Saturday, January 25, 2020

The Characteristics Of Culture Theology Religion Essay

The Characteristics Of Culture Theology Religion Essay Biologically speaking, we humans are social beings. We need our parents to be born, and once that happens; even though we are considered single individuals with a brain and mind that let us think and learn, we do not isolate ourselves from the rest of the people. On the contrary, all we do is to follow our peers. We gather in groups, and these groups constitute subgroups again. This is the basic method we follow to successfully organise and build up our social structure to satisfy our several needs. The first of these groups is our family, and from here we span to neighbourhoods; communities of different kinds, that we joined based on a particular interest, such as: religious, sports, academic, musical, labour, political, ideological, etc. These groups grow in number to form states and then countries or nations. All these people together establish a society. Societies differ from one another and every single one of them is unique, particular and characterised for a distinctive feature that we call culture. Culture is that complex absoluteness that we learn day by day. It is everything with which we fill and give sense to our existence. The way we wear, think, believe, act, speak, perceive are all framed and shaped by the ideas, concepts, values that are part of a specific culture. Through culture we learn to adapt ourselves in this physical world, manipulating the available resources for our own welfare and we also shape our behaviour to avoid a social chaos. Concepts of Culture Culture is neither natural nor artificial. It stems from neither genetics nor rational thought, for it is made up of rules of conduct, which were not invented and whose function is generally not understood by the people who obey them. Some of these rules are residues of traditions acquired in the different types of social structure through which each human group has passed. Other rules have been consciously accepted or modified for the sake of specific goals. Yet there is no doubt that, between the instincts inherited from our genotype and the rules inspired by reason, the mass of unconscious rules remains more important and more effective; because reason itself is a product rather than a cause of cultural evolution. Claude LÃ ©vi-Strauss, 1983. Culture means the whole complex of traditional behavior which has been developed by the human race and is successively learnt by each generation. A culture is less precise. It can mean the forms of traditional behavior which are characteristic of a given society, or of a group of societies, or of a certain race, or of a certain area, or of a certain period of time. Margaret Mead, 1937. Culture is the integral whole consisting of implements and consumers goods, of constitutional charters for the various social groupings, of human ideas and crafts, beliefs and customs. Whether we consider a very simple or primitive culture or an extremely complex and developed one, we are confronted by a vast apparatus, partly material, partly human, and partly spiritual, by which man is able to cope with the concrete specific problems that face him. Bronislaw Malinowski, 1944. Culture embraces all the manifestations of social behavior of a community, the reactions of the individual as affected by the habits of the groups in which he lives, and the product of human activities as determined by these habits. Franz Boas, 1930. Characteristics of Culture Culture is learnt: as soon as we are in contact with other members of our culture, we start learning all about it; therefore, we can assume that culture is learnt rather than inherited biologically. A human being will learn the culture of the society where he is raised; thus, a person that is born in Australia would not practise the same culture if he had been born in Poland. In this context we are different from animals since they are biologically built in a way that they will know how to behave and act naturally even if they grew in isolation. Culture is shared: if culture is learnt, we can state that it is also shared. We share all knowledge among the members of the same society. This way we pass on the standards of our culture along years keeping it alive. As we are social beings, we have a high tendency of sharing and this feature let us improve as a whole. By sharing we provide the necessary tools that are used for a gentle adaptation in all stages and environments we go through in our lives. Culture is integrated: culture itself is not a single unit. It is a complex whole in which every feature that characterizes it has an important role that makes that culture distinctive and peculiar. All these features function integrated and not separately from one another. This way when a feature changes, it affects to the whole system making it also swift. Culture is dynamic: there are some reasons such as: population growth, technological innovation, environmental crisis, intrusion of outsiders, modification of behaviour, etc; that have made cultures change. That is why cultures must be flexible and dynamic in order to adapt constantly to the new changes and avoid repression of his members. Culture is based on symbols: culture has been transmitted among its members along the years through a set of different symbols. Symbols are then the instrument used to pass on culture and keep it alive from generation to generation, and language is the most important one. Functions of Culture According to Bronislaw Malinowski (1884 1942) the function of culture is to fulfill certain biological and psychological needs people share. Cultures are expected to fulfill certain functions in order to lead a society successfully and some of them might me: Guarantee the biological continuity of its members. Provide practical means to pass on knowledge among members. Meet the psychological and emotional needs of its members. Being flexible enough in order to survive the increasing shifting conditions. Offer strategies for the rational production and distribution of goods and services considered necessary for life. Provide an organised and diverse social structure so that all its members can fit in it and also understand the world in their own means. Facilitate social interactions among its members and offer reasonable ways to avoid or resolve conflicts that might rise within the group as well as with outsiders. Allow human beings to adapt the environment to their own purposes. Social interactions do not refer to only relationships among human beings but also and deeply with nature. The survival of all cultures depends on the way they use and treat nature. A well-working culture is the one that satisfies the different groups within the society as equally as possible; thus, its individual members can all have access to the resources available in the community and achieve their personal and collective goals. This will avoid the members to feel unsafe and unattached; therefore, they will not easily fall into anti-social behaviours, such as: violence, crime, suicide, depression, abuse of drugs, etc. Enculturation and Acculturation Every single culture is learnt by their members and transmitted from person to person and from generation to generation to avoid its absolute disappearance. The most important instrument used to carry this out is language. The process of passing on knowledge among people is what we call enculturation. This process is vital to guarantee the survival of the culture, but it is also significant to do it in the most smoothly manner to avoid any disruption among members and also among the features of the culture being transmitted. Enculturation let us understand the past so that we can make a better sense of the present and therefore plan a more sustainable future for the welfare of our species. This process also gives us the opportunity to find out more about ourselves; our ancestors and origin; where the way we think and perceive the world, our values and beliefs come from. When enculturation is carried out in the proper manner, the members of all cultures grow up closer to their past, revitalizing the core values that make their cultures unique and distinct from all others. They also grow up in an environment characterized by the deep pride of belonging to one particular culture and behave with strong ideas of maintaining their culture alive; albeit the irrevocable changes they must go through. There is also another phenomenon that cultures might experience, consisting on the absorption of one culture over another one, called acculturation. This usually happens when industrialized or capital societies influence highly over traditional small societies to the point of modifying them completely. Once they are in contact, the former shapes and converts the latter one. The small society adopts the culture of the powerful one as the final outcome. This process is similar to that of colonization. It is especially more noticeable now that we live in a globalized world; where the small societies are usually the most affected ones. Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism There is generally a bad habit of criticising other peoples behaviour but most of all to judge the way other cultures function. When we find ourselves interacting with people from other cultures, or simply see it on the media; we get surprised by the different manners they behave, think and express in similar situations. There is nothing wrong with comparing cultures, in fact, this way we learn more about others and value ours, too. We must keep in mind that when comparing, we should adopt an unbiased position in order to understand the best way possible why other people do things in the way they do, and avoid unsupported preconceptions. The term that refers to what it is mentioned in the paragraph above is ethnocentrism: the belief that the way that ones own culture functions is the only proper and correct one, while all others are wrong. In order to avoid making fast judgements or simply incorrect conclusions; anthropologists, when studying cultures, always put into practice what they call cultural relativism which is the idea that we must suspend or postpone judgement of other peoples practices until we acquire a full understanding of the culture in which we are interested; so as to understand them in their own cultural terms. It is important to clarify that in this process what it is done is to put off ones judgement towards another culture, it is neither precipitated nor cancelled. Through cultural relativism it is possible to hold our judgements and perceptions about the culture being observed to the last stage; in order to take down accurate data and keep valid records; furthermore, avoid preconceptions influenced by ethnocentrism. Conclusion Along history not only humans have changed, but also the way we live. In our search for a better and more comfortable world for us to inhabit; we have made an irrational and abusive use of natural resources. We have damaged nature to such extreme points to threaten our own survival. Most of the societies around the world, influenced by the western fashion have turned into very consumerist ones; the ideas and values that used to grasp societies together are now stirring political discomfort and creating social inequality because the leaders and members of our societies are more tented to achieve personal and individual profits at any cost to work collectively so that every member can accomplish his personal and collective needs. The process of changing is unstoppable; everything needs to keep changing constantly to stay alive; therefore a culture that does not adjust its features simple disappears. The most important affected feature of a culture is its language. Language is that particular faculty that differentiates us from animals and makes us a unique and rational species. Through language we humans are able to express our feelings, thoughts, ideas and most importantly to transmit our culture from one generation into another one, assuring its survival along years. Many languages have already disappeared, mainly as a result of the process of acculturation; and with the languages, also ways of thinking, expressing, seeing, perceiving are gone. This way the world becomes small and intrinsic, losing authenticity and variety provided for the distinct and diverse manners of receiving, understanding, analyzing, shaping and living this world. For a culture to survive is not enough to shift. It should do it in a way that it can guarantee that its members will satisfy their biological and social needs; thus, the whole society will feel competent and safe; therefore, it will behave proudly and mutually to keep it alive.

Friday, January 17, 2020

Finance Case

CASESTUDY: Goodweek Tires, Inc. After extensive research and development, Goodweek Tires,Inc. , has recently developed a new tire, the SuperTread, and must decide whether to make the investment necessary to produce and market the SuperTread. The tire would be ideal for drivers doing a large amount of wet weather and off-road driving in addition to its normal freeway usage. The research and development costs so far total about $10 million. The SuperTread would be put on the market beginning this year and Goodweek expects it to stay on the market for a total of four years.Test marketing costing $5 mil-lion shows that there is a significant market for a SuperTread-type tire. As a financial analyst at Goodweek Tires, you are asked by your CFO, Mr. Adam Smith, to evaluate the SuperTread project and provide a recommendation on whether to go ahead with the investment. You are informed that all previous investments in the SuperTread are sunk costs and only future cash flows should be conside red . Except for the initial investment which will occur immediately; assume all cash flows will occur at year-end.Goodweek must initially invest $120 million in production equipment to make the SuperTread. The equipment is expected to have a seven-year useful life. This equipment can be sold for $51,428,571at the end of four years. Goodweek intends to sell the SuperTread to two distinct markets: 1. The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Market The OEM market consists primarily of the large automobile companies (e. g. , General Motors) who buy tires for new cars. In the OEM market, the SuperTread is expected to sell for $36 per tire. The variable cost to produce each tire is $18. 2.The Replacement Market The replacement market consists of all tires purchased after the auto-mobile has left the factory. This market allows higher margins and Goodweek expects to sell the SuperTread for $59 per tire there. Variable costs are the same as in the OEM market. Goodweek Tires intends to rai se prices at 1 percent above the inflation rate. Variable costs will also increase 1 percent above the inflation rate. In addition, the SuperTread project will incur $25 mil-lion in marketing and general administration costs the first year (this figure is expected to increase at the inflation rate in the subsequent years).Goodweek’s corporate tax rate is 40 percent. Annual inflation is expected to remain constant at 3. 25 percent. The company uses a 15. 9 percent discount rate to evaluate new product decisions. The tire market Automotive industry analysts expect automobile manufacturers to produce 2 million new cars this year and production to grow at 2. 5 percent per year thereafter. Each new car needs four tires (the spare tires are undersized and are in a different category). Goodweek Tires expects the SuperTread to capture 11 percent of the OEM market.Industry analysts estimate that the replacement tire market size will be 14 million tires this year and that it will grow at 2 percent annually. Goodweek expects the SuperTread to capture an 8 per-cent market share. You decide to use the MACRS depreciation schedule (seven-year property class). You also decide to consider net working capital (NWC) requirements in this scenario. The immediate initial working capital requirement is $11 million, and thereafter the net working capital requirements will be 15 percent of sales. What will be the NPV, payback period, discounted payback period, AAR, IRR, and PI on this project?

Thursday, January 9, 2020

A Review of Keatings Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2234 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Narrative essay Topics: Justice Essay Tort Essay Did you like this example? Gregory C. Keating[1] is a professor of Law and Philosophy at the University of Southern California and teaches legal ethics, seminars and torts in political and legal philosophy. He is also an editor of a torts casebook and writes on torts, legal theory and professional responsibility. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Review of Keatings Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents" essay for you Create order In his Article Distributive and corrective justice in the tort law of accidents'[2], Keating explains that the theoretical foundation of tort theory is torn between two competing conceptions, the justice conception and the economic conception, where the former takes tort law of accidents to be continuous with our ordinary notions of agency and responsibility, carelessness and wrongdoing, harm and reparation'[3] and the latter supports that tort accident law should express an appropriate scientific conception of human welfare. Keating argues that theorists in the justice conception have generally supported that, in tort law, justice is a matter of corrective justice, concerned all but exclusively with the rectification of losses wrongfully inflicted and although he supports that this is an attractive position, since rectification is central to tort accident law, he challenges that belief, arguing that the advantages of corrective justice have however come at a cost[4]. He firstl y supports that the rhetoric of tort law is rife with appeals to fairness'[5] and the arguments about fairness have been difficult to fit into a corrective justice framework. Secondly he argues that theorists of the corrective justice conception have been led to place great weight on the concept of wrongdoing, which has led to overemphasizing the attractiveness and importance of negligence liability and has made strict liability difficult to justify, whereas distributive justice helps to justify and explain the existence of strict liability in tort law.[6] Keating therefore supports that tort law should be only secondarily matter of corrective justice and primarily a matter of distributive justice, a matter of the fair apportionment of the burdens and benefits of risky activities. As Keating presents, distributive justice views the law of torts from the point of view of those affected by it and has its roots in the social contract tradition[7], asking what they might reasonably e xpect of each other in the way of reparation and precaution. On the other hand, Keating supports that there is not a single agreed-upon account regarding corrective justice and therefore he uses the corrective justice conception of Jules Coleman[8] as his touchstone, concluding that corrective justice consists of four elements[9], firstly it applies to human agency, secondly it is concerned with repair or rectification, thirdly it is concerned with rectifying a kind of wrongdoing, with wrongful losses in Colemans case, and fourthly, it involves correlativity. Keating argues that the tort law of accidents, on the fairness conception[10], is only secondarily a matter of corrective justice and primarily a matter of distributive justice. He goes on to say that, the tort law of accidents, implied by the idea of fairness, is and should be concerned with the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of mutually beneficial but harmful activities. Fairness requires that those who impo se risks also bear the accident costs which issue from those risk impositions and this conception of fairness gives rise to a presumption in favor of strict liability. Therefore, the corrective dimension of strict liability, which is the reparation for harm reasonably inflicted by the injurer to the victim, is the offspring of a deeper distributive dimension, which is also the case in negligent liability. Keating further argues that the link between disrespect and negligence makes negligence liability[11] an instance of corrective justice since the duty to repair a negligently inflicted injury is a duty to make right a harm wrongly inflicted. However, Keating underlines that even here corrective justice is embedded in distributive justice firstly, because negligent liability is fully justified only when it is distributively fair and secondly since the norms of due care strike a fair balance between the competing claims of liberty and security, when negligence liability is properly a rticulated. Keating argues that negligence upsets this fair distribution of precaution and risk and supports that the upshot of this[12] is that victims claims to reparation, even when those claims sound in corrective justice, rest at bottom on a conception of distributive justice. Keating concludes that a law of accidents[13] which attends to the distribution of the benefits and burdens of risky activities is more just than one which attends only to the rectification of injuries wrongly inflicted. In other words, a law o accidents which is not only distributively fair, but also correctively just, is more just than a law of accidents which is only correctively just. The controversy concerning the appropriate purpose of tort law continues to rage[14] with some scholars advocating that tort rules should minimize accident costs as an instrument for maximizing social welfare and wealth and others arguing that, as a matter of corrective justice, tort rules should fairly protect the individuals right to physical security. These two conceptions of tort law are both fundamentally incompatible and mutually exclusive and therefore, it seems that the tort system has to choose between efficiency and fairness. The economic analysis of tort law, throughout its history, has focused almost exclusively in one main question regarding how should tort rules be formulated in order to minimize the social cost of accidents. Although, the economic analysis of tort law is controversial,[15] since it is highly questioned whether tort law should minimize accident costs to the exclusion of fairness concerns, it can play an important role in formulating tort rules designed to protect fairly individual rights. By identifying such a role, it can be showed that it is possible to conceptualize tort law in a unified manner, one that fully accounts for the central tenets of welfare economics and the fair protection of individual rights. The controversy associated with the economic a nalysis of tort law was first stirred up by the provocative work of Richard Posner. Although he was not the first to apply economic analysis to tort law, Posner strongly influenced the newly developing field by forcefully propounding the claim that tort law should maximize wealth by minimizing accident costs[16]. The approach subsequently foundered as scholars, including Posner, recognized that cost-benefit analysis cannot determine initial entitlements, the basic architecture of any legal rule.[17] This limitation of economic analysis was then addressed by Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell, who have constructed a proof showing that a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“fairà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  tort rule can make everyone worse off than the welfare-maximizing tort rule.[18] This outcome violates the Pareto principle, which requires any change in liability rules that would make at least one person better off and no one worse off. By showing how a principle of fairness can block a change in rules that wou ld make everyone better off, Kaplow and Shavell provide a reason for rejecting a fair tort system in favor of one that maximizes welfare consistently with the Pareto principle. A welfare-maximizing tort system ordinarily relies upon cost-minimizing liability rules, thereby reestablishing the single role for economic analysis in tort law.[19] All issues of concern to the tort system ought to be resolved in the cost-minimizing manner, the general method for maximizing social welfare and wealth. Not surprisingly, the claim that tort law ought to be nothing more than an exercise of welfare economics has provoked an equally extreme response from critics. The most forceful critique has come from those who maintain that tort liability is best justified by the principle of corrective justice.[20] The principle is grounded in a conception of individual rights and obligations, giving one who is responsible for the wrongful losses of another a duty to repair those losses.[21] This justif ication rules out the economic analysis of [tort] law.'[22] Despite the claims of exclusivity made by the proponents of efficiency and fairness, each conception of tort liability is included in the common understanding of tort law. The most widespread understanding of tort law, developed by the work of a large number of the most influential tort scholars in the Twentieth Century, maintains that the purpose of tort law is to compensate and deter.[23] The compensatory function relates to fairness concerns, and the deterrence function relates the economic rationale for tort liability. This understanding of tort law has been adopted by the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which justifies negligence liability à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“as remedying an injustice inflicted on the plaintiff by the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“providing the defendant with appropriate safety incentives [which] improves the overall welfare of society, and thereby advances economic goals.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  [24] Rather than solve the dispute regarding the appropriate roles of efficiency and fairness in tort law, the compensation-and-deterrence rationale may merely restate the problem. The rationale, in other words, may embody a problematic conception of tort liability. A cost-minimizing tort system is incompatible with the adequate protection of individual rights.[25] The deterrence rationale for tort liability also appears to be incompatible with the compensatory rationale.[26] The compensation-and-deterrence rationale therefore may embody conflicting rationales rather than providing a unified conception of tort liability. Such a mixed understanding of tort law is problematic. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Understood from the standpoint of mutually independent goals, [tort] law is a congeries of unharmonized and competing purposes.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [27] In order for the deterrence-and-compensation rationale to offer a unified conception of tort law, it must find justification in a theory capa ble of explaining the compensation and deterrence functions of tort law. Such a unified conception must also be capable of explaining the varied roles of efficiency and fairness concerns in tort law. A unified conception cannot depend on the conventional economic analysis of tort law due to its exclusion of fairness concerns. A unified conception must instead depend on some other form of economic analysis, one appropriate for a fair tort system. It is an open question whether a rights-based fairness norm like the principle of corrective justice can be complemented by economic analysis.[28] No doubt, many believe that this question has been ignored for good reasons. The conventional economic question is forward-looking: Would liability in this case minimize accident costs by deterring accidents in the future? That inquiry seems to be utterly irrelevant to the backward-looking normative question: Is compensation in this case warranted because the defendant was responsible for vi olating the plaintiffà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right? Despite superficial appearances, the idea that economic analysis is incompatible with or irrelevant to a principle of fairness is probably mistaken. Economic analysis can have an important role to play in a fair tort system, one that significantly differs from its role in an efficient tort system. Top of Form Bottom of FormThis unified conception incorporates economic analysis into a fair theory of tort law. Under this approach, the individual right to physical security constrains the ability of the tort system to promote social welfare. The constraint yields rights-based tort rules that are consistent with the Pareto principle and satisfy the equity-efficiency criterion, the two central tenets of welfare economics. The approach is illustrated by a rights-based conception of fairness that adequately describes the important tort doctrines while unifying the compensation and deterrence functions of tort law. As this example illustrate s, the constraint imposed by a rights-based principle does not make welfare considerations irrelevant. It merely defines the conditions under which tort rules can appropriately rely upon welfare considerations. Further analysis shows why any rights-based tort system is likely to provide an important role for economic analysis, one that operates within the constrained space of welfare concerns. The economic inquiry no longer exclusively focuses on the minimization of costs. Freed from such a limited and controversial role, economic analysis becomes integral to a unified conception of tort law. [1] George Conk, Nishida v. Pharmacia/Monsanto Torts Scholars Amicus Brief (2013) https://www.scribd.com/doc/124667443/Nishida-v-Pharmacia-Monsanto-Torts-Scholars-Amicus-Brief#scribd accessed 25 February 2015 [2] Gregory C. Keating, Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law of Accidents [ 2000 ] Vol. 74:193 [3] ibid 193 [4] ibid 195 [5] ibid [6] ibid [7] ibid 196 [8] ibid 197 [9] ibid [10] ibid 200 [11] ibid 201 [12] ibid [13] ibid 224 [14] Mark Geistfeld, Economic Analysis in a Unified Conception of Tort Law (2003) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9wh2w92c# accessed 25 February 2015 [15] Jules L. Coleman, The Grounds of Welfare (2003) 112 YALE L. J. 1511 https://www.yalelawjournal.org/review/the-grounds-of-welfare accessed 25 February 2015 [16] RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMICS OF JUSTICE (1981) https://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/828232?sid=21105453566871uid=2129uid=60uid=3uid=70uid=388953301uid=2 accessed 25 February 2015 [17] Lewis Kornhauser, The Economic Analysis of Law (2011) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-econanalysis/ accessed 25 February 2015 [18] Louis Kaplow Steven Shavell, The Conflict Between No tions of Fairness and the Pareto Principle (1999) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24104346_Any_Non-welfarist_Method_of_Policy_Assessment_Violates_the_Pareto_Principle_Reply accessed 25 February 2015 [19] LOUIS KAPLOW STEVEN SHAVELL, FAIRNESS VERSUS WELFARE (2002) https://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/shavell/pdf/32_J_Legal_Stud_331.pdf accessed 25 February 2015 [20] JULES L. COLEMAN, THE PRACTICE OF PRINCIPLE: IN DEFENCE OF A PRAGMATIST APPROACH TO LEGAL THEORY (first published in 2001, Oxford University Press Inc., New York) [21] ibid [22] ERNEST WEINRIB, THE IDEA OF PRIVATE LAW (First Edition Published in 2012, Oxford University Press Inc., New York ) [23] Mark Geistfeld, Economic Analysis in a Unified Conception of Tort Law (2003) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9wh2w92c# accessed 25 February 2015 [24] ibid [25] ibid [26] ERNEST WEINRIB, THE IDEA OF PRIVATE LAW (First Edition Published in 2012, Oxford University Press Inc., New York ) [27] ibid [28] Robert Cooter, Torts as the Union of Liberty and Efficiency: An Essay on Causation (1987) https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2301context=facpubs accessed 25 February 2015

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Biography of Czar Nicholas II, Last Czar of Russia

Nicholas II (May 18, 1868–July 17, 1918) was the last czar of Russia. He ascended to the throne following the death of his father in 1894. Woefully unprepared for such a role, Nicholas II has been characterized as a naà ¯ve and incompetent leader. At a time of enormous social and political change in his country, Nicholas held fast to outdated, autocratic policies and opposed reform of any kind. His inept handling of military matters and insensitivity to the needs of his people helped to fuel the 1917 Russian Revolution. Forced to abdicate in 1917, Nicholas went into exile with his wife and five children. After living more than a year under house arrest, the entire family was brutally executed in July 1918 by Bolshevik soldiers. Nicholas II was the last of the Romanov Dynasty, which had ruled Russia for 300 years. Fast Facts: Czar Nicholas II Known For: Last Czar of Russia; executed during the Russian revolutionBorn: May 18, 1868 in Tsarskoye Selo, RussiaParents: Alexander III and Marie FeodorovnaDied: July 17, 1918 in Ekaterinburg, RussiaEducation: TutoredSpouse: Princess Alix of Hesse (Empress Alexandra Feodorovna)Children: Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and AlexeiNotable Quote: â€Å"I am not yet ready to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling.† Early Life Nicholas II, born in Tsarskoye Selo near St. Petersburg, Russia, was the first child of Alexander III and Marie Feodorovna (formerly Princess Dagmar of Denmark). Between 1869 and 1882, the royal couple had three more sons and two daughters. The second child, a boy, died in infancy. Nicholas and his siblings were closely related to other European royalty, including first cousins George V (future king of England) and Wilhelm II, the last Kaiser (Emperor) of Germany. In 1881, Nicholas’ father, Alexander III, became czar (emperor) of Russia after his father, Alexander II, was killed by an assassins bomb. Nicholas, at age 12, witnessed his grandfathers death when the czar, horribly maimed, was carried back to the palace. Upon his fathers ascension to the throne, Nicholas became the Tsarevich (heir-apparent to the throne). Despite being raised in a palace, Nicholas and his siblings grew up in a strict, austere environment and enjoyed few luxuries. Alexander III lived simply, dressing as a peasant while at home and making his own coffee each morning. The children slept on cots and washed in cold water. Overall, however, Nicholas experienced a happy upbringing in the Romanov household. The Young Tsarevich Educated by several tutors, Nicholas studied languages, history, and the sciences, as well as horsemanship, shooting, and even dancing. What he was not schooled in, unfortunately for Russia, was how to function as a monarch. Czar Alexander III, healthy and robust at 6-foot-4, planned to rule for decades. He assumed there would be plenty of time to instruct Nicholas in how to run the empire. At the age of 19, Nicholas joined an exclusive regiment of the Russian Army and also served in the horse artillery. The Tsarevich didnt participate in any serious military activities; these commissions were more akin to a finishing school for the upper class. Nicholas enjoyed his carefree lifestyle, taking advantage of the freedom to attend parties and balls with few responsibilities to weigh him down. Prompted by his parents, Nicholas embarked upon a royal grand tour, accompanied by his brother George. Departing Russia in 1890 and traveling by steamship and train, they visited the Middle East, India, China, and Japan. While visiting Japan, Nicholas survived an assassination attempt in 1891 when a Japanese man lunged at him, swinging a sword at his head. The attackers motive was never determined. Although Nicholas suffered only a minor head wound, his concerned father ordered Nicholas home immediately. Betrothal to Alix and the Death of the Czar Nicholas first met Princess Alix of Hesse (daughter of a German Duke and Queen Victorias second daughter Alice) in 1884 at the wedding of his uncle to Alixs sister Elizabeth. Nicholas was 16 and Alix 12. They met again on several occasions over the years, and Nicholas was adequately impressed to write in his diary that he dreamed of one day marrying Alix. When Nicholas was in his mid-20s and expected to seek a suitable wife from the nobility, he ended his relationship with a Russian ballerina and began to pursue Alix. Nicholas proposed to Alix in April 1894, but she didnt immediately accept. A devout Lutheran, Alix was hesitant at first because marriage to a future czar meant that she must convert to the Russian Orthodox religion. After a day of contemplation and discussion with family members, she agreed to marry Nicholas. The couple soon became quite smitten with one another and looked forward to getting married the following year. Theirs would be a marriage of genuine love. Unfortunately, things changed drastically for the happy couple within months of their engagement. In September 1894, Czar Alexander became gravely ill with nephritis (an inflammation of the kidney). Despite a steady stream of doctors and priests who visited him, the czar died on November 1, 1894, at the age of 49. Twenty-six-year-old Nicholas reeled from both the grief of losing his father and the tremendous responsibility now placed upon his shoulders. Czar Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Nicholas, as the new czar, struggled to keep up with his duties, which began with planning his fathers funeral. Inexperienced in planning such a grand-scale event, Nicholas received criticism on many fronts for the numerous details that were left undone. On November 26, 1894, just 25 days after Czar Alexander’s death, the period of mourning was interrupted for a day so that Nicholas and Alix could marry. Princess Alix of Hesse, newly converted to Russian Orthodoxy, became Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. The couple returned immediately to the palace after the ceremony as a wedding reception was deemed inappropriate during the mourning period. The royal couple moved into the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoye Selo just outside of St. Petersburg and within a few months learned they were expecting their first child. (Daughter Olga was born in November 1895. She was followed by three more daughters: Tatiana, Marie, and Anastasia. The long-anticipated male heir, Alexei, was finally born in 1904.) In May 1896, a year and a half after Czar Alexander died, Czar Nicholas’ long-awaited, lavish coronation ceremony finally took place. Unfortunately, a horrific incident occurred during one of the many public celebrations held in Nicholas’ honor. A stampede on the Khodynka Field in Moscow resulted in more than 1,400 deaths. Incredibly, Nicholas did not cancel the ensuing coronation balls and parties. The Russian people were appalled at Nicholas handling of the incident, which made it appear that he cared little about his people. By any account, Nicholas II had not begun his reign on a favorable note. The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) Nicholas, like many past and future Russian leaders, wanted to expand his country’s territory. Looking to the Far East, Nicholas saw potential in Port Arthur, a strategic warm-water port on the Pacific Ocean in southern Manchuria (northeastern China). By 1903, Russia’s occupation of Port Arthur angered the Japanese, who had themselves recently been pressured to relinquish the area. When Russia built its Trans-Siberian Railroad through part of Manchuria, the Japanese were further provoked. Twice, Japan sent diplomats to Russia to negotiate the dispute; however, each time, they were sent home without being granted an audience with the czar, who viewed them with contempt. By February 1904, the Japanese had run out of patience. A Japanese fleet launched a surprise attack on Russian warships at Port Arthur, sinking two of the ships and blockading the harbor. Well-prepared Japanese troops also swarmed the Russian infantry at various points on land. Outnumbered and outmaneuvered, the Russians suffered one humiliating defeat after another, both on land and sea. Nicholas, who had never thought the Japanese would start a war, was forced to surrender to Japan in September 1905. Nicholas II became the first czar to lose a war to an Asian nation. An estimated 80,000 Russian soldiers lost their lives in a war that had revealed the czars utter ineptitude at diplomacy and military affairs. Bloody Sunday and the Revolution of 1905 By the winter of 1904, dissatisfaction among the working class in Russia had escalated to the point that numerous strikes were staged in St. Petersburg. Workers, who had hoped for a better future living in cities, instead faced long hours, poor wages, and inadequate housing. Many families went hungry on a regular basis, and housing shortages were so severe that some laborers slept in shifts, sharing a bed with several others. On January 22, 1905, tens of thousands of workers came together for a peaceful march to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. Organized by radical priest Georgy Gapon, protesters were forbidden to bring weapons; instead, they carried religious icons and pictures of the royal family. Participants also brought with them a petition to present to the czar, stating their list of grievances and seeking his help. Although the czar was not at the palace to receive the petition (he had been advised to stay away), thousands of soldiers awaited the crowd. Having been informed incorrectly that the protesters were there to harm the czar and destroy the palace, the soldiers fired into the mob, killing and wounding hundreds. The czar himself did not order the shootings, but he was held responsible. The unprovoked massacre, called Bloody Sunday, became the catalyst for further strikes and uprisings against the government, called the 1905 Russian Revolution. After a massive general strike had brought much of Russia to a halt in October 1905, Nicholas was finally forced to respond to the protests. On October 30, 1905, the czar reluctantly issued the October Manifesto, which created a constitutional monarchy and an elected legislature, known as the Duma. Ever the autocrat, Nicholas made sure the powers of the Duma remained limited—nearly half of the budget was exempted from their approval, and they were not allowed to participate in foreign policy decisions. The czar also retained full veto power. The creation of the Duma appeased the Russian people in the short run, but Nicholas’ further blunders hardened his people’s hearts against him. Alexandra and Rasputin The royal family rejoiced at the birth of a male heir in 1904. Young Alexei seemed healthy at birth, but within a week, as the infant bled uncontrollably from his navel, it was clear that something was seriously wrong. Doctors diagnosed him with hemophilia, an incurable, inherited disease in which the blood will not clot properly. Even a seemingly minor injury could cause the young Tsesarevich  to bleed to death. His horrified parents kept the diagnosis a secret from all but the most immediate family. Empress Alexandra, fiercely protective of her son—and his secret—isolated herself from the outside world. Desperate to find help for her son, she sought the help of various medical quacks and holy men. One such holy man, self-proclaimed faith healer Grigori Rasputin, first met the royal couple in 1905 and became a close, trusted advisor to the empress. Although rough in manner and unkempt in appearance, Rasputin gained the Empress trust with his uncanny ability to stop Alexeis bleeding during even the severest of episodes, merely by sitting and praying with him. Gradually, Rasputin became the empress closest confidante, able to exert influence upon her regarding affairs of state. Alexandra, in turn, influenced her husband on matters of great importance based upon Rasputins advice. The Empress relationship with Rasputin was baffling to outsiders, who had no idea that the Tsarevich  was ill. World War I and the Murder of Rasputin The June 1914  assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand  in Sarajevo set off a chain of events that culminated in  World War I. The fact that the assassin was a Serbian national led Austria to declare war on Serbia. Nicholas, with the backing of France, felt compelled to protect Serbia, a fellow Slavic nation. His mobilization of the Russian army in August 1914 helped to propel the conflict into a full-scale war, drawing Germany into the fray as an ally of Austria-Hungary. In 1915, Nicholas made the calamitous decision to take personal command of the Russian army. Under the czars poor military leadership, the ill-prepared Russian army was no match for the German infantry. While Nicholas was away at war, he deputized his wife to oversee affairs of the empire. To the Russian people, however, this was a terrible decision. They viewed the empress as untrustworthy since she had come from Germany, Russia’s enemy in  World War I.  Adding to their mistrust, the Empress relied heavily on the despised Rasputin to help her make policy decisions. Many government officials and family members saw the disastrous effect Rasputin was having on Alexandra and the country and believed he must be removed. Unfortunately, both Alexandra and Nicholas ignored their pleas to dismiss Rasputin. With their grievances unheard, a group of angry conservatives soon took matters into their hands. In a murder scenario that has become legendary, several members of the aristocracy—including a prince, an army officer, and a cousin of Nicholas—succeeded, with some difficulty, in  killing Rasputin  in December 1916. Rasputin survived poisoning and multiple gunshot wounds, then finally succumbed after being bound and thrown into a river. The killers were quickly  identified but were not punished. Many looked upon them as heroes. Unfortunately, the murder of Rasputin was not enough to stem the tide of discontent. The End of a Dynasty The people of Russia had become increasingly angry with the governments indifference to their suffering. Wages had plummeted, inflation had risen, public services had all but ceased, and millions were being killed in a war they didn’t want. In March 1917, 200,000 protesters converged in the capital city of Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg) to protest the czars policies. Nicholas ordered the army to subdue the crowd. By this point, however, most of the soldiers were sympathetic to the protesters demands and thus just fired shots into the air or joined the ranks of the protesters. There were still a few commanders loyal to the czar who forced their soldiers to shoot into the crowd, killing several people. Not to be deterred, the protesters gained control of the city within days, during what came to be known as the February/March  1917 Russian Revolution. With Petrograd in the hands of revolutionaries, Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate the throne. Believing that he could somehow still save the dynasty, Nicholas II signed the abdication statement on March 15, 1917, making his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail, the new czar. The grand duke wisely declined the title, bringing the 304-year-old Romanov dynasty to an end. The provisional government allowed the royal family to stay in the palace at Tsarskoye Selo under guard while officials debated their fate. Exile of the Romanovs When the provisional government became increasingly threatened by the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1917, worried government officials decided to secretly move Nicholas and his family to safety in western Siberia. However, when the provisional government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks (led by  Vladimir Lenin) during the October/November 1917 Russian Revolution, Nicholas and his family came under the control  of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks relocated the Romanovs to  Ekaterinburg  in the Ural Mountains in April 1918, ostensibly to await a public trial. Many opposed the Bolsheviks being in power; thus, a civil war erupted between the Communist Reds and their opponents, the anti-Communist Whites. These two groups fought for control of the country, as well as for custody of the Romanovs. When the White Army began to gain ground in its battle with the Bolsheviks and headed toward  Ekaterinburg  to rescue the imperial family, the Bolsheviks made sure that rescue would never take place. Death Nicholas, his wife, and his five children were all awakened at 2 a.m. on July 17,  1918, and told to prepare for departure. They were gathered into a small room, where  Bolshevik soldiers fired upon them. Nicholas and his wife were killed outright, but the others were not so fortunate. Soldiers used bayonets to carry out the remainder of the executions. The corpses were buried at two separate sites and were burned and covered with acid to prevent them from being identified. In 1991, the remains of nine bodies were excavated at  Ekaterinburg. Subsequent DNA testing confirmed them to be those of Nicholas, Alexandra, three of their daughters, and four of their servants. The second grave, containing the remains of Alexei and his sister Marie, was not discovered until 2007. The Romanov familys remains were reburied at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg, the traditional burial place of the Romanovs. Legacy It might be said that the Russian Revolution and the events that followed were, in a sense, the legacy of Nicholas II—a leader who was unable to respond to changing times by considering the needs of his people. Over the years, research into the final fate of the Romanov family has revealed a mystery: while the bodies of the Czar, Czarina, and several children were found, two bodies—those of the Alexei, heir to the throne, and Grand Duchess Anastasia—were missing. This suggests that perhaps, somehow, two of the Romanov children actually survived. Sources Figes, Orlando. From Tsar to U.S.S.R.: Russias Chaotic Year of Revolution. October 25, 2017. â€Å"Historic Figures: Nicholas II (1868-1918).† BBC News.ï » ¿Keep, John L.H. â€Å"Nicholas II.† Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Inc., 28 Jan. 2019.