fence around Troy’s backyard. It depicts the incompleteness the couple’s relationship, and it becomes clear later after the act of Troy moving out of the marriage for another woman. It also signifies the certain boundaries that put the African-Americans in working for the white to earn a living and sustain their requirements. The minimal offering of the stagecraft to the audience in both plays makes the drama interesting as apart from generating their eagerness it also depicts the culture through the use of physical activity limitations.
Walter and Troy characterization
They were both pessimistic. Being African-American men who had families, they had hopes and worked hard to one day ensure that their families live well regardless of their ethnicity. Walter worked as a chauffeur for the white man, and he had hopes that the left insurance money by his father would be an essential opportunity to venture into a business that could brighten the family’s future. On the other hand, despite Troy having the lousy character of stealing, after the jail term, he worked hard to establish his baseball potentiality and also worked for the white men as other black people to sustain the family’s needs. Both are depicted as egoistic. The act of Walter refusing to pay his sisters medical school expenses only to end up investing all the money in an unviable business postulated selfishness. He did not mind about the other family members’ views and feelings and was only for his opinions be put in place. The case is the same with Troy as for the first instance he did not help his brother Gabriel with the compensation money and instead he purchased a mansion where they lived with his family.
Round characters by the authors depict both Walter and Troy. They are fully developed to serve the purpose of the plays from the beginning to end. Walter is the main character has been reflected as an antagonist of other family members as well as a caring and loving person at the end by his act of admitting not to sell the new mansion. Also, Troy has been portrayed as a three-dimensional character regarding his act of trying all he can to survive moving from the act of stealing to playing baseball and finally working family sustenance. Both generate the plots of the plays.
Walter Lee foils
The author illustrates Lena Younger and Beneatha Younger as Walter’s foils. At all the instances they are against the protagonist, and there is no any single time they do not support Walter. Lena Younger despite being Walter’s mother she is his antagonist and this is depicted during their disagreement on how to spend the inheritance money. After making her decision, Lena states that three hundred and fifty dollars have been used to purchase the mansion and the rest will be given to Walter to deposit them in his bank account, pay three hundred dollars for Beneatha’s schooling and use the rest in his business. She qualifies to be a foil as throughout the play she appears to contradict Walter’s will and end up standing for the family betterment.
On the other hand, Beneatha Younger apart from being Walter’s sister she is an active antagonist throughout the play. It is portrayed when they disagree when arguing about the insurance money spending. Walter tells her to stop her education eagerness and find a job to earn a living or marry like other women in the region (Hansberry, 1994). It hurts Beneatha as she is passionate in studying medicine and ends up blaming and assuming her brother’s words which are devastating. The drunk Walter abuses her boyfriend in her presence, but she ignores that and goes their ways leaving him alone.
Troy as the protagonist
Troy is the central character in the play “Fences” by August Wilson. He is the personality that evolves throughout the play, and the plot of the drama is developed through his characterization. The theater can be said to depict his life and association with other people. At the beginning of the scene he is portrayed as a criminal after the rejection and mistreatment by his father, and he ended up in jail where he realized his baseball passion. The climax comes to be through his character of being protective, caring and to some extent egocentric. The act of being protective made conflict arise between him and his son Cory who had a dream of ones becoming a football champion. However, Troy with his experience at the higher level athletes prevented his success in being registered to the college football league that could significantly open his doors.
The reason behind Troy rejecting his son’s recruitment was saving him from the segregation and discrimination at the higher boards. It efficiently portrays that he is caring and minds about his family future. Troy also worked hard to the extent of being promoted with the aim of providing his family’s needs. On the other side, Troy depicts the egoistic character that made him hurt his wife without minding the effects their relationship was endangered too. After, going astray and getting a daughter with another woman, Troy says that her mother is dead and she is innocent thus it is the role of Rose to bring her up (Wilson, 1994). In all cases the conflict arises in the play, Troy is a victim in one way or the other.
Marriage Troubles
In both Troy and Rose and Walter and Ruth Younger marriages are faced with troubles that endanger their relationships. Regardless of the difficulties in their marriages, the spouses survive till the end as one. To begin with, is the Walter and Ruth relationship that is depicted by the author are the most challenging deed to survive in. Among the difficulties, the marriage is faced with include disagreement, poverty, and restriction. The spouse all through the play has not been portrayed to be on the same side due to Walter’s selfishness. After receiving the inheritance from his father, Walter had the incentive of investing in liquor business which was against Ruth who supported Lena Younger, their mother. She states that the money must be used to purchase a house that the family can live in comfortably and the rest pay his sister’s medical school arrears.
Poverty was another devastating factor that affected the family. When Ruth realized that she was pregnant, she aborted to avoid adding another family member regarding the scarcity and condition of their residence. Ruth was also restricted to poverty as an African-American woman as it was possible to move out of the marriage for another partner but this did not happen. The survivability of the union was enhanced by Ruth’s tolerance and the support from Lena Younger who ensured that they stay well as a family. Regarding Walter’s personality, it would have been difficult to stand for the family alone this depicting the role of his mother in their marriage with Ruth.
ON the other side, the marriage between Troy and Rose underwent various challenges such as brutality and infidelity. Throughout his life, Troy has been aggressive and significantly causing conflict within the family. The act of preventing their son Cory joining the football club was devastating as his success would have been their joy, but Rose did not question about the action. Also, the act of fighting with the same son in front of Rose was not right as she was the mother of the family. She was suggestable to reacting to her husband’s brutality and misunderstanding, and this could significantly affect the relationship. Also, the action of infidelity depicted by Troy was a significant danger to their marriage. Regardless of all these challenges, the ties survived o the end the primary control being Ruth’s broad-mindedness character.
Restrictive Covenants in Levittown
Levittown is one of the places where its legacy was segregation during the 1950’s. It was right that there was a significant number of Africa-American residents, but the bias was their topic of the day. The Negroes did not have the right to stay at the same reservations with the white, and they used to survive and the harsh conditions along the ghetto. Regarding Ruth in the “A Raisin in the Sun,” she states that their house was under poor conditions and restricted to the extent that she was not ready to bring another life into being at the same environment. It significantly led to her abortion. The case was the same with the blacks in the Levittown. It is during this period that the Negroes were fighting for their civil rights in the nation as they were subjected to too much racism. The same blacks had been involved in the world war as military fighting for the same country that does not consider their equity.
Survival at these conditions was terrible, and the Africa-Americans were forced to work as servants for the white to obtain food as well as income to sustain their families. It is at this era when the Negroes were struggling to get the right to access social facilities such as school and hospitals for better living standards. They significantly had the potentiality of studying and participating in national growth, but they were not granted the opportunities. Also, regarding their capability of participating in sports and athletes, they could not get to the higher levels due to discrimination. The same is depicted in both the “A Raisin in the Sun” and “Fences” was discrimination and poverty are the blacks degrading factors.
References
Hansberry, L. (1994). A Raisin in the Sun. 1959. New York: Vintage.
Wilson, A. (1994). Fences (p. 282). Connecticut Repertory Theatre.
Biggest Difference Between a Manager and a Leader
Discussion Responses
Response 1
Biggest Difference Between a Manager and a Leader
A significant level of commitment is implied by the word “manage,” which means “handle.” “To lead” implies to go ahead and clear a path for others. When it comes to leadership and management, the key distinction is that people follow leaders, whilst managers have people working under them. It is common for leaders to have compelling personalities that radiate positivity, as well as a focus on ensuring their team members grasp the vision and believe in it. Managers, on the other hand, usually have a vision and demand that everyone either accepts it or go. Managers and leaders are inseparable, according to my perspective. Developing an institution’s vision and energizing its employees to work together to achieve it is a direct result of this talent.
Even if excellent managers have leadership abilities, it does not imply that all leaders are in managerial positions. In other words, you do not have to choose between being a manager and being a leader. Short-term goals and objectives are the primary focus while in management mode,’ so to speak. It is when you are in “leadership mode” that you are picturing the future and building the framework for persuading others to join you. A manager is someone who is in charge of the day-to-day operations of an organization, whereas a leader is someone who inspires and motivates others. Be confident in your talents, expertise, and judgments if you want to be a good manager. However, this does not imply that you should act arrogantly toward those who work for you or believe that you are superior to them.
Load Problem Questions Free Movement of Goods Article 34 And 36
Load Problem Questions: Free Movement of Goods Article 34 And 36
Question 1: Advice Free Pork Ltd If It Has Any Grounds under EU Law for Challenging the Two Spanish Laws
Both articles (Article 34 and 36) prohibit measures, which have particular restrictive effects. In majority of the cases, the term ‘measures’ equates to the laws passed directly by the Member State government. However, the ECJ (European Court of Justice), has stated that a measure can be an item wider and less well described. It is worth noting that the course of Conduct for a State intended to induce discriminatory practice among consumers and private individuals can constitute a measure (regardless it having or lacking a binding influence) and be in violation of the Article 34. The aspect of measures can also include the inaction of a State to stop private individuals’ acts, which prevent the free movement of goods (The College of Law 2012, p200).
The ECJ described the expression of quantitative restriction as measures that amount to partial or total restraint of, based on the circumstances, exports, imports or goods in transit. There are two laws that apply in this category but in this case, the most applicable law is the outright ban enforced by a Member State (Spain) on imports from another Member State (The College of Law 2012, p201). Free Pork Ltd plans to begin selling its products in Spain have been hampered by the law that requires the sale of sausages produced from humanely reared pigs to be checked by Spanish Sausage Checkers (SSC). If the sausages are not checked by SSC, the law prohibits its sales in Spain. However, the process of verifying whether the sausages have those conditions is usually lengthy. Therefore, Free Pork can challenge this Spanish law. There is also a law that requires the name of the company not to use words that imply health or fitness. Free Pork can also challenge this law because it restricts the importation of goods and can affect the brand image of the company.
The SSC is a form of a licencing system, which according to the articles, subjects the import of merchandises to the condition of getting an import licence. Even in situations where the application for an import licence is regarded a mere formality; it is a Quantitative Restriction. This is because is simply a mechanism in which imports can be restricted. In practice, it is very rare for the Member States laws to result to quantitative restrictions. The ban on exports or imports between Member States is found only in unusual circumstances (The College of Law 2012, p201). Therefore, failure by Free Pork Ltd to meet the conditions set by the Spanish laws is an outright ban on exporting sausages to this Member State. As stated earlier, the ban only happens in unusual circumstances, and thus, Free Pork can challenge the law because an unusual circumstance lacks, which prohibits it from exporting the goods to Spain.
The directive was important in developing a brief wording of the Article 34 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and it continues to offer guidance on the measures that can constitute a breach of Article 34 TFEU prohibitions. Article 2(1) of the directive describes a class of measures (for instance, national laws) that treat imported goods and domestic goods differently. They are commonly referred to as distinctly applicable measures. Article 3 of the directive describes a class of national laws that apply equally to imported and domestic products. These laws have a restrictive impact and they are commonly referred to as indistinctly applicable (The College of Law 2012, p202).
Therefore, the directive classifies both indistinctly and distinctly applicable measures as measures that have an impact equivalent to restrictions on imports. From the statement, it can be stated that a national law can become MEQR (Measures having Equivalent effect to a Quantitative Restriction) regardless of whether it “discriminates against imported products or appears to treat them in the same way as domestic products but is in practice restrictive in effect” (The College of Law 2012, p202). It is important to note that a Member State is capable of justifying more easily an indistinctly applicable law. Although Free Pork can challenge the law on imports restriction, Spain can justify its law because it is indistinctly applicable.
There are three categories of national laws capable of being MEQRs. The first category is laws aimed at enforcing standards (generally minimum standards) concerning matters like weight, description, labelling, size, content or price of goods. The second category is laws concerning tests designed to make sure that goods conform or obey standards indicated in the first category of laws. The third category is laws able to influence the behaviour of consumers and traders. Therefore, the emphasis is on the rules that are capable of having an impact, rather than on the rules essentially having an impact (The College of Law 2012, p204). The requirement to change the name of the company to a name that does not imply fitness or health can be challenged because that law has satisfied the requirement of being MEQRs. Therefore, Free Pork Ltd can challenge the law by proving that it is MEQRs.
The Cassis de Djion principles are applicable in the case of Free Pork Ltd and the Spanish laws. The first principle of Cassis de Djion states that where a national law is applicable to imported and domestic products alike, and where Community-wide standards concerning the products in question lacks, it may be mandatory to accept obstacles to trade caused by the reality that the national law differs from other Member States laws. However, the obstacles can only be acknowledged if the national law leading to the obstacle is essential to satisfy a mandatory necessity, and the law does not go further than it is necessary to accomplish its aim (The College of Law 2012, p204). Therefore, Free Pork Ltd can challenge the law if it is capable of justifying that the law is indistinctly applicable.
The second principle seems to conflict with the first principle but the two can be reconciled if there is a presumption that the goods lawfully produced in one Member State are marketable in another. However, if there is a law that obstructs this, the Member State can invalidate the presumption through Cassis or through Article 36 TFEU (The College of Law 2012, p207). Therefore, Free Pork Ltd can challenge this law. Based on Article 36, Free Pork Ltd can prove to Spain that the sausages it supplies do not pose health risk to people. The article states that a Member State willing to use this derogation has to prove the existence of an actual health risk (The College of Law 2012, p217). Therefore, under this article, Free Pork can challenges the laws by proving that its products do not pose health risk to the people of Spain.
Question 2. Advise Free Pork Ltd if it has any grounds under EU law for challenging the Spanish advertising requirement.
The Spanish laws regarding the broadcast of adverts targeted at consumers below the age of 12 years adopt a protective approach pushing the timing of the broadcast to not earlier than 9 pm. Under such circumstances, Free Pork’s entry into the Spanish market faces the limitation of adverts set by the Spanish national laws. Two important issues emerge in the deliberations of the legal position in which the Free Pork venture finds itself. On one hand, the right of the Spanish consumer protection policies as well as the right of the company under its commercial rights as discussed below.
In view of the Spanish national agencies position to enforce consumer protection against a backdrop of foreign policies having a negative position on a particular contestable matter, the position of the reprieve is offered to Member States in terms of the protection offered by the European Union. In Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB (C-34/95) and TV-Shop i Sverige AB (C-35/95 and C-36/95), it was held that the right of a Member State to apply advertisement prohibition to a foreign advertiser from a jurisdiction permitting such advertisements should not be contested. The case had particular consumer protection obligations from the Member State and the original intention of the law cannot be overruled.
It therefore implies that the bottom line of the contested interaction between the Free Pork venture into the market through the advertisement is expected to some extent, however debatable it is. However, the application of the law to a foreign market entrant where such a prohibition is not applicable provides a different concept for consideration by Free Pork where the reasons target a particular age group. The Spanish authorities for instance will find it important to invoke the provisions of Article 34 as demonstrated in the Keck formulae adopted in Keck and Mithouard (cases C-267 and C-268/91) [1993] ECR I-6097. Such invocation will involve the enumeration of the specific environment offered to domestic sausage marketers, which would be argued to be fairly reasonable if foreign entrants are subjected to similar treatment.
In Cassis de Dijon, the ECJ made the observation that a Member State has an opportunity to forward conflicting justifications on policies and laws impacting on prohibition of free movement of goods in the EU. According to the deliberations of the court, a nation implementing a trade policy likely to conflict the free movement of goods regime can forward certain arguments to sustain an argument for prohibition of movement of goods (The College of Law 2012, p217). Generally referred to as derogating opportunity from the provisions of the Treaty, it is possible for a Member State to launch a campaign from a legal position of national laws to attempt to control or restrict free movement as negated for all the Member States. As an illustration, it may be expected that the Spanish authorities will invoke the various derogation provisions under Article 36 to deny Free Pork to freely advertise and penetrate the sausage market. Derogation under Article 36 a) cites public interest, which is not clearly outlined and the Spanish authorities may twist the uncertainty to fit into the protection of public interest through barring adverts of sausages to children below 12 years of age.
Derogation c) also sounds like a possible excuse for reliance to invoke prohibitory opportunity for advertising to children below 12 years of age. The complexity of the burden of proof for the protection of health of the Spanish children may however proof to be an opportunity for Free Pork. In Commission v. UK: Re UHT Milk (case 124/81) [1983] ECR 203, it was held that the Member State must avail substantial detail on the nature and magnitude of the risks posed by the said products (The College of Law 2012, p217). By scrutinizing possible discrimination element in the particular Spanish law prohibiting free advertisement, it is possible to compel the authorities to avoid the prohibition. Section 5.2 of Article 36 dispels any arbitrary implementation of discriminatory laws. As observed in Commission v. UK (Re Imports of Poultry Meat) (case 40/82) [1982] ECR 2793, failure to demonstrate the extent to which a law is not restrictive to free movement of goods leads to infringement on EU laws (The College of Law 2012, p218).
In Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB (C-34/95) and TV-Shop i Sverige AB (C-35/95 and C-36/95), it also emerged that the Member State cannot prohibit advertisements from a different Member State on grounds of consumer protection to persons under 12 years of age (The College of Law 2012, p213). On this legal concept adopted by the court in the case, the EU offers relief to Member States to enjoy the regime on free movement of goods and their penetration into the market. It would certainly be restrictive to involved business if consumer protection laws selectively designed to a particular age group closes the channel available to free movement of goods to the ultimate market. The available options to Free Pork must therefore include seeking legal intervention against the restrictive Spanish laws targeting unfair advertisement prohibition on the grounds of protection of persons under the age of 12 years. As noted above, however, the Spanish authorities are expected to offer objection to contesting opinion regarding implemented policies targeted towards consumer protection such as freedoms of advertisement.
The spirit of Article 34 TFEU is particularly to offer definition to various selling arrangements that must prevent hindrances to free movement of goods. Under the finer implementation details, the spirit of the Article captures the need to provide non-discriminatory business regimes free goods movement among Member States. In view of the provisions of the article, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of the EC in determination of the restriction concepts experienced at the hands of national policies of a Member State are reasonable o other Member States. Substantial restrictions experienced by Member States in accessing the channels of distribution and free movement of goods must be countered by the EC framework as enumerated under Article 34 TFEU. The level of intervention by the EC as spelt out in Article 34 TFEU extends to the negative impact experienced by the Member States in the implementation of a regime withholding free movement of goods (The College of Law 2012, p213). The protection of inter-state trade perhaps has a far-reaching impact if implemented without discrimination and the EC demonstrates the importance of such consideration across several rulings through the ECJ. Whereas Member States have the general space of access of inter-state markets within the EU, the existence of principles of subsidiarity in the market and the natural limitations guarded by spirit of international community contradicts the principle of free movement of goods. References
The College of Law (2012) Unit 21: Free movement of goods, The College of Law.