Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell Essay -- Orwell Elephant Shootin

Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell Few supervisors experience lack of respect and denunciation from workers because of their positions in a company. Supervisors take actions to preserve the image of authority before subordinates and from being ridiculed by their workers, even if the supervisors object these types of actions. The essay "Shooting an Elephant" relates to this situation. The author of this essay is George Orwell. The author talks about his work and personal experience that emphasizes the impact of imperialism at the sociological and psychological stage. This paper shall discuss the Orwell's essay, how the artistic choices shape the facts in the essay, how the relationship between facts and artistry contributed to the essay, technique used, and how the tension between the facts and artistic intention in his thesis relates to the workplace. Essay, artistic choices, and relationship between facts and artistry. The author joined the Indian Imperial Police as a colonial policeman in Moulmein, lower Burma, located in the part of the British Empire. This story took place in the late 1920s or early 1930s (Orwell, 1996, p.150). The story explains a culture conflict between the British (subjugator) and the Burmese (subjugated). Few British are present nevertheless the British rule, and the narrator, as sub-divisional police officer, is an agent of that rule. This contradiction is part of the setting, as is the local resentment against the British presence. Burmese hates the narrator and manifest this hatred by deception rather than directly. The Burmese would not raise a riot, but would let the British know how they felt. The author stated if a European woman goes through the bazaars alone somebody would probably... ..., the animals, and the psychological space of the people. Imperialism is described with a compelling metaphor. This essay with its metaphors, irony, and imagery relates well with today's workplace. Conclusion Some supervisors have an idea notion that their decisions are the only matters that counts. They become the "leading actor." They do not need to listen to anyone else so they have the strength to act on their own. The irony is that they are being jerked around by every petty instigator who can convince them that the little bickering and debates are their own. So the supervisors, like Orwell, do what can be identified as both ill-advised and incorrect. Reference Orwell, G. (1996). Shooting An Elephant. In C. LaRocoo & J. Coughlin (Eds.), The art of work: An anthology of workplace literature (pp.142-150). Cincinnati: South-Western Educational Publishing

Destiny, Fate and Free Will in Homers Odyssey :: Homer, Odyssey Essays

Fate and Free Will in Homer's Odyssey When we look at Greek Mythology we often run into the gods of that era. Sometimes they are merely backdrops to the human element of the story but in stories such as The Odyssey the gods play a prominent if not vital role to the central themes of the story. Fate has a place in the Greek world but its place is not the same as it is in other scenarios or worlds. It is important to understand the word before we discuss it. Fate as far as Greek mythology goes is not just fate. By most standards fate means that things occur for an unknown reason that no one has any control over. However, in the world of Greek Mythology fate does not just happen. The gods engineer fate and they interfere to make things happen that might not otherwise have happened. Since the players do not always know of the gods' involvement, things may actually appear to be fate but in reality be engineered happenings. Â  Free will on the other hand is not engineered. It speaks to the concept of having full authority over one's aspirations and ultimate direction. The key there is "ultimate." The gods can make up the plan and choose the path, but the people had to walk it. Therefore, fate and free will are not mutually exclusive and they both go on throughout The Odyssey. In The Odyssey life is one's own responsibility; instead of leaving all things up to fate, the characters had a significant influence upon his or her own existence. In The Odyssey the gods are responsible for controlling many aspects of where the story goes, but the people still have to choose to go. The gods in The Odyssey are who held Odysseus captive for over eight years. They were responsible for his capture in the first place and then refused to let him go for almost a decade. When they finally decided he should be allowed to find his way home they made it known to his captor Kalypso. However Odysseus still had to choose to leave. Kalypso tried to keep him by offering immortality. "You would stay here, and guard this house, and be immortal" (Homer 267). Odysseus could have stayed but he chose to go. Some say that the gods knew Odysseus would not stay and that is why they decided to let him go.

Robert Frosts Poetic Techniques Used in The Road Not Taken :: Robert Frost Poetry The Road Not Taken Essays

Robert Frost’s Poetic Techniques Used in The Road Not Taken Robert Frost utilizes several poetic techniques to reveal the theme in his poem, â€Å"The Road Not Taken†, which is stressing the importance the decision making of one is, regardless of whether or not it is agreement with the resolution of their peers, and how it can affect their future. The techniques exercised in this piece of work are symbolism, imagery, and tone. Symbolism is the most powerfully used technique due to the fact a good number of lines located in this poem is used to signify a certain object or idea related to our life or today’s world. Imagery is significant in drawing out the theme for the reason that it allows the reader to construct a depiction in their mind, permitting them to relate more to the poem and interpret the theme their own way. In this poem, imagery permits the reader to imagine the scene that this poem takes place in resulting in an enhanced understanding of the theme. The tone this work presents is an insecure attitude which allo ws the theme to be brought out due to the fact the theme relates to a dilemma in one’s life. As seen by the reader, these techniques strongly aid in the revealing of this specific theme. The first technique Frost utilizes to uncover the theme is the strongest method, symbolism. Exploiting symbolism is used by containing objects in the poem that represent an article of something relevant in the reader’s life; therefore, assisting in the presentation of the theme. The primarily symbolized object in this poem is the fork in the road, which is the basis of the theme. â€Å"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, /And sorry I could not travel both / And be one traveler, long I stood / And looked down one as far as I could / To where it bent in the undergrowth† (Frost.

Atomic bomb Essay

Did the USA need to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? On the 6th of August 1945, the US dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima,1ushering in the nuclear age. The bomb caused the deaths of over 100,000 people,2with the bulk of the destruction pertaining to innocent civilians. Three days later, the Americans repeated their action at Nagasaki. The aim of the US was not, however, to cause complete annihilation of the Japanese, but to seize the fierce nationalism within Japan, ending world war two. Arguably, this was achieved, with the Emperor Hirohito broadcasting their surrender on the 15th of August.3However, was the Americans use of nuclear warfare justified in their bid for world peace? President of the time Harry Truman stated, â€Å"I never lost any sleep over my decision (to drop the Atomic bomb)†, yet, Americans have since been subject to fierce revisionist denialism that there was not an over riding need to employ such a controversial tactic. By 1945 Japan was in ruins. America had continuously bombed strategic Japanese locations, and implemented a blockade that had dramatic effects on the nations civilians, suggesting that the Japanese were close to surrender without the implantation of the A bomb. Conversely, the US had witnessed the Japanese’s determination to fight to the bitter end , rather than surrender, and their failure to respond to the Potsdam declaration clearly illustrated this. Through analyzing the historical context in which this dramatic act of war occurred it is difficult to come to a sound judgment on the necessity of America’s actions. Due to the consequences that would have triggered if the war had continued, i believe that the US did need to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, however, it was not necessary to drop the following bomb on Nagasaki. With the break out of World War two, Hitlers initial victories captured the imagination of the Japanese militarists, showing what could be achieved through a program of territorial expansionism. Due to the war, changes occurred in Europe’s colonial powers, which created a power vacuum in South East Asia, and a perfect stage for Japan to expand their influence; as Edwin P Hoyt stated â€Å"Japans ambition at the lowest level was to replace the Europeans and the Americans as the colonial powers†¦establishing an Asian  Federation†. This shift in power however was not supported by the US , creating a poisonous relationship between the two nations that would end in catosptrophy. The US implemented harsh economic sanctions, resulting in an ultimatum for Japan. Japan could either give into the pressure from the US and retreat from South East Asia, or , they could advance to take over the resources of Malaya and the oil fields of the Netherlands East Indies, which would indefinitely lead to war with the US. Historian Hugh brogan affirms Roosevelt was â€Å" convinced US would enter the war†¦yet refused to fire the first shot†. The Japanese planned to adopt a dual approach were upon they would enter into negotiations with the US and prepare for war at the same time. The Japanese believed that war might be avoided if the 1  L.Morton, Decision to use the Atomic bomb, Foreign Affairs, 1956. US dropped the sanctions in return for their withdrawal from Indochina; however, on the 26th of November Cordell Hull made an unacceptable demand, claiming that the Japanese were required to withdraw from not just Indo China, but also China. Japan deemed this unacceptable, and at the Imperial Conference 1st December 1941 a final decision was made to go to war with the US, and orders were made to carry out a surprise attack on the US naval base of Pearl Harbour. On the 7th of December 1941 the Japanese attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbour, killing 2388 soldiers 9, in the hopes of knocking the United States out of a Pacific war, allowing them to pursue their strategic and imperialistic goals. However, Japans failure to achieve total victory meant that the Japanese unified a nation against them, which then mobilised its mighty economy into a war machine that eventually defeated Japan. The importance in understanding the context which resulted in Japan and US warfare is vital in evaluating whether the US needed to drop the Atomic bomb. This being as it is evident that since the emergence of Japan as world power, the US have been present, and determined to minimise the Japanese’s influence. This relationship of dominance , whereby the US hands Japan harsh ultimatums is arguably one of the reasons why Japan refused to surrender in 1945, and will be discussed in depth as the essay progresses. As the conflict between the US and Japan developed the Japanese initially stunned the United States with their success, ending the period of European colonial rule in Asia within just 6 months, bringing to fruition the Japanese dream of a Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese demolished the creed of European and white superiority that had been the bastion of European colonialism in Asia, completely reshaping the political dynamics of Asia. However, intoxicated by their success, rather than consolidating their gains, they still searched for new opportunities. The Allies began their counter attack, however, became aware of the determination that defined Japanese militarism, whereby their soldiers were willing to fight to death, rather than surrender. During December and January 1944 and 1945 the Americans regularly bombed the islands of Iwo Jima, launched 334 B’29s on the capital Tokyo killing 83000 people in March, and attacked Okinawa, the site of a major military base10. Thus by July 1945, Japan had few ships and planes to defend itself, and was met with leaflets from the US announcing in advance where the next attack would take place, urging people to surrender. Furthermore, the blockade implemented by the allies was severely impacting the Japanese, solidifying that defeat was inevitable, yet the Allies heard no news of surrender from the Emperor. Consequently the US began to evaluate the implementation of the A bomb as a necessary method in order to bring the war to a conclusion. President Truman described the Atomic project as the ‘greatest scientific gamble in history’ and believes his decision to drop it was unquestionably the right decision, bringing the war to a quick. end, and saving the lives of thousands of Allies. Prior to its use, the Potsdam Declaration was released, informing the Japanese that they must surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction’. (Unknown to the Japanese this was a reference to the A-Bomb). The allies hoped that an invasion of Japan could be avoided if the declaration was accepted, however, with the Japanese’ failure to reply, the count down to the first  use of an atomic bomb moved onward. On the 6th of August 1945, the Enola Gay was released over the city of Hiroshima12, an unprecedented attack resulting in mass scale destruction. President Truman announced following that ‘If Japan does not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth’. 13However, despite, the destruction of Hiroshima, the American Government received no communications from the Japanese government in Tokyo, resulting in a secon d bomb launched on Nagasaki. Consequently, on the 14th of August, after failed attempts of safeguarding his position, the Emperor accepted the Allied terms. Hirohito made an official radio broadcast to the nation, stating ‘should we continue to fight†¦it would lead to the total extinction of human civilisation’, 14and on the 2nd of September, aboard the Missouri, the main surrender occurred, ending the conflict in the pacific. The atomic bomb, although causing mass scale disaster, finished the cruel and drawn out conflict, however, does that mean that it was necessary, and can be justified? Perhaps the biggest debate which argues that the bomb was not needed was that fact Japan was in fact already defeated. Dennis Wainstock, author of ‘The decision to drop the bomb’ believes that the blockade, in conjunction with the B’29s attack destroyed Japan, broadening the realisation of defeat. Rear Admiral Tochitane Takata said ‘The b29’s were the greatest single factor in forcing the Japanese to surrender’ with Lieutenant General Kawabe believing ‘it is my opinion our loss in the air lost us the war’.16 Furthermore, Japan was economically dependant on foreign sources, thus the blockade favoured the conviction that defeat was inevitable as the Japanese population was starving to death. Additionally, there is significant evidence to support the argument that Japan would have surrended without use of the Atomic bomb, had the US been willing to safe guard the position of the Emperor. The Soviet Union received world from high-level Japanese sources confirming this, which, although many deny American knew about, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote ‘It was known to us that she had gone so far as to make tentative proposals to the soviet Government†¦not considered seriously’. However despite the aforementioned evidence suggesting that the Japanese were already defeated, it is arguable that that did not mean that they would surrender. throughout the war that, despite severe loss, they would rather die, than surrender. The invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa resulted in severe casualties, yet the Allies heard no talk of negotiations. Joseph C.Grew, who was the former Ambassador to Japan believed, through ‘intimate experience with the Japanese thinking and psychology over an extensive period’18 that regardless of military defeat, it would be highly unlikely that Japan would of their own initiative surrender. Additionally, Historian Barton Bernstein wrote ‘ no one who looks at intransigence of the Japanese militarists should have full confidence in any other strategy (apart from the A bomb), 19which affirms Truman’s decision that it was necessary in order to bring the war to a quick end. Furthermore, The American public was overwhelmingly behind the atomic bombing of Japan, with the bomb receiving an 85% approval 20rating, proving that within the context of the disaster, it was not considered to be as controversial as it is with the power of hindsight. From analysing the arguments for and against the US decision to drop the A bomb on Hiroshima it is clear that this controversial act of war is not easily declared right or wrong. However, arguably it is harder to argue on the side of the Allies when it comes to determining the necessity of the second bomb on Nagasaki. After the dropping of the first bomb, the Soviets declared war on Japan, which many historians believe would have been more than enough to convince the Japanese to surrender. As John W. Downer affirms in ‘Unconditional surrender at the Smithsonian’, ‘most Japanese accounts then and since weigh the soviet declaration of war as being at least as shocking as the Hiroshima bombing’. Further supported by Historian Gar Alperovitz, who believes that the shock of a soviet declaration of war would force Japan to realise defeat was inevitable and then clarification of surrender terms (assurance of the Emperor) would produce the surrender before an invasion took place. However, the US failed to hear a response in the delegated amount of time, and thusly, launched a second bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the eventual surrender of Ja pan. When the US made their decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, initiating the nuclear arms race, it was inevitable that Truman’s decision would be analysed, causing controversy for years to come. There is a plethora of published work that strongly believes that the US decision to  employ the A bomb was a mistake, and was blatantly not necessary as Japan was so weak indicating that surrender was not far off. Additionally, it cannot be forgotten that the victims of the bomb were primarily innocent civilians, thus from a moral point of view, the action cannot be justified. However, Japans militaristic attitude throughout the war consistently affirmed the US belief that Japan would never surrender of their own accord, and the A bomb was a necessary action in order to conclude the war. From analysing both sides of the argument i believe that the US did need to drop the first bomb in order to display to Japan that they did not have any other option but to surrender, however, the dropping of the second bomb was definitely not needed. The bombing of Hiroshima, in conjunction with the entry of the Soviet Union was more than enough to force Japan to surrender, and thusly, the bombing of Nagasaki cannot be justified. Bibliography Books 1. A.Pollock, D.McKinlay, J.Cantwell, Conflict in the Pacific 1937-195, McGraw Hill Publications, Australia 2003. 2. H.Truman, Memoir: Year of Decisions, Garden City 1955 3. H.L.Stimson, M.Bundy, On Active Service in peace and War, Harper and Brothers, New York 1948 4. D.Eisenhower, The white house years: Mandate for change 1953-1956, Garden City 1963 5. W.D.Leahy, I was there, Whittlesey House, New York 1950 6. J.C.Grew, Turbulent Era: A diplomatic Record of forty years 1904-1945, Hougton Mifflin Company 1952 7. H.L.Stimson, The decision to use the Atomic Bomb, week 13 reading 8. K.Doak, Nationalism in Modern Japan, Koninklike 2007, 9. E.Cannizzaro, The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention, Oxford 10. E.P.Hoyt, University Press 2011,Japans war: The Great Pacific Conflic, Random House 1971 11. D.D.Wainstock, The Decision to drop the Atomic Bomb, Prager Publishers, 1996 12. G. Alperovitz, The Decision to drop the Bomb, Vintage Books 1996 Articles 1. Barton J. Bernstein, A post war myth, 50000 U.S lives saved, Bulliten of Atomic Scientists, vol 3 no.9 2. John W. Dower, Unconditional Surrender at the Smithsonian, Week 13 Reading 3. L.Morton, Decision to use the Atomic bomb, Foreign Affairs, 1956 Website 1.The project of the Nuclear Age Peace foundation.org http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/ correspondence/stimson-henry/corr_stimson_1945-07-31.htm

Negative Commercial Influences on Scientific Research Essay

Nowadays, it’s a trend that almost everything is related to the commerce, and so do the scientific research, because the society would like to value the research results. To some extend, scientific research is not only a pure research in the labs or universities, but also a business sometimes. As a result, the commercial influences on the scientific research are so obvious that change the ways that researchers do or the universities behave. Among these effects, negative commercial influences have become more and more clearly. On the one hand, because of the profits, some researchers begin to focus more on the researching speed rather than the quality. In order to succeed quickly, some researchers hope to get a good experiment results as soon as possible. In this case, they may fail easily or receive worse consequences. On the other hand, it has led to some wrong purposes to sell out science to commerce. A new report from the organization Scientists for Global Responsibility looks at the bad impact on five commercial areas which includes pharmaceuticals, tobacco, oil and gas, defence and biotech. [1] From the perspective of the defence, in the theory, it’s normal and reasonable for a country to develop the scientific researches on the countries’ defense. But in fact, with the overwhelming attentions on new military technology and the huge financial support, the research has changed the original pure goals into developing military hardware, even resulting in the competitions among different countries. When it comes to biotech, before the emergence of biotech, business and science operated in largely separate spheres.[2] Whereas, there is also a marriage between the commercial support and scientific researches at present. And sometimes, this kind of â€Å"marriage† may cause big faults that can do harm to human being’s health because of some misleading messages in the biotech area. Admittedly, the cooperation between the commerce and the scientific research has bring some positive effects. First of all, with more financial investments, researchers can have enough money to purchase some advanced equipments so that they can do the experiments they’re willing to trying. Second, the cooperation can help scientists put their researching results in the labs into the real world. If the invents display on the table in the  labs or museum, they’re just the dead thing. But if the invents can be used in the daily life or put into the customers’ market, they may bring something new to make the lives more convenient. However, because of the commercial influences, science has lost the freedom and the time to carry out research as thoroughly and as painstakingly as it should.[3] Generally speaking, commerce has brought both the positive and negative effects on the scientific researches. Even though the cooperation activate research or facilitate people’s life, the negative influences have caused more and more parent shortcomings. So reform is needed to improve the cooperation. References [1]Adapted from Parkinson,S,&Langley,C.(2009).Stop selling out science to commerce.New Scientist,204(2733),32-33. [2]John slaght, ISLC, University of Reading, UK, based primarily on Ho&Saunders(2001) and Pisano(2006). [3]John slaght, ISLC, University of Reading, UK, based primarily on Ho&Saunders(2001) and Pisano(2006).

American Pageant. Essay

Over time, there have been many different modifications to facilitate transportation and the economy. The transcontinental railroad is one factor that introduced the American indusrty. This immense industry turned into an even greater business and touched from coast to coast. Because of the railroads, urbanization and industrialization grew although the corruptions with scandals came as well. The nation was in a time of spurring even higher from starting in 1865. Before the railroads, the population was more scattered around farming areas. As the railroads grew, urbanization also expanded and began gathering around the railroads.Because the government gave a significant amount of land grants, the railroad companies, which were able to choose alternative mile-square sections, had much land that they did not use to build their railroads. President Grover Cleveland gave the unclaimed portions for land settlement in 1887. Although this was seen as the â€Å"giveaway† of land, the government ended up benefiting with long-term preferential rates for postal service and military traffic; the railroad corporations could also sell the land at an average of three dollars an acre.With new railroads in placed, people moved beside them and brought in business for the railroads and towns which gave the railroads another source of profit. Immigration also started uprising, with the Chinese and Irish working on the railroads. As the railroads traveled across the country, it gave the nation a way to get products or people across the country. Food and materials traveled to all from farms to towns and cities. People found it easier to move across the country; urbanization grew throughout the whole country rather than being scattered among the farms.The railroads were built because of industrialization and expanded it even further. As the railroad network snaked around the country, the economic growth did as well. The locomotives touched coast to coast offering what each sid e of the country had for the other. The west had many wealthy resources and the east had many workers. Raw materials traveled back and forth as so did the finished goods afterwards, such as steel for the generation of more railroads. The United States soon became the largest integrated national market in the world.As the railroads grew there was more demand for raw supplies from different parts of the country. The steel and wood for the railroads impacted greatly the forestry and mining industry while the coal industry also grew to power the trains; new factories and industries were built and powered to load more onto the new railroads. Millionaires greatly benefited from this, such as Cornelius Vanderbilt who was one of the most profitable amongst the new aristocracy. As the railroads expanded, so did industrialization, which made the United States economy one of the best that it has had over history.Although the effects of the railroads were mostly positive, there was the negative aspect of corruption and scandals came as well. Congress commissioned the Union Pacific Railroad, which the company received huge sums of money and land to build tracks. What the government did not know was that the corporation had frauds which were known as the Credit Mobilier; insiders from the construction company had reaped twenty-three million dollars in profits. Jay Gould was many of those who also executed many robberies. For nearly thirty years he gained money from the stocks of Erie, the Kansas Pacific, and the Texas and Pacific.One of the many different ways these million-dollar-thieves manipulated was â€Å"stock watering†. Originally coming from the definition of bloating up a cow to sell for more, the stock promoters were doing this but with the economy and stocks. The railroad stock promoters inflated their claims about a given line’s assets and profitability and sold stocks and bonds much higher than the railroad’s actual value. Railroad managers where therefore forced to charge much higher and compete against each other in order to pay the exaggerated financial obligations. In the midst of all the scandal, the Vanderbilt’s were involved as well.As many railroaders, they had to fight and bribe for rights. As long as there were railroads, and with their many positive effects, there was also corruption, competition, and scandal. The building of the transcontinental railroads changed the American economy immensely. It has changed the nation as a whole and spurred with a new way of supply and demand traveling all over the country. The new web of steel brought up urbanization, industrialization and corruption with scandals as well. The transcontinental railroads brought the country together with a new form of economy.

Is the generation gap myth or reality Essay

It’s well known that new time demands new way of thinking. New way of thinking demands new way of acting. New way of acting arouses misunderstanding on the part of older generation. People usually get used to certain things and some dead small changes can frighten them. Thus, trying to avoid the negative feeling of fear older people try to avoid new trends and spirits of the time. On the other hand, youngsters are eager to introduce some desperately new and young-eyed decisions in order to gain a foothold. In other words, young people want to be creative, bright and want to place themselves on record. As a result, old traditions contradict with new trends and a problem of generation gap shapes up. For example, parents very often try to protect their children from modern entertainments some forbid playing computer games, thinking that computers can’t teach anything to their children, some prohibit wearing extravagant clothes and some prevent their infants from attending concerts of rock stars, fearing that he can fall among evil companions. However, forbidden fruit is sweet. And the offsprings start doing everything on the sly. But when finally parents find it out they can’t stop wondering why do their children conceal their affairs from them? The answer is as easy as ABC: youngsters want to express themselves, they want to get the smell of powder, they want to enjoy independence. On the contrary, the parents want to be sure that their precious offsprings are safe and sound. As a consequence, this leads to misunderstanding, quarrels and insults. Nowadays children start using computers very early. Tweens and teens are so fascinated by them that they spend hours and hours at their personal computers or at computer clubs. The electronic universe replaces their contacts with friends and dominates their life completely. Obsession with computers brings about a mechanical, disillusioned mentality and inhibits their emotional development. The heads of youngsters are also being filled with violent pictures they have seen on TV. Children are very naive and impressionable. And no wonder that they are so aggressive and arrogant in  real life. They are thrown into such a harsh world, especially if they live in a city. These days a lot of parents think that they should be lenient with their children, they should let them find out about life for themselves, they should leave children to develop their own idea of right and wrong. But it’s a grave mistake. Parents should try to protect their children from possible bad influences and give them clear guidance about right and wrong. There is no way to predict how today’s children will turn out. Keeping faith in kids is necessary. They are not bad. They are optimistic. They expect to have a better life than their parents’. And grown-ups – if they are prepared to admit it – could learn a thing or two from their children. One of the biggest lessons they could learn is that enjoyment is not  «sinful ». Enjoyment, is a principle you could apply to all aspects of life. It is not wrong to enjoy your work and enjoy your leisure, to shed restricting inhibitions. It is surely not wrong to live in the present rather than in the past or future. Generation gap is the major reason today why parents and children are moving away from each other. As we all know, the environment has changed, so has the life style and with that changes the mind of children. Today’s generation doesn’t like others interfering in any of their personal matters, they don’t like parents ordering them, and if they try and tell them what’s wrong for them, they misbehave with their parents. The question arises that, what is the reason behind all this. It is the parents’ mistake or is it cause of the generation gap. Generation gap is basically created by the people themselves. They don’t talk to their children and share their own points of views with the children. The point is that the parents are just so busy with their work and jobs that they don’t have time for their family and their children. And they realize it when there has a huge distance between the kids and the parents. The point is if parents give their children some time from their busy schedule then there would be no such problem. Nevertheless the problem of  generation gap can be easily solved. Patience should be the key to the common ground between adults and youngsters. People of all ages must become more tolerant and less selfish and must discuss their troubles in order to conquer misunderstanding. It’s essential that parents give more freedom to their children so that they can express themselves. Whereas children should remember that freedom is not something to be over-indulged in. It’s not difficult to achieve understanding if you are making effort to see a problem from a variety of angles. On the contrary, if you think that your standpoint is the only one true and you don’t want to discuss and listen to other opinions, then the problem of generation gap will become a nightmare of your family.