The best description of Nirvana as it applies to the Buddhists would be that it is the ultimate goal--one in which the human is free from all earthy desires and has obtained true enlightenment.
One major difference between Noah’s and Rector’s historical interpretation of the War on Poverty is Noah described poverty as a societal failure rather than personal moral failings.
Explanation:
In the interpretation of the war on poverty Noah and Rector does not possess same thinking. As Noah thought that poverty is a social curse in which one has nothing to do. War is one of the cause of financial crisis that led to poverty in the society. People used to lose their property, money everything in the war.
On the other side Rector do not think that poverty is a social curse. He thought that poverty is caused to anyone due to the failings of one's personal moral values. He thought poverty can be replenished if anyone's want. It has no power to be heavy on one's life.
I think it is C. PLZ tell me if I am wrong
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
