The Most Serious Social Problem In My Mind Essays -

The Most Serious Social Problem In My Mind In Spite of the great achievements that China has achieved in the recent years, our country is still a developing country, which is facing many serious social problems. The most serious of all is overpopulation, for it has a passive influence on the national economy, education and environment. First and foremost, overpopulation is the main obstacle of the economic development in China. The limited natural resources in China can hardly support the excessively large population. Developing of our national economy, especially industry, needs great amount of natural resources, such as land, water, oil, coal, gas and iron. However, the natural resources are limited and decline very quickly when a large population exploits them everyday. Take fresh water as an example, in 1990, 58% of Chinese cities (http://www.cass.net.cn/y_sjr/y_cn_sjr_334.htm) were suffered from the insufficiency of water. It not only birngs great disadvantages to people's daily life, but also has a passive influence on the economic development. Released by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the economic lost caused by the insufficiency of water is 250 billion RMB per year, including 230 billion lost of industrial value of output and 20 billion agricultural lost. As a result, the insufficiency of natural reso urces somewhat slows down the economic development in china. Second, overpopulation leads to the result of a rather low SOL( Standard of Living) in China. SOL means GDP per person, and it is an important index of the real national economic status. Although China makes great economic achievements and improvements every year, the economic achievements is not that glorious when divided by the large denominator of population. By the end of 1999, released by the State Familiy Planning Commission of China, China's total population is 1,259,090,000. Though the GDP in China grew about 7% (SFPCC statics) in 1999, it was only enough to provide the newborn babies (19,090,000 -SFPCC statics) with food and clothes, while could rarely be used for the further development of the national economy. As a result, overpopulation has a passive influence on improving people's standard of living. Besides the passive influence on economy, overpopulation is also regarded as the major obstacle for improving the educational condition in China, which weakens China's competitive power in the world. With the increasing population, our society needs more teachers and facilities. However, since ours is a developing country, the fund for education is not enough in China. In many places, especially in the countryside, there are not enough teaching facilities. Consequently, the youngsters in those places cannot get good education. Even in large cities of China where educational system are relatively complete, the teaching facilities are still not pleasant enough, which can be seen from the violent competition in all kinds of entrance examinations. Education is the basis of the development of science and technology, and the competition between nations in today's world lies somewhat in the competition of science and technology. The poor educational situation that overpopulation brings abou t hampers the China's science and technology from developing too some degree and weakens China's competitive power in the world. Last but not the least, overpopulaiton has a negative influence on the environment. The case in China now is the densely-populate cities, excessively-cut forests and seriously-polluted rivers. Overpopulation is an important reason for the environmental pollution. Some people say that the sky now is not as blue as that before. In my mind, overpopulation should be part of its reason. The environment now in China can hardly support the excessively large population , and the negative influence of overpopulation on the environment is quite obvious. Some people may argue that overpopulation is not the most serious social problem compared with some other issues, such as pollution and corruption. Actually, this opinion is not correct. National economy is the basis of improving people's SOL and is also the basis of current international competition, education is the basis of the future international competition, and the environment is the basis of the existence of all creatures, while now they all relate closely to the overpopulation issue in china. What kinds of other issues can be more important than all those above? Also, this issue should be discussed based on each country's background. China has a

Events Leading to the Civil War

Events Leading to the Civil War Free Online Research Papers The North and South were very different from one another causing many conflicts between the two. E Because of their difference many events happened that led up to the American Civil War. Four of the major events that occurred leading to the American Civil War were the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the election of Abraham Lincoln, and the creation of the Confederate States. The North and South were two different types of people. The first difference in the two was their overall reasons for coming to the New World. The northern colonies all came for more of a spiritual reason as the South came strictly for the money (ushistory.org, 2010). The North wanted the freedom to practice their religion and raise their families. The South wanted the riches from the land and gain as much money and power they could off the new land. â€Å"Since the northern colonies attracted religious dissenters, they tended to migrate in families. Such family connections were less prevalent in the South† (ushistory.org, 2010). â€Å"While the northern colonies developed into shipping centers for furs, timber, and other natural resources, the south developed into an important center for agriculture, with cotton, rice, indigo, and tea among its most important crops† (Smith Michal , 2009, Para 4). The North would become industrialized and produce goods for their money. The South was agriculture based when they arrived and stayed that way while the North was becoming industrialized. The South grew cash crops such as tobacco, rice, indigo and cotton. The crops were grown on plantation farms where the slaves would work the fields (Martin Kelly, 2010). The south used the slaves to make their profit. The North and South had two different opinions about the slave trade that caused conflict between the two regions. The North felt that it was wrong to enslave humans. The South on the other hand was all for slavery. The South had dependency on their slaves though because the slaves were making them money. â€Å"Following the Mexican War, questions arose as to the future of the territories that were acquired from Mexico† (Swogger M, 1997). Because of the tension between the two regions on the slave issue a compromise was made in efforts to stop the Civil War from happening. That would be the Compromise of 1850. After the Mexican War the South and North argued about whether the state would be free or slaved. The slave trade in the District of Columbia was abolished and a new Fugitive Slave Act was passed. â€Å"Although each side received benefits, the north seemed to gain the most† (ushistory.org, 2010, Para 3). This would infuriate the Southern and conflict would still exist between the North and South states. The South benefited from the Slave Law passed with the Compromise of 1850. The South of course applause the Law but the North would refuse to follow and enforce the law. This would then help led to the Civil War in America between the North and South. â€Å"The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress on May 30, 1854† (the history place, 1996, Para 1). The act allowed Kansas and Nebraska citizens to choose if they were going to be free or slave states. The Act would be going against the Act of Missouri which had abolished slavery north of latitude 36, 30. The South strongly supported the Act but the north was all against the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This would then cause conflicts and more hate between the North and South. Being a cause to the Civil War of America. When Abraham Lincoln came into office America was just that much closer to the Civil War. He was elected President of the Unites States in the 1860’s. Abraham Lincoln was against slavery and planned to end it. â€Å"He ran on a platform denouncing disunion and calling for an end to slavery in the territories† (Martin K., 2010, Para 6). This would put fear into the South, for the South was still making their profit with using slaves. The North was all for Abraham Lincoln and supported him. â€Å"The results of the election brought the country to Civil War† (Nussbaum Edu. Net, 2009, Para 2). After Lincoln came into office, the South was extremely scared and angry. The south began a protest by forming the Confederate states in the South. This was the last event that would happen causing the Civil War of America. â€Å"On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By February 1, 1861, six more states Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had split from the Union† (WGBH, 1998-1999, Para 1). They would become the Confederate States of America. In 1861 the president of the United States Abraham Lincoln came in front of the Confederate States with a proposal to stop to confederacy. Lincoln told them that it was his job as the president of the Unites States to protect the Union of the New World. He also mentioned to the confederate states that he in no way was trying to abolish the Fugitive Slave Law. The Confederate States however felt unsatisfied with what Lincoln had to say. â€Å"April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun† (WGBH, 1998-1999, Para 2). The federal Government made many attempts to stop the Civil War from happening but in the end the war was just determined to have to be. Each attempt that was supposed to stop the conflicts’ and get the North and South on the same page, keep doing the opposite. Each time a compromise or bill was passed either the North or the South was against the Act. The Compromise of the 1850’s stopped the war from happing, but only temporarily. In the end the civil war happened because of such strong differences and beliefs and also the stubbornness of both the North and South regions. Many events occurred before the war that help led America into its Civil War. Four of many event that occurred were the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas- Nebraska Act, President Lincoln becoming president, and the session of the South. All the conflicts between the two had to do with how different they were from one another, starting with the reason why they came to America. Overall the Civil War happened and helped form what we know as America. Martin K. (2010) Abraham Lincoln – 16th President of the United States. About.com: American History. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/abrahamlincoln/p/plincoln.htm Martin K. (2010). Overview of Colonial America 1607- 1754. About.com: American History. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/colonialamerica/a/colamoveview.htm Nussbaum Edu. Net. (2009). The Election of 1860. Mrnussbaum.com. mrnussbaum.com/civil_war/election_of_1860.htm Smith M., (2009). Comparing America’s Northern and Southern Colonies. Inc. yahoo. News network. associatedcontent.com/article/1399860/comparing_americas_northern_and_southern.html Swogger M. (1997). Causes of the Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave laws. Suite101. suite101.com/article.cfm/american_civil_war_retired/4390 The History Place. (1996). The Kansas-Nebraska Act. http://historyplace.com/Lincoln/Kansas.htm ushistory.org. (2010). The Compromise of 1850. US History online textbook. http://ushistory.org/us/3ud.asp ushistory.org. (2010). The New England Colonies. US History online textbook. ushistory.org/us/3.asp ushistory.org. (2010). The Southern Colonies. US History online textbook. ushistroy.org/us/5.asp WGBH Education Foundation. (1998-19990. The civil war and emancipation. Africans in America. pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html Research Papers on Events Leading to the Civil War19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoGenetic EngineeringThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationNever Been Kicked Out of a Place This NiceBook Review on The Autobiography of Malcolm XCanaanite Influence on the Early Israelite ReligionQuebec and CanadaPETSTEL analysis of IndiaTwilight of the UAW

Tricing Pendants and Lifeboat Rigging

Tricing Pendants and Lifeboat Rigging A tricing pendant is part of the rigging that allows lifeboats to be launched. The system to launch a lifeboat is complex and the tricing pendants play an essential role if the ship is heeling or laid over because of damage. The Mechanics of Launching a Lifeboat To launch a lifeboat the boats must first be freed from the cradle straps called Gripes. (Insert nautical gripe joke here.) Next small twin cranes called Davits are brought into the launch/recovery position. Each Davit is equipped with a powerful winch and emergency manual brake. These Davits are fitted with hoisting lines called Falls which attach to the lifeboat harness which is in turn fastened to the gunwales on opposite sides at the fore and aft of the boat. Lines attached to the bow and stern of the lifeboat are called Frapping Lines and are used to control the movement of the boat as it is lowered or raised. An additional line is attached to the bow of the lifeboat to keep it near the ship after all other rigging has been released. This line is called a Sea Painter. Under the boat, usually attached to the keel, is a device called a McCluny Hook which allows lines attached under the boat to be released remotely. The lines attached to the McCluny Hook are routed to the Tricing Pendants which are an apparatus used to pull the lifeboat to the embarkation station when the ship is at an abnormal angle. If lifeboats were lowered while the vessel is heeling over from the damage they will either slide down the side if they are on the high side or enter the water far away from the embarkation station if they are on the low side. Its very easy to be injured in a lifeboat. The Costa Concordia wreck off the coast of Italy is a prime example of the dangers of evacuating by lifeboat. At least two people died on the wreck because they attempted to swim to the rocky shore rather than risk the poorly deployed lifeboats. A tricing pendant is a device that is made up of three main components. The length of line or chain that is attached to the keel of the lifeboat via a McCluny Hook, a block and tackle system that increases mechanical force, and the lines and often winches that draw the lifeboat close enough for passengers to get aboard. Lifeboat Drills Under SOLAS There is an ongoing controversy surrounding SOLAS Conventions as they pertain to lifeboat training and drills. For safety reasons, SOLAS compliant vessels cannot have occupied lifeboats during launch or recovery. Lowering manned lifeboats is very hazardous to everyone involved and there are many deaths and injuries from lifeboat drills. Its a very different experience to lower a lifeboat with operators than it is to lower an empty lifeboat. This is true for the crew who will ride down in an emergency situation and for the crew running the Davit winches above and tricing pendant gear at the embarkation station. SOLAS is probably right to try and limit training injuries, but without realistic training that is used for emergency evacuation of the vessel, there is little hope for competent launch and recovery of lifeboats in a bad situation. Some ships continue to carry out lifeboat drills with a mix of skirting the rules and using allowed activities to replace prohibited training. This will result in some skills but not the best skills. To have the best training for your crew they must be exposed to the most realistic training available and that means manned lifeboat drills. If SOLAS is to be amended it will take many voices to overcome what is generally seen as a hindrance to safety training. Speak up directly to the IMO or email here and we will pass the comments along.

Giotto di Bondone (a piece of artwork) Research Paper

Giotto di Bondone (a piece of artwork) - Research Paper Example Giotto is generally considered as the first in a series of legendary artists who positively contributed to the renaissance in Italy. Religion played an important role in Italy during the renaissance. It was a period characterized by turmoil in the Christian faith especially the Roman Catholic. Renaissance had a profound impact on contemporary Christianity especially in the way people perceived the relationship between God and man. Some more secular aspects of humanism developed against a background of Christianity and art was used to portray Christianity as the true religion. Most of the new art of the time was in dedication to the church or was commissioned by the church. Self awareness that the masses developed during the renaissance also influenced art during the period. Architects, artists, writers and sculptors in Italy were using phrases like â€Å"alle romana et all antica† or â€Å"modi antichi† to show their awareness of the transformations that were taking place during the time. The awareness was not limited to classical antiquity but was also spread to the growing desire to imitate and study nature and portraying scenes from the bible to imitate classical forms. Renaissance art was distinguished because of its ability to develop high quality and realistic linear perspectives involving nature. Giotto di Bondone was a futuristic artist and the pioneer in applying perspective to develop a trend in arts that moved towards realism. Giovanni Villani, Giotto’s contemporary described him as the painting master who drew all his postures and figures according to nature. Giotto’s mastery of art is maybe best captured by Vasari Giorgio who described him as the artist who drew accurately from life. He was credited with applying a painting as a telescope into space though the art of perspective. Perspective only came to be formalized much later by Alberti Battista (1404-1472)

JetBlue Airlines Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

JetBlue Airlines - Research Paper Example Other airline companies that JetBlue has formed alliances with include Lufthansa, OpenSkies, American Airlines, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Jet Airways and South African Airways among others. In its effort to maintain strong positive relationship with its clients, JetBlue emulates strong advertising strategies by use of local newspapers, televisions and social media including YouTube and Hulu.com (Laurence, 2008). The company has adopted advertising phrases for example we like you too and unbelievable. As the result of extensive marketing strategies, the company has benefited from strong customer awareness and distinctive positioning aspects that have made it to attain a competitive edge in the market. One of the notable core values that make JetBlue Airline to be the option of US travelers is its strong binding with Customer Bill of Rights. According to the company management, the company has to refund the customer’s funds in the event of a cancellation or delay of flights. JetBlue airlines suffered two major incidents that did not result to any casualty. The first one is the 2005 emergency landing of Flight 292 at Los Angeles Airport. The second one happened on Flight 191 when the traveler subdued the captain and locked him out of the cockpit after a panic attack. One of the major weaknesses of JetBlue Airline is that it does not have large number of hubs as compared to other airlines in the US. As a result, the company is not in a position to effectively compete with its rivals that includes Southwest, Pan AM, Northwest, American and Delta among others. This inadequacy in the number of available hubs for the company to use makes it impossible to attend to most of its customers from various locations in the United States. For instance, the company cannot attend to its customers on the west properly without bringing in the services of

Influential Composers Of The Late 20th Century Essay -- Music Musical

Influential Composers Of The Late 20th Century Composers’ techniques matured throughout the 20th century, as did listeners’ ears.Thus, it becomes progressively harder to pinpoint influential musicians.One must distinguish between those simply continuing the modern tradition, and those truly breaking barriers. Robert Dick, dubbed â€Å"Hendrix of the flute† is one obvious boundary-breaker. (Dick)Born in New York City, Dick’s studies at the School for Music and Art were supplemented by lessons with acclaimed flutists Henry Zlotnik and Julius Baker.He attended Yale, receiving a B.A. in 1971 and a composition Master’s in 1973. Dick’s most notable contribution to music is his revolution of the flute.He realized the flute’s limited color palette and one-note-at-a-time capability was incompatible with â€Å"an environment where the pace of change is accelerating†¦The flute sound of the future will be yet more powerful and colorful†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Dick).Inspired by world music, jazz, rock, and electronic music, Dick made accessible the colorful extended technique spectrum: jet whistles, harmonics, throat tuning, multiphonics, whisper tones, circular breathing.Dick did not INVENT all these techniques.(Circular breathing has been a long-established tradition—especially for Bulgarian kaval flutes and Rajasthan’s Narh flutes).But, it is through Dick’s advocacy that these techniques are becoming accepted practice.His tutorial method books have been hailed â€Å"the definitive instructor† (Dick). Circular Breathing for the Flutist provides detailed analysis of the technique, visual aids, and step-by-step instruction that focuses on developing correct embouchure before applying more detailed coordination.After only 6 months of daily 10-15 minute practice, f... ...t to his/her time.Rent, the modern version of Puccini’s La Boehme, unabashedly brings hush-hush issues of AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexual relationships to the forefront, without alienating audiences.He juxtaposes poignant melodies and clear harmonies with jarring subject matter and explosive characters that choose to revel in love, pain, and survival.Larson’s contribution shows that being artistically cultured does not mean ignoring reality. Of the three New Yorkers mentioned, Copland was most influential.Without his pioneering music in the early half of the century, American music might never have established its own flavor.Without his advocacy of advancement in the second half of the century, techniques such as Robert Dick’s or Jonathan Larson’s might not have had such a strong base on which to be established nor been accepted by ever-maturing audiences.

Britain And Australia, The Fall Of Singapore And The Great Betrayal In 1942 And Onwards

One of the important characteristics of international relationship is the ability of one country to trust the word of their partners that their partners would look after the best interest of their partners, especially after mutual action plan is being executed and undertaken. There is the proverbial thought about how political bed partners involved in global country alliances are expected scratch each other’s backs.The failure of a partner to look after and protect the interests of the other partner is a very strong incident that easily breaks the trust that binds countries together in friendship, cooperation and alliance. One of the significant setbacks of Australia during the Second World War was the fall of Singapore after the British forces, which Australia trusted to protect this Asian country from being overrun by the enemy. The prevailing feeling that surfaced after the incident was made public was the feeling of betrayal among Australians towards Britain and the Britis h army.Even disregarding the fact that Singapore is an important foothold in the Australian dominion, Australia felt betrayed because they were sent to fight in another location under Britain’s bidding to salvage an important British interest with the guarantee that British forces will look after Australian interests in the Asia-Pacific Region. It was something which they failed to do in a manner that did not provide the British with even a semblance of consolation, just mere indignation over what happened.Britain’s surrender at Singapore in February 1942 can be considered as tantamount to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire because many critics and historians believe that Britain simply betrayed Australia when the British forces surrendered at Singapore at during the Second World War, considering that the same level of justification of the idea of betrayal was attributed to the concept of the â€Å"Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire†.Karl H ack provided a scathing verdict on the Singapore 1942 issue between Australia and Britain, supporting the belief of political analysts and historians who believe that Britain’s action in Singapore in 1942 was indeed an act of betrayal towards its ally Australia. â€Å"In one sense the fall of Singapore had represented a betrayal of Australia, and so catapulted Australia into an American embrace . Hack’s position in this issue was that the British act of betrayal towards Australia’s dominion in 1942 is the contribution towards the loss of one of Australia’s important foothold in the Asian region. This is because the British poorly and inadequately attended to the military concerns involving the defense of Singapore, explaining that â€Å"Britain had encouraged Australia to commit forces to the Mediterranean, and then provided inadequate defences for Singapore . †Gerhard Weinberg made the same observation about the question of British betrayal of Au stralia, explaining that the betrayal is found in the inability of the British to come to the aid of the country which is its ally in its time of need, especially with the fact that there was an understanding between the two nations about the providing of support and assistance; Australia can help the British military strategy and at the same time provide ample and sufficient forces that can protect Australia as well as Australia’s other footholds and territories in the Asia-Pacific region. In both Australia and New Zealand, the war had somewhat similar repercussions.Both felt deserted by the home country in their hour of greatest danger; it may be an exaggeration, but not a completely unjustified one . † Singapore fell on February 1942, but as early as January, the Australian government has already impressed upon its British allies that they would consider the fall of Singapore, which was under their watch, as an â€Å"inexcusable betrayal. The telegram that travelled from Australia to London indicated how Australia was hoping that Britain would indeed hold true to its promises and â€Å"all the assurance we have been given ,† including an solid fortress that will wait for the arrival of the British fleet that will support land efforts to defend Singapore . This telegram was received by Winston Churchill, the contents of which something that Churchill was not very happy or appreciative to read or be the recipient of such note.The reported efforts of the British to save Singapore from falling (including the sending in of the 18th Division) was later regarded as a wrong move for the British, definitely unmindful and not caring anymore about the idea of betrayal that Australia might feel. â€Å"The phrase ‘inexcusable betrayal’ greatly annoyed Churchill, and he could not easily forget it.The minutes of the British War Cabinet’s meeting, which reviewed events the day after Singapore's surrender recorded that it now seemed a pity that Britain had sent the 18th Division to Singapore . † With this information, can it be now assumed that the British leaders during the war indeed betrayed Australia by showing very little consideration or little cause of concern for the interest of Australia and were just focused on winning their own goal?If this was true, then the Singapore debacle was similar to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s empire, since in both occasions, the similar idea was that Australia was abandoned by its ally Britain and left close to being helpless, defenseless and alone. This is because it trusted an ally that was not sincerely looking and protecting the interests of its allies which it relied for help during the height of the battles in the Asia Pacific Theater of Operation during the Second World War.Churchill’s oversight in what was poor defences set up in Singapore one month prior to the fall of Singapore and the planning to evacuate and not fortify the defences we re also pointing to the fact that the British was not planning on holding on to Singapore, not even for the sake of the country’s alliance with Australia, to which Singapore and its defense is important. â€Å"At this late stage, Churchill now gave urgent consideration to the evacuation of all the Allied troops at Singapore to prevent what could now be foreseen as widespread disaster†¦Any evacuation of Singapore would have appalled Australians; indeed it would be difficult to exaggerate the effect to national morale of such an apparent betrayal . † The idea of selfishness and being self centered by the British military operation in the Asia Pacific during World War II that resulted to the idea of Britain’s betrayal of Australia in Singapore and in the whole of the Asian WWII conflict was also supported by other instances that saw Britain manipulating Australia and its resources without any consideration to the Australian government, the Australian sovereign ty and the Australian interests.Hamill talked about the incident wherein the returning Australian divisions from the Middle East was redirected, without approval from Australia, to Rangoon where Britain was hoping to save its interests in Burma, which was foiled since Australian Prime Minister Curtin directed the troopship to head straight for Australia instead . The presence of the sense of betrayal by Britain of Australia as a consequence of the 1942 Singapore debacleThe justification of the feeling of betrayal of Australia by Britain can be found in how analysts try to put together actions of both countries in international organizations involving the two. Most of the time, analysts point to the reason that Australia cannot again fully trust Britain especially when concerns involve security and military owing to the presumed betrayal by the British of its Australian allies in Singapore in 1942. For Australia’s resort to the 1951 ANZUS Pact has sometimes been seen as a deci sive turning away from Britain, the result of British betrayal at Singapore . † Critics believe that actions particularly that of Australia was always towards the minimalization of dependency on other countries, or forging alliances with countries except Britain. â€Å"ANZUS symbolised Australia's new-found willingness to enter agreements which excluded Britain . †The feeling of betrayal by Britain of Australia has an effect that rippled all the way across towards the more contemporary times. While some believed that the memory of the betrayal of Britain of Australia and its territorial interests in the global stage, there are also those who used the idea and feeling of betrayal of Britain of Australia as a rallying point for Australia to justify the movements that it is making today, pointing to a decision making paradigm that highlights important historical notes as a guide towards future political actions.One of which is the lesson of the betrayal and what Australia seeks to gain, and lose, when it trusts Britain again. The betrayal somewhat became an important cornerstone towards the growth of Australian nationalism in the country, among its people and its political leaders. â€Å"Keating’s parliamentary speech accusing Britain of betraying Australia at Singapore in 1942 displayed with dramatic clarity the influence of Jack Lang's aggressive Australianism . Oddly, when the news of how the Australian prime minister poked at the British government fifty years later about the betrayal in 1942 during the visit of the Queen of Britain, the focus of the news content was about how the Queen was treated disrespectfully, the news hardly making effort to defend the country from the accusations and was merely outraged by the scandalous treatment of their Queen. â€Å"The London tabloids are in a frenzy over Mr.Keating's charge that Britain abandoned Australia during World War II ,† while others took the instance to make political appraisal of Paul Keating, saying that â€Å"In his seemingly off-hand remarks about the monarchy and his tilt at Britain’s alleged betrayal of Australia in 1942, Paul Keating is moving to place himself firmly in the tradition of the great Labor Party nationalists†¦ nor has he forgotten Britain’s alleged sins of 1942 . †While some historians do not actually support Britain when it comes to the issue of the Singapore debacle in 1942, these writers also try to put into consideration the contribution of Australian forces defending Singapore, particularly the aspect of Australian desertions at the height of the efforts to save Singapore from Japanese forces and the number of surrendering Australian soldiers who easily surrendered and gave up the defense of Singapore.â€Å"Some British historians questioned the performance of Australian troops in Singapore†¦ hether Singapore could have been saved as late as 15 February, and whether Australian desertions accelerated the final surrender . † But some historians believed that the emotional repercussion resulting from the collapse of Singapore, particularly the feeling of betrayal, was not a very important issue at all, since the most important concern of Australia was not really the fall of Singapore but the fact that the Japanese forces are inching closer and closer to Australia. â€Å"Though these incidents created great ill-feeling at the time, the lasting damage done to Anglo-Australian relations was small.The differing reactions of Australia and New Zealand to the collapse of the Singapore strategy stemmed in part from the more immediate danger which the Japanese line of advance appeared to present to the Australians . † CONCLUSION Was Britain’s action in Singapore an act of betrayal tantamount to the concept of Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire? It looks like this is just the one and only time that the Australian government felt they were betrayed by Britain th at resulted to the loss of their former empire.If such was the case, then it can be argued that the Singapore collapse by Britain was indeed tantamount to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire. But as what information from related literary sources reveal, historians and politicians chose to attack Britain solely for the Singapore oversight and misdeed. It was rarely pointed as the turning point for the crumbling of the empire, or was the action synonymous to such similar vein of thought or idea.But at some degree, the proposition of similarity in the aspect of betrayal can be accepted, and can also be argued against as well. The act of betrayal by one country towards another country especially in time of dire need, like in times of war, is something which maybe heavily discussed and analysed in many different history books. But this does not mean that it makes it easy to identify if there was indeed an act of betrayal and which country was guilty of such act of betrayal.Fo r one, the concept of betrayal is very subjective and is very difficult to objectify since it is difficult to define a socially accepted concept of betrayal, given the existing situation. The resources and options available and the considerations that decision makers have to make upon reaching the decision which was to be the root of the controversy on the act betrayal. Secondly, the aspect of ethnocentricity will often eclipse or seriously affect the objectivity of historians and book authors tackling about this particular World War II issue.There will be Australian writers and historians who will insist that their country was indeed betrayed at Singapore in 1942 and that the action was tantamount to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire. While on the other hand, there will be British historians and writers who will say otherwise, that the British military action in Singapore in 1942 happened as it is after careful consideration of important priorities that somehow superc eded whatever it is that other people felt was left high and dry during this particular episode in the relationship of Australia and Britain.There will also be comments, analysis, comments and discussions about Britain’s actions in Singapore in 1942 and the possible interpretation of such action and how it is similar and leading to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire coming from historians and writers who are neither British nor Australian, attacking the issue from a neutral standpoint sans the impact and effect of the sense of national pride or indignity and social justification.These were reflected earlier in the paper, as the paper, in the effort to discuss the different important sides of this issue, provided several different ideas about the issue lifted from related and credible literature. In hindsight, what can be deduced is that there was no shared opinion about how this particular event would be assessed and remembered.The split in the opinion about the presence of the act of betrayal hinged largely on the fact that neither the British nor the Australians would yield with regards to this particular issue, each country standing firm about its position that it did everything that was necessary to preserve a much greater goal and to achieve a more important objective.