A Comparison Between Chesapeake And New England History Essay

A Comparison Between Chesapeake And New England History Essay During the period between the later parts of 16th century and early 17th century, most to the European nations were so eager to continue in their current state of colonizing different states within the newly found Americas. One particular European nation that had a clearly mapped out strategy and so clearly sent out many groups to most of the parts of eastern coast especially two parts known as Chesapeake and New England is England. It is worth noting that there was a scramble and a rush in a bid to conquer as many nations as possible due to the benefits that would result in the process. As a result in the late 1700s the two nations that were conquered by England later joined up to become one nation. However, it should be noted that from the onset, the two nations were unique and their own unique identities. The differences that existed between these two nations actually illustrate the main reason why England decided to colonize them at that time. This article brings out the major di fferences that existed between Chesapeake and New England in terms of their English Colonies. Land use is the first variation that existed between Chesapeake and New England. It is important to note that the New England had interests in terms of land use that was basically distinct from Chesapeake. In terms of Chesapeake, the major interest was basically in the large land coverage that included Rhode Island, Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay Colony, New Haven and Connecticut. These locations represented a massive amount of land that Chesapeake was basically interested in. The English settlers around this region were mainly interested in mining activities which included the mining of gold as well as silver. They were hoped to find these minerals to help them in their trading activities. In addition they were also in the land to find a northwest link to Asia so that they would expand their trading activities. It is also worth noting that the quest to find a cure the syphilis disease was also part of their mission in the land. This can also be combined with the quest to find any meani ngful valuable that they could carry for trade back in Europe. On the other hand, the New England settler had a different motive concerning their settlement on the land. They were majorly concerned about the artisan industries that were comprised of printing, carpentry and shipbuilding. As a result their major mission was to find materials in the land that could help them in terms of expanding their mission in the land which was mainly comprised of expanding the artisan industry. Labor also characterized the mission of the Chesapeake and New England settlers in North America. Chesapeake region was mainly swampy and not suitable for typical crop growing activities. However 5 years after their arrival in the land saw the discovery of tobacco which actually did well. In this regard, it is important to note that due to the tobacco growing in the land, Chesapeake settler used and employed cheap labor in their fields. As a matter of fact, they developed an indentured servitude system in which individuals who desired free passage to America had offer their services in terms of labor for some years before being allowed to enter into America. On the other hand, New England region was not characterized of large farms and so most of them basically depended on small farms and other home-based type of industries such as carpentry and printing. Due to the home-based industry businesses, the New England settlers did not need to hire labor as their families were enough to pr ovide the needed labor force for their work. As a result, it is worth noting that slavery never developed much in the northern part as compared to the southern. Religion also formed a major difference between the Chesapeake and New England settlers in America. It is worth noting that most of the New Englanders majorly composed of the Puritan Separatists who were in the quest for freedom in religion. This came at a time the Church of England actually separated from the Catholicism which was the major religion at that time during the reign of Henry VIII. As a result, the major religion of this land was largely composed of Protestantism. It should, however, be noted that a given group with the protestants actually wanted a complete separation from Catholicism. As a result, they went ahead to establish the Anglican Church. However, it should be noted that this only became a reality after 1692. The religious tone of the region was low as many people never really had interest in the England church. On the other hand, the New Englander had claims that they were actually more godly in comparison to any other group of colonialists. This region was ma inly composed of a section of settlers who were escaping persecution due to their religious faith. As a result, the region became extremely religious-based and actually had claims that they were far more godly than all other colonists  [1]  . Social composition between Chesapeake and New England settlers was also different. As a matter of fact, it is worth noting that Chesapeake region was categorically set apart for male settlement which was first composed of businessmen as well as adventure seekers. Later on, there was the introduction of the indentured slaves and servants who were actually willing to seek opportunity for work in the new country. Diseases and difficulty of work due to the conditions in the place at that time actually led to most of them being widely spread in the entire region. As a result, their life expectancy levels went lower as compared to their New England counterparts. In addition, the disease condition as well as the difficult labor condition made the families to stay apart in the quest for better environment free from sickness. This led to so much instability in the region in terms of social organization  [2]  . There were people who were constantly being shipped into the region for the pur poses of making the region well balanced socially. The social rungs were also characterized by major gaps as only plantation owners were at the top, a very small group of small scale farmers at the middle section, and the indentured slaves combined with the servants at the bottom part of the grid. This created such a major imbalance in the social balance of this region since the shortages were being felt in almost all the spheres of social networks of this particular side. On the other hand, the social composition as well as the demographic mix of New England was highly different. This is because this particular region was mainly composed of colonialists having their towns as well as families which move together. Their level of prosperity, therefore, grew further since they were always together. As a result of the unity, this society was well balanced socially and even economically. Religion and family also prospered due to stability in the social composition. This was highly contri buted to by the fact that they were constantly together. It can, therefore, be noted that New England provided a healthy society in which individuals colonialists developed socially and spiritually  [3]  . In conclusion, it is important to note that in as much as both Chesapeake and New England settlers had a common goal of looking for better territories which could provide them with more economic, social and religious freedom, there were various differences that actually existed between them. The differences were majorly in terms of the land use which saw both settlers having different purposes for the land they had acquired; religion whereby the colonialists had different spiritual needs and agenda in the lands in which they settled; social composition whereby both Chesapeake and New England colonial settlers had different social needs, challenges which influenced their prosperity and religious practice in their lands of settlement; economic achievements were also different as the level of economic growth of the settlers differed majorly due to the extent of trading activities as well as availability of market for their commodities. It can therefore be noted that New England and Ches apeake were similar in terms of their mission but different in terms of activities that there involved with in the land in which they settled.

Cola Wars Continue: Coke vs. Pepsi in the 1990s Essay

Question 1 The concentration producing industry has one buyer and through its value chain. Instead, costs for advertising, promotion, market research, and bottler relations were significant. On the other hand, bottling industry is the mid-way player in the soft drink industry. There are two suppliers and one buyer involved in its value chain (Exhibit 1). Whether two industries are profitable depends on soft drink consumption, which had increased for more than 20 years and plateaued in the 1990s. The economics of the CP and bottling is very different from each other in terms of number and size of rivals, and the scope of competitive rivalry. There are two giants competing head to head on the CP industry, smaller national producers, such as Seven-Up and Dr Pepper, are relatively trivial. There are a lot of players of same size in the bottling industry. Unlike the furious competition between Pepsi and Coke, no sense of competition can be felt in bottling industry. Reasons are that, first, Pepsi and Coke control the majority of bottlers in 1990s; second, intrabrand competition is restricted by the franchise agreement, which is protected by ‘Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act’. From the view of capital requirement, it is easier for others to enter the CP industry than to enter the bottling industry, since comparing to $30-$50 million dollars requirement to establish a bottling plant covering only one 80th of ability to serve the entire US market, the requirement for one CP plant with a nation-wide capacity is only $5-$10 million dollars. In addition, brand loyalty is low in the CP industry since consumers are sensitive to price and there is little switching cost. There are many substitutes for soft drinks, such as tea, beer, and milk. There is no substitutes existing in the bottling industry, and no customer loyalty and switching costs for bottlers since they could only use packages authorized by the franchiser, which means no distributors can tell the difference of the same brand provided by two bottlers, and easily switch among different bottlers. Cost and financial structures of a CP and a bottler illustrate that high cost of sales is one of the major reasons behind the relative low profitability of the bottling industry. The ratio of cost of sales over net sales is 40% higher than that of CP. One possible reason is that bottlers heavily depend on CPs, and thus, CPs use bottlers to diversify expenses. Another reason is that bottlers hold much more inventory than CPs do since bottlers receive soft drink concentrates according to its processing capacity, while they sell products based on selling capability. Also, bottlers have plant and equipment that are ten times more than that of CPs, and a good will that is roughly 45 times more, which means that bottlers have to deduct more depreciation from gross profit than CPs do. One of the reasons why bottlers are backward integrated by CPs is that, as the Cola-war heating up, small bottlers were no longer able to handle CPs’ goals and thus they would not be chosen as Pepsi and Coke’s partners. Most of them were merged or driven out of the market by larger ones adopting the DSD method, which is the only delivery category that provides a positive net profit per unit. Other driving forces for Pepsi and Coke to integrate bottlers are that, by doing this, they can narrow down the number of packagers they deal with, lower costs of negotiation with bottlers, and set up barriers to find buyers for other smaller national CPs. Question 2 Bargaining power of buyers is the weakest competitive force for CPs. On the other hand, the strongest competitive force for the bottling industry is bargaining power of suppliers because of the interactional relationship between the two industries in question. Both of the two industries would like to weak each other’s bargaining power, however, CPs take the initiative in the negotiation. First, it is CPs who build franchise networks. CPs understand how the bottling process works, while the bottlers don’t know how to run a soft drink brand. Second, CPs negotiate with bottlers’ other suppliers to secure reliable supply, faster  delivery, and low price. Also, franchise agreement between CPs and bottlers has been becoming more favorable to CPs. So it is safe to say that bottlers have been affiliated to CPs to a deeper degree than CPs to bottlers. Finally, the bottling industry does not have giants who are able to penetrate into the CP industry. On the other hand, the CP industry has Pepsi and Coke to integrate bottlers. Threat of new entrants is the second weakest force for the CP industry. One of the major reasons is that it is difficult to access a bottler since like Pepsi and Coke are taking control of most of the packagers. Another reason is, although capital required to establish a soft drink concentrate plant with the capacity of serving the entire US market is low, costs for advertising, promotion, market research and bottler relations are a heavy burden and specialized know-how, such as brand management, is a natural barrier to penetrators. However, the fact that customers’ loyalty is becoming weaker makes the force not as weak as bargaining power of buyers. The bargaining power of suppliers to CPs also seems weak in the case since, as the advent of diet soft drinks, the expiration of the patent to aspartame, and oversupply of aluminum on the world market, suppliers to CPs are losing bargaining power. However, there is no detail of suppliers industry given to provide us with confidence to say that it is the weakest force. Threat of substitutes, and competitive rivalry among the incumbents are relatively weak for the CP industry. Comparing to its substitutes, such as beer, milk, and bottled water, soft drink is and will continue to be performing outstandingly (Exhibit 2). Type of competition in the CP industry is duopoly, two giants, Pepsi and Coke are competing with each other head to head. Other CPs are confined to a market share that is lower than 30%. The unsystematic competition makes competitive rivalry less intense when consider the industry as a whole. Threat to new entrants for bottling industry is weak since, unlike the CP industry, bottling industry has a high capital requirement, from $30 to $50  million, to build a plant of five lines with one 85th to one 80th of the national volume. There is even no profit margin for small bottlers because they are not big enough to be engaged in the DSD to make a positive profit. Bargaining power of buyers is the third weakest force for the bottling industry. To bottlers, they receive volumes of concentrates at the level of their processing capacity; while at the other end of value chain, number of cases they can sell depends on bottlers’ marketing capability. To retailers, they don’t have switch costs since Pepsi Cola from bottler ‘A’ is the same as that from bottler ‘B’. However, continual brand availability and maintenance is crucial to CPs, they don’t want to see that too much inventory held by packagers erode relationship with each other. So, CPs have to help bottlers work on marketing and how to deal with retailers. Threat of substitutes, and competitive rivalry among the incumbents are the weakest. First, there are no substitutes for packages. Second, there is no competition among bottlers in that not only is intrabrand competition restricted, but also competition among brands are concerned by CPs since the bottlers are heavily controlled by concentrate suppliers nowadays. Question 3 The reason why the Cola-War does not escalate out of control is that both of Pepsi and Coke understand the importance of keeping its rival alive. Strategically, they are vital to each other’s maintenance. There are three possible results of the Cola-war, monopoly, duopoly, and near prefect competition. All players in this industry are dreaming to be the king of monopoly. However, under current situation, it is difficult to defeat each other without harming themselves for both of Pepsi and Coke. Launching plans and actions aiming at eliminating its competitor will probably result in the third result, near prefect competition, in which the industry would only have players bearing the same size as nowadays Seven-Up and Dr Pepper. Obviously, duopoly is the best and easiest choice for the big two. First, as risk avoiders, they can maintain current size and dominant position in the market, keep small national brands at an inferior level. Second, they can keep business environment nearly unchanged. The duopoly situation has been lasting for more than two decades. It is the one they are familiar to. No matter whoever is driven out of business or both of them lose the dominant position, they have to re-evaluate the industry and re-plan their strategic plan. Third, they can lower the possibility of making mistakes by observing what each other are doing. Based on above reasons, Pepsi and Coke choose not to wage a war that is out of control. Methods Coke and Pepsi adopt to keep the war within ‘bounds’ are focusing on key success factors, following each other’s actions selectively, and realizing gap in international market. There are three KSFs in this industry, brand differentiation, relationship with packagers, and developing new beverages. Focusing on KSFs enable both of Pepsi and Coke stay in the right track leading to higher level competition of duopoly. Following each other’s actions selectively prevents them from distracting to dangerous actions. They both followed closely each other’s actions based on KSFs, such as launching marketing plans, vertical integrating bottlers, and develop new products. They also distinguish bad actions from good ones. For instance, Pepsi gave its employees one-day brake when it received the information that Coke decided to change its Coca-Cola’s formula. Pepsi has admitted that Coke is much stronger on international market. It is very important that it uses ‘guerilla warfare’ in selected international market instead a frontal attack with Coke everywhere, which would entrap Pepsi in the quicksands of international market. Question 4 Over the last century, firms specialized in tobacco, food, and restaurant, such as Philip Morris, Hicks & Haas, Triarc, R.J. Reynolds, and Cadbury Schweppes, tried to penetrate into the soft drink industry through purchasing small national CPs like Dr Pepper, Seven-Up, and Royal Crown Cola, however, few of them survived. Reasons for this fact fell with the faulty strategic planning process. Those who entered but do not end up with success failed to recognize three key success factors in this industry in the beginning, building brand recognition, developing packaging networks, and changing distribution channels. First, Pepsi successfully competed with Coke through adopting brand differentiation. In responding to Pepsi’s attack, Coke spent even more money on advertising, which gained two companies world wide fame, heated up the war between them, and shaped their capacity to remain as top players. However, other CPs did not cash in on the brand differentiation strategy, which can be illustrated by a compare of dollar amount spending on advertising by brand in the US. (Exhibit 3) Second, there was no evidence that small national CPs tried to secure packagers to build their bottling network. Instead, they had to resort to bottlers owned by Pepsi and Coke, while small bottlers do not have the capacity to handle national distribution. Costs for new entrants to maintain bottler relations or organize small bottlers are so high that may eat up gross profit. Finally, as discount retailers such as Wal-Mart and K mart prospered during the 1990s, CPs are facing pressures on lowering their wholesale price. Besides, it seems only Pepsi and Coke were involved in Door-Store Delivery method, CPs that sell products to private label and warehouse would be facing less distributors due to negative net profit/unit.

The Basic Facts of Remembering Someone Who Passed Essay Samples

The Basic Facts of Remembering Someone Who Passed Essay Samples Somehow, it is sti influence my life, even when you aren't here. Most often whenever your mind is occupied with plenty of things, falling asleep can be quite difficult. In the end, the reason for death is the work of the immediate family, and nobody else's. Now's the time to generate justice a reality for every one of God's children. However, make certain you're being sensitive with your humor, since you don't wish to wind up upsetting anyone from the audience. Your audience may wish to feel you've captured the gist of the individual what makes them special. Yet, we should notice that the individual you select should not necessarily be someone who played a vital part in your life. Describe 1 event and the feelings related to it. It's the writer's responsibility to compose an obituary which will be in a position to get to the family and friends of the deceased individual, not to mention the readers. Then let another person have a possiblity to offer condolences. Sometimes you simply don't know as soon as you can fall asleep when you're contemplating someone. If somebody doesn't understand something, it isn't hard to forget it. The Advantages of Remembering Someone Who Passed Essay Samples Make sure nearly all the panes of glass are intact, since you will use the panes as picture frames. So far as wedding memorials go, the memory table appears to be absolutely the most popular method of doing things. He's exactly like a potter who's adept in making pots and making the art form of pottery in the procedure. An exception to this is the location where you're employing a part of poetry or song, in which case you might want the specific words to hand. This is sometimes a fantastic homeschool writing activity! Needless to say, such procedure can be applicable to anybody. This is an ongoing cycle that's always in motion even unconsciously. Click the button and discover it on your PC. In the event that you were planning to do it halfassed you might as well not do it whatsoever. You may also ask another person to proofread your work for you. After the time comes, Please, I would like to go. At times, it's much more difficult to fall asleep at night when you're missing someone. An unusual method to honor deceased family members at your wedding is to visit a salvage yard and discover an old window or two, maybe even three, based on their size. A guy isn't a financial plan. In case the individual would like to talk, listen. The Chronicles of Remembering Someone Who Passed Essay Samples There are happy memories of those that are gone, though we're sad also. Describe two or three snapshot moments. What Does Remembering Someone Who Passed Essay Samples Mean? Age plays a significant part in the capabilities of an individual's memory. The discovery of the numerous stages and levels of memory and the way they apply to different age groups was evaluated. The information processed for this amount of memory is often encoded unconsciously. The previous step in the info processing is retrieval. This process demands using the Hippocampus. Put simply, the encoding procedure is just a gathering of information. There are an assortment of sizes and prints to pick from! Information is continually being added to the memory, whether an individual remembers to remember. At times it's ideal to not say anything but simply be there to reveal your support. The Hidden Gem of Remembering Someone Who Passed Essay Samples A poem is a part of literary work. The term poem is frequently used in the feeling of somebody bit of work. It is surely not essential to write memorial poems alone. The most suitable poem is an excellent tribute to a loving grandparent. It's typically referred to as a commemoration of somebody's death. And nobody knows the heartache As we attempt to carry on. You'll forever in my heart.

How To Say Might or May in Spanish

Translating the English auxiliary verbs might and may to Spanish cant be done directly because Spanish doesnt have auxiliary verbs with those meanings. Instead, expressing those concepts in Spanish requires translating for meaning, and both of those auxiliary verbs, whose meanings overlap, have multiple meanings. In other words, you cant take a simple sentence such as I might leave and stick a word between yo (the pronoun for I) and salir (the verb for leave) to say what you want. In this case, you need to figure out that the sentence means something like Maybe I will leave and then translate that. When ‘May’ or ‘Might’ Suggests Possibility Often, maybe and might can be used more or less interchangeably to suggest that maybe something will happen. In these cases you can provide the meaning of maybe using words such as quizà ¡s (sometimes quizà ¡), posiblemente, acaso, or talvez (sometimes tal vez); or phrases such as puede ser que, es posible que, or a lo mejor. The words and phrases are sometimes used with a verb in the subjunctive mood. Tal vez (yo) lea un libro. (I might read a book. I may read a book.)Posiblemente vamos a necesitar hogares temporales. (We may need temporary homes. We might need temporary homes.)Hoy posiblemente vaya a comprar mi celular. (Today I might buy my cellphone. Today I may buy my cellphone.)Acaso nieve en la segunda mitad del mes. (It might rain in the second half of the month. It may rain in the second half of the month.)Tal vez la luz sea un poco mà ¡s intensa. (The light might be a little more intense. The light may be a little more intense.)A lo mejor, resulta bien. (It may turn out fine. It might turn out fine.)Creo que es posible que Considerando lo anterior podrà ­amos concluir que la justicia es imposible. (Considering what just happened, we might as well conclude that justice is impossible.)en 10 aà ±os haya humanos en Marte. (I believe that in 10 years there may be humans on Mars. I believe that in 10 years there might be humans on Mars.)Es posible que lo leyera. (She may hav e read it. She might have read it.)Tal vez sea verdad. (It may be true. It might be true.)Es posible que se haya perdido.  (He might have got lost.) When ‘May’ Is Used for Asking Permission May (and, less commonly, might) is sometimes used to ask for approval or permission. Common ways of asking for permission are to use poder or permitir, although other ways are possible. Podrà ­a asistir a la escuela? Puedo asistir a la escuela? (May I attend the school?) ¿Me permites ver a tus padres hoy? (May I see your parents today?) ¿Podrà ­a beber una cerveza?  ¿Puedo beber una cerveza? (May I drink a beer?)Se prohibe fumar aquà ­. (You may not smoke here.)Pidià ³ permiso para comer. (He asked if he might eat.) You can translate might similarly when it is being used to offer a suggestion: Podrà ­as tomar una pastilla de dormir. (You might take a sleeping pill.Podrà ­as pensar en una mejor opcià ³n. (You might think of a better option.)Podrà ­amos caminar a la playa. (We might walk to the beach. Note that the English sentence standing alone is ambiguous. If the person is using might to suggest possibility, a different translation would be used.) Translating ‘May’ in Wishes Sentences beginning with may to express desires or wishes can be translated by starting a sentence with que and using the subjunctive mood.  ¡Que Dios te bendiga! (May God bless you!) Que todo el mundo vaya a votar. (May everyone go to vote.) Que encuentres felicidad en todo lo que hagas. (May you find happiness in everything you do.) Translating ‘Might As Well’ Theres no single translation that always works for might as well or the less common may as well. Check the context to see what nuance of meaning might work best. Me convendrà ­a estudiar. (I might as well study. Literally, it would suit me fine to study.)Serà ­a mejor si vinieras conmigo. (You might as well come with me. Literally, it would be better if you came with me.)Considerando lo anterior podrà ­amos concluir que la justicia es imposible. (Considering what just happened, we might as well conclude that justice is impossible. Literally, considering the previous, we could conclude that justice is impossible.) Key Takeaways Spanish does not have any auxiliary verbs that are the equivalent of may or might.When may or might suggest possibility, you can translate using words or phrases that mean maybe.Verbs of permission can be used for translating may or might when they are being used for seeking approval.