Principles of Feng Shui

Principles of Feng Shui Feng shui is an ancient Chinese philosophy about how humans and their environments interact and have relationships. It encompasses the principle that everything has energy and is connected to everything else. It is stemmed in the belief that based on laws of nature, principles, theories and techniques we can understand how to create an environment that allows us to be in harmony and balance. It also can guide us to enhance certain areas of our lives. The basic principle of feng shui is chi or energy. It is a feng shui principle that is used through all of life. It links the energy of all things together. There can be chi or energy of earth, the atmosphere and people. We can see the quality of chi expressed through areas of color, form, shape, sound and the various cycles in nature. Feng shui principles work to ensure that the chi is allowed to keep flowing and not get stuck or depleted. In feng shui principles, there are two main types of feng shui that we need to consider. One of these is physical and contains the actual structures, surroundings, buildings, roads and design. The other involves directional influences that although are invisible, still have an influence on our lives and how we relate to space and time. We need to take both feng shui principles into consideration when evaluating the chi qualities of an environment. According to feng shui, if an area in the environment is not being conducive to providing good chi, there are cures or fixes that we can use to return the chi to a natural healthy state and continue to flow throughout the space. We can fix or correct the feng shui of an area by making small or big adjustments and applying feng shui techniques. These techniques incorporate the use of different elements to create balance and harmony.

Rousseaus Concepts of Inequality

Rousseaus Concepts of Inequality In 1754 Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote his Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men. This essay was in response to a question posed for a prize competition by the Academy of Dijon. The question posed was: What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by natural law? Rousseau found the terms of the inquiry restraining; he reasoned that, to be considered a law it has to be agreed upon rationally and to be natural it must speak with the voice of nature (Rousseau and Cress, 25). In order to truly delve into the ontology of inequalities Rousseau asserts that we need to examine the characteristics and maxims which are natural to humans outside of the artificiality of society. However; Rousseau differs from other social theorists like Thomas Hobbes in the method that he separates reason or perfectibility from the instincts of the natural man. This leads Rousseau to espouse a positive stance on the natural man contrary to Hobbes conception. I will argue in this essay that Jean-Jacques innovative theory on the state of nature accompanies a firm stance that humanitys perfectibility allows for both positive and negative advancement; but society in its current manifestation, is inherently unequal. Rousseau recognizes two different forms of inequality which lead him to a positive ideological view on the state of nature. Rousseau makes the argument that violence and inequalities are not inherent to humans but rather that they occur due to socialization and improper assertion of reason. Rousseau identifies two different types of inequality: natural and moral. Natural inequalities are those that derive from differences in age, intelligence, capacity for reason and health or other physical characteristics. (Rousseau and Cress, 34) However; it is moral inequalities that are of greater concern to Rousseau. It is Rousseaus belief that these inequalities occur due to consent and convention. Thus these inequalities are merely a form of political rule and are preventable. In the Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men Rousseau proves that these moral inequalities do not occur in the state of nature due to several human maxims. The state of nature to Jean Jacques Rousseau is one that draws many parallels to an animal existence but differs because of one essential human characteristic. Rousseau claims two basic maxims which exist prior to mans nurturing within human societal systems of rationality. These are self-preservation and pity. It is from these principles that natural right manifest themselves. A natural right is pervasive among all people by virtue of being human itself. In the state of nature man feels a responsibility to prevent the harm of other sentient beings. This is unless a persons self-preservation is at stake. Pity and self-preservation essentially balance each other out and make it possible for savage men to exist together. These two principles rarely conflict because, according to Rousseau, one mans pity should prevent him from interfering with anothers attempts to preserve himself. Rousseau states: pity is a natural sentiment, which, by moderating in each individual the activity of the love of oneself, contributes to the mutual preservation of the entire species.(Rousseau and Cress, 55) This natural right of pity is not a rational one but rather is drawn from the empathy of being able to feel. This contrasts with the modern rational discourse which protects the individual. The natural man requires vigorous sense of dedication towards self-preservation. Animals also embody both these principles of self-preservation and pity. Humans and animals differ in one aspect which Rousseau describes as the faculty of perfectibility. (Rousseau and Cress, 45) Man is a free agent possessing the freedom to override the natural and their instincts. This distinct adaptability and unlimited faculty gives humans the capability for vice and virtue to develop. Rousseau describes this faculty of perfectibility, or reason, as having developed through a desire or fear. (Rousseau and Cress, 45) Perfectibility also implies that humans are subject to their environment. In the state of natur e humans have only natural passions of food, sex and rest and a fear of pain and hunger. Instinct alone provides that our own self-preservation does not conflict with the self-preservation of others. Because of this savage man is as ignorant of good as he is of evil. The reduced nature of their passions keeps them from rationalizing actions that contradict the natural right. Pity is essential to what Rousseau states as the mutual preservation of the species. (Rousseau and Cress, 55) Outside of the state of nature reason engenders amour propre, or love of oneself, and overrides pity. Amour Propre is a kind of supreme self-preservation unchecked by empathetic feelings of pity. (Rousseau and Cress, 56) This instills the human identification as an individual, separate and comparable to others. In Rousseaus state of nature pity takes the place of laws, morals and virtues. Savage men arent prone to quarrels they are solitary and have no conception of property or vengeance. Only self-pres ervation and pity can guarantee human equality. It is due to humanitys faculty of perfectibility that creates the potential for the greater good or the greatest evil. Modern society is the foil to ignorant equality of the state of nature. Jean-Jacques Rousseau presents a very different conception of the state of nature, in comparison to many previous philosophers The portrayal of the state of nature, as one guaranteeing equality, by Rousseau differs greatly from conception by many other political thinkers. In particular Rousseaus views go against the ideas which liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes set forth. Hobbes state of nature, described in the Leviathan, is that the state of nature is one where humans engage in perpetual warfare. Mankinds passions drive him to desire things and to fear others. In this state self-preservation is the supreme and singular goal. The singularity of self-preservation leads to the human belief that they have a right to all things. Only through the submission to the social contract does Hobbes believe that humanity can escape the dangers and evils of the state of nature. Rousseaus conception of the state of nature shares some similar principals but the overall outcome is in stark opposition. Man in Rousseaus state of nature is ruled by the dichotomous relationship between pity and self-preservation. The right t o all things does not exist since maxim of self-preservation is checked by pity. Hobbes also fails to acknowledge that in the state of nature man is ignorant to Rousseaus idea of amour propre. It is through a simplified world-view that the natural man exists their passions are simple. Rousseaus natural man is not wicked because they do not know what it is to be good. While Hobbes insists savage man has no conception of good and thus he is wicked. The social contract Hobbes solution to his exacerbating state of nature requires a consensually chosen Sovereign to protect its citizens from the state of nature. In opposition; Rousseau believes that it is these institutions, created under an illusion of reason, that create unequal competition between people. Rousseau states All ran to chains themselves, in the belief that they secured their liberty, for although they had enough reason to feel the advantages of political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers. (Rousseau and Cress, 70) Rousseaus connotative meaning surrounding the social contract and its effects on humanity are portrayed through his depiction of the evolution of man from the state of nature. The conditions surrounding Rousseaus embryonic man are simple yet positive compared to the situation of his successors. His first concern was for self-preservation. Man had no dreams for exploiting or profiting from nature. However different natural obstacles forced humanity to their faculty of perfectibility to adapt to different climates producing different lifestyles. The hunt of different animals led to the axiomatic belief in preeminence among earths species. Rousseau asserts that were several revolutions that originated from the adaptations due to human perfectibility. The first revolution, that Rousseau addresses, spurred from the creation of tools. Tools led to the establishment of communal homes and family life. Conjugal love resulted and also led to different familial and societal roles. These changes in lifestyle allowed for more than self-preservation, but also leisure. (Rousseau and Cress, 62) New conveniences were developed and eventually relied upon. Mankind grew to be more settled increasing the salience of culture and tradition. These in turn led to ideas of merit, preference and eventually jealousy. (Rousseau and Cress, 62) However; Rousseau believes that this early society was the happiest epoch representing a middle way between the indolence of state of nature and the activity of amour propre. From this we can draw what was Rousseaus larger purpose. He believed as long as men applied themselves only to one-man tasks, they were free and healthy. The moment when one man needed the help of another, and one man wanted what was enough for two, equality disappeared, work became necessary and oppression developed. Thus it is during what Rousseau calls the second revolution (cause by metallurgy and agriculture) that inequality begins to emerged. (Rousseau and Cress, 62) Initially the division of land followed its cultivation, and labour gave the right to the land. Eventually due to the unequal distribution of talents and resources gave way to the exploitation of labour. The division between land and labour is what has spurred modern inequalities. Rousseau states: the first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said This is mine, and found people naÃÆ'Â ¯ve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. (Rousseau and Cress, 60) This division between labour and property coupled with the social contract are what Rousseau deems responsible for societal inequalities. By uniting the rich and poor in a supreme power of the social contract laws of inequality and property became fixed thus systemically ensuring the profit of the few. When the principal maxims of humanity become peripheral the result is of overarching inequalities in the civil society and state. I believe that Rousseau thought that humans are not inherently evil but that their faculty of perfectibility has led them temporarily astray. His belief could be interpreted as distaste for the capitalist system in which Amour Propre is essential. However; humanity is not trapped within the system of Amour Propre. Humans may also use the faculty of perfectibility positively. Rousseau dismisses the importance of the distinction between natural and moral inequalities. We can draw from this that Rousseau is against the argument for the origins of the division of labour that some people are by their nature physically and mentally inferior to others. This is an argument that was also used to discredit slavery. Rousseau argues that the establishment of property and division of labour are at the root of societal inequality but he does not argue against cooperat ion. Rousseaus innovative theory on mans natural state of being led him towards the transformative concept of the general will. He states: There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills. But take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel each other out, and the remaining sum of the differences is the general will. (Rousseau and Cress, 155) The general will allows for the citizens in their ignorance of their place within civil society to make decisions in the interest of the greater good. Rousseau espouses a state in which the sovereign incurs freedom and equality of citizens rather than limiting them; for, the general will is utterly well intentioned. Rather than being ruled over by the sovereign, the people rule the sovereign or are the sovereign. In effect; Rousseau is proposing a system radically different than his counterparts due to his conception on the state of nature. What is the origin of Inequality? Is it due to natural law? Are people inherently inclined to subjugate one another? Rousseau answers these questions with a resounding no. He proves that it is humanitys own actions and intentions which give rise to inequality. He does not believe we are destined to behave this way. Our reason given birth through desire and fear- can be our salvation or our undoing.

W.B. Yeats and History Essay -- Poetry Poet Yeats

Yeats in Time: The Poet's Place in History All things can tempt me from this craft of verse: One time it was a woman's face, or worse-- The seeming needs of my fool-driven land; Now nothing but comes readier to the hand Than this accustomed toil. In these lines from "All Things can Tempt Me" (40, 1-5), Yeats defines the limitations of the poet concerning his role in present time. These "temptations" (his love for the woman, Maude Gonne, and his desire to advance the Irish Cultural Nationalist movement) provide Yeats with the foundation upon which he identifies his own limitations. In his love poetry, he not only expresses his love for Gonne, he uses his verse to influence her feelings, attempting to gain her love and understanding. In regard to the Nationalists, he incorporates traditional Irish characters, such as Fergus and the Druids, to create an Irish mythology and thereby foster a national Irish identity. After the division of the Cultural Nationalists, Yeats feels left behind by the movement and disillusioned with their violent, "foolish" methods. He is also repeatedly rejected by Gonne. These efforts to instigate change through poetry both fail, bringing the function of the poet and his poetry into question. If these unfruitful poems tempt him from his ?craft of verse,? then what is the true nature verse and why is it a ?toil? for the poet? Also, if Yeats cannot use poetry to influence the world around him, then what is his role as a poet? As ?All Things can Tempt Me? continues, Yeats addresses this question of role by describing the way he perceived bards in his youth. He speaks of the poet?s song, saying, "Did not the poet sing it with such airs/ That one believed he had a sword upstairs;" (7-8). Thi... ...ory is not a nightmare from which Yeats is trying to awake; it is the very world in which he lives. When he says that if Gonne had understood him he would have ?been content to live,? it is another way of saying that (since she can never understand him) he is not content to live. As a poet, he has undergone a kind of death, rendering him a lifeless observer of the present while becoming an active participant in the past which his poetry explores. Whether he sees this role as a dream or a nightmare, if Yeats ever awoke from history, he would cease to be a true poet and his verse would lose its true meaning. Works Cited Yeats, W.B.. Yeats's Poetry, Drama, and Prose. Ed. James Pethica. New York: Norton, 2000. Ramazani, Jahan. "The Elegiac Love Poems: A Woman Dead and Gon(n)e. " In Yeats's Poetry, Drama, and Prose. Ed. James Pethica. New York: Norton, 2002.

Internet and Technology :: essays research papers

Opportunities and Challenges of the Internet In a world of light-speed data transmission, any individual with little training and expertise can make a fortune from the Internet. Many companies, like E-bay or Amazon.com, thrive from business done only through Internet transactions. As computer technology progresses, data transmission becomes faster, and as high level encryption becomes available for public use, the amount of Internet consumers also grows. Technology advances also allow employees to work from home faster and safer. A manager's first challenge is to create a presence on the web. With a phone line, computer, and HyperText Markup Language (HTML) authoring tools, a business can advertise or do business over the Internet. HTML authoring tools can be freeware, like Sausage Software's Hot Dog, or advanced and expensive utilities like Microsoft Front Page. Any computer user familiar with a word processor can effectively use these applications with minimal training. Putting the HTML and graphic files on an Internet service provider's (ISP) servers is sufficient for relatively low traffic sites. Some online businesses, like Amazon.com, handle hundreds of thousands of people, or hits, everyday. They require specialized hardware and cabling to control the vast amount of traffic on there site per day. A manager's second challenge is to make the business's web site visible on the Internet. The first step in this process would be registering a domain name. Every computer connected to the Internet has a unique number attached to it called an IP address. To simplify finding specific computers on the 'Net, the numbers where substituted with alias called domain names. The names come in two levels, before and after the dot. Fees are generally a $70 startup cost then $35 per year to hold the license of the name. Network Solutions Inc. is the official registrar of domain names. Individuals in the past have registered company names, like Coca-Cola, to themselves and th en sold the domain license to the company for thousands of dollars. There are currently more than four million domain names registered with Network Solutions. Domain name registration is not required but makes your site much easier to find. Another way to make your site visible is to register certain keywords with the most popular search engines like Yahoo! and Alta Vista. Keywords are a small number of words that describe your site and business. These are the words web surfers will most likely type in to find your page.

Leadership transformation

The authors determined that team values are an influencing factor, which has an effect on the team member's response o the transformational leader, and in turn to the team's performance. Research question(s) (Article 1) What questions(s) does the author present? Hypothesis 1. â€Å"Mediated moderation exists when the Interaction between two variables (diversity and transformational leadership) affects a mediator, which then affects a dependent variable† (Morgan-Lopez & MacKinnon, 2006). Hypothesis 2.Task-relevant information has an effect on the relationship between leader and follower performance with regards to the team's educational diversity, age, and nationality. Hypotnesls 3. How tne team views Olverslty 0T Tellow team memoers ana leader as a â€Å"collective† team in regards to performing as a team. Research Question(s) (Article 2) How does the subordinate's performance have anything to do with the leader's values and behaviors? Do transformational leaders enhanc e team performance?The â€Å"transformational leader inspires others to go beyond self-interest, impressions, and limitations in order to motivate followers to become more effective in reaching common goals† (Bass, Avolio, Jung, ; Berson, 2003). The authors focus on team alues, and the effect that those values have on the performance of the team by comparing and contrasting results from results of study done on team members in the United States and Hong Kong. Literature Review —How is this organized? What are the main themes found in the review? Who are the main authors used?

Abraham Lincoln’s Political and Moral Slavery Dilemma Essay

The sixteenth President of the United States of America, the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln casts quite a historical shadow over any other competing figure. Lincoln was brought into the world on February 12th, 1809 to an incredibly modest upbringing in which he would mold himself into a successful lawyer and later a politician. Abraham received little formal education during his childhood, eventually acquainting himself with the law through the apprenticeship system. After rising through the Illinois legislature structure, Lincoln went on to serve in the House of Representatives on behalf of the state of Illinois before gaining widespread recognition from his debates with competing Senate candidate Stephen A. Douglas in 1858. The expansion of slavery into the United States new territories was the hotly contested issue of these debates, Lincoln’s stance would eventually propel him into the national spotlight and later the Presidency. See more: Homeless satire essay Abraham Lincoln’s views on slavery were split between his political obligations and his moral beliefs, his political actions were influenced by his desire to preserve the Union, and his moral stance on the issue largely stemmed from his deep-seeded belief in the power of the Constitution, not the political or social equality of another race. Abraham Lincoln’s view on slavery was segregated in itself, between how he perceived the issue on a political level and as a moral dilemma facing the United States. Without the understanding of Lincoln’s differentiated objections to the institution that created such a split in the American people, it is difficult to fully grasp how and why Lincoln acted as he did throughout his political career. Lincoln’s first documented objection to slavery began in the Illinois State Legislature, in which he and Dan Stone protested a piece of legislation that disapproved of abolitionism and affirmed that the Constitution made slavery â€Å"sacred to the slave-holding states. † The major objection to this resolution was that the spread of slavery was being advocated based upon the opinions of policy makers, nstead of constitutionally. Lincoln’s hard and fast belief in the power of the Constitution would be an overarching theme throughout his career. This protest of an exceedingly popular piece of legislation, recall that only Lincoln and Dan Stone objected in the Legislature, is a significant display of what kind of character Mr. Lincoln possessed. In the face of an overwhelming majority, with literally no opportunity of overturning the decision and risking unpopular opinions, Lincoln was unafraid to express his undying faith in the Constitution. This theme of continual commitment to the Constitution would go even further in 1854 when the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. Through Lincoln’s eyes, this Act was a clear violation of the Missouri Compromise of 1830, which in effect prohibited the spread of slavery into any newly acquired American territories. Lincoln, at this time running for the Illinois House of Representatives, especially opposes the Kansas-Nebraska Act because of what it implies about the United States government. This Act allows popular sovereignty to decide the legality of slavery in Kansas, in theory the people of the new territory may decide for themselves on the issue. On principle, one must consider that Lincoln could have not been a larger promoter of the idea of popular sovereignty, due to his strong belief in constitutionality. However, issues arise when the Act that is passed is in clear violation of another. The practical repealing of the Missouri Compromise is a major sticking point in this case. Lincoln views this as the government of the United States essentially saying one thing, and then doing another. The so called indifference towards the spread of slavery is in fact a promotion of the institution. This Act simply promotes the profits of the slavery institution, an act of self-interest that deeply disturbs Lincoln. The slavery issue does impact him on a moral level, because of the injustice upon the individual, but this is not where his greatest objection lies. The tendency towards self-interested legislation instead of deriving power from the Constitution is the largest fear of Lincoln during this era. The entire institution of slavery has manifested this self-interest, Lincoln quarrels much more with the political element of this development rather than the moral. While campaigning for, and serving as the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln’s view on slavery depended on the most effective way to preserve the Union. When first entering his Presidency, Lincoln in fact did not want to interfere with the institution of slavery as it currently stood. As stated in his letter to George T. M. Davis prior to becoming President, â€Å"Of course the declaration that there is no intention to interfere with slaves or slavery, in the states, with all that is fairly implied in such declaration, is true. † Lincoln viewed himself as not only the leader of the United States, but also as the protector of the Constitution. Due to this view of himself, Lincoln was a promoter of gradual emancipation of slaves as a way to compromise the raging extremes of abolitionists and those of the promotion of slavery. However, the Southern states were not receptive of the notion of gradually allowing this institution to fall away. On September 22, 1862 Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which claimed, â€Å"all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free. † The Proclamation declared that the states that were in fact rebelling against the Union, had one-hundred days to cooperate with the government. The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in effect, was Lincoln’s final attempt to end the Civil War in a peaceful manner and preserve the Union. While being a proponent of the gradual emancipation resolution to the slavery issue, Lincoln’s moral stance on the institution largely stemmed from his belief in the power of the Constitution. Lincoln states his response to witnessing slavery in personal letters, â€Å"I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. † As well as, â€Å"That sight was a continual torment to me. † Although personally saddened by the harsh realities of slavery, Lincoln’s moral stance was expressed through his plans for colonization of the slaves. The President’s proposal to a group of highly educated black men on August 14th, 1862 included a plan for a coal colony in Central America. Lincoln’s rationale for colonization as he expressed it to his audience that day, â€Å"But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Although he did not explicitly explain to these gentlemen, Lincoln was justifying his plan of colonization through the Constitution. By stating that the black race would not enjoy the same advantageous of the other race, Lincoln is referencing the Bill of Rights and entitlement to the vote. Lincoln’s intentions seem to be well, he would like the slaves to be in a place where they are not persecuted, but his intentions stem from his deep conviction in the power of the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln’s view of slavery was differentiated between his political obligations and the moral element of the institution. While in his Presidency, his political actions were influenced by the desire to preserve the Union. Lincoln’s moral stance toward slavery was largely shaped by his fierce belief in the power and importance of the Constitution. The findings of the analysis seem to suggest that Abraham Lincoln may not be the â€Å"Great Emancipator† as many elementary history curriculums state. Also, that the primary motives behind the Emancipation Proclamation could have been to coerce the rebelling states into cooperating with the Union, instead of freeing those locked into the institution of slavery.

The Crucible Research Paper

John Doe The Crucible Research Paper Around the same, beginning in the 1940’s, both McCarthyism and the imprisoning of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor were taking place. Senator Joseph McCarthy went house to house searching and questioning people he believed were communist. If you were accused of being communist you were put on a list called the â€Å"red-list†, which meant that your passport was taken away, your job was at stake or you were sent to jail. Immediately after Pearl Harbor was attacked, the President declared that everyone of Japanese decent could be a possible threat to the American people.The Japanese families all over the nation were sent to internment camps, much like those of the Holocaust. The fortunate ones were told to pack one suitcase and leave their homes and move to their new location, given by the government of course. McCarthyism and the Japanese Internment Camps have several similarities and a few differences. To begin, in both cases, the sub ject at hand was blown out of proportion with inadequate evidence against both the so-called communists and the supposed Japanese spies. â€Å"McCarthy’s relentless pursuit of communist ‘subversives‘ took the witch-hunt to new heights. After the cold war, the threat of communism intensified. Several people, including celebrities, were red-listed. There was absolutely no proof that these people were even communist. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt was convinced that there were Japanese spies here in America. Again, with no factual evidence that these people of Japanese decent were spying for Japan, they were all taken from their homes and places in internment camps or moved to a different location with no explanation. The US justified their action by claiming that there was a danger of those of Japanese descent spying for the Japanese. † To wrap up, during McCarthyism and the Japanese Interment Camps, both were prisoned unfairly without evidence or trial. Secondly, the two topics at hand differed because with the Japanese, the only people that were moved and or imprisoned were those of Japanese decent, but with the red scare, anyone could possibly be accused. During the time the Japanese were being sent to the internment camps, under the order of President Roosevelt, everyone knew what was going on and exactly who the accused were.On the contrary, while McCarthy was persistently hunting for those who could possible be communists with the thought of overthrowing our Republic, none of the common people knew who or when the next ‘communist’ would be red-listed, or maybe jailed. Mad chaos went through the county in both cases. To conclude, both McCarthyism and the Japanese Internment camps compared and contrasted in a few ways. In both time periods, people were jailed without any proof that they were guilty, chaos was insane due to the random imprisonment of loved ones and friends.However the two contrasted because during McCarthyism several people of many different ethnic backgrounds were red-listed and when the Japanese were being sent to internment camps or relocated, specifically the Japanese were targeted. Works Cited â€Å"History Study Center – Home Page. † History Study Center – Home Page. N. p. , 2002. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. â€Å"Internment History. † PBS. PBS, n. d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. Miller, Arthur. â€Å"McCarthyism. † PBS. PBS, 23 Aug. 2006. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. â€Å"World War Two – Japanese Internment Camps in the USA. † World War Two. N. p. , 10 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012.