Free Essays on True Tragic Figure

Agamemnon is the first part of the trilogy Oresteia. It was written by Aeschylus who is often called â€Å"Father of Tragedy† in literature. Aeschylus is one of the greatest Greek writers in history. He presented audiences with the â€Å"second actor† for more complex stories. He is also known for his tragic characters and Agamemnon is no exception. He possesses all the characteristics and ultimately the fate of the majority of tragic characters, death. Agamemnon is the King of Argos who is coming back from a ten year battle with Troy. This in itself is a trait of a tragic person. The character must be a dignified person in society. In this case, it is a King who is tragic. In the battle against Troy, he was the leader of the Greek army that went because Helen, wife of Agamemnon’s younger brother Menelaus, was taken there. He is an arrogant person that only sees what is best for him and does not care for others. When Agamemnon gets back to the castle and meets his wife Clytaemnestra for the first time in ten years, she praises and welcomes him back. Although Agamemnon says he does not deserve this, he allows her to complete this long introduction to his post Troy life. That is a flaw, but it is not the one to doom him. During the journey to Troy, in order for the Greeks to have favorable wind push their ships onward, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia to the god Artemis. Who would kill their daughter for own selfish victories? By his decision, it is clearly visible that he is proud and wants nothing more than victory. This tragic hubris ultimately results in his murder by the hands of his wife, Clytaemnestra. The devious spouse had been plotting his death because of the sacrifice he made of Iphigenia. When he returns, she says, â€Å"Zeus, Zeus/now fulfill our prayers†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (646). The Greek god fulfills her prayer and Agamemnon’s life is taken. It is possible that Hera’s husband allowed the murder of the great leader ... Free Essays on True Tragic Figure Free Essays on True Tragic Figure Agamemnon is the first part of the trilogy Oresteia. It was written by Aeschylus who is often called â€Å"Father of Tragedy† in literature. Aeschylus is one of the greatest Greek writers in history. He presented audiences with the â€Å"second actor† for more complex stories. He is also known for his tragic characters and Agamemnon is no exception. He possesses all the characteristics and ultimately the fate of the majority of tragic characters, death. Agamemnon is the King of Argos who is coming back from a ten year battle with Troy. This in itself is a trait of a tragic person. The character must be a dignified person in society. In this case, it is a King who is tragic. In the battle against Troy, he was the leader of the Greek army that went because Helen, wife of Agamemnon’s younger brother Menelaus, was taken there. He is an arrogant person that only sees what is best for him and does not care for others. When Agamemnon gets back to the castle and meets his wife Clytaemnestra for the first time in ten years, she praises and welcomes him back. Although Agamemnon says he does not deserve this, he allows her to complete this long introduction to his post Troy life. That is a flaw, but it is not the one to doom him. During the journey to Troy, in order for the Greeks to have favorable wind push their ships onward, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia to the god Artemis. Who would kill their daughter for own selfish victories? By his decision, it is clearly visible that he is proud and wants nothing more than victory. This tragic hubris ultimately results in his murder by the hands of his wife, Clytaemnestra. The devious spouse had been plotting his death because of the sacrifice he made of Iphigenia. When he returns, she says, â€Å"Zeus, Zeus/now fulfill our prayers†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (646). The Greek god fulfills her prayer and Agamemnon’s life is taken. It is possible that Hera’s husband allowed the murder of the great leader ...

Understanding State Terrorism

Understanding State Terrorism â€Å"State terrorism† is as controversial a concept as that of terrorism itself. Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics: The threat or use of violence;A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes. History of State Terrorism In theory, it is not so difficult to distinguish an act of state terrorism, especially when we look at the most dramatic examples history offers. There is, of course, the French governments reign of terror that brought us the concept of terrorism in the first place. Shortly after the overthrow of the French monarchy in 1793, a revolutionary dictatorship was established and with it the decision to root out anyone who might oppose or undermine the revolution. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed by guillotine for a variety of crimes. In the 20th century, authoritarian states systematically committed to using violence and extreme versions of threat against their own civilians exemplify the premise of state terrorism. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalins rule are frequently cited as historical cases of state terrorism. The form of government, in theory, bears on the tendency of a state to resort to terrorism. Military dictatorships have often maintained power through terror. Such governments, as the authors of a book about Latin American state terrorism have noted, can virtually paralyze a society through violence and its threat: In such contexts, fear is a paramount feature of social action; it is characterized by the inability of social actors [people] to predict the consequences of their behavior because public authority is arbitrarily and brutally exercised. (​Fear at the Edge: State Terror and Resistance in Latin America, Eds. Juan E. Corradi, Patricia Weiss Fagen, and Manuel Antonio Garreton, 1992). Democracies and Terrorism However, many would argue that democracies are also capable of terrorism. The two most prominently argued cases, in this regard, are the United States and Israel. Both are elected democracies with substantial safeguards against violations of their citizens civil rights. However, Israel has for many years been characterized by critics as perpetrating a form of terrorism against the population of the territories it has occupied since 1967. The United States is also routinely accused of terrorism for backing not only the Israeli occupation but for its support of repressive regimes willing to terrorize their own citizens to maintain power. The anecdotal evidence points, then, to a distinction between the objects of democratic and authoritarian forms of state terrorism. Democratic regimes may foster state terrorism of populations outside their borders or perceived as alien. They do not terrorize their own populations; in a sense, they cannot since a regime that is truly based on the violent suppression of most citizens (not simply some) cease to be democratic. Dictatorships terrorize their own populations. State terrorism is a terrifically slippery concept in large part because states themselves have the power to operationally define it. Unlike non-state groups, states have legislative power to say what terrorism is and establish the consequences of the definition; they have force at their disposal; and they can lay claim to the legitimate use of violence in many ways that civilians cannot, on a scale that civilians cannot. Insurgent or terrorist groups have the only language at their disposal - they can call state violence terrorism. A number of conflicts between states and their opposition have a rhetorical dimension. Palestinian militants call Israel terrorist, Kurdish militants call Turkey terrorist, Tamil militants call Indonesia terrorist.