Help me please!!!! English homework!?
Hi! I’m an italian boy, can you help me in correcting this text please? =)
The Victorian age was both a period of prosperity for the high class and of poverty and injustice for the lower class, it led to a binomial of ethical conformism and corruption and to the separation between private life and public behaviour. This period was characterized by harsh social clashes because of the industrial revolution and so their values reflected not the world they saw around them but the world as they would have liked it to be. Primary education became compulsory in 1870 and schools according to the puritan mentality and the principle of “work hard” insist on the sense of duty and application rather then on personal inclination. The idea of respectability distinguished the middle from the lower class, it was a mixture of both morality and hypocrisy which implied good manners, regular attendance at church and philanthropy. Helping stray children, fallen women and drunken men marked out a man or a woman as someone of good standing. Especially women practised philanthropy. Family was a patriarchal unit and the dominant role of the husband was imposed upon him by divine providence and so women had only to obey to his authority, though they had a great importance in educating children and in domestic economy. Linked to the woman’s absolute dependence by man was the concept of “fallen women” they were women who had lost their chastity, they were totally ostracized by society. This obsession for chastity led not only to repress sexuality in people’s life but also to the veiling of sculpted or painted genitals in art. In this period there were also lots of manifestation of British patriotism influenced also by the ideas of racial superiority and so the obligation imposed British by God to bestow their way of life and laws on other people throughout the world, this attitude was called Jingoism. After all it was also an age full of doubts expecially about the relationship between science and belief.
“Ostracised” not “ostracized” and “especially” not “expecially”, although I think “ostracized” is the right American spelling, but not UK English if you are in the UK.
Now that Europe is closing the door to Islamic immigration, is there even a chance that America will?
Heres the article:
Sweden joins Europe-wide backlash against immigration http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/24/sweden-immigration-far-right-asylum
My feeling is that we wont change our policies. Even though Europeans tend to be more left-wing, they also don’t have an ocean separating their civilized world from Islamic countries. So they are looking the beast in the face and, of course, its much hard to rationalize and parrot silly little leftist cliches when thats the case.
The movie “Barbarian Invasions” captures this terrible reality all to well. On the positive side for europeans, their proximity to the beast may give them more time to respond whereas in America, the insular feeling allows incremental encroachment to go undetected. Even with 911, Muhammad DC Snipers and Ft Hood massacres for allah, Americans just parrot their little “religious freedom is what america was founded on man, no exceptions!”
Doesn’t appear Americans are willing to get practical any time soon. Personally I think Christianty is to blame. Most American leftists are christian and believe you me, they take the tenets of “love your enemy” and “turn the other butt-cheek” as literally as muslims take every word of the quran. No joke, suicidal new testament morality is the foundation of the american left whereas its not the case in Europe.
Leftists in Europe are nowhere near as religious as American leftists and thus, the self hating suicidal tenets of christianty just dont have anywhere near the same underlying influence. Europeans can turn to pragmatism much more easily than our religious folk.
HEATHER: If I had to chose between legal islamic immigrants who deeply detest our culture and illegal mexicans who very much like our culture, I happily take all mexican illegals over islamic legals. No hesitation.
MICHON: Spot on. Excellent…absolutely correct.
THIS IS NOT AMERICA: I have read your posts before. You forgot to mention that your an Islamist. I am the son of immigrants. My parents absolutely loved America culture and moved here for that very reason.
I have lived in many places and met immigrants of every persuasion. Only muslim immigrants move here with hatred for American culture. When I first learned this fact, I simply couldnt believe it. Its a contradiction. You move to a culture you hate? WTF? Doesnt make sense…but its absolutely true. No question. Its a fact as sure as the sun and moon.
Do you disagree? Ok, swear to allah that you dont believe its true that most islamic immigrants to America hate American culture. This is permissible in Islam. Go ahead, make me a jack&$$. Swear to allah.
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car burnings, etc.). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers