Discuss apparent differences between Dante’s medieval Christianity and Christianity today (avoid obvious distinctions between Catholicism and Protestant Christianity more generally).
Consider specific sins that most or many do not consider sinful today (such as usury, or lending money at interest [Canto XI]). How can behavior be sinful in one era and not in another when these sins are specifically described in the Bible?
Evaluate Dante’s graded classifications of various sins, proceeding from the least to the worst as Dante and Virgil descend lower into the depths of hell. Point out any sins that you think should be shifted either higher or lower in the scale (least terrible at top, worst at bottom).
The Mau resistance in 1952 was unquestionably caused by the growing strains between the Kikuyu and the white European pioneers in Kenya. Nonetheless, in spite of developing distress, the exact reasons for the resistance stay vague. This paper will talk about various conceivable purposes behind the revolt, looking at the financial, social and political strains caused by the frontier organization trying to find the genuine explanations behind the Mau resistance and why the Kikuyu were so troubled with their provincial executives. Seemingly a standout amongst the most essential purposes behind the Mau disobedience was the monetary hardship of the Kikuyu. The Kikuyu had for quite some time been troubled with white pilgrims in Kenya taking their territory, and their financial hardship prompt immense discontent all through the Kikuyu. Despite endeavors to address this issue, the Kikuyu's were overlooked. Michael Coray has contended that by neglecting to make a framework through which Africa grievances against white pilgrims could be settled reasonably, the Kikuyu developed more disappointed with the frontier organizations failures, consequently having a huge impact in the advancement of the Mau insubordination. Financial hardship proceeded all through frontier govern; by 1948, 1.25 million Kikuyu were confined to 2000 square miles while 30,000 white pioneers possessed 12,000 square miles, exhibiting the degree to which the Kikuyu were impeded by the white pilgrims, causing them outrage and disdain. Accordingly to these poor living conditions, there was an enormous increment in the quantity of Kikuyu moving to the urban communities; prompting neediness, joblessness and overpopulation. Despite these elements, it has been contended that financial hardship was not of specific significance in connection to why the Mau disobedience broke out. Claude Welch has asserted that grievances were communicated fundamentally on an inborn premise rather than a class premise, which he utilizes as confirmation to propose that financial hardship isn't as noteworthy a factor as one may believe. However, paying little mind to regardless of whether it contributed extraordinarily to the break out of the Mau defiance, there is little uncertainty that the distress caused by monetary hardship affected the Kikuyu, and trough this added to the Mau disobedience. And in addition monetary hardship, the Kikuyu were apparently enraged by their loss of financial freedom amid the pioneer time frame. As Eric Brown has expressed, the loss of land to white pilgrims implied not just that the Kikuyu were dispossessed of their territory, yet in addition that they needed to then look for some kind of employment to bring home the bacon; generally working for the white settlers. Brown has paralleled this with Serfdom, and contends that Kikuyu dependence on white pioneers caused an expansion in social strains among the Kikuyu. Though as of now off guard, the Kikuyu would likewise procure by and large just a fifth of the installment which white specialists would acquire for a similar measure of work, which just encouraged the Kikuyu disdain of the pilgrims. Regardless of moving to the urban communities, which one should seriously mull over puts the Kikuyu at a financial preferred standpoint, the Kikuyu were in certainty burdened while thinking about their prosperous position before provincial organization; espresso developing specifically was a remunerating industry because of the prolific land held by the Kikuyu, thus the restriction of espresso becoming forced by the frontier government injured the Kikuyu. In this light, a disobedience to the British pioneers may be viewed as inescapable. The Kikuyu were the most crowded ethnic gathering in Kenya, with what Brown calls a "thriving society; along these lines, when the Mau offered them a chance to rebel against British imperialism, the gathering developed rapidly. One could then contend that a principle motivation behind why the Mau disobedience broke out was so the Kikuyu could recapture the financial freedom that they ached for, and were utilized to preceding provincial interruption. Nonetheless, the social states of the Kikuyu can't be overlooked when endeavoring to address the fundamental purposes behind the break out of the Mau resistance. Unforgiving limitations were put upon the Kikuyu; they were exhausted vigorously (which when one considers that they were acquiring just a fifth of the wages white pilgrims were winning, appears to be especially severe), and racial strains expanded. White pioneers saw the Kikuyu as horticultural rivalry, along these lines clarifying why such substantial confinements were set upon them. Disciplinary measures were presented by white pilgrims on the Kikuyu who took a shot at their property; laborers were regularly tormented or mishandled by the white settlers. This terrible treatment of the Kikuyu just maddened them further and caused more noteworthy discontent amongst highly contrasting. Nearby their monetary hardship, the Kikuyu and other individuals of Africa were made to feel like outcasts inside their country, and wound up distanced from society. Numerous Kikuyu had no real option except to wind up squatters on white land, which to them appeared to be debasing considering the land was legitimately theirs. There were additionally expanding pressures between the Kikuyu individuals themselves. Kikuyu arrive proprietors and those compelled to take a shot at white land started to disdain each other; Furedi contends that this prompted the land proprietors and their white partners discharging "an influx of suppression onto those with no land, in this way expanding social strains all through Kenya. This implied poorer Kikuyu specialists were maddened by the white pilgrims as well as by their own particular individuals, subsequently reinforcing the contention that the Mau disobedience was a 'laborer revolt' against the affluent and the white. The huge development of the Kikuyu Central Association likewise represents the break out of the Mau resistance in 1952. The KCA made its points unmistakable to recover the land taken from them - and ran a crusade of common insubordination keeping in mind the end goal to challenge the white pilgrims taking their land, which exhibits the agitation among the Kikuyu before the disobedience. The KCA additionally made radical requests, for instance the arrival of their property, in anticipation of coming back to their monetary position preceding pioneer rule. The development in participation of the KCA can be represented in the prominent requests it made; for instance, higher wages and the privilege to develop espresso again. It has just been built up that the Kikuyu were enormously miserable with their social and financial position inside Kenya, thus the KCA offered them a chance to voice their discontent and endeavor to roll out an improvement through persuading the legislature that if their requests were not met, they would make more trouble. Despite these dissents, the KCA was to a great extent overlooked by the frontier government, in this way encouraging strains between the two. The KCA's grievances started in the 1930s, thus when the Mau resistance broke out in 1952, decades had gone with little change to profit the Kikuyu, and consequently the disobedience had ostensibly been bound to happen. Therefore, the development of the KCA mirrors the growing strains among the Kikuyu which prompted the Mau insubordination of 1952. Another key purpose behind the break out of the Mau resistance in 1952 was the interior divisions inside the Kikuyu. It has been contended that there "never was a solitary Mau Mau. One conceivable explanation behind this contention is that the Mau never made their objectives obvious; numerous have endeavored to find their objectives through Mau activities, but there is no strong proof to propose what the Mau's objectives may be. Clough has contended that Mau objectives were political, and that they needed to "drive out the white pioneers and separate African "enemies. There is unquestionably some legitimacy to this contention; as Clough notes, diaries from Mau gatherings demonstrate that an awesome exertion was made arranging what the Mau relationship ought to be with confined pioneers, and how they would speak with the British to get their message across, showing the significance of political inspirations. Others have contended that their objectives were sparing, and that as beforehand expressed the Kikuyu individuals strived to recapture their financial autonomy that was lost through colonialism. The Mau was a quickly growing gathering, and in this manner the absence of a notable, shared objective implied that inner divisions were unavoidable. Thusly the resistance in 1952 was seemingly caused by Mau aims to accomplish something keeping in mind the end goal to abstain from being viewed as a radical gathering without an objective. Be that as it may, as Lonsdale has called attention to, regardless of inside divisions, the Mau were bound to each other by any desires for citizenship and bureaucracy, and along these lines maybe the broadness of such an objective profited the Mau instead of causing a fizzled uprising. It can along these lines be presumed that there were various explanations behind the break out of the Mau defiance in 1952. Ostensibly the most essential reason for the disobedience was the financial discontent of caused by white pilgrims guaranteeing Kikuyu land and its results. The confinements set upon the Kikuyu, both financially and socially, likewise assumed a noteworthy part in the break out of the disobedience, as the Kikuyu were made to feel distanced from their own particular society and subdued by white pioneers. Be that as it may, the in all likelihood reason for the Mau disobedience was a mix of all the above elements, which prompted a development in discontent among the Kikuyu and left them with no other option than to revolt. In this sense, it can be reasoned that there was not only one reason for the Mau disobedience, however a tremendous measure of shifting causes including financial, social and political pressures.>GET ANSWER