Heineken out of Burma :: essays research papers

Heineken out of Burma The action groups 'A Seed Europe' and the Dutch action group 'XminY' started a campaign in February 1996, called "Heineken out of Burma!". The investment plans of the Dutch brewer Heineken Inc. in Burma (Myanmar), were said to provide material support and legitimacy to the violent dictatory rulers of the country. Heineken sees Burma as an emerging market, that must be entered without delay. Western beer markets are becoming saturated and the potentials for growth in Asia are enormous. Competitors, such as Carlsberg and San Miguel, are likewise turning their investments towards Asia. The political opposition in Burma, lead by Nobel Price laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, calls on foreign companies not to invest in Burma for the time being, however. International embargoes can support the internal opposition against the regime, she says. Heineken has a 42% share in the Asian Pacific Brewery Ltd (APBL). This, in turn, owns 60% of the shares of the Myanmar Brewery Ltd (MBL). The remaining 40% of the shares belong to UMEHL: the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd. UMEHL is lead by the military rules of the country. APBL wants to invest 15 million US dollars in a brewery in Burma. That can only be done in the form of a joint-venture with UMEHL. The military rulers force this construction onto APBL. Forty percent of the profits that the brewery will yield in the future will thus flow towards the dictators. Heineken did not deny that the Burmese regime is guilty of gross violations of human rights. On the contrary, Heineken shared the analyses of the action groups and said to be very concerned about the human rights situation in Burma. There is one difference, however: the action groups concluded that Heineken should cancel its investments in Burma, but Heineken did not intend to do so. "We sincerely believe that we can reconcile our policy in Burma with our corporate values and norms", so Heineken's press officer before the Dutch media. The action groups say: "By investing in Burma at this moment, and by embarking on a joint venture with UMEHL, Heineken makes itself an accomplice in the tragedy of the Burmese people". This complicity consists in particular of two points.

Mexican Culture Essay

I. Introduction A. Hello my name is Yaakov B. The purpose of my presentation today is to inform you on the Mexican culture. C. First, I will talk about the early history of Mexico. Second I will talk about its religion. Last I will tell you about the lifestyle This ends my introduction .now onto my body of my presentation II. Mexican culture goes back to the olmec, Maya and Aztecs 1. The Olmec where the fist Mesoamerican civilization, they were also the first to practice blood based rituals, they had type of artwork characterized by the colossal heads. 2. Maya lived in a vast area covering parts of present day Guatemala, Mexico and the western areas of Honduras and Salvador. Mayas had no central king that ruled a vast empire. Each city had its own ruler. Ancient Maya developed advanced systems of astronomy, mathematics an accurate calendar systems, extensive trade routes. The jaguar is the icon of power of Maya history. 3. The Aztec empire was peopled by a group that was once nomadic. The Aztecs principal food was tortillas. Tenochtitlan is their capital city, which is present day Mexico city. B 1. These civilizations where destroyed by the Spanish in 1521.hernado Cortez accompanied by five hundred and Indian allies. The Spaniards won victorious over the Aztecs. 2. The Spaniards had better weapons and horses. Iron armor and steel swords were where above Aztecs weaponry as the Aztecs had clubs, wooden swords, and spears. Guns and cannons were used to annihilate the Aztec defense . Horses stunned Aztecs for they had never seen horses before. 3. The Spanish brought new diseases, such as smallpox’s which killed many people. An African slave who came in 1520 had small pox. One of the Spanish soldiers contracted the disease. During combat the soldier died and Aztecs contracted the disease which killed many . That was my fist point. Now into my second point. A. Religion in Mexico was influenced by Spanish rule. 1. The Roman Catholic Church had a strong influence. Hernandez Cortez was the one who brought the catholic church to Mexico . 2. Priests learned native languages and converted American Indians to catholism. this way it would be better talk then to fight for conversion. B. 1. Catholism was established as the dominant religion of Mexico. Catholicism is not just a religion it’s a way of life in Mexico. Fifty percent of Mexico’s population attends weekly mass in their local church. Religion is a big part of Mexican culture. I have shared the early history of Mexico and religion. Now onto my last point A. The lifestyle of Mexico consist of celebrations, cinema and arts 1. A celebration that is celebrated is the day of the dead. This celebration has come far as the Aztecs. This holiday is for remembering and honoring those who have passed away. 2. The golden age of Mexican cinema. This period between 1935 to 1969.the golden era is thought to have started with the film â€Å"vamonos con pancho villa† (1935). To now it has been considered the best of the cinema of Mexico, another famous actor of this era is Maria Felix. 3. Diego Rivera the artist who painted many famous paintings such as the flower vendor, and many more. Fernando Botera had a unique style of painting all of his characters were oddly figured which would be impossible in real life III. Conclusion I have shared the early history, religion and lifestyle of my unique culture. Now into my conclusion of my presentation. 1. The significance of the history of Mexico is to inform people about the great history of Mexico. 2. The religion is the cause of Spanish influence on Mexico. 3. Lifestyle is significant because of how it has developed. I want to thank all of you for allowing me to share this important part of me with you.

Comparing and Contrasting Serial Killers - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2056 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2019/06/17 Category Society Essay Type Compare and contrast essay Level High school Tags: Serial Killer Essay Did you like this example? Since the 1800s scholars and scientists alike have been piecing together the puzzle that is the mind of a serial killer. Early scientists believed phrenology, or the measuring ones skull size, could be used to determine if that individual had the tendencies of a serial killer (Class Lecture). This theory has been since debunked and deemed too simple of a tactic. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Comparing and Contrasting Serial Killers" essay for you Create order In fact, the ecological model implies that intentional homicide is the result of an interplay of individual, relational, social, cultural, and environmental factors (Dogra, Leenars, Chadha, Manju, Lalwani, Sood, and Behera). It would be unbelievably simplistic if, in our modern era, we could measure all the skulls of inmates and determine which ones would only ever commit petty crimes and which ones would actually harm others. Sadly, this theory has proven to be erroneous. It is clearly far more complicated. It is now known that being a serial killer is usually not a predetermined mindset that individuals are born with. Of course there are characteristics that are more likely to make someone exhibit such tendencies such as being a psychopath, or someone who is incapable of feeling empathy for others. While psychopathy can contribute to an individuals serial killer ways, the individual, social, and environmental elements of the individuals life can form the mind of a serial killer (Ma lizia). These elements typically work together to produce the response that occurs in the case of a serial killing. For example individually the individual may have low self-esteem and socially they are withdrawn and antisocial (Malizia). This combination may be what it takes to make someone a killer while it may take more to push others to that point. Everyone is individual and that is where the problem lies in identifying who will become a serial killer and who will not. Taking all of that information into consideration, the question of whether a combination of these factors can shed light onto who is or will become a serial killer. Specifically we will be comparing and contrasting the lives, personalities, and crimes of male and female serial killers to develop a better understanding of how their crimes came to be and to see if there is one or more characteristics that can be utilized to determine who in the present and future will also commit such crimes. Far more widely know are male serial killers. Males in general commit crime at much higher rates than women especially in reference to serial killings (Frei, Vollum, Dittmann). This has nothing to do with the number of victims or the nature of the crimes because women serial killers have killed equal if not more victims than their male counterparts and in equally upsetting ways. In fact, lesser known female killers like Mary Ann Cotton and Amelia Dryers kill list reached at least twenty victims per women which is far more than the more famous Jack the Rippers five victims (Gurian). Despite being lesser known, adequate research is available to uncover the mystery that is female serial killers and attempt to unearth any similarities they share with their more well-known counterpart. One of the main similarities between male and female serial killers is their victim selection. Though the victims may not appear to be similar upon first inspection, a closer look confirms. Males are notorious for killing adult women, specifically women who are strangers to them (Gurian). Whereas women will kill both genders and usually do not target strangers. They will target people who they know such as members of their family, those who are in their care like patients, and children (Gurian). While these two types of victimology seem quite contradictory they are actually more similar than it seems. Both males and females appear to kill victims that present low risks. Men likely kill women because, genetically speaking, it is easy for a man to over-power a woman. The easier it is for them to overpower their victim the quicker the crime and the higher their murder rate. If a victim were to overpower the potential killer, than the victim would be able to get away and report the attem pt to the police which would potentially lead to an arrest of the killer (LaBrode). Men choose their victims based on the idea that they can control the victim and the outcome simultaneously. If the killer does not have complete control of the situation, he feels helpless, without power (Malizia). Likewise, women also look to control the victim and the crime. Due to women typically having a smaller frame than men, it naturally make sense that they would target people who they would be able to over power as well. Targeting family members gives them an element of surprise that males tend to not need. Most people would not expect a member of their family to hurt them. This is the surprise that would give them the upper hand on a male spouse that would otherwise be able to overpower them. These killers are known as black widows and typically have the longest time frame for their killings because they generally go undetected (Case 6). Furthermore, in regards to killing children and patients, it is general knowledge that most adult women are stronger than children and people who are sickly and or elderly who need the help of a caregiver (Gurian).This fact confirms the idea that both men and women do not target people at random. Instead they both target victims that they can control and overpower, thus proving one of few similarities between the two sexes. There are various methods that a serial killer can choose to take the life of their victim. While this may seem like something that is decided one of two ways: premeditate with whatever means the killer has access to or in the heat of the moment with whatever items happen to be near them, this is only partially correct and actually goes much deeper into the analysis of a serial killers actions. Weapons are typically chosen for a reason. For example, women typically choose to kill their victims with poison. This killing method is incredibly quit and in some circumstances nearly impossible to detect (Gurian). Also, considering that many female serial killers work in a field of medicine or act as caregivers it would give them easier access to such poisons that the average individual would have difficulties accessing (Frei, Vollum, Graf, and Dittmann). Another common method of killing for females is strangulation or starvation of their victims. Yet again a method that is respectively mes s free. This too aligns with female killers victimology. Essentially it would be easier for a women to suffocate a child or an elderly person she is acting as caregiver to rather than to smother a healthy adult. Opportunity is the key word when it comes to women and the methods they choose because of their typically smaller frames and the need for them to think uncongenially about how they can most effectively complete their crime. In contrast, men tend to be quite messy when it comes to their killing method. They are far more likely to physically assault their victim with a weapon or with their bare heads. Men will also use knives and guns (Gurian). Such weapon selection will literally leave behind a trail of blood. Fighting with fists certainly will bruise and injure the victim, but can potentially injure the killer as well. If the killer gets a cuts then there is a risk of their blood being found at the crime scene which can lead to an arrest. Being picked up by the police with b ruised and bleeding knuckles will also not help their case in any way. This also means that the victims blood could be found on the killer or their clothes and that will further help bring forth a conviction. Men choose messy methods. There are many factors that affect how long a serial killer will kill for. One of the major contributing factors is how soon they are caught or if at all. Mens timeframe of taking victims is typically shorter than womens. It is estimated that men will kill for two years or less whereas women will kill for four ou more years. The reason that women kill longer is because it generally takes longer for them to be caught by authorities (Gurian). Thus reflecting on why mens killing time frame is shorter. Perhaps if they were able to more deftly evade the police they would be able to kill for a longer time frame. Women are typically spared because of societys reluctance to view women as offenders instead of victims (Gurian). Pulling into victimology, women often kill their families and that is a difficult reality for society to wrap their minds around. No one likes to think that a mother killed her husband and children. It almost seems to defy nature, therefore female serial killers are oft en overlooked. Furthermore, since women kill primarily poison it makes it difficult for the crimes to be traced back to them. Lastly is the most daunting question of all: why do they do it? This is also known as an MO or modus operandi. There are two ways to break down the MO of a serial killer, whether male or female: pleasure or purpose orientated (Wilson and Hilton). With these categories in mind, men typically fall into the pleasure-orientated category. This can be attributed to the fact that most male serial killers are sexual sadist (LaBrode). In other words, males who kill repeatedly tend to enjoy the thrill of inflicting pain onto others. They seek the excitement that such acts give them and to go without becomes a burden for them. That is the driving force that causes them to search for new victims. This can also perhaps shed light onto the reason why men choose to kill women more often because it does provide that sexual experience that they are unable to obtain in regularly sanctioned activities (Gurian). Completely opposite of that is women and their modus operandi. Women are primarily purpose- orientated in their killings. Some examples of purpose-based killing include killing for financial gain, attention, or for religious reasons (Wilson and Hilton). An example of such behavior is the case of Gesina Gottfried from Bremen, Germany. She exemplifies both killing for profit and for attention. Gottfried married three times throughout her life and each time her husband would die. Interestingly enough, she came from a poor family and seemed to move up the financial ladder with each death of her many husbands. In addition to that she would play the role of the caring, doting wife who cared for her ailing husband each time who had the worst of luck. In the eyes of an unsuspecting world she was a sad widow. She further gained attention and sympathy by killing all of her children. While it was not considered infanticide because her youngest child was three years old, she did kill her own children and gained even more attention and thus more sympathy. She was later given the nickna me the Angel of Bermen (Holck). Gottfried clearly gained from her murders. The motives behind male and female serial killings share no similarities. In conclusion, we have learned that there is little similarities between male and female serial killers. Males kill more frequently and in shorter bursts, they kill women, with violent methods, and they usually do it for their own pleasure. Which happens to be almost opposite of women killers. They kill patients and children over longer periods of time, they use poison most often as their choice of method, and they kill for purpose not pleasure. The one detail that can connect their crimes in the slightest way is their choice of victimology selection and their need to be in control of the situation. Obviously they choose victims that are different based on age and gender, but these victims all give the killer, despite being a male or female, what they are looking for which is a sense of control. While this information is not a solid piece of evidence that can be used to automatically determine if someone is a serial killer or not, it is a starting point. Perhaps individuals who have a lack of control of their lives are the ones who need to be paid more attention to.