The Responsibility of German Citizens Rhetoric, Close Reading, and Meaning in The Book Thief - Literature Essay Samples

Does following orders and laws justify allowing the mass persecution of a race? Is protecting one’s family a viable reason to tolerate the mistreatment of the Jews? During the Nuremberg trials, judges ruled simply following orders was an insubstantial reason to condone the actions of many of Hitler’s party officials. Although leaders who ran death camps and killed Jews blamed their involvement on obeying direction, half received the death sentence and the other half were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Nuremberg trials established â€Å"the idea that individuals are responsible for their own actions, even in times of war† (Danzer, 587). Similarly, in The Book Thief, the author Markus Zusak points out the responsibility of German citizens to speak out against Hitler’s actions towards Jews. The main character Liesel learns kindness towards Jews despite her community’s negative view of them when her foster parents, Hans and Rosa Hubermann, shelter a Jew, Max, in their basement. Liesel forms a friendship with Max and bonds with him over their common loss of family. Later Max leaves the Hubermanns in order to protect them after Hans publicly gives bread to a Jewish man in the street. Throughout The Book Thief, Markus Zusak portrays the responsibility of a German citizen to protect the Jews and how a lack of leads to devastating effects with his diction and by utilizing juxtaposition and metaphor. Early on, the author utilizes juxtaposition to demonstrate the contrast between Hitler-supporting Germans and those who disapproved of him and showcase each groups responsibility for the mistreatment of the Jews. From the beginning of novel Liesel struggles to understand Hitler, the Nazis, and her community’s hatred of the Jews. Two contradictory characters in her life are Frau Holtzapfel and Hans Hubermann. Zusak presents Liesel’s neighbor Frau Holtzapfel as a devoted Nazi Party member with â€Å"one golden rule†¦ if you walked into her shop and didn’t say ‘heil Hitler† you wouldn’t be served† (Zusak 49,50). Contrarily, Liesel’s father openly resists the Nazi Party. This is clear when Hans aids a Jew: after members of the Nazi Party paint a slur on a Jewish shopkeeper’s door Hans approaches the owner and says â€Å"‘I will come tomorrow†¦ and repaint your door†, a promise he keeps (Zusak 181). Additi onally, later in the book Hans attempts to aid a Jew marching to the death camp Dachau: â€Å"Hans Hubermann held his hand out and presented a piece of bread† (Zusak 394). The contrast between these two characters depicts the undeniable split in society in Germany during World War II. However, Zusak examines the integrity of both types of German citizens when the people of Molching hide in the bomb shelter fearfully â€Å"waiting for their final demise† by asking the reader, â€Å"Did they deserve any better, these people?† (Zusak 375). The author chooses to create two very contrasting characters and throw them into the same life threatening situation to force the reader to contemplate German citizen’s responsibility to speak out and protect the Jews. Even though 90 percent of Germans fully supported Hitler, those who disapproved of his methods often remained silent. Those who chose not to remain silent were punished. The author expresses the need for soc iety to speak out when something is wrong, even if they are of the smaller population. This is not the only time the author points out the responsibility of citizens during times of war. In addition, Zusak’s diction when describing Max for the first time portrays the betrayal of the Jews by many German citizens. Zusak first introduces Max sitting in a dark secret storage room waiting for news of whether Hans Hubermann will help him or not. The narrator Death pleads the reader, â€Å"Please try not to look away† in an attempt to portray Max’s misery and suffering (Zusak 138). When Hans agrees to shelter Max, he effectively saves Max’s life. By using the second person point of view the author appeals to the reader’s sense of compassion and sympathy, perhaps even pity, by using the word please to construct a helpless tone for the character Max. Zusak implores the reader not to look away in reference to Hans’ choice to help the struggling Jew. However, on a deeper level the author uses Hans’ situation as an example for all German citizens opposed to Hitler. In doing so, the author implies that the Germans who stood up for and aided the Jews were beneficial to society. Although Zusak gives credit to people who aided the Jews, he acknowledges those who remained silent in a very different way. Finally, Zusak uses metaphors to enhance the negative effect both Hitler supporters and Germans who opposed Hitler silently had on the Jews, enhancing the need for citizens to take responsibility during the war. While hiding in the Hubermann’s basement, Max daydreams about fist fighting Hitler. During a part of the fight in which Max is losing, Death describes Max as a â€Å"punching-bag jew† who feels the â€Å"fists of an entire entire nation† on him (Zusak 253, 254). While some â€Å"made him bleed† and others â€Å"let him suffer† each allowed him to endure pain (Zusak 254). Those who made him bleed represent the Germans who outwardly despised and targeted the Jews, whereas those who let him suffer embody the citizens who did not feel the mass extermination of Jews was socially acceptable, yet remained silent in order to protect themselves and their families. In using the metaphor of a fist fight between Max Vandenburg and Hitler, Zusak comments on the damage all German citizens caused the Jews by either supporting Hitler or remaining silent. In doing so, Zusak urges the reader to understand the importance of voicing one’s opinion. Perhaps if citizens who disagreed with the Nazis spoke out during the Second Word War less damage would have occurred. The author expresses this to demonstrate to society the need for individuals to stand up for their beliefs. The metaphor for how German citizens treated the Jews successfully illustrates the need for society to voice its opinion in times of war. Zusak thus informs the reader of a German citizen’s responsibility to protect the Jews throughout the book with his diction and by using metaphor and juxtaposition. In some ways, the author argues that it is unfair for Germans who genuinely care for the well-being of Jews, such as Hans Hubermann, to die from war in Germany. Society today follows Zusak’s views by staging peaceful protests against what many view as poor government choices. These methods of expression empower an individual to accept responsibility for his or her own communities treatment of people. Works Cited Danzer, Gerals A., Larry S. Krieger, Louis E. Wilson, and Nancy Woloch. The War in the Pacific. The Americans. By Jorge Klor De Alva. Evanston: McDougal Littell, 2007. 587. Print.Zusak, Markus. The Book Thief. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 2005. Print.

Motivations Behind the Privatization of a Public Company - 1925 Words

Motivations Behind the Privatization of a Public Company (Essay Sample) Content: NameInstructorCourseDateMotivations Behind the Privatization of a Public CompanyThere are two types of limited liability companies, private and public limited entities. Each type of company has its distinct features. It is this difference in the traits that make investors prefer investing in either of them. For example, public companies are required by law to have their shares publicly traded through the securities exchange of a country. On the other hand, private companies do not have to issue their shares to the public. In this essay, factors such as the need to increase efficiency will be discussed as the motivations behind the privatization of a public entity.Going private reduces the management time that is spent on ensuring compliance with various laws and regulations. Managers are thus able to focus on growing and running the business. The formulation of strategies that will enable the entity to gain a competitive advantage becomes the concentration of the adm inistrators. This is not the case in a public limited company. In these entities, managers work hard to ensure the organization complies with rules and regulations which are provided by the industry regulators. Among the regulations is the Sarbanes and Oxley Act (SOX). The act was formulated following the emergence of some corporate governance scandals in the United States. It entailed the establishment of harsh new corporate governance principles. The act is exceptionally comprehensive and conveys the full force of the law. The provisions of SOX are pertinent to directors, auditors and employees working for listed companies in the United States. Private companies are not required to comply with this law.The privatization of a public entity results in an improvement in efficiency. It is assumed that private companies are guided by the profit motive. For them to achieve the desired profit levels, strategies to cut on cost must be put in place. This is unlike in government run busines ses where managers do not take part in the distribution of profits. They, therefore, lack the motivation to reduce operational and production costs.The increased levels of efficiency in a private company could also be attributed to the fact that, the managers are also the owners of the business. This is because the principle of separation of ownership from management does not apply to a private limited company. The executives in the private company will thus ensure that the operational costs are maintained within minimum levels. In any case, a rise in profits will mean an increase in the income to them. For example, some entities recorded an improvement in efficiency and profitability right after conversion into a private entity. Such as situation was observed after the British Airways was privatized.The conversion of a public firm to a private entity would be motivated by the need to evade political interference in business. Unlike in the private sector where managers are driven by the strong desires to make a profit, government executives are inspired by political influences instead of sound business and economic ideologies. For instance, a government entity may recruit surplus workers, a majority of whom will have no task to perform in the organization. Further, the government may find it hard to lay them off because by doing so, it shall not be delivering its promise of job creation. Therefore, it is clear that state-owned firms hire more than the required number of employees resulting in an increase in inefficiency.The majority of government policies established interfere with the operations of the public and not the private sector. Examples are fiscal and monetary policies. The government may set the minimum/maximum price at which companies are expected to sell their products to consumers. Private manufacturers are not bound to sell their products at that price, but it is mandatory for public enterprises to abide by the new policy. The government also i nterferes with business activities during the annual elections held by public companies. The involvement may be motivated by self and other motives that are not in line with business objectives and goals. On the contrary, it is possible that the government may have a genuine reason to interfere with the activities of a public company. These take place more when an economy is in a depression, and economic conditions are worsening. The public could erroneously understand these actions as political interference. Such political snooping be it genuine or not does not occur in the private company. Private entities are formed to be in the business for a definite period. Within that period, they tend to focus more on their set goals rather than politics.A public company may be privatized to avoid the annual filing of audited financial statements with the Securities Exchange of a country. The publication of the statements makes them available to the public for scrutiny and analysis. Compe titors may get access to them. They may in return use them to identify areas where the company has a weakness that they can successfully exploit. Investors use the financial statements to make investment decisions. Based on the performance of the enterprise, they may decide to either withdraw their investment or invest more in the business. Compliance with the numerous legal restrictions and formalities make the management of a public enterprise very cumbersome and expensive unlike in the private company (Kershaw 12).The regulation of annual filing of returns does not apply to limited private enterprises. This is advantageous to the company as it can maintain its secrets and weaknesses without disclosing them to competitors. Private companies are exempted from publishing their annual financial statements because they do not source for capital from the public. Their shares are not issued to the public, but to specific institutional investors and other individuals who may be the owner s of the business. The managers of private entities end up getting more time to concentrate on other business activities. They, therefore, avoid the responsibility of preparing financial statements and incurring an extra cost to have them audited.Private companies are not required by the companies act cap 486 to hold an annual and statutory meeting. This is dissimilar to public entities which must hold the shareholders and other stakeholders meeting every year. The purpose of the gathering is to ensure compliance with the law, which requires the meeting to be held annually.Private companies are required to hold annual general meeting after a certain duration has elapsed but not yearly. This is beneficial to them because organizing a meeting is a costly and hectic affair. For a meeting to be held, a notice must be sent to every shareholder and the directors. The notice contains the venue, time and the agendas to be discussed in the meeting. Before the meeting, financial statements ha ve to be prepared and audited in readiness for their presentation to the shareholders. During the meeting election of new directors to replace those whose term may have expired or have resigned takes place through voting. Exemption from the regulation of holding the annual general meeting saves a lot of management time and financial resources.Private companies enjoy the benefit of quick decision making. This is different from the case in public companies where major decisions are made through voting. The votes are cast by all shareholders present in person or by a proxy either through the secret ballot or by the show of hands. Even though quality decisions may be arrived at, the decision-making process is slow. In a private company, decisions are made by the directors in consultation with other top executives; no meetings are required to be held, and the consultations are minimized. Approval from the few shareholders is not necessary for growth and operational strategies to be selec ted. However, the decisions and strategies selected have to be within the scope of the activities specified in the corporate records. It is, therefore, clear that the need to simplify and fasten the decision-making process would lead to the privatization of a public entity.The government may privatize a public entity in a bid to st...