The 1960s was marked by fervent  movements promoting civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Martin Luther King was a prominent leader of the civil rights movement who purported nonviolence. Rosa parks was another figure who preached and also practiced nonviolent civil disobedience. Ghandi too, promoted civil disobedience through peaceful methods. These leaders of nonviolent protest permanently changed the way the world viewed protest and effectively spread the ideals of fighting inequality with nonviolence. 

                    Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Rosa Parks all promoted nonviolent civil disobedience against social inequalities. Though in different settings, these figures led very similar movements. Ghandi, in India, led a battle against the British government that was at the time imposing unequal and irreverent regulations. Likewise, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in the United States fought against unequal treatment and segregation of African Americans that were imposed by another ethnic group. In both places, each figure was able to attract national support and raise globsl attention to his/her causes, Ghandi gained thousands of followers who joined his fight agsint the British. Many accompanied him during his public fasts, speeches, and marches. Similarly, Marin Luther King and Rosa Parks received immense amounts of support from Americans, including both African Americans and whites. They even established organizations such as NAACP and civil disobedience groups to effectively communicate and publicize their goals. 

                   The ideals purported by M.L.K., Parks, and Ghandi permanently changed the global perspective of protest and organized efforts against inequalities. Their methods of civil disobedience have paved the way for further improvements with the aide of modern technology, such as the television, internet, and cellular devices. Accompanied by these tools, civil disobedience became much more effective as publication, communication, and organization became fast and far-reaching. Thus is why we see the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience so commonly today. The world has realized, from figures such as M.L.K., Ghandi, and Parks, that nonviolence can make a significant difference in a cause. Today we have countless numbers of organizations and laws that protect the practice of organized civil disobedience. This can be seen in many instances, such as the protest in Hong Long against a nondemocratic government.

                                                                             Question 1

            Since the advent of the industrial revolution during the late 19th century Earth has been becoming ill; that is, its environmental equilibrium has been disrupted for more than a century. This balance includes climate, ocean temperature, species diversity, and most importantly, our finite natural resources. In recent decades, the world has become more cognizant of the environmental changes brought by our constant and increasing use of natural resources and waste. The need to reduce the depletion of our natural resources and pollution has become a serious issue for many countries, including the United States. It is imperative that the government takes full responsibility of the issue of conservation and green-living for it can enforce laws and policies that promote conservation, fund research and production for reducing environmental pollution, and provide economic support for green living to not only its own citizens, but also to other countries.

            One of the most effective methods the government enforces a cause is laws and policies. The government can promote wise spending of natural resources and cut down wastes by simply creating laws that promote exactly those. For instance, the Singaporean government has a policy that "awards… tax rebate of 40% of the price of a vehicle to Singaporeans who opt for hybrids."(Source B) This single policy encourages many people to choose the hybrid, a vehicle that has a significantly lower CO2 emission. Furthermore, in the United states, high energy costs are "partly offset by government rebates". This encourages many to be more aware of their use of natural resources. Thus, the government can create a significant impetus for its people to conserve energy and reduce waste just by simple enforcement of polices that provide compensation. A system that wields such influence and power can easily create a greener society.

            Another reason that the government is responsible for promoting green-living is its ability to allocate funds to researches and innovative technology that promote energy conservation and reduced pollution. As a system responsible for the distribution of monetary support, it is the government's duty to allocate funds to researches and scientists who need government funds to conduct research. The U.S government is responsible for creating tools, technology, systems, and ethics that "will allow the planet to grow in a cleaner, more sustainable ways" (Source C). For this to happen, the U.S government needs to provide funds to those who create innovative technology and conservative systems., Organizations and research groups with sufficient funding will be able to create not only technology and tangible differences, but also a change in ethics that promote green living among regular citizens. The UI..S Department of Energy, for example, has a booklet that instructs home owners how to conserve energy (Source E). It provides a guide on how to wisely use electricity, water, gas, and home appliances, minimizing waste. Such methods increases the general awareness of energy conservation and encourages many to practice green-living.

            Lastly, the government provides economic support and a platform that supports its people and other nations. Countries like the United States, which is "powerful and most influential" in regards to innovation and inspiration (Source C), must take the global lead in creating a greener world. As seen in Source E, the U.S. is, apart from Japan, a leading nation in conserving energy, having systems that protect the environment, and avoiding pollution. This strengthens the notion that as a country with stable economic background to support research, provide jobs related to energy, and promote green-living, the U.S. should be fully responsible for encouraging other countries promote energy-conservative lifestyles.

            The issue of green-living has been a topic of high interest in recent years. Many are trying to maintain the environmental balance of natural resources, climate, and species diversity for future generations. As a policy and law maker, patron of innovation, and leader of global causes, the U.S. government should be fully responsible for greener living and the promotion of energy conservation.

Comparing Historical Accounts

            The 1960s was marked by fervent movements promoting civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Martin Luther King was a prominent leader of the civil rights movement who purported nonviolence. Rosa Parks was another figure who preached and also practiced nonviolent protest against inequality. Gandhi, too, promoted civil disobedience through peaceful methods. These leaders of nonviolent protest permanently changed the world viewed organized resistance and effectively spread the ideals of fighting inequality.

            Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks all promoted the same ideals, that of nonviolent civil disobedience against social inequalities. Though in different settings, these figures led very similar movements. Gandhi, in India, led a nonviolent battle against the British government, which at the time imposed unequal and irreverent regulations. Likewise, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in the United States fought against unequal treatment and segregation of African Americans that were imposed by the whites. In both places, each figure was able to attract national support and raise global attention to his/her causes. Gandhi gained thousands of followers who joined hi fight against the British government. Many joined his fasts, speeches, and marches. Similarly, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks received immense amounts of support from African Americans and whites. They even established organizations such as NAACP and civil disobedience groups to effectively communicate and publicize their goals. Furthermore, all three figures faced opposition and hatred from many people, and experience difficulty in trying to effectively spread their causes. Martin Luther King was berated by the media and censured by many, for his goals to end segregation and racism angered many Whites. His public appearances were always met by fierce opposition, from law enforcement, civilians, and the press. King was arrested multiple times, which clearly indicated the common sentiment of resistance against his promotion of racial equality and the intermixing of whites and blacks. Rosa Parks also faced considerable amount of opposition, as she was arrested and censured for her refusal to sit in the "blacks only" area in the bus. Gandhi too, had to overcome suppression and opposition from the British government. He, despite violent retaliations from the British, constantly promoted peaceful methods and persistently encouraged his methods. The amount of resistance these figures can be evidenced by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, countless acts of violence from law enforcement, and many other brutal crimes against those who supported the three figures. In spite of such difficulty and conflict, King, Parks, and Gandhi constantly advocated peaceful retaliation and perseverance.

            As similar as they can be, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi are different in multiple ways. Gandhi led a fight against British oppression in India. At the time, India, as a colony of Britain, was under heavy British control. Indian culture, including religion and livelihood, were ignored by the British and Indians virtually had no control of their own country. Constant oppression, accompanied by brutal abuse, manipulation of the Indian government, and neglect of Indian culture inflamed many Indians and spread a sentiment of opposition. Many times people attempted to lead rebellions against the British, only to end up dead, imprisoned, or tortured. Gandhi, contrary to previous methods, used nonviolent protest to fight the British. He led marches, fasts, and speeches that were accompanied by thousands of followers. Unlike Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks fought for civil rights and social justice. They aimed to dissolve the deeply entrenched sentiment of racism and segregation against African Americans in the United States and bring about an equal and peaceful society in which all people, regardless of skin color, can live together harmoniously. Further contrast can be seen in the way Gandhi and King viewed nonviolence. Gandhi believed that nonviolence achieves its goals through patience and non-cooperation. He practiced such belief by persistently enduring suppression from the British government, including imprisonment and torture. He also peacefully detached himself from the British rule, refusing to follow laws and regulations opposed by the British government. Martin Luther King believed that it takes creative tension and confrontation to accomplish change. King didn't believe completely in the detached, prolonged ways of promoting nonviolence. He led public marches, speeches, and confrontations with the law, media, and the whites who opposed him. King also did not take part in physical suffering to promote his causes, whereas Gandhi went on hunger strikes to draw global attention. These subtle dissimilarities in no way differentiate the extent to which these leaders impacted the world. Their persistence and patience have permanently changed the global perspective of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience.

            The ideals purported by Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi permanently changed the way the world viewed protest and organized efforts. Their methods of civil disobedience have paved the way for further improvements with the aid of modern technology such as the television, internet, and cellular devices. Accompanied by these tools, civil disobedience became much more effective as publication, communication, and organization became fast and far-reaching. Thus is why we see the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience so commonly today. The world has realized, from figures such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks, that nonviolence can make a significant difference in a cause. Today we have countless numbers of organizations and laws that protect the practice of organized, nonviolent civil disobedience. This can be seen in many instances, such as the protest in Hong Kong against a nondemocratic government, protest against police brutality across the United States, and protest against laws proscribing same-sex marriage. Thus, people today are more cognizant of the power and capabilities of nonviolent civil disobedience. Leaders such as Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi truly engraved the ideals of peaceful protest and inspired many to lead their own fights.

           

Comparing Historical Accounts

            The 1960s was marked by fervent movements promoting civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Martin Luther King was a prominent leader of the civil rights movement who purported nonviolence. Rosa Parks was another figure who preached and also practiced nonviolent protest against inequality. Gandhi, too, promoted civil disobedience through peaceful methods. These leaders of nonviolent protest permanently changed the world viewed organized resistance and effectively spread the ideals of fighting inequality.

            Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks all promoted the same ideals, that of nonviolent civil disobedience against social inequalities. Though in different settings, these figures led very similar movements. Gandhi, in India, led a nonviolent battle against the British government, which at the time imposed unequal and irreverent regulations. Likewise, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in the United States fought against unequal treatment and segregation of African Americans that were imposed by the whites. In both places, each figure was able to attract national support and raise global attention to his/her causes. Gandhi gained thousands of followers who joined hi fight against the British government. Many joined his fasts, speeches, and marches. Similarly, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks received immense amounts of support from African Americans and whites. They even established organizations such as NAACP and civil disobedience groups to effectively communicate and publicize their goals. Furthermore, all three figures faced opposition and hatred from many people, and experience difficulty in trying to effectively spread their causes. Martin Luther King was berated by the media and censured by many, for his goals to end segregation and racism angered many Whites. His public appearances were always met by fierce opposition, from law enforcement, civilians, and the press. King was arrested multiple times, which clearly indicated the common sentiment of resistance against his promotion of racial equality and the intermixing of whites and blacks. Rosa Parks also faced considerable amount of opposition, as she was arrested and censured for her refusal to sit in the "blacks only" area in the bus. Gandhi too, had to overcome suppression and opposition from the British government. He, despite violent retaliations from the British, constantly promoted peaceful methods and persistently encouraged his methods. The amount of resistance these figures can be evidenced by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, countless acts of violence from law enforcement, and many other brutal crimes against those who supported the three figures. In spite of such difficulty and conflict, King, Parks, and Gandhi constantly advocated peaceful retaliation and perseverance.

            As similar as they can be, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi are different in multiple ways. Gandhi led a fight against British oppression in India. At the time, India, as a colony of Britain, was under heavy British control. Indian culture, including religion and livelihood, were ignored by the British and Indians virtually had no control of their own country. Constant oppression, accompanied by brutal abuse, manipulation of the Indian government, and neglect of Indian culture inflamed many Indians and spread a sentiment of opposition. Many times people attempted to lead rebellions against the British, only to end up dead, imprisoned, or tortured. Gandhi, contrary to previous methods, used nonviolent protest to fight the British. He led marches, fasts, and speeches that were accompanied by thousands of followers. Unlike Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks fought for civil rights and social justice. They aimed to dissolve the deeply entrenched sentiment of racism and segregation against African Americans in the United States and bring about an equal and peaceful society in which all people, regardless of skin color, can live together harmoniously. Further contrast can be seen in the way Gandhi and King viewed nonviolence. Gandhi believed that nonviolence achieves its goals through patience and non-cooperation. He practiced such belief by persistently enduring suppression from the British government, including imprisonment and torture. He also peacefully detached himself from the British rule, refusing to follow laws and regulations opposed by the British government. Martin Luther King believed that it takes creative tension and confrontation to accomplish change. King didn't believe completely in the detached, prolonged ways of promoting nonviolence. He led public marches, speeches, and confrontations with the law, media, and the whites who opposed him. King also did not take part in physical suffering to promote his causes, whereas Gandhi went on hunger strikes to draw global attention. These subtle dissimilarities in no way differentiate the extent to which these leaders impacted the world. Their persistence and patience have permanently changed the global perspective of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience.

            The ideals purported by Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi permanently changed the way the world viewed protest and organized efforts. Their methods of civil disobedience have paved the way for further improvements with the aid of modern technology such as the television, internet, and cellular devices. Accompanied by these tools, civil disobedience became much more effective as publication, communication, and organization became fast and far-reaching. Thus is why we see the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience so commonly today. The world has realized, from figures such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks, that nonviolence can make a significant difference in a cause. Today we have countless numbers of organizations and laws that protect the practice of organized, nonviolent civil disobedience. This can be seen in many instances, such as the protest in Hong Kong against a nondemocratic government, protest against police brutality across the United States, and protest against laws proscribing same-sex marriage. Thus, people today are more cognizant of the power and capabilities of nonviolent civil disobedience. Leaders such as Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi truly engraved the ideals of peaceful protest and inspired many to lead their own fights.

           

Winter Break Activity Essay

           

            During this winter break my main focus was working out and maintaining a strict diet. A week prior to the break I signed up to Wilfit, a gym I had gone to during summer break. I established a workout routine, a diet regimen, and a strong morale to maintain my strict schedule. My primary focuses were my upper body: to gain muscle on my biceps, triceps, deltoids, chest, back and abdomen. My diet consisted mostly of low fat and low-carbohydrate foods, such as chicken breast, lean beef, Greek yogurt, and a lot of bananas.

            ON the first week of break I had long sessions of weight lifting. I was very eager and excited to work out and see some results by the end of break. After  the first few days, I began to feel sore, fatigued, and tired. I also started to crave the foods I tried to stay away from. To keep myself disciplined to the regimen, I watched inspirational videos that featured successful bodybuilders who had impressive bodies. Also, at times when I craved restricted foods I ate fruits and protein bars to reduce the desires, and satisfy by sweet tooth. After a short period of difficulty in adjusting, my body began to adapt to the new habits I developed. I no longer felt tired, fatigued, or lazy. My regimen also helped me to complete my school assignments and other studies quickly and efficiently. My determined mindset I had toward exercising and restricting myself applied to my studies as well. I was able to stay focused and keep myself from becoming distracted, and also endure the hours at the desk both physically and mentally. Thus, my routine not only helped me physically, but also mentally, allowing me to establish a strong mindset that would benefit me significantly for the upcoming semester.

            Toward the end of the break I noticed changes on my physique and my strength. I was able to lift heavier weights and my body fat had reduced, enough for me to notice visually. For each muscle area, I was able to lift around 5 to 10 pounds more. This was a significant improvement and I felt proud of my achievements. These results encouraged me to stick to my regimen even after break was over. I purchased dumbbells, a workout mat, an abdomen wheel, and a stretch band to continue working out at home. I also established a workout routine and a diet that I would adhere to after school started. I wanted to continue having the same mindset I had during break in order to readjust myself back into the school schedule. I wanted to finish my assignments, homework, and studies quickly and efficiently for the new semester.            

            My commitment to the gym and my regimen have turned out to be a success. I benefited significantly from my persistence to stick to my diet schedule and workout routine, in that I was able to apply the same type of perseverance to my homework and studies. The determinism and tenacity I maintained during the break resulted in physical results, including bicep, triceps, deltoids, chest, back, and abdomen muscle gains. I plan to do the same for the upcoming breaks, and maintain my workout routine and diet regimen throughout the school year. By adhering to strict schedules, it would make studying and finishing homework much more efficient and productive. During the three weeks I learned that physical exercise enhances not only our physical health, but our mental health as well. For the first time I was able to feel the importance of exercise and its significant in everyday life, including school.