Medieval Ireland the Coming of the Normans, 1167â€1185

By the 12th century, Ireland was divided politically into a shifting hierarchy of petty kingdoms and over-kingdoms. Power was concentrated into the hands of a few regional dynasties contending against each other for control of the whole island. The Northern Ui Neill ruled much of what is now Ulster. Their kinsmen, the Southern Ui Neill, were Kings of Brega (Meath). The kingship of Leinster was held by the dynamic Ui Cheinnselaigh dynasty. A new kingdom rose between Leinster and Munster, Osraige, ruled by the family of Mac Giolla Phadraig. Munster was nominally controlled by the Mac Cartaig, who were however in reality often subject to the Ui Bhriain of Thomond. North of Thomond, Connacht's supreme rulers were the Ui Chonchubhair. After losing the protection of Tyrone Chief, Muirchertach MacLochlainn, High King of Ireland, who died in 1166, Dermot MacMurrough (Irish Diarmait Mac Murchada) , was forcibly exiled by a confederation of Irish forces under the new High King, Rory O'Connor. Diarmait fled first to Bristol and then to Normandy. He sought and obtained permission from Henry II of England to use the latter's subjects to regain his kingdom. By 1167 MacMurrough had obtained the services of Maurice Fitz Gerald and later persuaded Rhys ap Gruffydd Prince of Deheubarth to release Maurice's half-brother Robert Fitz-Stephen from captivity to take part in the expedition. Most importantly he obtained the support of the Earl of Pembroke Richard de Clare, known as Strongbow. The first Norman knight to land in Ireland was Richard fitz Godbert de Roche in 1167, but it was not until 1169 that the main forces of Normans, Welsh and Flemings landed in Wexford. Within a short time Leinster was regained, Waterford and Dublin were under Diarmait's control, and he had Strongbow as a son-in-law, and named him as heir to his kingdom. This latter development caused consternation to King Henry II of England, who feared the establishment of a rival Norman state in Ireland. Accordingly, he resolved to visit Leinster to establish his authority. The Papal Bull and Henry's invasion: Pope Adrian IV (the first English Pope, in one of his earliest acts) had already issued a Papal Bull in 1155, giving Henry authority to invade Ireland as a means of curbing ecclesiastical orruption and abuses. Little contemporary use, however, was made of the Bull Laudabiliter since its text enforced papal suzerainty not only over the island of Ireland but of all islands off of the European coast, including England, in virtue of the Constantinian donation. The relevant text reads: â€Å"There is indeed no doubt, as thy Highness doth also acknowledge, that Ireland and all o ther islands which Christ the Sun of Righteousness has illumined, and which have received the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the jurisdiction of St. Peter and of the holy Roman Church†. References to Laudabiliter become more frequent in the later Tudor period when the researches of the renaissance humanist scholars cast doubt on the historicity of the Donation of Constantine. Henry landed with a large fleet at Waterford in 1171, becoming the first King of England to set foot on Irish soil. Both Waterford and Dublin were proclaimed Royal Cities. Adrian's successor, Pope Alexander III ratified the grant of Irish lands to Henry in 1172. Henry awarded his Irish territories to his younger son John with the title Dominus Hiberniae (â€Å"Lord of Ireland†). When John unexpectedly succeeded his brother as King John, the â€Å"Kingdom of Ireland† fell directly under the English Crown. Henry was happily acknowledged by most of the Irish Kings, who saw in him a chance to curb the expansion of both Leinster and the Hiberno-Normans. This led to the ratification of the Treaty of Windsor (1175) between Henry and Ruaidhri. However, with both Diarmuid and Strongbow dead (in 1171 and 1176), Henry back in England and Ruaidhri unable to curb his nominal vassals, within two years it was not worth the vellum it was inscribed upon. John de Courcy invaded and gained much of east Ulster in 1177, Raymond le Gros had already captured Limerick and much of north Munster, while the other Norman families such as Prendergast, fitz Stephen, fitz Gerald, fitz Henry and le Poer were actively carving out virtual kingdoms for themselves.

The Impact of Daycare on Infants

55% of American mothers now return to work by the time their children are one years old — out of either financial, professional, or personal necessity. In today’s society, there are concerns as to whether attending daycare during infancy produces negative or positive effects on the development of children. Many of these concerns are influenced by the fear that separating an infant from its mother may cause emotional harm to the child or disrupt the mother-infant bond. No study finds that children of employed mothers suffer solely because their mothers are working. Research has shown that mothers who work spend as much time playing with their babies as do mothers without outside jobs (Huston & Aronson, 2005). It has also been questioned as to whether home-based maternal care or nonrelatives day-care provide the child with more opportunity to develop cognitively and socially (Belsky and Steinberg 1978, Field 1991, Lamb 1996, Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001). There has been research that has found positive effects of day-care on children’s social and cognitive development and suggests that perhaps child-care centers encourage more social interaction than the environment of a home-reared child. There may be more stimulation in day-care and more communication and sharing to be learned, therefore enhancing these abilities of the children who attend them (Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001). Evidence shows that a good preschool education is beneficial to young children. Children who attend preschool have a head start when they begin elementary school having learned basic concepts in a preschool center. Some of the negative effects a child may experience while attending a child care center include high child to adult ratios, insufficient materials and equipment, staff with inadequate training and experience, and caregiver burnout. There are truly some wonderful and caregivers and daycares out there. Choosing the best one is a very important decision that a parent has to make. How Do You Choose A Good Day Care Center Choosing a day care center is one of the more important decisions parents can make on behalf of their child. While it may be tempting to be swayed by a center based on rates, location or even decor, there are several other factors to consider. When visiting a center there are several questions one can ask the director of the facility to determine if it’s the right one for your child or if you should keep looking (Maughan, 2008). 1. What are the operating hours of the facility 2. How are the children grouped in classes 3. What is the teacher to child ratio for each class 4. What is the centers check in and check out procedures 5. What is the centers policy on disciplinary action for children In addition to these questions a parent should tour the facility and go over the safety procedures for the facility. Word of mouth is also a good resource. Talk to family and friends and find out if and where their infant went to daycare. What would you tell a parent of an infant who is concerned about harming their baby by placing them in Day Care, but must work because of economic necessity? I would tell a parent who must place there infant in daycare to not worry. It won’t cause any harm to their child. As long as they put them in a good quality childcare facility the infant will be ok. The important thing for the parent is to do there homework ahead of time when looking for a facility. The parent can call the facility to see how there child is doing throughout the day. Some facilities even have cameras so the parent can actually see what there child is doing. This may ease the parents mind throughout the day so they won’t be so worried about what is going on with their child. According to the NICHD daycare seems detrimental only when the mother is insensitive and the infant spends more than 20 hours a week in a poor quality program (NICHD, 2005).

Carr and the Thesis

Edward Carr begins What is History? By saying what he thinks history is not†¦by being negative. In Carr’s words, what history is not, or should not be, is a way of constructing historical accounts that are obsessed with both the facts and the documents which are said to contain them. Carr believes that by doing this the profoundly important shaping power of the historian will surely be downplayed. Carr goes on to argue – in his first chapter- that this downgrading of historiography arose because mainstream historians combined three things: first, a simple but very strong assertion that the proper function of the historian was to show the past as ‘it really was’; second, a positivist stress on inductive method, where you first get the facts and then draw conclusions from them; and third – and this especially in Great Britain – a dominant empiricist rationale. Together, these constituted for Carr what still stood for the ‘commonsenseà ¢â‚¬â„¢ view of history: The empirical theory of knowledge presupposes a complete separation between subject and object. Facts, like sense-impressions, impinge on the observer from outside and are independent of his consciousness. The process of reception is passive: having received the data, he then acts on them†¦This consists of a corpus of ascertained facts†¦First get your facts straight, then plunge at your peril into the shifting sands of interpretation – that is the ultimate wisdom of the empirical, commonsense school of history. 2 Clearly, however, commonsense doesn’t work for Mr.Carr. For he sees this as precisely the view one has to reject. Unfortunately things begin to get a little complicated when Carr tries to show the light, since while it seems he has three philosophical ways of going about his studies one being epistemological and two ideological his prioritizing of the epistemological over the ideological makes history a science too complex for comprehension to anyone other than himself. Carr’s epistemological argument states that not all the ‘facts of the past’ are actually ‘historical facts. Furthermore, there are vital distinctions to be drawn between the ‘events’ of the past, the ‘facts’ of the past and the ‘historical’ facts. That ‘historical facts’ only become this way is by being branded so by recognized historians. Carr develops this argument as follows: What is a historical fact? †¦According to the commonsense view, there are certain basic facts which are the same for all historians and which form, so to speak, the backbone of history the fact, for example, that the battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. But this view calls for two observations. In the first place, it is not with facts like these that the historian is primarily concerned. It is no doubt important to know that the great battle was fought in 1066 and not 1065 or 1067†¦The historian must not get these things wrong. But when points of this kind are raised, I am reminded of Housman’s remark that ‘accuracy is a duty, not a virtue’. To praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising an architect for using well-seasoned timber. It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential function. It is precisely for matters of this kind that the historian is entitled to rely on what have been called the ‘auxiliary sciences’ of history archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, chronology, and so-forth. 3 Carr thinks that the insertion of such facts into a historical account, and the significance which they will have relative to other selected facts, depends not on any quality intrinsic to the facts ‘in and for themselves,’ but on the reading of events the historian chooses to give: It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context†¦The only reason why we are interested to know that the battle was fought at Hastings in 1066 is that historians regard it as a major historical event. It is the historian who has decided for his own reasons that Caesar’s crossing of that petty stream, the Rubicon, is a fact of history, whereas the crossings of the Rubicon by millions of other people†¦interests nobody at all†¦The historian is [therefore] necessarily selective. The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate. 4 Following on from this, Carr ends his argument with an illustration of the process by which a slight event from the past is transformed into a ‘historical fact’. At Stalybridge Wakes, in 1850, Carr tells us about a gingerbread seller being beaten to death by an angry mob; this is a well documented and authentic ‘fact from the past. But for it to become a ‘historical fact,’ Carr argues that it needed to be taken up by historians and inserted by them into their interpretations, thence becoming part of our historical memory. In other words concludes Carr: Its status as a historical fact will turn on a question of interpretation. This element of interpretation enters into every fact of history. 5 This is the substance of Carr’s first argument and the first ‘positionâ€⠄¢ that is easily taken away after a quick read his work. Thereby initially surmising that Carr thinks that all history is just interpretation and there are really no such things as facts. This could be an easily mislead conclusion if one ceases to read any further. If the interpretation of Carr stops at this point, then not only are we left with a strong impression that his whole argument about the nature of history, and the status of historical knowledge, is effectively epistemological and skeptical, but we are also not in a good position to see why. It’s not until a few pages past the Stalybridge example that Carr rejects that there was too skeptical a relativism of Collingwood, and begins a few pages after that to reinstate ‘the facts’ in a rather unproblematical way, which eventually leads him towards his own version of objectivity. Carr’s other two arguments are therefore crucial to follow, and not because they are explicitly ideological. The first of the two arguments is a perfectly reasonable one, in which Carr is opposed to the obsession of facts, because of the resulting common sense view of history that turns into an ideological expression of liberalism. Carr’s argument runs as follows. The classical, liberal idea of progress was that individuals would, in exercising their freedom in ways which took ‘account’ of the competing claims of others somehow and without too much intervention, move towards a harmony of interests resulting in a greater, freer harmony for all. Carr thinks that this idea was then extended into the argument for a sort of general intellectual laissez-faire, and then more particularly into history. For Carr, the fundamental idea supporting liberal historiography was that historians, all going about their work in different ways but mindful of the ways of others, would be able to collect the facts and allow the ‘free-play’ of such facts, thereby securing that they were in harmony with the events of the past which were now truthfully represented. As Carr puts this: The nineteenth century was, for the intellectuals of Western Europe, a comfortable period exuding confidence and optimism. The facts were on the whole satisfactory; and the inclination to ask and answer awkward questions about them correspondingly weak†¦The liberal†¦view of history had a close affinity with the economic doctrine of laissez-faire – also the product of a serene and self-confident outlook on the world. Let everyone get on with his particular job, and the hidden hand would take care of the universal harmony. The facts of history were themselves a demonstration of the supreme fact of a beneficent and apparently infinite progress towards higher things. 6 Carr’s second argument is therefore both straightforward and ideological. His point is that the idea of the freedom of the facts to speak for themselves arose from the happy coincidence that they just happened to speak liberal. But of course Carr did not. Thereby knowing that in the history he wrote the facts had to be made to speak in a way other than liberal (i. e. in a Marxist type of way) then his own experience of making ‘the facts’, his facts, is universalized to become everyone’s experience. Historians, including liberals, have to transform the ‘facts of the past’ into ‘historical facts’ by their positioned intervention. And so, Carr’s second argument against ‘commonsense’ history is ideological. For that matter, so is the third. But if the second of Carr’s arguments is easy to see, his third and final one is not. This argument needs a little ironing out. In the first two critiques of ‘commonsense’ history, Carr has effectively argued that the facts have no ‘intrinsic’ value, but that they’ve only gained their ‘relative’ value when historians put them into their accounts after all the other facts were under consideration. The conclusion Carr drew is that the facts only speak when the historian calls upon them to do so. However, it was part of Carr’s position that liberals had not recognized the shaping power of the historian because of the ‘cult of the fact’ and that, because of the dominance of liberal ideology, their view had become commonsense, not only for themselves, but for practically all historiography. It appeared to Carr that historians seemed to subscribe to the position that they ought to act as the channel through which ‘the facts of the past for their own sake’ were allowed self-expression. But Carr, not wanting to go the route of his fellow historians, nor wanting to succumb to the intellectual complaints about the demise of the experience of originality, says: In the following pages I shall try to distance myself from prevailing trends among Western intellectuals†¦to show how and why I think they have gone astray and to stake out a claim, if not for an optimistic, at any rate for a saner and more balanced outlook on the future. 7 It is therefore this very pointed position which stands behind and gives most, if not all, of the reason for Carr’s writing What is History? Carr himself seems to be quite clear that the real motive behind his text was the ideological necessity to re-think and re-articulate the idea of continued historical progress among the ‘conditions’ and the doubters of his own ‘skeptical days’. Carr’s ‘real’ concern was ‘the fact’ that he thought the future of the whole modern world was at stake. Carr’s own optimism cannot be supported by ‘the facts’, so that his own position is just his opinion, as equally without foundation as those held by optimistic liberals. Consequently, the only conclusion that can arguably be drawn is that ‘the past’ doesn’t actually enter into historiography, except rhetorically. In actuality there should be no nostalgia for the loss of a ‘real’ past, no sentimental memory of a more certain time, nor a panic that there are no foundations for knowledge other than rhetorical conversation.

External Factors in a Country Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

External Factors in a Country - Assignment Example It was clearly evident that the atmosphere of political turbulence affected the stock markets badly. Adding on the fuel, the Chinese and the British relations deteriorated further putting the markets in jeopardy. At that point of time, the market was also jittery about the rising US interest rates and moreover, the standoff that prevailed over the democratic reforms between the Hong Kong and China sent made the traders feel a little insecure. Hang Seng received a lot of foreign money in the period of 1992-1993 from different investors all over the world, which could sustain the market, at least to some extent. However, many traders argued that the investors had made huge investments eyeing the economic boom in China and not Hong Kong itself. They felt that the investors were looking to invest in China via the shares of the blue-chip companies in Hong Kong. To a large extent, their speculation seems right at the moment, because, at that time when there was absolute political instabili ty in the Hong Kong market, no investor would’ve come forward to invest in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s governor had proposed to go ahead with the electoral reforms put forward by the British government had been straight away by China and had, in fact, enraged them to a great extent, thus signaling the break-up. Under such circumstances, it is too naive for one to expect the stock market to be functioning well.

Evaluate the differences in social relationships on the Internet and Essay

Evaluate the differences in social relationships on the Internet and conventional, face to face relationships - Essay Example ome of interested observers on the same influential nature of internet on the social life of the society have noted that the influential, and the heavy use of the internet may be alienated from the usual social contact. Additionally, they claimed that the internet use may as well predominant the society’s social lives. Although there are numerous, yet partially unknown, negative effects of the internet relationships, there are two main factors for consideration. Considerably, the internet relationship has adversely displaced some of the vital social activities, especially among the communities and individuals who have intensively indulged into the internet as their sure means of communication. In most cases, persons spend a lot of time online interacting that incapacitates them from face to face interaction or activities. Moreover, the internet is an effective venture of displacing the ever known strong ties that had ever been built by face-to-face interactions. It worth notin g that the relationship that has been built out of the internet interactions are of low quality compared to the quality of face to face relationships. Therefore, intensively concentration on the online or the internet relationships weakens or replaces the strength of the face-to-face relationship. Some scholars have proposed that proper use of the internet is actually associated with deterioration of an individual. The use of the internet is blamed of diminishing of an individuals’ social circle; thus, leading to such individuals to depression and high rate of loneliness (Gross et al 75). In the case, of one on one or face to face relationship, an individual may as well get engaged by the other party present in his or her life; thus, breaking any kind of loneliness in either poor or acceptable ways. However, the internet relationship or interactions may be as well beneficial and productive only if such interactions and relationships are kept at their normal navels. Nonetheless, the

Inovations in Automotive Electronics Research Paper

Inovations in Automotive Electronics - Research Paper Example Other remarkable developments have been the GPS, all-wheel drive, and airbags among others. No doubt, man has made revolutionary innovation over the past decades that have made life easier, convenient, and better. For instance, the automobiles industry has made some amazing progress following their invention in the early 19th century. One of the key factors that have helped automobiles give more security and accommodation, however, is automobile electronics. Automotive electronics are systems found in the vehicle and generated electronically. Such systems include telematics and entertainment systems among other structures. These systems are so many and thus grouped into several categories with regard to their functions, namely, entertainment systems, active safety, driver assistance, engine electronics, passenger comfort, chassis electronics, and transmission electronics. With the advances in electronics innovation, auto producers have possessed the capacity to offer a broad mixture of administrations and accommodations that numerous new car proprietors appreciate (Mitchel l, Borroni-Bird, & Burns, 2010). Automobile electronics have been applied to various car improvements such as the Electronic Fuel Injection to the well-known Global Positioning System (Craughwell, 2012). Driving is more fun and safer than it used to be a hundred years ago since the invention of the automobile. This paper outlines some of the developments that have enhanced the use of automobiles. One of the best developments in automobile electronics innovation is the Electronic Fuel Injection/infusion or EFI for short. This gadget takes the spot of the ordinary carburetor that has been in use since the invention of the motor. The employment of the carburetor was regularly the piece of the motor that serves to dissipate fuel so that it blends with the air for burning. This gives energy to the barrels that help the motor work. A gliding gadget inside of

Security and Loss Prevention Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Security and Loss Prevention - Assignment Example The general investigation steps to verify the validity of the embezzlement allegations are as follows: (1) document the event and prepare a report to contain the information revealed by the employee; (2) interview the person who reported the incident through whatever means possible; (3) talk to the senior managers to whom the plant controller is reporting to for the purpose of finding out any unusual transactions perceived to have been contracted by the plant controller and verifying if the tip has any basis (but making sure to emphasize full confidentiality and privacy of the issues); (4) identify other possible employees who could have known the incident or those within the plant controller’s chain of command; (5) contact the CEO and CFO to inform them of the investigations on the plant controller; (6) remove the plant controller from the division discreetly; (7) evaluate and determine the extent of the loss; (8) decide on the need to enforce either a temporary operating pro cedures and policies or a full closure within the division being investigated (Carnie, 2012; Turner, 2009). In preparation for the interviews, note the order of the witnesses who would be interviewed and how you would plan, conduct, and document your interviews. In preparation for the interviews, all people who are within the chain of command of the plant controller should be included. Likewise, those who could have knowledge of overriding existing controls should also be investigated. As emphasized by Carnie (2012), â€Å"identify those employees (at every level of the company) who had both access and opportunity to commit the theft, as well as those who may have known of the theft but failed to disclose it. All employees with access and opportunity should be included in the investigation, regardless of their job record, length of employment, or stature within the company. Identifying such employees allows the employer to focus the investigation on as small a group of employees as possible with as little disclosure as possible† (par. 6). The order of the witnesses would be as follows: (1) the whistle blower; (2) the senior manager or the supervisor of the plant controller; (3) the CEO and CFO; (4) staff who are directly being superv ised by the plant controller; (5) staff who has knowledge of overriding external controls; (6) others who are identified to be potentially involved. The plan of action for the interview would be: (1) identification of people to be interviewed; (2) schedule specific interviews either in the office of senior management or the people to be inte