Research Papers / Can't Find Primary Sources!!! On Trujillo and his Women [2]

Hello!

I am completely unable to find ANY primary sources for my research on the role of women in the Era of Trujillo. Rafael Leonidas Trujillo was the dictator of the Dominican Republic for about 30 years and part of his monopoly/fiefdom was heavily influenced by his machismo... he had hundreds, perhaps thousands, of affairs; several regular mistresses; and 3 wives. Part of his monopolization of power included taking the daughters of people who wanted to move up, get a house, keep their lives, and so on.

However, there is very little primary source documentation. How should I go about finding primary sources for this topic? My university did not have anything in their online catalogs or print holdings, so I'm kind of on my own. Any ideas/help?!

Thanks so much for your time!

Writing Feedback / Religion in Arthurian Legend essay - completed minus conclusion [2]

I have yet to write the conclusion, but otherwise... would love to get some input on how to improve/a general critique. Thanks!!

Religion in Arthurian Legend

Introduction
Throughout the history of the Arthurian myth, King Arthur has always been a figure of great veneration. He was first loved by the British as one of their own, a national hero. However, the rest of the world (and specifically the United States) have been taking note of Arthur's tale and adapting it for their own uses. Pearsall observes, "When a story is removed from its nation or people and transplanted into a different culture, it tends to lose its heroic national temper and be made the vehicle for more generally fashionable social concerns" (Pearsall 20). We will explore the variations in Arthurian legend beginning with Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, followed by Alfred, Lord Tennyson's Idylls of the King, and finally two contemporary sources - Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Jerry Bruckheimer's 2004 film King Arthur. In our exploration we will focus on a single "fashionable social concern" - Religion. Religious thought has been prevalent throughout the Arthurian myth, but differs from tale to tale based on the author's beliefs and experiences, societal mores and standards (or the rejection thereof), and the desire to reconcile both of these with Arthurian myth and the present-day plight.

Malory's Le Morte D'arthur
Thomas Malory wrote his 15th century masterpiece at least partially while in jail. He was never tried for the crimes of which he was accused and so it is uncertain if he even did any wrong. Regardless, Malory appeals to the reader in his post-scripts for their prayers and thoughts. Having no doubt heralded the displeasure of the English monarchy, Malory's writing strives toward religious education. Vinaver writes, "Ever since Malory's time poets and critics have regarded the Morte Darthur as a means of moral and spiritual perfection" (Vinaver 68). Fritscher writes that just as many other educative heroes such as Sophocles' Oedipus, Malory's protagonists "learn their lessons while the reader is himself instructed by and through his delight in their learning" (Fritscher 1).

Malory does not see the key held in a cloistered hand dedicated to sacrifice and love. Instead, he advocates the behavior of a gentleman who seeks good and flees from evil, but "social discipline...[and]...gentle manners" are the chief spiritual attainments (Fritscher 2). However, Malory's tale is not simply one of chivalry like many of the ensuing "courtesy books." He acts as a social critic, speaking of "love nowadays" in England. But still, Malory transcends this role by providing his effectual guide to morality while remaining humble towards the mysteries of religion.

Let us take, for example, Malory's humble inability to grasp the words to convey Galahad's Grail experience. When he finally comes to behold the Sankgreall, when he comes to "see that thou hast much desired to see," Malory can only relate his experience indirectly by describing Galahad's reaction:

And then he began to tremble right hard when the deadly flesh began to behold the spiritual things. Then he held up his hands toward heaven and said,

"Lord I thank Thee, for now I see that that hath been my desire many a day. Now, my Blessed Lord, I would not live in this wretched world no longer, if it might please Thee, Lord" (Malory 109).

Armstrong would seem to agree that Malory knew right well a verily pious Christian Grail experience would be "linguistically incomprehensible, perhaps even invisible to worldly eyes that have been focused on the kind of questing, tourneying, and rescuing of damsels that builds honor and reputation for the majority of Malory's text" (Armstrong 32).

Malory is an allegorical writer. He uses metaphor as opposed to theological discourse to convey his religious preference. His allegory is branded for the socio-psychology of the Middle Ages. Just as George Orwell's Animal Farm is not merely the story of a farm full of talking animals, Le Morte D'arthur is not merely "a romance of knightly adventure." Malory writes under the guise of courtly tales, "but makes them metaphorically transcendent so that ultimately the individuals can learn their own lessons of moral independence, leaving the failing court institution behind" (Fritscher 5). Fritscher illustrates this point through Bedivere's last moments with Arthur as the king is being taken away on the barge in The Death of King Arthur.

Then Sir Bedivere cried and said,
"Ah, my lord Arthur, what shall become of me, now ye go from me and leave me here alone among mine enemies?"
"Comfort thyself," said the king, "and do as well as thou mayst, for in me is no trust for to trust in...pray for my soul!" (Malory 213)

Arthur's response emphasizes the necessity of individual responsibility in Malory's overall moral. Certainly ahead of his time, Malory rejects the institutionalized group salvation in favor of the personal responsibility of individual grace. One's personal moral duty transcends the institutions of church and government, in which moral action is simply to do "as well as thou mayst."

Tennyson's Idylls of the King
The Idylls is considered English poet laureate Alfred, Lord Tennyson's shining accomplishment. Mazzeno believes this is because of Tennyson's ability to paint the character of King Arthur as "'epochal,' the model of human behavior whose career stands as 'a path towards that fair ideal we strive to attain'" (Mazzeno 34). Augustus Strong, president of Rochester Theological Seminary, dedicates in his The Great Poets and Their Theology his final chapter to the works of Tennyson. While his primary focus is understandably on In Memoriam, an elegy to Tennyson's best friend Arthur Henry Hallam, he also offers what can be an instructive difference between the approaches of Tennyson and Malory in their respective works. The hero of the work Strong calls Tennyson's Paradise Lost, King Arthur, is "no mere allegorical phantom" but "a living, breathing human being instead" (Strong 479).

This is because he is modeled at least in part after "a living, breathing human being" -- Arthur Henry Hallam. Tennyson met Hallam at Cambridge where they were members of a literary club called "The Apostles." The two were close friends and Hallam was engaged to Tennyson's sister Emily before he died suddenly at the age of 22. When someone is taken from us "unfairly," we tend to propagate that person as larger-than-life and idealize them. Thus, Tennyson extolled many of the traits he saw in Hallam upon his King Arthur. Tennyson's grief over his friend's tragic death dominated much of his early poetry and inspired some of his best works: In Memorium, The Passing of Arthur, and Ulysses.

Even though he approaches the last of his idylls from a pessimistic view, Tennyson always comes back to optimism and ultimately favors moving on through the grief. Out of this rose a predominating theme through much of the Idylls: faith. We may illustrate this again with Sir Bedivere's closing moments with King Arthur. Tennyson constantly looks to the past to improve the morals of the present. Further, Lollar writes, Tennyson uses "nostalgia to create a mythic world in which faith existed in attempt to inspire faith in the present" (Lollar 1). In this way, Bedivere, someone who had faith but lost it, is a symbol of 19th century English society.

Bedivere twice is unable to complete the dying king's mission of brandishing Excalibur back into the lake. Excalibur represents Bedivere's entire way of life. He lacked the faith to believe Camelot was more than a dream. Lollar continues, "He fears that his whole life has been spent defending an illusion, defending something which does not, and did not, really exist (Lollar 1). As Arthur is placed in the barge to carry him away to Avilion, Bedivere bemoans,

Ah! my Lord Arthur, whither shall I go?
Where shall I hide my forehead and my eyes?
For now I see the true old times are dead,
When every morning brought a noble chance,
And every chance brought out a noble knight.
Such times have been not since the light that led
The holy Elders with the gift of myrrh.
(Tennyson 299.395-401)
Arthur languidly responds from the barge,
Comfort thyself: what comfort is in me?
I have lived my life, and that which I have done
May He within himself make pure! [. . .]
Pray for my soul. [. . .]
(Tennyson 299.411-415)
Arthur's ultimate message is to trust one's instincts in matters of faith. The Victorian struggle between faith and doubt characterized much of the period's literature. Bedivere of course takes the leap of faith on his third trip to return Excalibur from whence it came. Landow writes that Tennyson at least "sees some cause for hope in the fact that even men with the limitations of Bedivere, and they are many, can make soul triumph over sense" (Landow 2).

Contemporary Tales: Brown's The Da Vinci Code & King Arthur (film, 2004)
The Da Vinci Code
Dan Brown's best-selling novel drew extreme ire from the church due to the extreme claims he makes about Christianity and its early history. Brown purports a marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, the royal offspring of Christ were hidden away in the south of France, and the church covered up the whole ordeal for fear it would undercut Jesus' deity. The controversy stems from Brown's representation of the background of his novel as factual. Our purpose here is not to expressly disprove his droll fallacy, as many authors have undertaken since the book's release. Thus, we will leave this niche by saying: In I Corinthians 9:5, Paul defended his right to have a wife (though he did not have one); if Jesus had had a wife it seems certain Paul would have mentioned such a trivial detail.

The Da Vinci Code ultimately amounts to a bad book with a good story. Brown's prose is poor and his "airport-reader" writing style feels cliché and under-developed. Nevertheless, Brown has written a very important book. At the very least he has challenged the basic assumptions of religion. A former chairman with Sony, Mr. Calley, remarked, "In our society, most societies, we grow up with our religion given to us by our parents. We're never truly oriented into the history of it, the subtlety of it. The amazing thing about this book is it's provocative: Is it all true? Isn't it true?" (Waxman)

King Arthur
In the case of the 2004 film King Arthur, more is conveyed by its lack of religious message than an overt message itself. The Arthur of Bruckheimer and Fuqua's film is indeed a Christian, but he is in conflict with the Catholic Church at several points through the movie. He earns the scorn of a bishop he is sent to rescue for freeing pagans being held on the property. This movie takes a decidedly liberal stance in demonizing the Catholic Church in favor of its rationalist, albeit pagan, characters. Even Arthur, an optimistic Catholic turns his back on Rome at the end of the movie proving his allegiance lies in the freedom and equality in man.

He seems to have gotten this crazy notion that all men are equal from a man he calls a close friend, Pelagius. Pelagius was declared a heretic by the Catholic church in the 4th century C.E. and the majority of his work survives in the quotations of his opponents' rebuttals. A harsh ascetic, Pelagius rejected the "moral laxity" of the day and attributed it to the teachings of divine grace by St. Augustine and others. This led him to reject the idea of Original Sin from Adam. He believed that men ultimately had control over their will and thus their salvation; humanity did not need God's grace (Pohle). It is easy to see where the democratic notions Arthur adopts come from, though the movie does not deal with the theological aspect or the scorn "Pelagianism" adopted.

However, this is not a fatal flaw for the movie -- or a flaw at all for that matter. The central theme of democracy throughout the film is projected es as a religion. Released the year after the start of the War in Iraq, King Arthur speaks to a war-ridden nation, asking for the "king in all of us."

Conclusion

Works Cited

Armstrong, Dorsey. "The (Non-)Christian Knight in Malory: A Contradiction in Terms?" Arthuriana, Vol. 16, No. 2: 30-35.

Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code.

Fritscher, Jack. "When Malory Met Arthur: Sex and Magic in Arthur's Camelot." Ed. Mark Hemry. Chicago: Loyola University Libraries, 1967.

Landow, George P. "Closing the Frame: Having Faith and Keeping Faith in Tennyson's 'The Passing of Arthur.'" Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1974: 423-42.

Lollar, Cortney. Restoring Faith in the Passing of Arthur." VictorianWeb, 1996. victorianweb.org/authors/tennyson/idylls/lollar2.html

Malory, Thomas. Le Morte D'arthur

Mazzeno, Lawrence W. Alfred Tennyson: The Critical Legacy. London: Camden House, 2004.

Pearsall, Derek. Arthurian Romance.

Pohle, Joseph. "Pelagius and Pelagianism." In The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

Tennyson, Alfred, Lord. Idylls of the King.

Vinaver, Eugene. Malory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Waxman, Sharron. "Sprinkling Holy Water on 'The Da Vinci Code.'" The New York Times, 7 August 2005.

Writing Feedback / Russia and the Far Abroad [4]

Was hoping to get a bit of feedback about where I can stand to improve this piece. Thanks in advance...
Russia and the Far Abroad: Foreign Relations and Power Shifts After the Soviet Collapse

Introduction
In 1991, with the Soviet collapse, the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) solidified the sovereignty of the Central Asian Republics. The CIS, made up of Russia and eleven former-Soviet republics, was formed to effectively divorce these republics civilly and establish freedom and national identity for each of the republics. However, it was critiqued as a Russian geopolitical tool to maintain a sphere of influence in the region. In response to the failure of the CIS' Foreign Trade Agreement of September 1993, the Central Asian Union (CAU) was formed (Cutler 2000). While not abolished, the CIS lost considerable strength and credibility with the formation of the CAU in 1994. Proposed by President Karimov of Uzbekistan, the CAU included Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and later Tajikistan (Cutler 2000).1 [FOOTNOTE: 1 Tajikistan was never really "welcome" in the CAU due to civil unrest in the country created by civil war, drug trafficking, the neighboring presence of the Taliban, etc.] The CAU was not supported by Russia, so Russia had no vested interested in the success of this alliance. A failure of the CAU would potentially offer more power to the CIS and therefore to Russia's influence. And fail the CAU did. However, the CIS did not gain any extensive credibility as a result. In 1996, the Shanghai Five was formed as a security alliance. Initially, the group included Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. When the purpose of the group evolved to an economic alliance, Uzbekistan wanted on board. President Karimov, with a large population and favorable geopolitics, was slowly trying to integrate Uzbekistan as a regional power. With Uzbekistan's inclusion in 2001, the Shanghai Five became the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The SCO has most recently been used as a counter-balance to United States' influence in the region (Yom 2002). One of its initial purposes was probably to prevent conflicts in the region that might allow the U.S. to intervene in areas around Russia and China (Ibid). The Shanghai Five and the latter mentioned SCO were successful in this endeavor for the short term.

U.S. Interest Before 9/11
In 1997, then Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott delivered a speech on the U.S. policy toward Central Asia entitled "Farewell to Flashman" (Rumer 2002, 2). Essentially, Talbott's speech served as a statement to say that the U.S. "had no compelling interest in the region...[and] that Central Asia was not a region of critical strategic importance" (Ibid, 2). This is not to say, however, that there were not urgings from U.S. policy officials to exert influence on the region. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor under Jimmy Carter, listed the qualities of Eurasia's worth, including, "Seventy-five percent of the world population, most of its material riches, 60 percent of the world's GNP, 75 percent of sources of energy, and behind the US, the six most prosperous economies and the six largest military budgets" (Escobar 25 January 2002). Brzezinski also stressed the U.S. should ensure no other super-power "take control of the geopolitical space" (Ibid). However, the prospects of oil and gas reserves in the Caspian region rivaling those of the Persian Gulf are very much exaggerated (Lieven 1999, 69). Anatol Lieven writes, "At barely 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves (around a thirtieth of the Gulf's reserves), it should be blindingly obvious that Caspian energy does not constitute a 'vital U.S. interest' " (Ibid, 71).2 [FOOTNOTE: 2 It should conversely be noted that any decrease of reliance on the Persian Gulf's energy resources could be reasoned as a "compelling U.S. interest." Additionally, the estimates used to make this statement are currently under question.] Historically, Central Asia's strategic importance has been two-fold: first, it acted as a powerful trade route between China, Russia, the Middle East, and Europe; second, it consistently produced warrior nomads during an epoch in which the most effective soldier in battle was the mounted bowman (Ibid, 70). Obviously, these two geopolitical interests dissipated long ago.

So, to this point, what is America's vested interest in the region? Arguably to contain Iraq and Iran, perhaps even Russia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? The first and second Clinton administrations were happy to not assume the burden of Central Asia's stability (or lack thereof) issues. After Talbott's 1997 speech, what changed? Perhaps the experience of Chechnya revitalized a vision of renewed Russian desire for hegemony. While the U.S. did not want to become involved in a new "Great Game," the U.S. did have a compelling interest to keep others from dominating the region.

"The worst imaginable turn of events from the standpoint of U.S. interests would be a geopolitical wrestling match between Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, and Turkey for control of Central Asia. It would upset too many other interests that the United States might have elsewhere (Rumer 2002, 2)."

The U.S. hope was that Central Asia would be free of the super-powers and develop its natural resources and gain economic stability through this development.

U.S. Interest After 9/11
Enter a post-9/11 world. The U.S. invades Afghanistan and overthrows the Taliban government. Troop presence and U.S. bases exist in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. There is no reason to believe the U.S. stay in the region will not be an extended one (Rumer 2002, 2). Prior to this point, comparisons between the geopolitical rivalry between the U.S. and Russia and the "Great Game" of the 19th century between Britain and Russia were invalid (Lieven 1999, 70). Britain's interest in the region was not hegemonious, but defensive. It is important to remember Britain controlled India at the time and so its motivation was not to conquer Central Asia, but to make sure that Russia did not use the region as a base to carry out attacks on India and/or British forces (Ibid, 70). Now, it could be argued, U.S. influence and presence in the region is attributed to national defense (via the "War on Terror"). However, in doing so, the U.S. has become the chief protectorate of the Central Asian countries.

The former Soviet republics obviously had a "security manager" upon which they could rely. After the Soviet withdrawal though, the lack of this comfort blanket left the regional leaders naked. The U.S. arrival into the region was a welcome one to most of the area's leaders. Before U.S. intervention, the Central Asian republics in their youth were too militarily undeveloped to provide their own security under the threat of regional disturbances and rivalries. Fighting the fears of militant Islam on many of its borders and transnational problems such as drug and weapons trafficking pushed the Central Asian leaders toward unstable relationships with Moscow and Beijing. The U.S. presence brought about a new hegemony in the region, much to the dismay of Russia and China.

The SCO's Irrelevance and China's Resulting Fall from Influence
The SCO, and through association, China, has perhaps been the biggest loser in the post-9/11 struggles in and over Central Asia. The Shanghai Five (which later become the SCO) was originally created as a security alliance. The Shanghai Five in its earliest forms was an outlet for Sino-Russian control of Central Asia's security affairs and transnational issues. However, since September 11, the U.S. has become "the main power broker in China's strategic backyard" (Rumer 2002, 3). The U.S. has also displaced China as the Russian intermediary in regional affairs. Additionally, with the world's third largest energy consumption, China has a vested interest in developing and obtaining energy resources close to home (Ahrari 2003). This is not to say, though, that China has not gained anything from U.S. military campaigns against Taliban forces. On its western borders, China is in dispute with Uighur separatists in the province of Xinjiang. A Chinese strategy to oppress this rogue group has become accusations of terrorism. China has been able to deal blows to the Uighurs with less scrutiny under the guise of fighting a regional war on terrorism (Rumer 2002, 3). However, no matter what gains within their own country China has made as a result of U.S. military action in the region, their displacement as a regional force seriously limits their ambitions to become the Asian superpower.

Russian Droit de Regard, U.S. Droit de Seigneur
While it is hard to believe many Russian officials are happy with the U.S. influence in the region, Russian President Vladimir Putin's uncompromisingly pro-U.S. stances have led to a general acknowledgment of "a certain Russian droit de regard in Central Asia" (Rumer 2002, 3). This simultaneous respect by Russia of U.S. regional policy and by U.S. of Russian rights to monitor U.S. actions to some degree has created peaceful relations and similar policies. The U.S. war on terror has helped Russia tie up western concerns over their campaign in Chechnya. Chechnya was previously a human rights disaster, but now it is a common fight against a militant Islamic terrorist group.

While relations between the U.S. and Russia are strong, Russia has been more or less reduced to a recoursive voice allowing the U.S. regional access and intelligence. Essentially, since U.S. military presence in the region, the U.S. has a driot de seigneur relationship with Russia. The U.S. would take out of necessity even if Russia did not give. However, it is to both countries' benefits that the current give-take relationship remain. The U.S. does not want to enter into a new "Great Game" with the super powers of the region and Russia does not have the military capacity to act as protectorate of Central Asia. This is not to say that Russia has been reduced to a minor influence. Russia's geographical importance as a consumer of oil and gas and high ethnic population in the Central Asian republics (specifically in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) assures Russian government a continued sphere of influence for some time to come.

Conclusion
The U.S., China, and Russia are not the only countries that have an impact on the region, but they are the focus of this paper because they are the most influential. Also to be considered are India, Turkey, and Pakistan; not to mention Iran's interest in having American troops in Afghanistan to prevent an Iranian-Taliban conflict. The bottom line, though, is the U.S. is in for the long haul. In the years after the Soviet collapse, the U.S. intent was never to assume the task of acting as Central Asia's regional security manager, but for the better or worse of all parties involved this is the job the U.S. has undertaken.

Bibliography and Works Cited

Ahrari, Ehsan. "The Importance of Central Asia to China." Asia Times. 13 March 2003.

Blagov, Sergei. "US, Russia marching on Central Asia." Asia Times. 7 December 2002.

Cutler, Robert M. "Uzbekistan's Trade Liberalization: Key to Central Asian Economic Integration." Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst. 16 February 2000.

Escobar, Pepe. "The Roving Eye: Pipelineistan, Part 1: The Rules of the Game." Asia Times. 25 January 2002.

Escobar, Pepe. "The Roving Eye: Pipelineistan, Part 2: The Games Nations Play." Asia Times. 26 January 2002.

Kerr, David. "The New Eurasianism: The Rise of Geopolitics in Russia's Foreign Policy." Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 6. September 1995: 977-988.

Lieven, Anatol. "The (Not So) Great Game." The National Interest. Winter 1999/2000: 69-80.

Lynch, Allen C. "The Realism of Russia's Foreign Policy." Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 53, No. 1. January 2001: 7-31.

Rumer, Eugene B. "Flashman's Revenge: Central Asia after September 11." Strategic Forum, No. 195. December 2002: 1-8.

Smith, Graham. "The Masks of Proteus: Russia, Geopolitical Shift and the New Eurasianism." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 4. 1999: 481-494.

Yasin, Kamal Nazer. "Iran Seeks to Keep US Troops in Iraq." EurasiaNet. 13 November 2006.

Yom, Sean L. (2002). "Power Politics in Central Asia: The Future of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization." Harvard Asia Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4. 2002: 48-54.