What Is a Column in the Architectural World

In architecture, a column is an upright pillar or post. Columns may support a roof or a beam, or they can be purely decorative. A row of columns is called a colonnade. Classical columns have distinctive capitals, shafts, and bases. Some people, including the 18th century Jesuit scholar Marc-Antoine Laugier, suggest that the column is one of the essential elements of architecture. Laugier theorizes that primitive man required only three architectural elements to build a shelter — the column, entablature, and the pediment. These are the basic elements of what has become known as the Primitive Hut, from which all architecture is derived. Where does the word come from? Like many of our English-language words, column originates from Greek and Latin words. The Greek kolophÃ… n, meaning a summit or hill, was where temples were built in places like Colophon, an ancient Ionian Greek city. The Latin word columna further describes the elongated shape we associate with the word column. Even today when we speak of newspaper columns orspreadsheet columns, or even spinal columns, the geometry is the same — longer than wide, slender, and vertical. in publishing — the distinctive mark of the publisher, much like a sports team may have an associated symbolic mark — comes from the same Greek origin. The architecture of ancient Greece was distinctive and remains so today. Imagine living in an ancient time, perhaps in BC when civilization began, and you are asked to describe the grand, stone projections you see high on a hill. The words that describe what architects call the built environment usually come well after the structures are built, and words are often inadequate descriptors of grand visual designs. The Classical Column The ideas of columns in Western civilizations come from the Classical architecture of Greece and Rome. Classical columns were first described by an architect named Vitruvius (c. 70-15 BC). Further descriptions were written in the late 1500s by the Italian Renaissance architect Giacomo da Vignola. He described the Classical Order of Architecture, a history of the columns and entablatures used in Greece and Rome. Vignola described five basic designs: Greek Columns and Entablature:DoricIonicCorinthianRoman Columns and Entablature:TuscanComposite Classical columns traditionally have three main parts: The base. Most columns (except the early Doric) rest on a round or square base, sometimes called a plinth.The shaft. The main part of the column, the shaft, may be smooth, fluted (grooved), or carved with designs.The capital. The top of the column may be simple or elaborately decorated. The capital of the column supports the upper portion of a building, called the entablature. The design of the column and entablature together determine the Classical Order of Architecture. Out of (Classical) Order The Orders of architecture refer to the designs of column combinations in Classical Greece and Rome. However, decorative and functional posts and shafts that hold up structures are found throughout the world. Over the centuries, a variety of column types and column designs have evolved, including in Egypt and Persia. To see different styles of columns, browse our Photo Guide to Column Design and Column Types. Function of a Column Columns are historically functional. Today a column can be both decorative and functional. Structurally, columns are considered compression members subject to axial compressive forces — they allow space to be created by carrying the load of the building. How much load that can be carried before buckling depends on the columns length, diameter, and construction material. The columns shaft is often not the same diameter from the bottom to the top. Entasis is the tapering and swelling of the columns shaft, which is used both functionally and to achieve a more symmetric look — fooling the naked eye. Columns and Your House Columns are commonly found in 19th century Greek Revival and Gothic Revival house styles. Unlike large Classical columns, residential columns usually carry the load of a porch or portico only. As such, they are subject to weather and rot and often become a maintenance issue. Too often, home columns are replaced with cheaper alternatives — sometimes, unfortunately, with wrought iron. If you buy a house with metal supports where columns should be, you know that these are not original. Metal supports are functional, but aesthetically they are historically inaccurate. Bungalows have their own type of tapered columns. Related Names for Column-Like Structures anta — A flat, square, column-like structure, usually on either side of a door or the corners of a buildings facade. These pilaster-like paired structures, called antae (plural), are really a structural thickening of the wall.pillar — Like a column, but a pillar can also stand alone, like a monument.support — A very general word that describes a functionpilaster — A squared column (i.e., a pier) protruding from a wall.engaged column — A round column protruding from a wall like a pilaster.post or stake or polepier — A squared column.buttressunderpinning Source Inline photo of metal columns  ©Jackie Craven

How Wwii Effected the Indian Independence Movement Free Essays

string(318) " book The Indian Struggle, Bose described his first meeting with Gandhi in 1921, â€Å"there was a deplorable lack of clarity in the plan which the Mahatma had formulated and that he himself had no clear idea of the successive stages of the campaign which would bring India to her cherished goal of freedom† \(Kumar\)\." Rebecca Martinez 18 November 2012 Professor Sutherland ANTH 4002 World War II’s Impact on the Indian Independence Movement The success of the Indian Independence movement is, by some scholars, largely attributed to efforts of Mahatma Gandhi. As stated by BBC, â€Å"Gandhi was the leader of the Indian nationalist movement against British rule, and is widely considered the father of his country† (India. wikia. We will write a custom essay sample on How Wwii Effected the Indian Independence Movement or any similar topic only for you Order Now com). However, this revolutionary movement, a dream that had been growing since the mid nineteenth century, was the infusion of a wide spectrum of Indian political organizations, philosophies, and rebellions. For example, the events and aftermath of the Second World War posed an economic crisis and political confrontation that transformed nationalism and colonialism for many colonies, including India. Even less credit is given to the various international events that shaped the movement, as well as those involved. Regardless of the divisions in Indian nationalist efforts, both in support and against violence, they all contained one common goal: independence from Britain. Were historians correct in their proposition that India’s independence was largely attributed to Gandhi’s peaceful anti-war efforts, or were Gandhi’s strategies ultimately ineffective? If proven effective, should India’s rapid progress in independence during World War II be seen as affected most by Gandhi, or were bigger actors involved? I believe that the source of India’s successes in their 100-year struggle for independence should not be correlated with one man. Rather, by paying close attention to key events, powerful political players, critical economic changes, and motivating political factors from around the globe during this period, historians will gain a better understanding of how India’s independence movement was rapidly accelerated, and ultimately successful, during the period surrounding World War II. When war initially broke out in September of 1939, Britain’s grip on India was as fierce and stubborn as ever (Bose and Jalal, 130). Although Congress leadership in India implored Great Britain to define their war aim before declaring India’s support, viceroy Linlithgow avowed the British Indian Empire a belligerent against the axis powers without consulting prominent Indian leaders (Bose and Jalal, 130). Once it became clear that the British were unconcerned with Indian nationalist aspirations, the entire Congress leadership resigned from the local government councils in protest. However, this protest was not simply an opposition to Britain’s decision. Many Indian nationalists believed that Britain’s fight for democracy and freedom in the Second World War contradicted their rule over a multitude of colonies (wiki. com). Mahatma Gandhi, for example, termed Britain’s â€Å"war to save democracy† as hypocrisy since it was denying democratic rights and individual liberties to Indians (wiki. com). Despite the atrocities faced by Indians under British rule, many Indians supported the British war effort and fought with the Allied Forces. In hopes that the British would leave India after the Second World War, the Indian National Congress cooperated with the British war efforts, making the British Indian Army was one of the largest volunteer forces during the war (India. wikia. com). However, when it became clear the Britain had no intention of relenting their hold India after the war, Gandhi called for a determined but passive resistance to foster a peaceful negotiation with the British government. Ultimately, Gandhi and the Congress Party proposed a â€Å"Quit India Movement,† which declared that if the British did not accede to the demands for Indian independence, a massive Civil Disobedience would be launched (Bose and Jalal, 133). However, once Britain arrested the top Congress Party leaders, the Quit India Movement fizzed out entirely before it even had a chance to gather steam. That being said, although Mahatma Gandhi’s initial civil disobedience movements were driving forces that ultimately shaped the cultural, religious, and political unity of a Indian diverse nation, they did not have a significant impact on Indian independence following the Second World War. Although history’s spotlight for Indian nationalist ideas during this time is set on Gandhi, the fight for freedom during World War II saw the rise of two independence movements. Some leaders of the revolutionary Indian independence movement collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. Although largely ignored by historians, the Azad Hind movement, in collaboration with Japanese forces, successfully created the Indian National Army in 1942. Indian military alliances with Axis nations also included the Legion Freies Indien in Nazi Germany and the Battaglione Azad Hindoustan in Fascist Italy (wiki. com). Although Adolf Hitler saw Indians as racially inferior and had no interest in India’s future, he believed that if India gained its independence it could become a valuable ally of the Axis powers and help it gain dominance in the Indian Ocean area (Kumar). As a result, Germany and Japan actively provided support to Indian independence movement leaders. The Indian Nation Army, led by Subhash Chandra Bose, was based on the principle that â€Å"An enemy’s enemy is a friend† (India. wikia. com). Bose also formed what came to be known as the Azad Hind Government, with Indian prisoners of war and Indian expatriates in South-East Asia, with the help of the Japanese (Bose and Jalal, 134). Its aim was to reach India as a fighting force that would build on public resentment to inspire revolts among Indian soldiers to defeat the Raj (Bose and Jalal, 134). However, due to poor arms and supplies from the Japanese and lack of support and training, the Indian National Army and entire Azad Hind ultimately failed. Although defeated, Bose’s initiative gave hope to the Indian public and turned the support and loyalty of the native soldiers of the British Indian Forces from the crown to the Indian National Army soldiers. In doing so, the British Army, whose ultimate goal was to replace the loyalty of Indian soldiers to the crown, was replaced by the Indian National Army (Bose and Jalal, 134). Bose also succeeded in developing a larger participation and unity in the Indian community, one that crossed religious and gender boundaries, than Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India movement. In his book The Indian Struggle, Bose described his first meeting with Gandhi in 1921, â€Å"there was a deplorable lack of clarity in the plan which the Mahatma had formulated and that he himself had no clear idea of the successive stages of the campaign which would bring India to her cherished goal of freedom† (Kumar). You read "How Wwii Effected the Indian Independence Movement" in category "Essay examples" However, although Bose’s efforts did aid India’s independence movement, it did not create an impact large enough for historians to declare its actions as the main source of India’s accelerated independence. The most effective factor in Indian independence during World War II, therefore, could not have been the result of Indian nationalist efforts. It was British prime minister Clement Atlee who, when granting independence to India, said that Gandhi’s non-violence movement had next to zero effect on the British. In corroboration, Chief Justice P. B. Chakrabarty of the Kolkata High Court, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Ramesh Chandra Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal, â€Å"You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it †¦ In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi’s â€Å"Quit India† movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Subhash Chandra Bose]. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, â€Å"m-i-n-i-m-a-l! †(Kumar). In reality, the political confrontations and negotiations between Indian nationalists and the British were immensely influenced by an atmosphere of deepening economic crisis. In the aftermath of World War II, Britain’s economy was destroyed to such an extent that they were no longer able to financially maintain their military forces, making Great Britain incapable of containing the incessant freedom movements in their colonies. Therefore, due to its collapsed economy, Great Britain would have left India much later than they did after World War II, regardless of Gandhi, Bose, or any nationalist leader. The most influential character in India’s independence, therefore, would evidently be Adolf Hitler. Despite his selfish reasons for war, Hitler inadvertently created the perfect economic atmosphere needed for the Indian Independence Movement to take flight. Had Hitler not begun World War II, India’s independence, with only nationalist determination as a driving force, would most probably have taken much longer than it did. In the aftermath of World War II, India had increased its political, economic and military influence, which paved the way for its independence from Great Britain in 1947. Although the main factor in Britain’s retreat in India was its economic turmoil, India would not have been able to create or sustain a healthy economy, government, or military without the help of key nationalist leaders. For example, previous tensions between Indian castes were eased by Gandhi, who launched the Haijan movement, a campaign to improve the lives of the untouchables, whom he named Harijans, the children of God. Gandhi also influenced India’s blossoming political ideology. According to Jim Yardley, â€Å"Gandhi is given full credit for India’s political identity as a tolerant, secular democracy. Likewise, Indian military precedent was also set by Bose in his creation of the Indian National Army. Bose also succeeded in uniting various religious entities in India. For example, when he first three of Bose’s officers to be tried were a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Sikh, Indians of all three religions became united against the British in a national movem ent against the Indian National Army officers’ trial (india. wikia. com). Nationalist efforts, specifically Mahatma Gandhi, may have not been the leading force in India’s independence in 1947, but it did make independence easier. British historians P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins described the hopeless situation of the British in India as follows, â€Å"By the end of war, there was a loss of purpose at the very center of the imperial system. The gentlemanly administrators who managed the Raj no longer had the heart to devise new moves against increasing odds, not least because after 1939 the majority of the Indian Civil Service were themselves Indian. In 1945 the new Viceroy, Wavell, commented on the â€Å"weakness and weariness of the importance of the instrument still our disposal in the shape of the British element in the Indian Civil Service. The town had been lost to opponents of the Raj; the countryside had slipped beyond control. Widespread discontent in the army was followed in 1946 by a mutiny in the navy. It was then Wavell, the unfortunate messenger, reported to London that India had become ungovernable [which finally led to the independence of India† (Kumar). Furthermore, although the Indian Independence Movement was greatly hastened by Britain’s economic crisis posed during the aftermath of World War II, India’s identity would not be the same without the influential works of Indian nationalists. Works Cited: Bose, Sugata Jalal, Ayesha. 2011, Modern South Asia: History, Culture Political Economy, Third Edition. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York. http://india. wikia. com/wiki/Indian_Independence_Movement http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II Kumar, Susmit. 2012. ‘Hitler, NOT Gandhi, Should Be Given Credit for the Independence of India in 1947’, [Online] Available at: http://www. susmitkumar. net/index. php? option=com_contentview=articleid=100Itemid=86 Yardley, Jim. 2010, ‘Obama Invokes Gandhi, Whose Ideal Eludes India. ’ New York Times. 6, Nov. How to cite How Wwii Effected the Indian Independence Movement, Essay examples

Nullification Controversy free essay sample

In the era in question, the country was distinctly divided along economic lines. Because a large percentage of Southern capital was put into land, cotton, and slaves, less capital was available for industrial for manufacturing enterprises, since in that volatile period in history they such investments were far riskier than cotton, the prime resource of the booming textile industry. Economists have determined that a reasonable expectation for return On investments in cotton was per annum, an excellent return at any time.But because the cotton South did not produce much in the way of farm equipment, tools or other manufactured goods, they were dependent upon manufactured goods produced mostly in the north or in foreign countries. High protective tariffs on manufactured goods, designed to aid American manufacturing, had the effect of raising prices on goods purchased throughout the country, but needed most heavily in South. Support for manufacturing interests was strong in the north, where the population had grown faster, meaning that there were more members in the House of Representatives from the North then from the South. We will write a custom essay sample on Nullification Controversy or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Thus high protective tariffs were regularly passed. In 1 828 Andrew Jacksons supporters proposed a very high tariff bill that would allow Jackson to look friendly toward manufacturing in the North, while in the South his supporters to claim that the proposed tariff was so high that it would never pass, and that they therefore had nothing to worry about. But then the tariff did pass after all. Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina anonymously wrote an Exposition and Protest of the Tariff of 1 828, which became known as the Tariff of Abominations. When a tariff bill passed again in 1832, because it as still too high to suit the needs of Southern agricultural interests, the State of South Carolina decided to nullify the tariff. They took their action very deliberately, calling a special convention and passing an Ordinance of Nullification that claimed not only that the tariff was not enforceable in South Carolina, but that any attempt to enforce it by state or federal officials would not be permitted within South Carolina.South Carolinas ordinance placed the state on a collision course with President Andrew Jackson. Although Jackson was from Tennessee, and thus a Southerner (and slave owner), he was still much more a nationalist than an advocate of states rights. To Jackson, the notion that a state could nullify a federal law, and that it could furthermore preven t him from exercising his constitutional duty, which is to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed, was too much. Jackson issued his own Proclamation of the people of South Carolina in which he called their nullification ordinance an impracticable absurdity. Congress supported Jackson by passing a Force Bill which explicitly authorized him to use whatever force was necessary to enforce the law in South Carolina. (The Force Bill was more symbolic than real, as Jackson already had authority to enforce the law under the Constitution. Not willing to push the fight any farther, South Carolina, realizing that support for its position was weak, relented and repealed its ordinance of nullification. But then as a sort of slap in the face to President Jackson, it nullified the force bill, which was of no consequence since the force bill had become moot upon South Carolinas repeal of the ordinance of nullification. To summarize, would say that the nullification controversy is important because of its focus on the issue of states rights.Most historians believe that behind South Carolinas nullification of t he tariff was a deeper concern over the slavery question. The abolitionist movement was gathering steam, and there was fear throughout the South that somehow the federal government might move to abolish slavery. Nullification of the tariff then was seen by some as a test case as to whether or not nullification Was viable. President Jacksons reaction and the support from Congress suggested that nullification could not be sustained.The next logical step, therefore, in opposing federal authority within a state was the act of secession, which South Carolina exercised almost 30 years later as the first state to secede from the Union following President Lincoln election in 1860. It is worth reading South Carolinas ordinance of nullification and Andrew Jacksons proclamation to understand the depth of the arguments on both sides. Jacksons argument carried the day, but for many Southerners the issue of states rights was still an open question.