Amritsar Massacre, 1919

Amritsar Massacre, 1919 The European imperial powers committed many atrocities during their period of world domination.  However, the 1919 Amritsar Massacre in northern India, also known as the Jallianwala Massacre, surely ranks as one of the most senseless and egregious.   Background For more than sixty years, British officials in the Raj had viewed the people of India with mistrust, having been caught off-guard by the Indian Revolt of 1857. During World War I (1914-18), the majority of Indians supported the British in their war effort against Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.  Indeed, more than 1.3 million Indians served as soldiers or support staff during the war, and more than 43,000 died fighting for Britain. The British knew, however, that not all Indians were willing to support their colonial rulers.  In 1915, some of the most radical Indian nationalists took part in a plan called the Ghadar Mutiny, which called for soldiers in the British Indian Army to revolt in the midst of the Great War. The Ghadar Mutiny never happened, as the organization planning the revolt was infiltrated by British agents and the ring-leaders arrested. Nevertheless, it increased hostility and distrust among British officers toward the people of India. On March 10, 1919, the British passed a law called the Rowlatt Act, which only increased disaffection in India.  The Rowlatt Act authorized the government to imprison suspected revolutionaries for up to two years without a trial. People could be arrested without a warrant, had no right to confront their accusers or see the evidence against them, and lost the right to a jury trial.   It also placed strict controls on the press. The British immediately arrested two prominent political leaders in Amritsar who were affiliated with Mohandas Gandhi; the men disappeared into the prison system. Over the following month, violent street scuffles broke out between Europeans and Indians in the streets of Amritsar.  The local military commander, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, issued orders that Indian men had to crawl on hands and knees along the public street, and could be publicly lashed for approaching British police officers. On April 13, the British government banned gatherings of more than four people. Massacre at Jallianwala Bagh On the very afternoon that freedom of assembly was retracted, April 13, thousands of Indians gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh gardens in Amritsar.  Sources say that as many as 15,000 to 20,000 people packed into the small space. General Dyer, certain that the Indians were beginning an insurrection, led a group of sixty-five Gurkhas and twenty-five Baluchi soldiers from Iran through the narrow passages of the public garden. Fortunately, the two armored cars with machine guns mounted on top were too wide to fit through the passageway and remained outside. The soldiers blocked all of the exits.  Without issuing any warning, they opened fire, aiming for the most crowded parts of the throng. People screamed and ran for the exits, trampling one another in their terror, only to find each way blocked by soldiers. Dozens jumped into a deep well in the garden to escape the gunfire, and drowned or were crushed instead. The authorities imposed a curfew on the city, preventing families from aiding the wounded or finding their dead all night. As a result, many of the injured likely bled to death in the garden. The shooting went on for ten minutes; more than 1,600 shell casings were recovered.  Dyer only ordered a ceasefire when the troops ran out of ammunition. Officially, the British reported that 379 people were killed; its likely that the actual toll was closer to 1,000.   Reaction The colonial government tried to suppress news of the massacre both within India and in Britain.   Slowly, however, word of the horror got out.  Within India, ordinary people became politicized, and nationalists lost all hope that the British government would deal with them in good faith, despite Indias massive contribution to the recent war efforts.   In Britain, the general public and the House of Commons reacted with outrage and disgust to news of the massacre. General Dyer was called to give testimony about the incident.  He testified that he surrounded the protestors and did not give any warning before giving the order to fire because he did not seek to disperse the crowd, but to punish the people of India generally. He also stated that he would have used the machine guns to kill many more people, had he been able to get them into the garden.   Even Winston Churchill, no great fan of the Indian people, decried this monstrous event. He called it an extraordinary event, a monstrous event. General Dyer was relieved of his command on grounds of mistaking his duty, but he was never prosecuted for the murders.  The British government has yet to formally apologize for the incident.   Some historians, such as Alfred Draper, believe that the Amritsar Massacre was key in bringing down the British Raj in India.  Most believe that Indian independence was inevitable by that point, but that the callous brutality of the massacre made the struggle that much more bitter. Sources Collett, Nigel.   The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer, London: Continuum, 2006. Lloyd, Nick. The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day, London: I.B. Tauris, 2011. Sayer, Derek. British Reaction to the Amritsar Massacre 1919-1920, Past Present, No. 131 (May 1991), pp. 130-164.

Chemical Composition of the Human Body

Chemical Composition of the Human Body Many of the elements found throughout nature are also found within the body. This is the chemical composition of the average adult human body in terms of elements and also compounds. Major Classes of Compounds in the Human Body Most of the elements are found within compounds. Water and minerals are inorganic compounds. Organic compounds include fat, protein, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. Water:  Water is the most abundant chemical compound in living human cells, accounting for 65 percent to 90 percent  of each cell. Its also present between cells. For example, blood and cerebrospinal fluid are mostly water.Fat: The percentage of fat varies from person to person, but even an obese person has more water than fat.Protein: In a lean male, the percentages of protein and water are comparable. Its about 16 percent  by mass. Muscles, including the heart, contain a lot of muscle. Hair and fingernails are protein. Skin contains a large amount of protein, too.Minerals: Minerals account for about 6 percent  of the body. They include salts and metals. Common minerals include sodium, chlorine, calcium, potassium, and iron.Carbohydrates: Although humans use the sugar glucose as an energy source, there isnt that much of it free in the bloodstream at any given time. Sugar and other carbohydrates only account for about 1% of body mass. Elements in the Human Body Six elements  account for 99%  of the mass of the human body. The acronym CHNOPS may be used to help remember the six key chemical elements that are used in biological molecules. C is carbon, H is hydrogen, N is nitrogen, O is oxygen, P is phosphorus, and S is sulfur. While the acronym is  a good way to remember the identities of the elements, it doesnt reflect their abundance. Oxygen is the most abundant element in the human body accounting for approximately 65% of a persons mass. Each water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom, but the mass of each oxygen atom is much higher than the combined mass of the hydrogen. In addition to being a component of water, oxygen is essential for cellular respiration.Carbon is contained in all organic compounds, which is why carbon is the second most abundant element in the body, accounting for about 18% of body mass. Carbon is found in proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids. Its also found in carbon dioxide.Hydrogen atoms are the most numerous type of atom in a human, but because they are so light, they only make up around 10% of the  mass. Hydrogen is in water, plus its an important electron carrier.Nitrogen is about 3.3% of body mass. Its found in proteins and nucleic acids.Calcium accounts for 1.5% of body mass. Its used to build bones and teeth, plus its important for muscle contraction. Phosphorus is about 1% of body mass. This element is found in nucleic acids. Breaking bonds connecting phosphate molecules is a major component of energy transfer.Potassium is around 0.2-0.4% of the mass of a person. Its used in nerve conduction. Potassium is a key cation or positively-charged ion in the body.Sulfur is found in some amino acids and proteins. Its about 0.2-0.3% of body mass.Sodium, like potassium, is a positively-charged ion. Its about 0.1-0.2% of body mass. Sodium helps regulate the electrolyte balance in the body and maintain homeostasis with respect to the volume of water in the blood and cells.Although aluminum and silicon are abundant in the earths crust, they are found in trace amounts in the human body.Other trace elements include metals, which are often cofactors for enzymes. Trace elements include iron, cobalt, zinc, iodine, selenium, and flourine. Element Percent by Mass Oxygen 65 Carbon 18 Hydrogen 10 Nitrogen 3 Calcium 1.5 Phosphorus 1.2 Potassium 0.2 Sulfur 0.2 Chlorine 0.2 Sodium 0.1 Magnesium 0.05 Iron, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Iodine trace Selenium, Fluorine minute amounts Sources Anke M. (1986). Arsenic. In: Mertz W. ed., Trace elements in human and Animal Nutrition, 5th ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. pp. 347-372.Chang, Raymond (2007). Chemistry, Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill. pp. 52.Emsley, John (2011). Natures Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. OUP Oxford. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7.Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition of the Recommended Dietary Allowances, Food and Nutrition Board; Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (February 1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-04633-6.Zumdahl, Steven S. and Susan A. (2000). Chemistry, Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 894. ISBN 0-395-98581-1.

Minorities in Management Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Minorities in Management - Term Paper Example In most companies, the more shares one has, the control they exert in the management of the organization. As such, they have powers to make decisions, basing on the influence of their large share volumes that protect their interests, even if the said decisions undermine the rights of minority shareholders. Under such leadership, the minority in the organization do not have a say in the management decisions of the company, thereby putting their investments at risk (Collins, Emsell & Haydon, 2011). Corporate governance dictates that an organization should uphold the rights of all the members of their organization. As such, the management team should comprise of all groups and unique members in the organization. Contrary to this, most management teams only consist of majority groups, those who have power, wealth, and influence to control and manipulate managerial decisions for their own personal benefits. For instance, most management teams comprised of only men. The male dominance in s uch organizations denies the female fraternity in the organization their rights and privileges. In addition, this denies these female counterparts freedom to express their rights freely, as well as, the freedom to advance their careers. Such organizations with gender imbalance form the top of the management team also experiences gender related violence and discrimination within the other levels of the organization, all the way to the lower levels (Maume, 2012). However, numerous scholars in the business industry disagree on the idea of the increase of minority managers within the organization, or within an organizational management. In fact, the argument centers around the possibility of whether an increase in minority managers marks a vacuous or real progress in the gains made towards elimination of racial bias within the labor market. In some cases, the minorities in management are those of a different race, or a different social class or social status within the community, these minority managers and supervisors end up holding very mediocre positions in the company. For instance, the minority in management end up getting job assignments that are less challenging. In addition, they hold positions that are most vulnerable to layoffs compared to those from the majority or major groups (Wrench, 2012). However, some majority groups continuously enjoy protection and favoritism in the organization. Bottom-up ascription processes support the fact that, among subordinates, those minority employees working for or reporting to a minority boss earn a lesser amount of cash compared to the workers under a majority manager. This is despite their high level of commitment to their work and responsibilities at their workplace. Eventually, this leads to lower productivity within the organization because the people who work hard the most in the company get the lowest levels or amounts of compensation. The low remuneration level demotivates these workers, especially those repor ting to minority managers. These workers end up in a go slow or any other industrial action in order to express their dissatisfaction. Others even decide to quit their current positions and search for better employment opportunities in order companies (Collins, Emsell & Haydon, 2011). Resignation of employees results in a high rate of workers turnover, which also drops the productivity levels of the organization, as it will spend more replacing the employees and managers who resign. A company