What Ways Does An Individuals Behaviour Change?

What Ways Does An Individuals Behaviour Change? This essay will explore whether an individuals behaviour truly changes when they are part of a group through the consideration of various perspectives, methods and underpinning epistemological assumptions and will take the viewpoint that an individuals behaviour does change when s/he is part of a group, however it is necessary to consider the context, such as societal and cultural factors and the importance of experience, interactions, social norms and values as one branch of social psychology, or one form of experimentation cannot fully predict or explain group and individual behaviour. The most prominent debates, theories and studies in relation to group behaviour will be discussed from a multi-perspective position, mainly exploring the social and cognitive aspects of group behaviour, as well as the methodology of experimentation and how group behaviour is measured. This will ensure that a reductionist approach to the subject is avoided. Key factors involved in group behaviour incl ude; obedience, conformity, groupthink, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1979), prejudice, stereotypes and schemas, which will be discussed and evaluated alongside relevant research throughout the essay. This is due to how these factors influence how an individuals behaviour changes under group influence, for example how Aschs line test portrayed the effects of majority influence (Asch, 1952). A group has been defined by some theorists as two or more individuals who perceive themselves as being members of the group or social category (Turner, 1982; Brown, 2000). Group behaviour refers to a situation in which individuals interact in small or large groups, within these groups there may be certain norms, values which are internalised within the individual (Vygotsky, 1978), communication patterns and status differentials. The majority of research conducted in the area of group behaviour is mainly based in the experimental psychology perspective; however critical and qualitative psychologists argue there is a lesser focus on the study of behaviour in context which ideally involves the acknowledgment of the impact of society and culture on group behaviour (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Fox Prilleltensky, 1997; Gergen, 1973; Himmelweit Gaskell, 1990; Renshon Duckitt, 2000), social roles, environments, experiences, relationships, and a movement away from laboratory based measurements. Within mainstream psychology there is still a focus on the cognitive and affective aspects of behaviour, whilst individual level processes which are fundamental in social and group processes are not always acknowledged. According to Nafstad Blakar (Nafstad Blakar, 2012); A full-fledged social psychology cannot be based on experimental laboratory research alone. This is because it is necessary to concentrate on methodological approaches for future research as much of the quantitative experimental psychology involved in addressing and measuring group behaviour does not acknowledge core social aspects such as social life, social behaviour and human development as social beings. One key area within group behaviour is obedience. The study of obedience entails the tendency to comply with orders from an authority figure and where group behaviour is concerned obedience entails an individual adapting their actions in order to comply with the groups wishes or rules. Concerned with the atrocities committed during Nazi Germany, Milgram explored the effects of obedience under the influence of authority (Milgram, 1974). Participants, who witnessed the confederate being strapped into a chair with electrodes in another room, were given the role of teacher whilst a confederate of the experimenter was given the role of learner; The teacher was expected to administer an electric shock for every wrong answer in what they were lead to believe was an experiment about learning, the shocks increased at 15 volt increments and when the participant refused to administer the shocks, they were given standard instructions (prods) by the experimenter, who wore a lab coat, therefore ac ting as an authority figure within the group. 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts, suggesting that obedience is related to situational pressures. In order to attempt to explain why individuals would behave in the way they did during the experiment, Milgram proposed the agency theory. The agency theory according to Milgram consists of two states; the autonomous state, in which individuals make decisions on their own ideas and beliefs, and the agentic state, in which in which individuals give up responsibility and defer the responsibility to those of a higher status. Although the agency theory does attempt to explain rare occurrences such as the obedience in events such as the Mai Lai Massacre and Nazi Germany, there may be other explanations for the obedience, as suggested by French and Raven (French Raven, 1959) who suggested there are five different types of power; legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, expert power and referent power. It is also important to note that the agency theory is more of a description of how society works, rather than explaining why individuals obey authority figures against their better j udgement in some situations. The theory of groupthink could also be applied in order to explain the phenomological behaviour in Milgrams study, as groupthink entails group decisions which are often irresponsible, dangerous, made under extreme pressure and dominated by a powerful leader, therefore Milgrams theory alone by not be sufficient in exploring individual and group behaviour. There are several ethical issues within Milgrams study such as the lack of debriefing, the distress caused to the participants and deception about the nature of the study. Also, despite Milgram carrying out several variations of his original experiment, the experiment has methodological flaws. Due to the laboratory setting of the experiment there was a distinct lack of ecological validity as the obedience portrayed in compliance with an authority figure does not necessarily represent and cannot be generalised to real life social interactions. It has been suggested that Milgrams experiment became caught up in the broader processes of psychologisation (De Vos, 2009). This is due to the power of science and the authority of experimentation which is suggested in the study, specifically where the experimenter acts as an authority figure within the peer-group, urging participants to continue with the experiment. Also, it has been argued that the experiment dramatizes peoples capacity for violence (Brannigan, 2004) and only demonstrates a short-term measure of obedience (Stainton Rogers et al, 1995). Taking these points into consideration, the need for a multi-perspective view of group behaviour can be reiterated as a concentration on laboratory experiments alone does not fully account as an explanation of group behaviour and obedience, this is further evidenced by the suggestion that Milgram does not make a concise conclusion concerning the study. We are led to no conclusions about obedience, really, but rather are exhorted [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] to be impressed with the power of your situation as an influence context (Parker, 2000). Further replications of Milgrams original study were conducted in order to address some of the issues which were presented within the experiment, such as ethical issues (Burger 2009) and methodological flaws (Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1995), therefore taking a further qualitative stance on the original study. A solely experimental approach to the study of obedience within individual and group behaviour may not necessarily be useful, although the phenomenon of obedience is portrayed in Milgrams experiment, no true conclusion or explanation is drawn due to a lack of acknowledgement of social, political and cultural factors, and a reliance on quantitative and experimental social psychology. Another area of study within individual and group behaviour is conformity. Conformity is the influence on an individual which may alter their beliefs or behaviour in response to the pressure of a group in order to internalise or fit in with a group. According to Man (Man, 1969) there are three types of conformity; these are normative, which is a desire to be liked by the group, informational, which is a desire to be correct and identification which is conformity to a social role. Aschs well known line study explores normative conformity due to the participants attempts to avoid rejection from the group and informational conformity due to the participants desire to be correct. Asch suggests that an individual will attempt to internalise with a group and display the effects of majority influence (Asch, 1952). The experiment consisted of a participant who was given a selection of lines and was asked to judge which was most similar to a comparison line in the presence of others, who were actually confederates of the experimenter who were instructed to purposely give incorrect answers. 5% of participants conformed to all of the trials, 33% conformed to over half of the trials and 25% did not conform at all. Several variations of the original experiment were conducted; when one confederate was present none of the participants conformed, however when more than three confederates were present strong conformity occurred. This suggests the effects of majority influence and pressure on the individual to act in a manner in accordance to a group, the desire to be liked and avoidance of rejection from the group. Aschs line study distinctly lacked ecological validity due to its artificial laboratory setting, which suggests that the experiment had low ecological validity and may be difficult to generalise to a real-life situation. A replication of Aschs original experiment in which the participants were British engineering, mathematics and chemistry students suggested low reliability within the original study, out of the 396 trials, a participant conformed with the incorrect majority on only one trial.. Aschs experiment has been referred to as a child of its time, due to the social, political and historical context in which Aschs experiment was conducted, as conformity was a social norm during Post-World War Two era, whilst the notion of individualism was rejected (Perrin and Spencer, 1980). The lack of reliability in the study may be due to a change in what is socially acceptable rather than a methodological flaw, and therefore it is of importance to acknowledge social norms and values whilst studying group behaviour as well as the notion that group behaviour cannot be based within experimental psychology alone (Nafstad and Blakar, 2012). One prominent theory which may be applied to real life examples of group behaviour is Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1979). Social Identity Theory details how membership to a group gives an individual a sense of social identity, these groups are important in enhancing an individuals self-esteem and pride, therefore individuals may attempt to increase the status of their own group, or simply discriminate against an out-group through social categorisation. Discrimination against an out-group occurs through prejudice and stereotypes which occurs through three cognitive processes; social categorisation, which is the decision about which group you belong to, social identification, which is more overt identification with the in-group, and social comparison which is comparison to the out-group which is believed to be inferior, this in turn increases the self-esteem of the in-group (Tajfel Turner, 1979). Although it can be argued that Social Identity Theory can provide a concise and full e xplanation for the formation if in-groups and out-groups, it does not clearly define how the process occurs and also is not a predictor of behaviour (Hogg, 2000). Therefore, although Social Identity Theory can explain some aspects of group behaviour, it may not be applicable to real world phenomenon as it cannot provide full explanation for real-life group behaviour such as acts of terrorism. In real-world research, such as a psychological approach to terrorism, it has been suggested that it is necessary not to allow cognitive biases to cloud the analysis of political situations (Abrahms, 2006; Scheier, 2007). Therefore, experimental psychology alone may not be useful in analysing and explaining real-life situations. However, Zimbardo (Zimbardo, 2002) argues that terrorism is all about psychology as it is key to understanding the motives, values and ideology of terrorists; therefore it is clear there is debate as to how real-life examples of group behaviour should be studied. Although many of the most prominent studies in the area of group and individual behaviour are based within experimental psychology, there is a tendency for discursive, critical and qualitative psychologists to argue that there is a need for the exploration of social norms, values and experiences, rather than the notion held by experimental psychology which simply acknowledges that these factors have an affect. When considering the experiments and debates which are discussed within the study of group behaviour, in order for future research to attempt to provide a more concise explanations of group behaviour it may be appropriate to concentrate on people on an individual level within context as well as their actions in a group situation, for example acknowledging their experiences, relationships, values and social roles in order to draw conclusions as to why individuals act in accordance to a group instead of simply displaying extreme phenomena such as in the cases of Milgram and Zimba rdo. It has been suggested that current mainstream social psychology is primarily characterised by the study of the interactions between the individual and groups through experimental study and as a result of this, context such as social and cultural levels have not been represented to their true extent (Doise, 1982/1986). References Abrahms, M. Why Terrorism Does Not Work, International Security, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.42-78. Asch, S. E. Social psychology. New York: PrenticeHall, 1952 Brannigan, A. (2004) The Rise and Fall of Social Psychology: The Use and Misuse of the Experimental Method. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, R. (2000) Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.), Oxford, Blackwell. Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11. De Vos, J. (2009) Now that you know, how do you feel: The Milgram experiment and psychologisation. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, 223-246. Accessed at: http://www.discourseunit.com/arcp/7.htm on 24th November 2010. Doise, W. (1982/1986). Lexplication en psychologie sociale/Levels of explanation in social psychology. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de lHomme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (1997). Critical Psychology. An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. French, J. R. P., Raven, B. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright, A. Zander. Group dynamics. New York: Harper Row, 1959. Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of personality and social psychology, 26, 309-320. Himmelweit, H. T., Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (1990). Societal Psychology. London: Sage Publications. Hogg, Michael A.; Williams, Kipling D. (2000). From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4 (1): 81-97 Man, L (1969). Social Psychology. New York: Wiley Meeus, W.H.J., Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51 (3), 155-175. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper Row Parker*, I. (2000). Obedience. Granta, 71(4): 99-125. Perrin, S. Spencer, C. (1980) The Asch effect: a child of its time? Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 405-406. Nafstad, H. E. Blakar, R. M. (2012). Ideology and Social Psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 6 (4), 282-294. Renshon, S. A., Duckitt, J. (2000). Political psychology. Cultural and crosscultural foundations. London: MacMillan Press Scheier, B. (2007) The Evolutionary Brain Glitch that Makes Terrorism Fail, WIRED. Accessed at: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/07/securitymatters_0712 on 25th October 2007. Stainton Rogers, R., Stenner, P., Gleeson, K. Stainton Rogers, W. (1995). Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda. Polity: Cambridge Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Col Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup behavior (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zimbardo, P.G. (2002) Psychology to Play Key Role in National Centre on Terrorism. Monitor on Psychology, 33 (11), December 2002. Accessed at: on 23 January 2006.

Mountain Men and The Path to the Pacific

Reading this book was like listening to tall tales told around the dancing flames of a faraway campfire. One can almost hear the Grizzly’s roar, the rushing river, the war cries of long forgotten warriors, and almost smell the mountain forests. Therein lies the key to the author’s approach to historical storytelling: in this book, as in his many other histories written for popular consumption on American western subjects, he vividly and impeccably writes gripping and detailed narratives about well researched colorful individuals on the frontiers of the nineteenth century. He successfully provides the context for these narratives with an easy to understand explanation of America’s western expansion, and seamlessly bundles the entirety into a stylishly written story. Utley focuses on the period between the Lewis and Clark Expedition in1804 and the end of the western expansion era in the 1850s. He chooses his subjects not only because they provided the critical first movement of America into it’s Far West, but because, he argues, their memoirs, maps, and knowledge of geography and the local Native Americans made future settlement possible. I found his thesis well proven. The author provides a brief historical context in each chapter and relates his subject’s adventures from the bottom up – often quoting vivid primary sources that exposes their contradictions — their courage and illiteracy, ambition and uncouthness, their hunger for adventure and appetite for violence, and their often inevitable tragic endings. Each chapter focuses on one or two colorful personalities, men with names like Crazy Bill Williams and Jeremiah Liver-Eating Johnson. The compelling personalities may not contribute to proving the author’s thesis, but they do make the book an enjoyable read. The author devotes more than just one chapter to his favorite, Jedediah Smith, a man as austere as his colleagues were abrasive, who carefully mapped and detailed his travels.   Smith perfectly embodies the author’s thesis, that the mountain men’s maps and journals were essential to the opening of the Far West. Utley believes that Smith was â€Å"point man in the contest for Oregon†[1], and did more to open the Far Western frontier than any other early pioneer did.   Utley notes that Smith was a man in sharp contrast to most other mountaineers, such as Jim Bridger, who were stereotypical mountain men, full of whiskey and gall and telling tall tales, as did Bridger, about petrified forests with â€Å"peetrified birds singing peetrified songs†.[2] Utley writes a revealing key passage about President Jefferson that delineates the book’s central approach to the subject of the Mountain Men. In 1802, Jefferson read a British trapper’s memoir about his travels in the NorthWest. Alexander Mackenzie's book inspired Jefferson to send a band of hearty men on a reconnaissance to scout the unknown Far West, â€Å"†¦to discover the continental passage, colonize the Pacific Coast and tap it’s fur resources, and establish commerce with the Orient.[3]   In Utley’s view, this was no mere reconnaissance, it was the first step in what was to be a century of nation building. Utley expands the scope of his book by elevating Lewis and Clark, who Jefferson delegated to lead this expedition into the new territories of the Louisiana Purchase, and those who later continued the Western exploration, as being more than explorers and trappers, they were expansionists who guided America to its westward boundary on the Pacific. By elevating the significance of his subjects, Utley elevates the overall importance of his book. Utley begins in 1804, with the Corps of Discovery’s expedition to survey the new lands. Frontiersmen and others familiar with the ways of the Native Americans joined Lewis and Clark’s expedition, such as John Colter, a riverboat pioneer, and George Drouillard, a hunter who was half Shawnee and fluent in Indian sign language. The Corps of Discovery mapped the new land, but they also reported a wilderness ripe for trapping and settlement. What the Lewis and Clark Expedition reported on their return enthralled the nation and fired the imaginations of Americans hungry for opportunity. The first to start the movement west were independent entrepreneurs hoping to enrich themselves by harvesting the abundant wildlife – the hunter-trappers. The book chronologically and geographically charts the progress of the mountaineers, always using the mountain men’s history of discovery, exploitation of resources, and mutual cooperation. Utley uses copious primary sources, including the detailed day-to-day diary of Jedediah Smith, who catalogued minutia, such as the changing beaver population, and high drama, such as having his scalp sewn back on to his head after a Grizzly clawed him. â€Å"If you have a needle and thread, git it out and sew up my wounds around my head,† he asked of a fellow trapper [4].   Utley quotes other primary sources, such as John Bradley, a naturalist who kept a detailed journal traveling with a trapping expedition to the Pacific led by John Jacob Astor. [5] Utley addresses what motivated these early pioneers of the Far West, quoting   Warren Angus Ferris, â€Å"Westward Ho! It is the sixteenth of the second month, A.D. 1830 and I have joined a trapping, trading, hunting expedition to the Rocky Mountains. Why, I scarcely know for the motives that induced me to this step were of a mixed complexion†¦Curiosity, a love of wild adventure, and perhaps also a hope of profit.† [6] Utley draws on primary sources to describe a run-in between Hugh Glass and a Grizzly with cubs: â€Å"He lay on his back, bleeding from gashes in his scalp, face, chest, back, shoulder, arm, hand, and thigh. With each gasp, blood bubbled from a puncture in his throat.† Glass’ companions, thinking him near death, left him and went ahead. But Glass was made of true mountain man grit. He rallied, and crawled back to civilization. Utley writes, â€Å"Berries and a torpid rattlesnake smashed with a stone provided his first nourishment. The Grand River supplied water. He dug edible roots with a sharp rock. Chance turned up a dead buffalo with marrow still rich in the bones. Later wolves brought down a buffalo calf that he succeeded in seizing. In a six-week demonstration of incredible strength, fortitude, luck, and determination, Glass crawled back to Fort Kiowa, nearly two hundred miles.† This story exemplifies Utley’s dramatic flair by using colorful characters and events in writing history designed to appeal to the mass audience. Utley addresses the social identity of the mountain men, profiling the diverse sampling of immigrants and culturally dysfunctional individuals willing to live a solitary existence, disconnected from family and community. He examines their alliances with Native tribes, occasionally even marrying into the tribe, and develops a theme that these alliances produced a significant contribution in maintaining peaceful relations, and obtaining future tribal cooperation in exploration and provisioning. Utley also recounts the annual trapper Frolics, when mountaineers gathered to sell their furs and skins to retail traders, replenish their weapons and supplies, swapped tall tales, and threw the frontier equivalent of a modern fraternity toga party. While Utley always presents colorful events and personalities, he always returns to his primary theme – that the detailed maps and knowledge that the mountain men recorded and shared with each other made it possible for others to later navigate the unknown and difficult mountain regions. That their information filled the vacuum of understanding about the new territories and directly prompted the great western expansion, revealing the best routes to cross rivers and mountain passes in summer and winter, as well as where there was relative safety and where danger was to found. In a later, secondary wave of exploration, Utley relates how one veteran mountain man, Kit Carson, led several military expeditions in the early and mid-1840s to the Far West to consolidate the government’s domain and control of the new territories. Commanded by John C. Fremont, who would become known thereafter as â€Å"The Pathfinder,† the expeditions continued and completed the Western exploration started by Lewis and Clark. Utley argues that these military expeditions promoted the great waves of emigration by wagon trains across the Sierra Nevada Mountains to Oregon and California. A note about Utley’s illustrations, mostly period artwork and primary source period maps. At first glance they seemed lifeless, but they ultimately provided something akin to a Rosetta Stone that helped this reader to comprehend the enormity what the mountain men faced and endured. The joy the author demonstrates through-out the book reveals his almost spiritual identification with his subjects and the terrain they pioneered. His enthusiasm and command of detail serves to fully engage the reader, which to me is the gift of a great history book. But as much as the book succeeds, its methodology raises questions about it’s limitations: the author is invested in his own formulaic pattern of popular storytelling, one wonders whether he is choosing his subjects for marketability over significance. The book is informative, engaging, and enjoyable, even inspiring, but its formulaic approach may remove the potential for revolutionary perspective or revealing interpretation. This may be an inevitable consequence of success for any historian, and I suppose one most historians would welcome, but it may limit the book’s scholarly potential. One additional criticism: in Utley’s view, the Mountain Men pursued commerce and produced national growth, but the narrative accepts their chauvinist behavior without judgment and accepts their cruelty virtually without comment, which many could interpret as a lack of balance. The ideal popular demographic target for this book are those who love American historical adventure: those who love John Ford’s films, or Ken Burn’s Civil War documentary, or books about Mountain Men. If one enjoyed the film about Jeremiah Johnson starring Robert Redford, this is a history book made for you. For scholars, it provides an engrossing and interesting read that doesn’t sacrifice its historical themes. For young students, it successfully presents those details that fire the imagination. In other words, its sweeping panorama deserves its sweeping audience. I enjoyed reading it, learned from it, and re [1] P.67 [2] p.173 [3] p.3 [4] p.56 [5] p.24 [6] p.149

The Mount Pinatubo Eruption

In June 1991, the second-largest volcanic eruption of the twentieth century* took place on the island of Luzon in the Philippines, a mere 90 kilometers (55 miles) northwest of the capital city Manila. Up to 800 people were killed and 100,000 became homeless following the Mount Pinatubo eruption, which climaxed with nine hours of the  eruption on June 15, 1991. On June 15, millions of tons of sulfur dioxide were discharged into the atmosphere, resulting in a decrease in the temperature worldwide over the next few years. The Luzon Arc Mount Pinatubo is part of a chain of composite volcanoes along the Luzon arc on the west coast of the island (area map). The arc of volcanoes is due to the subduction of the Manila trench to the west. The volcano experienced major eruptions approximately 500, 3000, and 5500 years ago. The events of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption began in July 1990, when a magnitude 7.8 earthquake occurred 100 kilometers (62 miles) northeast of the Pinatubo region, determined to be a result of the reawakening of Mount Pinatubo. Before the Eruption In mid-March 1991, villagers around Mount Pinatubo began feeling earthquakes and vulcanologists began to study the mountain. (Approximately 30,000 people lived on the flanks of the volcano prior to the disaster.) On April 2, small explosions from vents dusted local villages with ash. The first evacuations of 5,000 people were ordered later that month. Earthquakes and explosions continued. On June 5, a Level 3 alert was issued for two weeks due to the possibility of a major eruption. The extrusion of a lava dome on June 7 led to the issuance of a Level 5 alert on June 9, indicating an eruption in progress. An evacuation area 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) away from the volcano was established and 25,000 people were evacuated. The following day (June 10), Clark Air Base, a U.S. military installation near the volcano, was evacuated. The 18,000 personnel and their families were transported to Subic Bay Naval Station and most were returned to the United States. On June 12, the danger radius was extended to 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) from the volcano resulting in the total evacuation of 58,000 people. The Eruption On June 15, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo began at 1:42 p.m. local time. The eruption lasted for nine hours and caused numerous large earthquakes due to the collapse of the summit of Mount Pinatubo and the creation of a caldera. The caldera reduced the peak from 1745 meters (5725 feet) to 1485 meters (4872 feet) high is 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) in diameter. Unfortunately, at the time of the eruption Tropical Storm Yunya was passing 75 km (47 miles) to the northeast of Mount Pinatubo, causing a large amount of rainfall in the region. The ash that was ejected from the volcano mixed with the water vapor in the air to cause a rainfall of tephra that fell across almost the entire island of Luzon. The greatest thickness of ash deposited 33 centimeters (13 inches) approximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) southwest of the volcano. There was 10 cm of ash covering an area of 2000 square kilometers (772 square miles). Most of the 200 to 800 people (accounts vary) who died during the eruption died due to the weight of the ash collapsing roofs and killing two occupants. Had Tropical Storm Yunya not been nearby, the death toll from the volcano would have been much lower. In addition to the ash, Mount Pinatubo ejected between 15 and 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide gas. Sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere mixes with water and oxygen in the atmosphere to become sulfuric acid, which in turn triggers ozone depletion. Over 90% of the material released from the volcano was ejected during the nine-hour eruption of June 15. The eruption plume of Mount Pinatubos various gasses and ash reached high into the atmosphere within two hours of the eruption, attaining an altitude of 34 km (21 miles) high and over 400 km (250 miles) wide. This eruption was the largest disturbance of the stratosphere since the eruption of Krakatau in 1883 (but ten times larger than Mount St. Helens in 1980). The aerosol cloud spread around the earth in two weeks and covered the planet within a year. During 1992 and 1993, the Ozone hole over Antarctica reached an unprecedented size. The cloud over the earth reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6 °C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5 °C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73 °C. The eruption is believed to have influenced such events as 1993 floods along the Mississippi River and the drought in the Sahel region of Africa. The United States experienced its third coldest and third wettest summer in 77 years during 1992. The Aftermath Overall, the cooling effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption were greater than those of the El Nià ±o that was taking place at the time or of the greenhouse gas warming of the planet. Remarkable sunrises and sunsets were visible around the globe in the years following the Mount Pinatubo eruption. The human impacts of the disaster are staggering. In addition to the up to 800 people who lost their lives, there was almost one-half of a billion dollars in property and economic damage. The economy of central Luzon was horribly disrupted. In 1991, the volcano destroyed 4,979 homes and damaged another 70,257. The following year 3,281 homes were destroyed and 3,137 were damaged. Damage following the Mount Pinatubo eruption was usually caused by lahars - rain-induced torrents of volcanic debris that killed people and animals and buried homes in the months after the eruption. Additionally, another Mount Pinatubo eruption in August 1992 killed 72 people. The United States military never returned to Clark Air Base, turning over the damaged base to the Philippine government on November 26, 1991. Today, the region continues to rebuild and recover from the disaster.

Comparing The 1919 Boston Police Strike - 937 Words

The 1919 Boston Police Strike took place against the backdrop of general distrust of unions. The AFL, the union that the police were part of, were in their own struggle for acceptance as a legitimate organization by the public. Unions were relatively new and they were associated with the violence that striking workers perpetrated, creating suspicion about unions in general. The Boston Police Strike, unfortunately, brought so many issues of the day to head: Communism which was an issue to Americans because of the Russian Worker s Revolution and their efforts to spread communism throughout the world, anti-police attitudes and anti-union sentiment. WWI ended in 1918, and in 1919 the largely Irish-American police force in Boston voted to†¦show more content†¦Many, many streets of people running around, taking things out of stores, busting windows, going into stores and taking all the shoes; bayonets and bullets and fear and trampling; altercations with crowds and they shoot into crowds — what started out as mean mischief ended up being riots and then death, Shlaes said. The shots that Shlaes refers to were not fired by police but by the state guard. At the time, there were no police on the streets of Boston. The striking police took a beating in the press. They were called deserters and worse, Bolsheviks. And so the AFL brought out their biggest gun. Sam Gompers, the old union man, the wise man, the one who has been to Paris with the president, Shlaes said. So, you want to imagine someone very respected nationally asks Coolidge to please negotiate. But Coolidge would not be dissuaded and Cranky Cal told Gompers as much in a now famous telegram. Coolidge had deliberated at length on the matter, and had come to a steadfast conclusion, which he expressed in a single, cutting sentence.( https://news.wgbh.org/post/boston-police-strike-impacted-labor-generations) On the following day, Mayor Andrew J. Peters summoned local militia units, and they restored order. Everyone was going on strike in the United States in 1919, Coolidge biographer, Amity Shlaes said. Earlier in the year, the telephone workers and trolley men had gone on strike. Police believed that by affiliating with Samuel Gompers’