Compare and contrast federalism in Canada during the Keynesian era and Essay

Compare and contrast federalism in Canada during the Keynesian era and federalism in the neoliberal era - Essay Example ion’s flexibility has been responsible for finding solutions to public policy along with assisting it to rise to the challenges faced (â€Å"Canadian Federalism†, 2007). To put it simply, the country’s federation has been a common strength in identifying divergences and overcoming them thereby constructing a stronger nation (â€Å"Canadian Federalism†, 2007). The two centers of focus of the Canadian federal experience signify cultural dualism, the desire and ability of French and English speaking Canadians to survive as such along with the use of institutions of the government which they respectively dominate, and the other is public action to satisfy the material aspirations of individuals and groups living within an economy in which burdens and benefits are ascertained by the economic policies of successive federal administrations (Smiley, 1965). Canadian federalism exhibits the trend of decentralization (Lecture 17, n.d.). In spite of facing huge challenges the Canadian federation has made it work towards this trend (Lecture 17, n.d.). Early judicial decisions showed an inclination towards provincial power in Canada after 1867 (Lecture 17, n.d.). The election victory of 1896 marked he reversal of Macdonald’s centralism by Laurier (Lecture 17, n.d.). Both World War I and World War II brought interruptions in the movement (Lecture 17, n.d.). However, it spite of some federal states opting to move more towards centralized over time, Canada has remained persistent in its trend of decentralization of authority (Lecture 17, n.d.). Due to the influence of Great Depression (1929-1939), the Rowell-Sirois Commission revealed inclination towards economic management and social welfare from provinces to federal level (Lecture 17, n.d.). Reorganization of taxing functions was advised to favor federal assumption of new spending priorities and to enhance redistributive measures to offer national standards from coast to coast (Lecture 17, n.d.). However, the orders of the

Background to Media Plan of Unpackaged Grocery Retailers Essay

Background to Media Plan of Unpackaged Grocery Retailers - Essay Example â€Å"Media planning  - is the choice of optimal channel advertising (advertising contacts), conducted in order to maximize the effectiveness of advertising campaigns† (What is a Media Plan? n.d.). Situation Analysis: About Unpackaged and its Products: Unpackaged, is an organic grocery store set up locally in North London in the year 2007. (Unpackaged: Using Less Wasteful Packaging n.d.). It makes use of the design which helps its local customers to purchase products using less wasteful packages, and thus helps them to remain more eco- friendly. Unpackaged sells environmentally friendly standard mass items such as grains, sugars, flours, spices, and the traditional grocery products like oil, milk, eggs, cheese, wine, and beer. â€Å"Unpackaged was founded in 2006 by Catherine Conway,† who recognized that it is important to work with designers to be more successful for the plan of alternative to supermarket shopping† (Unpackaged n.d.). With the aid of design agen cy Conway managed to develop a strong brand and certain new ways of shopping. Unpackaged began its operation â€Å"as a market stall at Exmouth Market† (Easy Tips to Being Greener (and Better off)! 2007) with Conway pointing out the type of grocery people like to buy loose and â€Å"lots of feedback from customers† (Diamond 2012) regarding the reasons behind to stay off from buying Unpackaged products. So they created a jar icon when they remain still in the small business in the market. The business still found it difficult to brand the organization as it removed the essential thing i.e. the vehicle for branding purpose: packaging. Later they designed a flyer that utilizes icons with the same ratios as the unpackaged jar to clarify how the new concept of shopping works. They moved from the stall into the retail shop in the market, and more versions of the icons in gold foil were put on the door, so that everybody who comes into the shop can effortlessly make out how i t will work. The movement of Unpackaged into a shop, intended for a new style of shopping, proved to be popular in the market. â€Å"The mantra of Unpackaged is: Reduce by only buying what you need, Reuse by bringing your containers for a refill, Recycle what you can’t reuse. And†¦ if you can’t reuse or recycle it then don’t buy it!† (Unpackaged Shopping without Packaging 2012). About the Market: The grocery market in UK

What Is Art? Expressivism in Art

What Is Art? Expressivism in Art A definition of art would help to identify what art is in order for individuals to recognise and appreciate it, but there is controversy as to how to define art or whether art can be defined at all. It will become clear that features of what it takes to be art are not particularly simple to pinpoint. For example, the aestheticist would suggest that good art must look good, but it is not enough to say that something is art if it has the quality of being aesthetically pleasing. Beauty may apply to a large number of things that are not readily accepted as art, or on the contrary, not all art may be aesthetically pleasing at all. Furthermore, the aesthetic standard of art will only please a certain class of people. There are many conceptual definitions of art that attempt to outline the necessary and sufficient conditions required for something to be considered a work of art, though I will focus on the concept of expressivism as it proves to be the most convincing to me. I will set out to define art as understood by the expressivists Tolstoy and Collingwood, through which it will become clear that it takes much more than external features such as beauty to define art. Tolstoy makes some important contributions to the nature of expressivism, but exacerbates his views as he emphasises the significance of religion in defining art. It is here that Collingwood seems to have the edge, and the more appealing definition seems to be a combination of the benefits of both theories. I will therefore argue for the importance of having a definition of art, as although conceptual ones are tricky in themselves, it is equally as troubling to omit the use of a definition altogether. Expressivism largely deals with the fact that art connects with people via their senses. It defines art through the expression of emotion that is entailed by the artist in their artwork and the emotional impact that it has on the audience. To Tolstoy, something is art if it creates an emotional link between the artist and its audience, uniting them insomuch that the emotion portrayed through the artwork affects the viewer. It is true that every man has the capacity to receive, through hearing or sight, another mans emotions and feel those feelings himself, just as each man has the ability to affect another man through his expression of feeling, and Tolstoy infers that this is the heart of which the activity of art is based. But more specifically, the infection is characteristically indirect, in that it begins when one person, the artist, expresses through his artwork his emotion, which is communicated to the viewer through the artwork as a medium. As a simple example, Tolstoy describes a boy who encounters a wolf and feels fear. On experiencing this, he describes the experience to others in such a way as to arouse the fear that he experienced in himself and infect the avid listeners with the particular emotion. This analogy shares with art three distinct characteristics: individuality, clarity and sincerity. It is individual because it focuses specifically on one emotion, creating emphasis and increasing infection. It is clear because the emotion portrayed is pure and communicated without distraction, making it all the more infectious. Lastly, it is sincere because the stronger the artist or storyteller feels when communicating the emotion, the more infectious the feeling will be to the viewer. All three are important contributors to the quality of art, as the stronger the infection, the better is the art as art  [1]  . Tolstoy notes that many inaccurate definitions of art arise from that fact that they consider the pleasure that art gives, rather than the purpose that it serves in life and in humanity. To direct the aim of our endeavours at pleasure and to define it accordingly is like judging food based on the satisfaction of our tastes. Our taste buds are not an accurate basis for what can be universally known as good food, nor is beauty to good art. Hence, Tolstoy maintains that the concept of beauty when looking to define art simply confuses matters, and in order to define art accurately, it is necessary to avoid considering it as a means of pleasure, but rather as one of the conditions of human life that we use to interact and to communicate emotion between one another. So far, these discussions seem plausible as they allow for the objectivity of art and the basis of the definition to be intelligible and clear, rather than plainly aesthetic. Intelligent and clear expression of emotion enables us to grasp what is or is not art and maintains the meaning of art, otherwise any such expression of emotion could be defined as art and the definition steadily loses its meaning until it simply becomes a meaningless concept. But the strength of Tolstoys reasoning seems to falter at the part of the explanation that he deems most fundamental. Central to his argument, Tolstoy criticises the art of his era and infers that art had lost its true meaning to be exchanged for a counterfeit concept of art, which sought only to please those of a certain class. Real art is led by religious perception, which must be accepted in order to influence our understanding of feelings expressed through art. By religion, Tolstoy explicitly means Christianity, and it is declared that the best emotions communicated through art are those that appeal to Christian teachings of mans love for God and neighbour. Anything else, to Tolstoy, was insignificant art which aimed only at giving pleasureà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (and) did not deserve such esteem and encouragement  [2]  . He likens the replacement of real art with counterfeit art to worshipping false idols in Gods place. To suggest that art has departed from religious influence and has therefore lost all meaning seems irrational and slightly hypocritical. He accuses counterfeit art of appealing only to a certain class of people, but to place a religious constraint on the value of art does not, as Tolstoy intends, unite the classes, but places exclusivity on art too. The overbearing problem here is that good art doesnt have to be religious, and rather than defining art objectively, Tolstoy seems to have defined it around his own moral and religious perspective. It seems particularly harsh to rule out those who dont conform to his own form of Christianity as being in error and thus cannot appreciate true art. As Tolstoy, Collingwoods conception of art holds that it is essentially an expression of emotion, though perhaps provides a more sophisticated account. So, as Tolstoy does, Collingwood recognises that the expression of emotion is familiar to every artist. The realisation of this emotion, however, is imminent though not discernible. The artist is conscious of feeling something though he may not immediately realise what it is, so he expresses it as a way of not oppressing it. It is not until he has expressed it, that he realises what emotion it is. Further, he lists individualisation as an important factor in the expression of emotion. There are names for the types of emotions that we experience: happiness, anger, sadness and so on, but these emotions also come in many forms. The happiness I may feel right now is different and distinct from the happiness I felt yesterday, or any other time. They are individual and not general. Collingwood illustrates this with the poet, who recognises the peculiarity of his emotions and makes efforts to individualise them by expressing them in terms that set them apart from other feelings of the same kind.  [3]  This distinguishes art from craft, craft being that which has a general aim, and however accurately attempts to describe it may be, will always be defined as the production of a thing having characteristics that could be shared by other things  [4]  . He illustrates this quite succinctly: the joiner could make a table out of specific pieces of wood, with specific measurements th at arent shared by any other table, but those factors could still, in principle, be shared by other tables. So the artist, in contrast, does not make, he creates ex nihilo. He does not aim to create an emotion in his audience but more specifically, an emotion of a certain kind. At this point, Collingwood introduces the third important contributing factor to the definition of art. To create art ex nihilo would suggest that it begins in the mind, as the artist creates the artwork as a means of expressing what he is feeling. Hence, the third factor of art is imagination. Collingwood provides an important account of pinpointing real art, as he necessitates that the role of a true artist is not to instil or arouse emotion in his audience, but to produce an artwork, so if a musician, make a tune. It is easy to think of the music as art, but this is a common mistake. The tune exists perfectly and complete when it is still imaginary in the artists head. It doesnt become real until it is played for its sound to be heard by an audience, but this is where the mistake is made. Collingwood maintains that there are two different and distinct things here and we often mistake the wrong one to be art. The music, or artwork, is not the assortment of noises played out by inst ruments, but rather the tune in the musicians head. As a result of distinguishing art from craft he upholds that expression is an activity of which there can be no technique  [5]  as unlike craft, art has no preconceived end, coinciding with Collingwoods view that the artist doesnt know what emotion he is feeling until he has expressed it. This is possibly the most troubling part of his theory as we often consider art to be a demonstration of great skill. Perhaps Tolstoy can even recognise that the artist is skilful in communicating his emotion to an audience in a way that the ordinary person cant. Good technique is consistent with helping artists express their feelings creatively, as the painter can communicate them much more effectively with the knowledge of different brush strokes to exhibit different visual effects, or the blending of different colours together to instil a variety of different moods in his artworks. It seems absurd to say that it is only thorough absence of technique that produces real art. To conclude, the benefits that we can take from the two expressivists is that art requires a definition in order to retain the meaning of what real art is, and that art serves as a medium for communicating emotions. It is true that we feel certain emotions that artwork seem to convey. It is also true that these emotions can be infectious, for example on listening to a particularly upbeat song, we may suddenly feel a sense of happiness. It is also true that emotions consist of many different forms. Happiness stretches from satisfaction to elation and it is perhaps the individuality of feelings that artists experience that contribute to the individuality and quality of artwork. Collingwoods distinction between art and craft is also quite key to the definition of art, as although both may require a certain level of skill, the artist is very much about expressing emotion through his skill while the craftsman is merely making for the sake of making. So on this basis, a combination of the benefits of both expressivist theories seems to provide a valid definition of art. With omitting the defects of both theories, it would seem easy to suggest that if art really is so difficult to define, then maybe it is a subjective concept, and what it is should be left for people to determine for themselves. But that isnt an adequate conclusion, as it makes for difficulty in talking meaningfully about art, or what one considers being good or bad art, as each will have a different idea of what art is. Further, to say that art is something that which cannot be defined is, in itself, defining it in a particularly unsatisfactory way, as it achieves nothing. It is for this reason that a conceptual definition of art is preferable to not having one at all.

Obesity Alters Gut Microbial Ecology Essay -- Biology

A common theme among the concerns of today’s American citizens is that of obesity. Obesity, identifiable by abnormal fat accumulation, can be defined in absolute terms by one who has a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30. It is estimated that over 30 percent of American adults are clinically obese. This number has shown a dramatic increase from the 15 percent of American adults suffering from obesity in 1980. Globally, 400 million adults are obese, while predictions place this number at 700 million by 2015. The major issue confronting this adiposity is the health conditions that accompany states of extreme obesity. These include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, sleep apnea, and osteoarthritis among others. The escalating number of obese and the health effects connected to this condition have resulted in increased research and attention to the study of obesity. It is the common belief that the cause of obesity is solely due to an excessive consumption of food. However, recent studies have made a correlation between obesity and the diversity of microbiota in the gut. One project of focus (â€Å"Obesity alters gut microbial ecology†) measured the proportions of gut microbes in mice populations and hypothesized a relationship between this bacterial number and body mass. The significance of this field of study is vital to the issue of obesity. First, such a discovery would falsify the stereotype that obesity is exclusively a result of a disproportionate intake of calories. Instead, it would show that this condition is a genetic trait which maintains an acute relationship with the composition of microbes in the gut. More importantly, if the exact association between obesity and gut microbes can be discovered, it may be possible to alter or... ...05. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 21 Oct 2007. . * "Obesity." Wikipedia. 14 Nov 2007. . * "Obesity and Overweight." Media Centre. Sept 2006. World Health Organization. 1 Nov 2007. . * "Overweight and Obesity." Diseases and Conditions Index. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. 1 Nov 2007. . * Smith, Christopher M. "DNA Sequence and Structural Analysis." 17 Feb 2004. The Regents of the University of California. 21 Oct 2007. >. * University of Maryland. "Phylogenetic Analysis I." 2006. 21 Oct. 2007. .

Climate Change Essay

Once, I visited a hospital for my health checkup,there I saw a man with shattered skin,rashes all over the body;clearcut it was the case of allergy.Doctors are rushing and making report on it.After a week I again visited that hospital for my scheduled checkup,then I came to know a shocking news-that allergy case was the case of Ganga bath!! Alas! Holy river Ganga, ancient river Ganga ,that Ganga which takes away all the sins from mankind, today causing allergy,irritation,skin rashes!!! that man has to pay price for his religious belief†¦ Also scientists got some samples from Ganga from specific places having disease causing microbes. This small case itself indicate the change we have made in our nature. Change is the law of nature,change is inevitable and change is evergoing process,but Climate Change is one of the most complex,multifaceted and serious threat that the World face. Whether you are adding your bit to the heap of garbage piling up in your locality or not become meaningless when the garbage begins to rot-the stench will reach your nose too,Climate Change induced by global warming works much the same way. World famous scientists all over the country had evaluated climate change and came to conclusion that Greenhouse Gases ,CFC, Carbondieoxide and many other toxic gases are the cause of environment degradation.Though it is true scientifically,the root lies elsewhere;that is in the greed of human being.Our greed led to adavancement of technology and led us farther from peace and prosperity of all. Increasing consumption of electricity due to intiation of several new industries,disposal of garbage without treatment to maximize profit,use of environment hazardious substances like polythene in our daily life are concrete examples of human greed. People have been influencing the Biosphere for at least 8000 years,since the invention of Agriculture,but Climate Change has proposed a threat over our Agriculture.The most affected area of Climate Change will be Agriculture and its biodiversity. The first and foremost impact of climate change is in biodiversity specially Islands biodiversity.nearly one –fourth of the worlds countries are Island and they are treasure trove of biodiversity.Also they provide food,fresh water ,wood,fibre,medicine,fuel and other raw materials. But increasing sea level has given a alarm threat to them,The New Moore Island of India in Sunderbans has been consumed recently by rising sea,many other Pacific atoll nation Island of Kiribati,Islands of Vanuatu also submerged in early history.we are loosing huge . biodiversity;these are initial cases†¦ Rather IPCC has warned that a rise in sea levels of between 18 and 59cm by 2100 would be enough to submerge many other big islands, including Maldives and make them unhabitable,also of the 724 recorded animal extinctions in 400 years about half were Island species .also climate change will bring degradation of coastal environment and natural resources on which poor rural people depend.Higher rates of erosion and coastal land loss may vanish our islands In context of Agriculture,sea level rise will also cause increased salinity due to encroachment of the sea and saltwater intrusion into freshwater lenses,contributing to an increasing shortage of water supply and loss of agriculture land.The most vulnerable section will be the poor and marginal farmers with small landholdings because ‘extreme weather events’will specially occur in tropics,fundamental changes in rainfall pattern together with rising temperature will shorten growing season and reduce crop productivity . Acco.to World Bank 75% of 1.2 billion people are trapped in extreme poverty,so they will fail to adopt new rotation practices and thus most vulnerable to climate change. World wide farming is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions accouting for 20% of total emissions.Atmospheric concentration of methane has more than doubled during the past 200 years.Natural wetlands,fossil fuels related to natural gas,coal mines coal industry,electric fermentation,rice fields,biomass burning,landfills accont for 75% of methane production in our environment. thus major source of greenhouse gases is agriculture itself. Rice fields are the most significant contributors of atmospheric methane accounting for 11-13% of the world’s total methane production. Also, rice production will need to expand by around 70% over the next 25 years to meet the demands of fast growing human population whose food demand is expected to double in developing world in next 40 years. Thus if we increase our crop area specially staple crop area in near future then the problem of global warming is likely to increase. Already in today’s era 800 million people are unnourished, in India only 30 million people suffer hunger,46% children are underweight and 17000 people are dying per day due to hunger on an average. Thus in near future we are going to face a great threat not only of climate change but also of food security†¦. However, Not all effects of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, most of the major food crops are C-3 plants including staple food like rice ,wheat, oat, barley will show increase in yield ranging from 25% to 64% due to increased CO2 level, also most of the noxious weed are C4 plants and their growth will be checked. But this is only one side of the coin ,increased temperature due to increase in CO2 level may rise the pest attack up to 25% and fungal disease attack up to 20% and also disturb our monsoon pattern.In an overview it can be said that it will create more and new problem rather than benefits because the worst sufferers would be farmers of Rainfed agriculture which cover 60% of all cultivable lands. Today humanbeings have become dependent on technologies which are dependent on non -renewable resources and produce illeffects in long run.nowdays we say that glaciers are shrinking;may be shrinking but more that the heart of the people and their philosophy is shrinking too.while the drastic effects of global warming has been discussed in many scientific circles,had their run on T.V. and even had well meaning Hollywood films but the need of the hour is to change ourselves,to reduce our luxurious wants. The need of the hour is to develop a) True sustainability,there should be synergies between climate mitigation strategies and development policies in areas of energy efficiency,fuel substitution,renewable ,afforestration,and land and waste management. b) The planning should not be for temporary economic gains and support,but for sustainability in future as well.There should be partnerships with communities,individuals,and private sector to frame effective measures to reduce the impact the effect of climate change. Today we all peoples of the world need to change our habbits ,not only in Agricultural practices but also in our daily life practicices†¦ Switching of fans and light before leaving room ,efficient use of water at home , proper garbage disposal at micro level, though seems to be a very minute step but the huge building of true sustainability will only form above these basic steps because this will be the 1st step against our greed, so step ahead and realize your own responsibility ,because it is not the time to curse the darkness but to light a small lamp. References: 1. â€Å"Know climate change† by Tanya Agarwal 2. â€Å"Global climate change† by Arnold J.Bloom 3. Science Reporter (CSIR) 4. IPCC website

Stalin- an Evil Dictator?

Stalin: Man or Monster 1. Source A shows Stalin as a man intent on destroying the prosperity of Russia and destroying its people. In contrast, source B is showing the opposite. Source A shows Stalin proudly presenting ‘the USSR’s pyramids’ made of the skulls of the people. He has a big grin on his face. Meanwhile, source B shows Stalin talking with the workers at a new power station. He is presented as wanting to connect with this people and caring by how he is taking with what is regarded as the lower-class when he is regarded as the most important person in Russia.Source C presents Stalin as the spirit of Russia and the symbol of power of Russia by how he is very large in comparison to everything around him which emphasises his power and strength as does the huge army around him. In comparison, source A shows Stalin as the symbol of the destruction of Russia because of the large quantities of human skulls with Stalin presenting them with a smile show how he is p lanning to destroy Russia which is the exact antithesis of source C. Source B and source C both show Stalin as pro the development of Russia.Source B shows Stalin in front of a brand new power station which shows that he is industrious and looking out for the people of Russia by improving their lives. Source C also shows Stalin leading the Russians to victory in the war and he is the subject of the poster which directly links him to all Russian success and power. Both of these sources put Stalin in a positive light. 2. Source D presents Stalin as a caring and brave man who is the only man in a position of power who cares for others because he talks about how he saved a man from drowning when others did not care.Although Stalin wrote it and therefore it is probably not factual but just propaganda, it still is useful as it says a lot about him. If this was made public then it can be argued that Source D was used as propaganda in order to win the hearts of the people after the war. It was written in 1945 so just after the war and the last sentence indicates that it was possibly used to get people on his side. Stalin says that ‘it seemed to me that the lack of concern our leaders show towards the people is the same as I met in far-off Asia’.The fact that he uses the word ‘our’ in relation to the leaders indicates that he was distancing the himself from the mistakes made and trying to say that he is just like anyone else. Also the reference to ‘Asia’ indicates he is trying be one of the soldiers as he had fought for Russia and that he is trying to sympathise with them after many millions of Russians died. However this last sentence could also be Stalin apologising for his mistakes with The Great Purges when 18 million people were sent to labour camps called Gulags of which 10 million died.This seriously weakened the USSR as many able people were taken away. Also he is trying to claim that he is very caring by using the story a bout a comrade being left behind in the floods. He says that ‘when asked where he was, they (other comrades) replied with no interest that he remained at the river’. This shows Stalin attempting to present himself as the only caring person in a position of power. This gives further evidence that Stalin believed he was a very caring person and good leader which can be argued as very arrogant as he never really showed this to his people when he was in power.In conclusion, Source D, although it is unlikely that it is true, says a lot of useful things about Stalin and what he was believed. It shows him as very arrogant as he may be trying to distance himself from the mistakes of his regime and also because he thinks he is caring when from historical evidence he was not. Also, if it was published which seems almost certain, it shows that he was a determined man as he tried to make sure his position was safe by using a propaganda story which is probably not true. 3. Both Sour ce E and Source F are written by people with very different views of Stalin.In Source E’s information it says it was published in ‘Pravda, the newspaper of the Communist Party’ whilst in Source F it says it was written by a man called Bukharin who ‘was a victim of Stalin’s purges’. This means that both are likely to subjective as the writer of Source F is anti-Stalin whilst Source E is pro-Stalin therefore not very reliable . Having said this, Bukharin’s view of Stalin is more likely to be correct as he was taken advantage of when Stalin was a candidate for Lenin’s position. Stalin took Bukharin’s side in the debate on the NEP in order to get rid of his main threat-Trotsky.Once he achieved this he used Trotsky’s argument to oppose Bukharin. This there for means that Bukharin has seen, firsthand, what Stalin’s actual character is. Source E presents Stalin as a very caring leader and an ‘inspired leaderâ €™. However, Source F presents him as the antithesis of this and a ‘devil’. Again based on historical fact, Source F is more likely to be accurate as history shows that Stalin was an evil man. For example the purges when 10 million people died. Source F is also very accurate in its description of Stalin’s feelings to others who are better than him. It says that ‘if someone speaks better than he does†¦Stalin will not let him live’. This is very accurate as Kirov, who got more applause than Stalin at the Seventeenth Party Congress, was murdered. There was a lot of talk of removing Stalin as leader, and Kirov seemed to be emerging as a popular alternative. Stalin is believed to have him murdered and also he sent many other leading communists to labour camps because he felt they were a threat. However Source F does have its limitations because it does not cover all aspects of Stalin’s personality because he was actually a very successful leader. And this is where source E has reliable information even if it is slightly exaggerated.Stalin got the Russian industry at its peak and his Five-year Plans, although they had disadvantages, were very successful. Pig iron production in 1927 was 3. 3 million tons but after the second Five-Year Plan in 1937 in was 14. 5 million tons. In the same time coal production went from 35. 4 million tons to 128 million tons. This shows that Stalin was actually very successful and this is reflected in some people’s opinion he was regarded as the greatest Russian leader to date. Source E agrees with this opinion as it says ‘generations to come will regard us as the happiest of people because we lived in the same century as Stalin’.This is actually very reliable as many people did believe he was a great leader and in terms of statistics he successfully industrialised Russia. Source E also talks about his ‘strength’ as a leader. This is also very accurate info rmation as his army were the ones who drove the Germans back into Berlin and finished off the war. In conclusion, based on reliability Source F is the more reliable as it shows the negative side of Stalin which is contextually correct as he shows it in his actions towards Kirov and other leading communists who some had said should be leader instead of him.Having said this, Source F portrays Stalin as only pure evil when he did do some positive things. This is where Source E has some reliable information as it talks about Stalin’s strengths even if the source is a bit melodramatic about it. 4. A leader of a country can be a strong and great leader and a monstrous tyrant. Stalin was a man who people had different views on and many felt feel into this category. Although he modernised Russian agriculture and successfully industrialised Russia he was also responsible for the death of millions of innocent Russians. Source B presents all that was good about Stalin in his rule.Its sh ows Stalin in front of a new power station talking with his happy workers. It presents him as industrious and caring for his workers. This is supported by historical evidence. He had many new flats buildings built for the working-class and from 1927-1937 electricity production went from 5. 05 thousand million kilowatt hours to 36. 2 thousand million kilowatt hours. This shows how he improved life in Russia. Having said this, historian SJ Lee said ‘there is evidence that he [Stalin] exaggerated Russia’s industrial deficiency in 1929’ and that the foundation of industrialisation were already there making his job easy.This could be factually correct as the Tsar had started industrialising Russia way back in 1905. Despite this Source B still presents Stalin as a very good leader and a caring man. Source C presents Stalin as the most important man in Russia and the leader of the Russian army as in the picture he is bigger than the whole army. This presents in a positi ve manner a not a monstrous tyrant but more of a militaristic leader. This is backed by the fact that when he was in power Russian won World War 2 for the allies with the final push into Berlin.The writing in the source is translated as ‘using the spirit of Stalin our army and country are faithful and strong’. This is very true as in the time of Stalin Russia were the biggest threat to the USA as the biggest power in the world. He also did become regarded as the symbol of Russian might by everyone. In 1925 the city of Volgograd was renamed Stalingrad to recognise Stalin’s role in its defence from the Whites in 1918-20. This source shows Stalin as a very powerful leader and the spirit of Russia and not a monstrous tyrant at all.Source E emphatically praises Stalin as ‘inspired’ and tells everyone that they were ‘the happiest of people because we lived in the same century as Stalin’. And this is not entirely rubbish. Although at points in his rule the Russian people were miserably as 18 million of them were in Gulags, for a lot of his rule only good things happened to Russia. Industry improved rapidly and Russia won a war in his time. Many regarded him as the greatest leader in Russia’s history. However it was written by a writer in the congress of soviets and therefore was closely linked to Stalin.This makes it likely that he wrote this speech in order to appease Stalin and get in his good books. This source portrays Stalin as a great man and leader who was the best leader Russia had had. It shows him as the antithesis of a monstrous tyrant. Source H talks only about the side of Stalin which was actually true: that he was a good leader and had an ‘iron will’. Of this there is no doubt as he did what he wanted. He was indeed a good leader and was always clear with his decisions as the source. However this source is certainly going to be pro-Stalin as it was written in Russia in his rule and was hi s biography.This shows that it therefore would not talk about the other side of his personality which was arguably a monstrous tyrant. However despite this, what source H is saying is not just lies and is based on truth. This source indicates that he is not a monstrous tyrant but a respected leader which is not wrong. Source D dissociates Stalin from the mistakes of the leaders in the war and also dissociates him from the great purges when millions of Russians died. It is also presenting him as one of the people by how it says ‘our leaders’.The use of the possessive adjective ‘our’ shows him not only distancing himself from the past mistakes in his rule but trying to connect with the people. Source D also shows him as a caring man as he looked out for his one missing comrade in the story. This source is not however really backed by historical evidence as he was not one for caring for individuals and in fact he was the one who on his own started the Great Pu rges and sent many to gulags. Also the fact that it was written by Stalin himself indicates that the story is almost certainly made up and only propaganda.However, taking the source for what it is, it shows that Stalin was a very caring man who was one the people. In actual fact he was quite the opposite. Source I is probably the fairest judgement of Stalin and his time in power. It separates Stalin’s great ability as a leader from his evil personality. The fact that it was published in Britain and in 1983 means that it is unlikely to have any reason to be pro or anti-Stalin. This source describes him as a ‘very skilled, indeed gifted politician’. This is a true statement as he very cleverly manipulated people and Trotsky’s underestimation of him to become leader over Trotsky.This shows a very good political mind and intelligence to outwit even the best politicians. Source I then concludes that Stalin was a not a good man and that ‘he had a dark and evil side to his nature’. This is also very true as he had many sent to Gulags in order that he would look powerful. Of the 18 million people sent to Gulags 10 million died. And he never officially conceded that he made a mistake and never said he regretted it. This shows a very sinister side to him which Source I correctly points out. Also he was evil in the way that he got rid of many artists and virtually destroyed the right to express freewill in Russia.This can only be the work of someone who is soulless and evil. In conclusion, although this source looks at Stalin’s positives, it still portrays him as a monstrous tyrant. Source A dwells on the negatives of Stalin’s rule. The ‘pyramids’ of skulls is a reference to the Great Purges when 18 million Russians were sent to Gulags of which 10 million died. This source also seems to show that Stalin does not care and in fact is very proud of his work. This is actually not complete rubbish as Stalin ne ver did publicly apologise or even say he regretted it.However, the fact it was published in Paris indicates that it may be a bit anti-communism as France was a country which did not embrace communism at all. Although we do not know when in the 1930s it was published- before, after or during the Purges- it is a very accurate source as many died due to Stalin’s policies. This source indicates that Stalin was a monstrous Tyrant. Source J literally describes Stalin as a ‘monstrous tyrant’. However, as oppose to saying he was a good politician but also a malevolent human being, it suggests that was corrupted by ‘absolute power’ which ‘turned a ruthless politician into a monstrous tyrant’.This gives another idea about Stalin’s personality. There was no doubt that he was a ruthless politician. For example, after using Bukharin’s argument to defeat Trotsky, he then turned it round on Bukharin and used that argument to disgrace him . However after Stalin’s decisions do not really show politics in them but more him being paranoid about his position and therefore doing acts of hostility. For instance, his decision to start ‘purging’ Russia of all people he thought were a threat to the state ( or a threat to his position†¦ ) did not show clever politics but more panic leading to monstrous acts.This source present Stalin as a man who may of been great politician in the past but then this ability of his turned into shear malicious tyranny. Source F concentrates on the dark side of Stalin’s personality. It says that ‘if someone speaks better than he does†¦ Stalin will not let him live’. This is debatably a very accurate description of Stalin as he was rumoured to have had Kirov, a communist who became very popular and some people thought should replace Stalin at the time, was murdered and many believe that Stalin was behind the murder.Stalin also sent many loyal Bols heviks to Gulags in the infamous ‘show trials’ for being traitors of the state. Although these people confessed, Stalin most probably forced them to confess by threatening them with death and the death of their families. He did this because he was scared they would take away his power. Having said this, this source is likely to be subjective as Bukharin, the writer of the source, was disgraced by Stalin in 1929. Also it is a very one-sided source as it says that Stalin was pure evil when he did do good things for Russia.To conclude, although it is slightly opinionated, Source F gives a fairly accurate account of what was wrong with Stalin and displaces him as malicious and as the devil. Source G points the finger at Stalin by accusing him of using ‘terror’ to defend communism. However, this source is almost certainly prejudiced against Stalin as Khrushchev, who said source G and became leader after Stalin, would have been trying to distance himself from the worst parts of Stalin’s rule by condemning him. Although, Source G does have some correct ideas as it says that Stalin was a ‘distrustful man’.This is an accurate description of Stalin as he had many sent to Gulags because he thought they were plotting against him. He also acted very suspiciously at the Potsdam Conference in August 1945 when in February that year at the Yalta conference he had been very united with the other allies. At Potsdam Conference he disagreed with the other allies about what to do with Germany, about reparations and over soviet policy in Eastern Europe, where Russian troops dominated. Truman, the USA president at the time, became suspicious of Stalin and his intentions, as did Stalin.This distrusted lead to the Iron curtain and the cold war. To conclude, Although Khrushchev was not likely to have praised Stalin in this situation, Source G is a very accurate description of Stalin and portrays him as untrustworthy character and malicious t yrant. In conclusion, the sources do not give a conclusive idea to whether he is a monstrous tyrant or not because five of them are anti-Stalin and 5 pro-Stalin. However, based on the fact that many of the Pro-Stalin Sources are either written by Stalin or as propaganda, the ources show that he more of monstrous tyrant. Also the sources which focus on his industrious nature and his successes in improving industry do not take into account how many people died in this process and that Russia’s industry had been improving a lot for the twenty years before Stalin came to power. In essence his job on that was made easy and some historians argue that this process would have happened just as successfully with any leader. A leader can be great at being a politician and be industrious yet still be a monstrous.My personal opinion is just that, that he was a great leader and politician however a very evil man and therefore a monstrous tyrant. Source I sums up Stalin as a person. It says Stalin is ‘very skilled, indeed gifted politician and one of the greatest political figures of the twentieth century’ however it also says ‘he had a dark and evil side to his nature’. This summarises perfectly Stalin’s life: he was a great leader of a country however he was still a very evil man and a monstrous tyrant.