Of Mice And Men Summary Essays

Of Mice And Men Summary Essays Of Mice And Men Summary Paper Of Mice And Men Summary Paper Essay Topic: Of Mice and Men In Of Mice and Men, Lennie, a strong, mentally handicapped ranch worker, is accompanied and protected throughout his life by George, his coworker, and best friend. When Lennie accidentally murders Curly’s wife, George shoots him before anyone else gets the chance. Whether or not George had the right to kill Lennie is a controversial issue that has been disputed for years. George was justified in shooting Lennie because Lennie caused major difficulties in George’s life, he was a danger to himself and others, and the actions of Curly or the courts would have resulted in the same way but more painful and Lennie would have suffered. Lennie’s reckless and dangerous behavior has made George’s life very difficult.It becomes clear early in the novel that Lennie has caused George many difficulties throughout their lives together. For example, in the first chapter of Of Mice and Men, George and Lennie had just run away from their most recent residency: Weed, California. They had been run out of town by police because Lennie grabbed onto a woman’s dress and frightened her. Lennie has no concept of what is right and what is wrong. He often forgets what even happened, which shows that he does not understand that his actions have consequences. George mentioned the incident with the woman’s dress, and Lennie did not recall what had happened. â€Å"Lennie looked puzzled. ‘Like I did in Weed?’ ‘Oh, so you forgot that too, did ya? Well, I aint gonna remind ya. Fear ya do it again’† (â€Å"Of Mice and Men Justice Quotes†). The fact that Lennie cannot even remember what he did to get run out of Weed shows that he does not feel remorseful for his actions. Lennie’s destructive behavior has negatively affected George’s life and wellbeing. Lennie would not have been able to live without George anyways, so the decision of whether or not Lennie should live was ultimately up to George. Shots ring out as George shoots his best friend Lennie, who is one of the biggest dangers in Salinas Valley. George is saving Lennie from a very painful death, and also George knows that if they keep running Lennie will probably have another accident. In the novel, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, uses foreshadowing to reveal the pattern of killing is a part of life and George needs to kill Lennie. George does the right thing by killing Lennie because he knows he can not protect Lennie from society, as he also knows he can not protect society from Lennie. Some people may think killing is never acceptable, however sometimes it needs to be done to stop a dangerous pattern, in this case, it is Lennie killing animals and Curley’s wife. Saving Lennie from a gruesome death is probably one of the most profound reasons George is shooting him. If George does not shoot Lennie, Curley and the boys from the ranch will lynch Lennie and beat him until he dies. George is making Lennie’s death much more peaceful. â€Å"‘ Look acrosst the river, Lennie, an’ I’ll tell you so you can almost see it’† (115). Lennie wants George to describe their shared dream to him but first George wants him to look the other way. Also the death of Lennie is somewhat casual, â€Å"‘Sure, right now. I gotta. We gotta’† (106). George and Lennie are in the middle of a conversation about the dream when all of the sudden George pulls the trigger. When thinking of Lennie being murdered by someone who does not care for him makes George want to shoot Lennie himself so he is not killed immorally. Also George knows Lennie would never be truly happy again if he were stuck in jail. Georges decision to shoot Lennie is very smart because he knows that if they keep running it is just a matter of time before Lennie has another accident. Lennie is prone to trouble because of his mental handicap, and George knows this so he decides to shoot him.

Chatelperronian Transition to Upper Paleolithic

Chatelperronian Transition to Upper Paleolithic The Chà ¢telperronian period refers to one of five stone tool industries identified within the Upper Paleolithic period of Europe (ca 45,000-20,000 years ago). Once thought the earliest of the five industries, the Chà ¢telperronian is today recognized as roughly coeval with or perhaps somewhat later than the Aurignacian period: both are associated with the Middle Paleolithic to Upper Paleolithic transition, ca. 45,000-33,000 years ago. During that transition, the last Neanderthals in Europe died out, the result of a not-necessarily-peaceful cultural transition of European ownership from the long-established Neanderthal residents to the new influx of early modern humans from Africa. When first described and defined in the early twentieth century, the Chà ¢telperronian was believed to be the work of early modern humans (then called Cro Magnon), who, it was thought had descended directly from Neanderthals. The split between Middle and Upper Paleolithic is a distinct one, with great advances in the range of stone tool types and also with raw materialsthe Upper Paleolithic period has tools and objects made of bone, teeth, ivory and antler, none of which was seen in the Middle Paleolithic. The change is technology is today associated with the entrance of early modern humans from Africa into Europe. The discovery of Neanderthals at Saint Cesaire (aka La Roche a Pierrot) and Grotte du Renne (aka Arcy-sur-Cure) in direct association with Chà ¢telperronian artifacts, led to the original debates: who made the Chà ¢telperronian tools? Chà ¢telperronian Toolkit Chà ¢telperronian stone industries are a blend of earlier tool types from the Middle Paleolithic Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic Aurignacian style tool types. These include denticulates, distinctive side scrapers (called racloir chà ¢telperronien) and endscrapers. One characteristic stone tool found on Chà ¢telperronian sites are backed blades, tools made on flint chips which have been shaped with abrupt retouch. Chà ¢telperronian blades were made from a large, thick flake or block that were prepared in advance, in distinct comparison to later Aurignacian stone tool kits which were based on more extensively worked prismatic cores. Although the lithic materials at Chà ¢telperronian sites often include stone tools similar to the earlier Mousterian occupations, in some sites, an extensive collection of tools were produced on ivory, shell, and bone: these types of tools are not found in Mousterian sites at all. Important bone collections have been found at three sites in France: Grotte du Renne at Arcy sur-Cure, Saint Cesaire and Quinà §ay. At Grotte du Renne, the bone tools included awls, bi-conical points, tubes made of bird bones and pendants, and sawed ungulate antlers and picks. Some personal ornaments have been found at these sites, some of which are stained with red ochre: all of these are evidence of what archaeologists call modern human behaviors or behavioral complexity.​ The stone tools led to the assumption of cultural continuity, with some scholars well into the 1990s arguing that humans in Europe had evolved from Neanderthals. Subsequent archaeological and DNA research has overwhelmingly indicated that early modern humans in fact evolved in Africa, and then migrated into Europe and mixed with the Neanderthal natives. The parallel discoveries of bone tools and other behavioral modernity at Chatelperronian and Aurignacian sites, not to mention radiocarbon dating evidence has led to a realignment of the early Upper Paleolithic sequence. How They Learned That The major mystery of the Chà ¢telperronianassuming that it does indeed represent Neanderthals, and there certainly seems to be ample proof of thatis how did they acquire new technologies just at the point when the new African immigrants arrived in Europe? When and how that happenedwhen the African emigrants turned up in Europe and when and how the Europeans learned to make bone tools and backed scrapersis a matter for some debate. Did the Neanderthals imitate or learn from or borrow from the Africans when they began using sophisticated stone and bone tools; or were they innovators, who happened to learn the technique about the same time? Archaeological evidence at sites such as Kostenki in Russia and Grotta del Cavallo in Italy has pushed back the arrival of early modern humans to about 45,000 years ago. They used a sophisticated tool kit, complete with bone and antler tools and personal decorative objects, called collectively Aurignacian. Evidence is also strong that Neanderthals first appeared in Europe about 800,000 years ago, and they relied on primarily stone tools; but about 40,000 years ago, they may have adopted or invented bone and antler tools and personal decorative items. Whether that was separate invention or borrowing remains to be determined. Sources Bar-Yosef O, and Bordes J-G. 2010. Who were the makers of the Chà ¢telperronian culture? Journal of Human Evolution 59(5):586-593.Coolidge FL, and Wynn T. 2004. A cognitive and neurophysical perspective on the Chatelperronian. Journal of Archaeological Research 60(4):55-73.Discamps E, Jaubert J, and Bachellerie F. 2011. Human choices and environmental constraints: deciphering the variability of large game procurement from Mousterian to Aurignacian times (MIS 5-3) in southwestern France. Quaternary Science Reviews 30(19-20):2755-2775.