Question: To fully understand a text, knowledge of the time of production is necessary. Explain how a knowledge of historical context has informed your reading of Macbeth.

By Tallulah PestellWilliam Shakespeare wrote Macbeth in 1606 and the historical context of this time plays a critical role in understanding the play. In 1606, King James I ruled over England and it is often thought that Macbeth wrote the play with the King in mind in an attempt to win his approval. During this time English society greatly believed in the Elizabethan world order and the divine right of kings. There was also a great interest in the supernatural and women who were thought to be witches often faced a cruel death. Women were also viewed as inferior to men and misogyny was the norm. This historical context of King James I ruling England, the belief in the Elizabethan world order and the views held towards women and the supernatural have all informed my reading of Macbeth and given me a deeper understanding of this play.

Through knowledge of the historical context, the audience is able to see that the ruling of King James I had a significant influence on the plot of Macbeth. King James I had been King of England for 3 years when Shakespeare wrote Macbeth and before this, he had been King James VI of Scotland. In Macbeth, the entire play is centred around a family of Scottish royalty. It’s set in both Scotland and England and the English army, led by Malcolm, help to defeat Macbeth’s rule of Scotland. Malcolm tells the English troops “Let every soldier hew him down a bough and bear’t before him; thereby shall we shadow the numbers of our host and make discovery err in report of us.” And they do just this. This makes it appear that Birnam wood is moving towards Dunsinane as the soldiers have disguised themselves as trees, and as the witches predicted Macbeth would be defeated when these woods came to Dunsinane, therefore the English army helped to defeat Macbeth. This scene shows the unity of Scotland and England which would have flattered King James I as he represented the unity of Scotland and England. By centring Macbeth around a Scottish family of Royalty, Shakespeare also reflected King James I’s life and interests. Shakespeare also refers to the Gunpowder plot in Macbeth, which is when Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up King James and the royal family in 1605. This plot is referenced when the porter states “Knock, knock. Who’s there in th’other devil’s name? Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the scales against either scale, who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven.” This is a reference to the priest Henry Garnet who attempted to lie his way out of being hanged due to his involvement in the gunpowder plot. Since Porter’s were often seen to guide people through the gates of hell, Shakespeare is essentially saying that Henry Garnet went to hell for his involvement in the gunpowder plot and this would have again pleased King James. Through my knowledge of the historical context of Macbeth and King James I ruling England, I am able to see how Shakespeare wrote Macbeth in a politically strategic way that likely was aimed to please King James I.

My knowledge of the belief in the Elizabethan world order in 1606 has also influenced my understanding of the value of the divine right of Kings which is present in Macbeth and the plot of the play. In Macbeth, the plot is centred around the disruption of the natural world caused by the murder of King Duncan. This disruption is eventually resolved by the murder of Macbeth to restore world order. In 1606, English society believed in the Elizabethan world order and the Great Chain of Being. This Great Chain of Being is the theoretical hierarchy of beings based on Aristotle’s ideas. In this chain of being God sits at the top, beneath him angels, beneath them Kings, then nobility, artisans and peasants. After this comes animals, although certain animals such as lions have higher rankings than others, and beneath animals came plants and then rocks. Kings were also viewed as having been selected by God to rule and thus had ‘the divine right of kings’. Any break in the Great Chain of Being or an act which disrespected the divine right of kings was believed to result in disruption of the natural world. These views are reflected in Macbeth when Macbeth murders King Duncan. When Macbeth commits this regicide, he is committing an act against God as Duncan had been chosen by God to rule and has the divine right of Kings, and this results in chaos. This chaos is shown when an old man states that “‘tis said they eat each other” when referring to Duncan’s horses, and “A falcon … was by a mousing owl hawked at it and killed”. This disruption to the natural world caused by King Duncan’s murder reflects the common views of Shakespeare’s time and the belief in the Great Chain of Being and the divine right of kings. In order to restore harmony to the world, Macbeth is murdered. This murder of Macbeth would have pleased King James I as not only did it reflect his views and value of the divine right of kings, but if Macbeth was able to get away with regicide then it would have been seen as an insult to King James.

During Shakespeare’s time society was heavily misogynistic and also believed in the supernatural , which resulted in many women being labelled as witches and facing a cruel death. My knowledge of these common beliefs furthers my understanding of the underlying theme of the supernatural and the negative portrayal of Lady Macbeth. Not only did the majority of English society believe in the supernatural and witchcraft in 1606, but King James I was especially fascinated in witchcraft. In fact, King James published Demonologie in 1597, a book about witchcraft and the supernatural. From my knowledge of King James’s interest in witchcraft, I am able to see how Shakespeare may have included the weird sisters in the play in an attempt to win King James’s approval. Due to the misogynistic views of English society and the church in the 17th century, women were often accused of being witches and were credited with causing chaos and disaster. In Macbeth, the three witches reflect this stereotype as they are seen as agents of disorder and chaos with diabolical powers, who set off the chain of events that lead to Duncan’s murder and the disruption of the natural order by telling Macbeth about the prophecy. Lady Macbeth calls upon these witches and demonic forces to “unsex her” so that she can be powerful enough to force her husband to kill Duncan without feeling remorse. By this affiliation with the witches, Lady Macbeth reflects the common view of the times which was that women could not possess power without supernatural help. After Lady Macbeth is filled with these demonic powers she is portrayed as the villain and shown to corrupt Macbeth, a good man and tragic hero, by persuading him to kill Duncan. This reflects how Elizabethan society believed and the church often promoted that women and the supernatural were the cause of men’s mistakes and were a threat to social stability. My knowledge of this context also allows me to see how Lady Macbeth’s eventual madness and suicide reflects how it was not seen as natural for women to yield power or display stereotypically masculine qualities.

My knowledge of the historical context of Macbeth allows me to understand how the reign of King James I influenced the plot, themes and values in Macbeth in Shakespeare’s attempt to ensure political correctness and win his approval. My knowledge of the belief in the Great chain of Being also furthered my understanding of Macbeth’s plot and my knowledge of the views on women and the supernatural allowed me insight into the negative portrayal of Lady Macbeth. All this was critical to my reading of Macbeth as this play was not only a performance but also a show of political allegiance to the King. 

Gun Violence leaves a devastating impact on our society. Every year millions of people around around the world are affected by gun violence. Each attack related to gun violence has sparked awareness and has been a signal; one after the other for a change in gun restrictions. Over the past year, the gun violence movement has been heavily talked about after the tragic shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School. On February 14, 2018, seventeen people were killed tragically from gun violence. Innocent people who’s lives have been taken too soon. Ever since that tragic day, students and parents have been pushing for change. There has been a constant need for change. We need a change in our world. No child or family should have to experience the pain of gun violence. The main question is how the shooters have the weapon in their possession.

Ever since since the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, there have been five school shootings. Those schools were: Santa Fe High School, Savannah State University, Central Michigan University, Huffman High School and Great Mills High School. Four out of five of those shootings were committed by students. When students commit school shootings, people always consider, “How did the student obtain the weapon?” In the state of Florida, no person under the age of eighteen is able to buy a gun. No gun dealer can sell a gun to a minor. If someone sells a gun to a minor, the dealer can be arrested and charged with first degree misdemeanor and can face up to one year in jail. In many states, an eighteen year old can buy a semiautomatic weapon. Most school shooters are students. No teenager should be able to have access to a gun.

Another topic that falls under that question is that the gun is owned by the parents or another family member. Many parents have a legal permit to carry a gun or have one in their household. Parents keep a weapon in their house for protection in case of an emergency. Many teens have knowledge of the gun being in the house and know how to access it without their parent’s knowledge. Guns are the most dangerous thing that consumers can obtain in the American marketplace. Congress blocked a bill that required various background checks to prevent a lawbreaker from buying guns illegally. Over 97% percent of Americans want expanded background checks. The gun violence issue requires immediate attention to until every aspect of it is dealt with by law makers.

Even though there are many people who have legal permits to have a weapon, it does not keep them in the clear of violence. No child should have to experience gun violence anywhere, especially in their own home. More than 25% of children experience violence in their own home (CWLA). More than 5% experience a shooting (CWLA). Statistics found that “every day, eight children and teens are shot unintentionally by family fire”(BRADY). Another one found that “every sixteen hours, a woman is shot dead by her current or past partner” (BRADY). No one should have to experience gun violence in their school or even their own home.

Teens in our society today are affected tremendously by gun violence. After the mass shooting at Stonemason Douglas, teens were very hesitant to go to school the following days and weeks. Not only did the Parkland community mourned, but the whole country did as well. This was one of the top mass shootings ever in our country. The shooting brought about many student walkouts, memorial marches and and a new voice for justice. Hearing the gut wrenching stories of students and faculty during that tragic day is heart breaking and it calls for a change. Hearing the vigorous stories of how each student was killed is sickening. Hearing the parents pleas for safety and justice is tragic. No parent should have to see their child’s life being taken by gun violence. Meadow Pollack’s father and Jamie Guttenberg’s father went to higher officials in the country and fought for change. They fought so that no other parent would have to go through that tragedy and see their child be taken from them instantly.

It was a normal valentines day and Jamie was rushing out of the house and her father can not remember if he said “I love you” to Jamie. No one knew it her last day alive. No one knew the terror that was about to happen at the school except Nikolas Cruz. Each child that was killed fought for their life. Meadow Pollack fought for hers and Alaina Petty’s life. Meadow covered Alaina as gunfire shot throughout the hallway. Peter Wang held the door for others to help them escape but was shot in the process. The gruesome details are stuck in citizen’s minds. Students who survived the shooting are fighting for a change. They marched for not only their lives but for those who were lost. They are fighting for Congress to push more strict laws on gun violence so that no other child or parent should have to go through that.

Gun violence is not always considered mass shootings. It also includes suicide, violence in the community and domestic abuse. Our youth is tremendously affected by all of these types of violence. All of these various types of violence make teens question their safety. We need to prevent the trauma that comes as a result. We do not need to compare gun violence. It is not just one thing, it lies in many different categories. “Bullets do not discriminate and out response to violence cannot either” (March For Our Lives). On March 24, 2018, millions of people came together to fight for change in gun violence laws. Leaders of the protest were students and alumni from Stonemason Douglas High School. This protest showed that young people have the power to push for change. The youth will not be silenced. Students who are apart of the March for Our Lives campaign are asking mayors to support a youth voter registration enterprise. With this enterprise, mayors are making sure that students in their county are fully aware of all of the legal happenings. Mayors will make sure that the youth’s voice is heard during the election process and throughout the campaigns.

The parents have been affected tremendously by the uprising of the gun violence movement. They have received respect but have also had people who were against them. Manuel and Patricia Oliver have received hatred for their protest on gun violence. When they lost their son Joaquin in the shooting, they expected everyone to be sympathetic. They wanted to start their part in the movement. They held a “die-in” at their Publix and it created tension. People provoked them. They had people abuse and scream at them. No parent should have to bear this much after losing their own child in one of the nation’s most deadliest shootings. All of the parents wish for a change in gun control but agreed to not discuss it when they met together to support one another. Max Schachter lost his son Alex in the shooting and is not engrossed in the discussion on gun violence. He is working with higher officials to increase school safety. Meadow Pollack’s father, Andrew Pollack, believed that gun control measures failed during the shooting. He did an investigation into every aspect of his daughter’s murder. He looked into all of the failures of that day including the security monitors, the on campus police and the sheriff, and even to the mental health system. He looked into the mental health system based off of Nikolas Cruz’s gut wrenching videos before the shooting that got no attention to after February 14.

The fight for a greater change in school safety has affected every school in the country. Law makers pushed to have more security guards on campus, clear backpacks that should be used by all students, and that faculty and staff should be allowed to carry weapons on them in school. Many schools have pushed for the clear backpacks and have made their students use them as a precaution. There has been major concern as to having faculty carry guns in schools. During the uprising topic, people have asked, “What if someone had a firearm to shoot back at this awful human being?”, “Could some of those lives lost have been saved?” said Corey Silverstein.

Gun violence needs to be changed in the American society. No matter what, people will object ideas that come through the process. Congress needs to strengthen the laws and ensure better school safety. No child’s life should be taken too soon as a result of gun violence. Teens should not be afraid to go to school. Schools are supposed to be a safe place for kids; not an everyday terror wondering about the future of tomorrow or even further on. The youth now has power, and law officials need to see and hear the pleas. As someone who is a victim of gun violence and is constantly scared everyday about my safety, there needs to be a change.

Running head: GUN VIOLENCE

1

GUN VIOLENCE

2

Public Health Approach to Gun Violence

Llewellyn Golding

Ryerson

Public Health Approach to Gun Violence

Many communities across Canada have been impacted by very public displays of gun violence. In 2018, the rate of gun violence in Canada reached it’s highest since 1992. While there have been many public debates on gun violence, one question remains unanswered, “How do we stop it?” Canada has had its share of opportunities to commit preventive actions that would set us apart from other countries by ensuing gun laws are much more stringent. We continue to see concerning gun-related crimes impacting communities and many provinces across Canada.

Policy discussions and changes in Canada often follow major gun violence events and usually leads to incremental changes at the Provincial and Municipal level with less Federal enhancements. There are social movements that may be the catalyst to mobilize changes in the discourse of gun violence. Groups such as physicians and mothers of those victimized by gun violence have tabled different ways of thinking about gun violence. They will increase their effort to forge new policy directions based on approaching gun violence as a public health issue instead of strictly a criminal concern in Canada.

Background

Concerned groups have mobilized and are forging new expectations for changes in gun policies at every level of government. Reports of gun crimes reach our homes every day, and the rate of these crimes continues to threaten communities and households which have been traditionally safe and secure. Statistics Canada reports that the crime rate in Canada has increased by 1% since 2013, while the violent crime rate has decreased by 4%. Violent crime makes up 20% of all Criminal Code offences in Canada. (Canada, 2018)

Statistics published by the Department of Justice Canada (Zhang, 2012) show that, in 2008, Canada had approximately 8,710 police-reported incidents involving a firearm that affected 9,469 victims. The total economic and social costs of gun-related crime in Canada was $3.1 billion that same year, and “firearms were present in about one-third of homicides (32.7%) and attempted murders (35.8%) in 2008” (Zhang, 2012).

While figures have fluctuated since, Statistics Canada reveals that, in 2016, critical contingency factors primed policy discussions. The report suggested that “there were approximately 7,100 victims of violent crime where a firearm was present”—a 33 percent increase on 2013 figures. The Toronto Van Attack in April 2018, the Quebec City Mosque shooting of 2017, the Vernon Massacre of 1996; the Yeo Inquest Shooting of 1992 the Concordia Shooting of the same year, and the École Polytechnique Massacre in 1989 show that Canada is not immune to horrendous incidents of gun violence (Kamal, 2018). As aforementioned, there were subtle policy movements following these events.

Interests.

The Federal Government can legislate handguns as evidenced in Bill C-71. They remain cautious about infringing on the constitutional rights of “gun owners” in Canada. The Federal Government has been engaged in the discussion regarding public safety that peaked when the Reform Party became a willing conduit for the arguments of firearms (Brown R. , 2017). For the 2019 federal elections, the Liberals, Green Party and New Democrat Party included gun control, prisoner form and support for victims of violence in their party platform.

The municipal government is advocating for a public health approach to managing gun violence and has put forward recommendations to the Province of Ontario.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that medical doctors want gun control policy, as with all health policy issues, to be founded upon the best available evidence. Physicians know scientific evidence and are good at producing, appraising and explaining it to the public (Stanbrook, 2019).

A feminist group became the first Community Coalition for Gun Control in response to the Montreal massacre. They started as a feminist group that believes in stricter gun laws including policies that are based on a public health approach to dealing with gun violence (Brown R. B., 2013). The Globe and Mail reported that Ken Price, a member of Danforth Families for Safe Communities, said in an “interview that dealing with gun violence must be approached much like smoking once was as a multidecade public-health endeavour” (Cardoso, 2019).

The Gun Lobby in Canada objects medical doctors involved in the gun control discourse and dismisses their recommendations as “ridiculous.” The gun lobby has been excellent at obstructing the initiation and discussions regarding available evidence that links guns and health. They have argued, for example, that such advocacy will lead to children being shot by police coming to raid homes of gun owners (Cardoso, 2019).

Ideas.

The Federal Government remains the only level of government with authority to commit an outright ban on handguns. There remains a pressing need for policies that have horizontal appeal such that it shifts the span of control and scope of action from the traditional enforcement focus to a socially driven entity. These entities appear to be emerging as evidenced by citizen groups, provincial government initiatives and municipal government initiatives.

The opportunity to apply the lenses of intergovernmental collaboration as the key to future policies regarding gun violence remains available as the main thread that connects all efforts to address gun violence as a public health issue. This would necessitate mandating all files that address the broader social determinants of health to work as extensions of each other in building the policies required to address gun violence in a public health context.

At the Provincial and municipal level, direct discussions are underway. The Globe and Mail reported that the Toronto Board of Health had been actively involved in advocating a new way of dealing with gun violence by asking the Province to ban the sale of handgun ammunition in March 2018 (Cardoso, 2019). Further, the idea of approaching gun violence using similar policies to those used for tobacco or alcohol has been tabled and is gaining traction as social movements.

Concerned groups have mobilized and are forging new expectations for changes in policy at every level of government. United Mothers Opposing Violence Everywhere is one such organization that formed a new utility of motherhood as a political vehicle and have successfully elicited the support of local politicians in the City of Toronto (Kinser, 2010). The Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns continue to rally their support for gun control that have resulted in the 70 complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons from the Canadian Gun Lobby group (Stanbrook, 2019). In the future, it is likely that we will continue to see a narrowing of the gap between the influence of institutions and the influence of coalitions in the effort to reduce the impact of gun violence through policy.

Conclusions.

The analysis in this paper explored the prospect of opening the policy directions that meet the expectations of citizen coalitions. Gun violence as a public health issue requires commitment and corporation of the three levels of government. The policy change is increasingly attainable, but change is slow. While bills must pass through the Senate, at best, the Senate can only attempt to modify it (Kamal, 2018). Political Parties are the change catalyst in Canada’s parliamentary system, and when one party has a majority, it becomes the dominant player (Tsebelis, 2002). With the Liberal Government’s creation of the long-gun registry in1995 as part of the Firearms Act, the door to change appeared to be opening. In 2018, the passing of Bill C-71 confirmed the journey to real and effective policies is attainable, but in real-time. Congruence and cohesiveness will be the key to achieving a Federally backed public health approach to gun violence policy.

(Golding, Llewellyn, 2019)

References

Brown, R. (2017). Firearm 'Rights' in Canada: Law and History in the Debates over Gun Control. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 97-116.

Brown, R. B. (2013). Arming and Disarming—A History of Gun Control in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Canada, S. (2018, 11 21). Firearm-related Violent Crime in Canada. Retrieved from Statistics Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-005-x/2018001/article/54962-eng.htm

Cardoso, T. (2019, 11 13). Toronto health board calls on Queen's Park. Globe and Mail.

Kamal, R. D. (2018). POLICY GRIDLOCK VERSUS POLICY SHIFT IN GUN POLITICS. World Affairs, 181(4)., 317–347.

Kinser, A. (2010). Motherhood and Feminism. Berkley: Seal Press.

Stanbrook, M. (2019). Gun control: a health issue for which physicians rightfully advocate. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 434-435.

Tsebelis, G. (2002). How Political Institutions Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zhang, T. (2012). Introduction—The Economic Impact of Firearm-related Crime in Canada. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”-Mahatma Gandhi. If a nation is to be judged by the way we treat our animals, our nation would be seen as a failure. All around the world, there are animals such as rabbits, mice, monkeys and many more stuck in labs receiving punishment and inhumane testing for the act of doing nothing. Animal testing has been used since the 1800s (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para. 7) but became more popular in 1944 for Draize testing to test the irritation caused by chemicals. This type of testing was done on rabbits and was commonly used to test the effects of eye cosmetics (Abbott, 2005, para. 7). After these events, the use of animals for chemical, drugs and toxicity testing grew immensely. Every second a drug is taken, or a pesticide is being released or a cosmetic is being applied just think of the journey and animal lives that have been lost to make and produce it. We have all grown up learning the 3R’s, reduce, reuse and recycle however it’s now time to learn a new set of R’s, reduction, refinement and replacement of animal use (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para.1). Animal testing is proven to be inconclusive, a cruel and barbaric act and can be replaced by new methods and studies. Animal testing is morally and ethically an injustice. Over the years, scientists and researchers have found that animal tests are very inconclusive and unreliable for humans. There is new research being released every day about the unreliability of animal testing, studies have found that they are most incorrect in the neurology and vascular fields(Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para. 13). With this new information coming to light it has caused many researchers and studies to question the use of animals for each testing, and how it does not resemble humans cells and their reactions. However, animal experimentation is mainly deficient is toxicity tests for drugs and chemicals. “This is despite the acknowledged poor quality of most animal tests, which have never undergone the rigours of validation that in vitro alternatives now face. Most animal tests over- or underestimate toxicity, or simply don't mirror toxicity in humans very well.”(Abbott, 2005, para.13). This quote signifies the unpredictability of animal testing especially when it comes to toxicity. More specifically tests in embryotoxicity test have also been untrustworthy. The process for embryotoxicity testing is the test of giving chemicals to pregnant animals, and then examining how the animal and embryo reacts (Abbott, 2005, para.14). This is as well the case for cancer testing, “It is dramatically over-predictive: more than 50% of the results are positive, of which 90% are false positives.” (Abbott, 2005, para.15). Through this quote, it represents the unpredictability with cancer testing on animals. Even with all these facts, there are still arguments that animal testing helps to prove the safety of cosmetics and promotes human health. While there are situations where it seems there's proof, “In the 1990s, deaths from breast cancer dropped by nearly a third...The drug's development involved research on rats and mice that explored how hormonal changes induce tumours.”(Brooks, 2012, para.3). Many don’t realize how old this research is and now with new technology, it has been able to pinpoint all the incorrect facts and methods with these. These tests have unpredictable results and will not be beneficial to your overall health. Animal testing is inhumane and a cruel deed, no animal should have to be locked in a small cage being scared of the next drug they are going to test on them. This type of experimentation uses animals such as mice, birds, rabbits, monkeys and sometimes cats and dogs (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para.8). Since animal testing has been such a big industry for so long legal and nonlegal, it has cost millions of animals there lives. The estimate for the number of animal lives lost a year is about 100 million animals (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para.3). These are all the numbers from recorded research, this doesn’t even include the possible under the table and illegal studies people do in other places. Is animal testing worth losing 100 million lives of living beings? Researchers never noticed until recently that animals do have emotional and physical responses from all the brutal testing they are put through. Recently studies have found that different markers in animal from testing, “Numerous studies have demonstrated that, even in response to gentle handling, animals can show marked changes in physiological and hormonal markers of stress.”(Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para.10). This demonstrates that the stress that we as humans feel every day whether it be from work or injuring ourselves animals have the same responses. Furthermore, since these animals are in cages for so long and if they survive and may be released later on, they no longer remember their natural acts or behaviour(Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para.11) in the environment or their species. Not only is this a horrid act to do to animals there are laws slowly being made to protect more animals. Society and governments are slowly starting to realize the awful and wasteful act of animal testing and are implementing laws to stop this madness. The acts that have come to protect animals from testing is the Cruelty to Animal Act of 1876 as well as the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966(Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para.8). “For example, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act excludes purpose-bred birds, rats, or mice, which comprise more than 90% of animals used in research.” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011,para.8). This Act has been working hard to help eliminate animal testing to help the animals survive. Aside from acts we also have society working together to protest animal experimentation, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)(Brooks, 2012, para.5). This organization has been fighting for animals for quite some time and has helped to save many animals lives. With this mind and with so many fighting for animals there are also many replacements for animal testing. Technology is expanding every day and it is helping to develop different studies to reduce and hopefully eliminate the use of animals in testing. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives Methods or ECVAM has had a huge impact on helping animals. These are some tests that they have just begun to introduce, “ECVAM has so far seen 17 alternative tests through validation -- 11 use in vitro methods, another six involve refining in vivo tests to reduce the number of animals used. An additional 40 or so tests are under peer review, with more to come.”(Abbott, 2005, para.22). This is just the start of all the assistance that ECVAM has provided. Alongside with this, ECVAM has helped to create project ReProTect where they have opened up 27 labs focused on trying different studies to replace animals from labs”(Abbott, 2005, para.25). Overall, ECVAM has created many new methods to help to protect animals now and in the future. This isn’t the only centre focused on the protection of animals, in Massachusetts a lab call MatTek. MatTek has been making 3D models of human skin, that may now be used to conduct all sorts of different tests for diseases, irritation and much more (Siegel, 2017, para.4). If the study can expand it leads to the possibility of saving thousands to millions of animals from harm. These two projects have been the main supporting to the hopeful extinction of animal experimentation or testing. In conclusion, with all these facts in mind, it can be seen that animal testing or experimentation is morally and ethically wrong. This is presented through the unreliable information and data from testing, the abuse and harm the animal's face and the new alternatives that science has brought. Remember, every moment we take our medication there was probably thousands animal that died just to help us.

Animal Experimentation, necessity of life or relic of the past? Animal Experimentation has been recorded as far back as 322 bc by Ancient Greek physicians. The Greeks would use the animals both living and dead in order to learn through experimentation and study. One form of experimentation that was conducted was surgery methods to increase the survival chance for human patients. This did not only continue but it became a huge step for science as people learned more on human anatomy than ever previously known. However in recent years it has come under heavy criticism for being inhuman and cruel. Now the question people including scientist ask themselves is it worth it?

Animal experimentation in the modern day is a very broad field from lotion, to hair products to testing medical drugs. Since animal experimentation has been around since before the common era it is safe to say that animal testing has been almost everywhere, in most industrial fields they test their product on animals first so they won't release a faulty product and seem less credible or lose part of their customer base. Animal testing has helped shape several different industries such as pharmaceuticals, food industries, drugs, even Hope's of growing new organs. In pharmaceuticals animal experimentation takes form through hair products such as shampoos, dyes, lotions and sunscreen. Through food they found new ways to raise animals so they produce more meat at a quicker pace allowing than to be a steady source of nutrition. Drug experimentation is at an alltime high as scientists test multiple drugs in Hope's to combat once incurable diseases. With growing new organs it can be shown through a mouse that was used to grow a ear, this brought hope for other organs more vital ones may be made though other animals or even humans. Although not everyone sees animal experimentation in a positive light.

Some groups fine animal experimentation, both repulsive and unnecessary. Most of them don't have any effect on the use of animal experimentation. Group such as Peta, the national anti-vivisection society, and cruelty free international are all huge groups who oppose the use of animal experimentation. They speak out against animal experimentation, and in society it is seem as almost a norm to be against animal experimentation since they see it directly correlating with animal cruelty. This has lead some companies to sell products that haven't been tested on animals but they are both more expensive and less in demand than the larger companies who do use animal experimentation. The truth is the common man doesn't care about weather something is animal tested or not, they simply feel bad about it when they think about it but continue to ignore it after. As one would say ignorance is bliss so is the fact that the bar of soap on your counter was from a batch that was thrown in the eyes of an animal in order to test if it would cause blindness. People don't think about it since it's easier not to, and if they do care than they dont talk they act.

One group that has been very vocal about their opposition to animal testing is the British-based group “animal justice project” who often speak up against such experiments. They provide many insightful points such as “More than 100,000 humans are killed yearly by prescription drugs that passed animal testing. Animal research is not the final phase, 90 percent of drugs that pass the animal tests fail in human trials. So if we have to test on humans to be accurate, can we not skip out the middle monkey?” This does raise a good point that if we focused more on human based testing the results would be not only more effective, but it also raises a fair point as to why animal testing is needed at all. Were most alternatives fall short is that it would severely impair scientific research however mass human testing seems as if it would likely be so much better and accurate making one wonder why it hasn’t been done.

Mass human testing likely hasn’t become a thing due to the lack of people willing to be put through such tests. Not only that but many points can be brought up against using human testing as well. One would imagine the idea of being pumped full of potentially harmful or lethal chemicals a good deterrent. Another fact is that the amount of people who die from animal tested drugs are about the same as human tested drugs. This brings up the fact that if both are equally effective, why wouldn't we use animals in order to preserve and extend human life. At this point the argument from it's wrong turns into a simple matter of opinion taking away from the credibility of the movement. This means organizations will do whatever brings them more income and animal experimentation is much cheaper than human testing. Due to these facts it’s a given that mass human testing will not occur anytime soon, if at all unless the law gets involved. Even if they did this would cause the prices of many consumer goods to skyrocket and no longer be available to the majority of lower class citizens. With no clear, effective and affordable way to get rid of animal experimentation it is more than likely that animal experimentation will be around for longer than most of us will live, as it has also been around for much longer than we have.

While wars were being fought overseas, battles of another kind were being fought at home. The U.S. homefront was working to be able to raise an army, provide soldiers with the necessary tools to fight while providing for everyone at home. The impacts that World War II caused would forever change America.Not everything was as simple as raising an army, however. Uniforms, weapons, and other equipment were needed in order for the United States to be able to fight. As the U.S. had many resources, it had the capability to supply itself and other countries, but first, it would require many sacrifices and hard work on the people’s part.As the U.S. prepared for a possible total war, Americans were told to go without most of the things they had taken for granted, even things they needed in their daily life. The government rationed gas, clothing, and food, children looked for scrap metal, and women seized jobs in defense plants such as electricians and welders. People eagerly listened to radio reports, hoping for good news of the war going on across the water. Sadly, Japanese Americans, although loyal to and born in the United States, had rights taken away as citizens. As husbands, fathers, and brothers went off to war, family lives changed, as women were faced with new responsibilities and working. Those with family or friends overseas had to endure years of waiting before their loved ones finally came home. A significant effect was felt when many of the men who were in the workforce left to go off to war. With so many men going off to war, labor shortages started to make an impact on family life.Ordinarily, women worked for a few years after finishing their education before leaving their jobs to have a family. However, after the war started, millions of women started joining the workforce, and the number of high school dropouts grew from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 students because of all the jobs opening up. “Rosie the Riveters” became a popular term to describe a woman toiling in the defense industry.Although at first the idea of women and teens working was scorned, the women and teens soon showed that they were vital to the war effort. Their efforts paved the way for Women’s and Civil Rights Movements in the following decades. In order to find good paying war jobs, many families moved to industrial centers, which quickly became extremely populated. These ‘boom towns’ often grew from several thousand people to over one hundred thousand during the war. The increase in jobs helped pull the United States out of the Great Depression. As the threat of invasion grew, some people became volunteers to defend against attacks. The volunteers trained in how to use first aid, bomb removal, and fire protection, and led practice drills. Because of the fear of attack from Japan, blackout drills were especially common. At any moment, people would have to be constantly ready to turn lights out, close curtains, and disappear into the basement, making it hard for planes to see where the cities were in order to bomb them. [footnoteRef:2] [2: Biography. (2019). Adolf Hitler Biography. Retrieved 20 March 2020, from https://www.biography.com/dictator/adolf-hitler. ]Workers on the home front were not the only ones doing their part. Thanks to rationing, everyone had a chance to participate in the war effort. All Americans were encouraged to “conserve and recycle,” salvaging cans, bottles, paper, rubber, and other types of scrap material, which would later be turned into materials for war supplies.Food, gas, and many other items were rationed. As a way to get around this, many Americans worked on victory gardens, where they grew their own vegetables as an attempt to work around rationing and the shortage of food. In 1945, about 20 million victory gardens were being used around the U.S., and approximately 40% of all vegetables eaten in the U.S. were grown in victory gardens. The central government launched a “Food for Victory” campaign, which encouraged people to maintain and produce as much food as possible. Citizens were encouraged to eat leftovers, instead of wasting food, and to grow their own food in “victory gardens” to help with food production.During the war, the U.S. government raised taxes to help pay for the war costs. The government also sold “war bonds,” which people could buy, allowing the government to borrow some of their money.During World War II, the United States used propaganda to unite the country and to encourage people to join the war effort. The U.S. government was not into the idea of propaganda at first, so they adopted the ‘strategy of truth,’ which provided a way to give information to the public without twisting the news. However, newspapers soon convinced the government to use propaganda, and soon, propaganda was everywhere. The United States spread propaganda in as many ways as possible, except for television. Although televisions have already been invented, they were usually not very common in households until after the war. Propaganda was spread mainly through the use of leaflets, books, movies, newspapers, and especially radio and posters. An especially popular way of spreading propaganda was through posters. Posters were used to encourage Americans to conserve, reuse, and recycle, and to do many other things as well. By the end of World War II, over 200,000 different poster designs were in use. Listening to the radio was the main way of finding out news and entertainment for most Americans throughout the war. People became dependent on radio updates about what was happening overseas, even if they did not have family or friends at war.