Aboriginal title on the lands of Canada Essay Example for Free

Aboriginal title on the lands of Canada Essay Aboriginal title on the lands of Canada is a complex issue today. The question is that these peoples settled on the land much earlier than did the residents from Great Britain and Europe on the whole. It is quite fair to leave after Aboriginal unity of people the lands which were occupied by their predecessors. The basic element in this issue concerning people’s rights is to save social equilibrium in the Canadian society. Thus, there should be an explicit estimation of policies and agencies maintained through the Supreme Court in British Columbia and Ontario as well as in other states and provinces of the country. See more: Foot Binding In China essay This makes a controversy between the First Nations and current residents in applying policies grounded on the Constitution and some other laws and acts which attempt to break down the peaceful resolution of the situation with land claims. Everything which touches upon the law field of relationships between individuals should be weighed lawfully. What is more, large social groups should correspond to the norms of justice and impartiality on the part of the representatives of law. Aboriginal people of Canada seem to be outside the policies and processes which form and establish suchlike policies. Thus, it is unlawful for the majority of Canada to deny the right of Aboriginal communities to have their lands far from being captured, even though Canada is a largely multinational country. To provide arguments for this claim, the paper leads toward thorough investigation of peer-reviewed articles on the topic. On the other hand, it is focused on finding out the optimal decision to work out the problem currently and in the future. Looking at the Delgamuukw decision maintained in 1997 in British Columbia, it is quite clear that the Court could not have an idea on the â€Å"Aboriginal title† and how to govern it insofar (Dacks, 2002). It was, particularly, the only mismatch for the political authorities in order to designate the place of Aboriginal people in Canada. Here comes an opinion that since 1846 when British Columbia became sovereign there were no applicable laws or norms to support those who were already present on the land by the date of European settlement. An expert in this socio-political problem would recognize a set of impediments on the way toward better negotiation on the land claims policies. It is a matter of diplomatic regulatory mechanisms which are beyond disagreement when it comes into such subtle topic for the investigation. Dacks (2002) identified three basic elements encountered in the process of anticipation between province and federal governments and Aboriginal communities in British Columbia, namely: 1) Anticipating the issue between governments and Aboriginal people by dint of litigation; 2) Governments’ limitations on their political mandates; 3) Perceiving the meaning of the title Aboriginal people long for by the governments and settling land claims (243). This would ideally fit the manner and the way for resolving the contradictory points in the debates on the land claims and policing in Canada hitherto. One needs to rally thoughts over the aspect of Aboriginal policy agencies (APA’s) which are distinctly vital to maintain dialogue in the ambivalence in terms of governments and indigenous people (Malloy, 2001). This matter is open for the discussion today, but leaves more rights and jurisdiction after the governments. According to the Constitution Act, 1867 leaving provinces space for â€Å"Indians and land reserved for the Indians,† everything seems clear and lawfully (Malloy, 2001, p. 131). However, the litigation as for the current land claims policies needs some cornerstone amendments. It is especially vital to provide indigenous people with a democratic direction in working out their place â€Å"under the sun. † On the local level, provincial governments established in British Columbia and in Ontario are stated to be unexamined on the constitutional and jurisdiction level. Hence, it becomes hard for Aboriginal communities to realize and come closer to their own rights as of their title. APA’s serve two main function in this complicated dialogue on the political level, namely: 1. Internal regulations of Aboriginal policy in terms of the provincial governments; 2. External anticipation and cooperation with First Nations (Malloy, 2001). However, even if taking into account suchlike extrapolation of Aboriginal rights, it is still unclear where the law securing indigenous people comes into effect. This is another mismatch to be put into the picture by now. In the aforementioned ambivalence of functions prescribed to APA’s one should figure out a distinct set of actors for the Aboriginal communities. It is even more distinct than among the governments who take a glance more at the employers, unions, etc. Aboriginal people are likely to negotiate with different actors on the external dimension as long as they can reach out more support thereafter. This makes APA’s different. Moreover, it assumes more governance on their lands despite the constitutional norms adopted beforehand. White (2002) provides the authority of treaty federalism in Northern Canada, as the prerequisite which gave Aboriginal people to establish their unique governance institutions outside the federal and provincial verification and coverage. This claim has plenty to talk about, as it sparks special concerns among Canadian politics today. However, every bean has its black, as they say. The idea is that indigenous people in Canada are hardly considered to be fulfilled with rights and obligations. It is better to say the issue of cultural and traditional coloring in decision-making procedure is still beyond deeper negotiations (White, 2002). Provision of the democratic freedoms played a great role for APA’s in terms of more execution in land claims by Aboriginal people. The point of land possession is partially solved, as might be seen now. However, the Aboriginal self-government promotes a collision with the public government (White, 2002). It is all about the controversy in possessing rights, territory, and holding office. Aboriginal people tend to be the only office holders on their historic lands, while the public governance presupposes such opportunity for all residents. Thus, the intent for the Aboriginal people seems to be quite air now. Speaking in a historical way, there was a treaty signed by the indigenous people with the newcomers represented by British and Canadian elite. Thus, indigenous people would never give their lands without a thoughtful implication of their own hopes and pretences. Hence, since 1970s a new round of negotiations between Canadian governments and Aboriginal communities aims at making â€Å"comprehensive land claims† available and warranted lawfully for the indigenous layer of the Canadian society. The main constructive suggestion for the Canadian political elite is to invent the most rational way to reach a compromise. It is a complicated issue that needs more attention on the part of all social groups and communities in Canada. It is not about involving the World Community in this internal issue of Canadian government, but, perhaps, it considers consultations or pieces of advice on the part of the United States, for instance. The Aboriginal property rights are largely violated in almost all aspects (Avio, 1994). However, the largest part of suchlike violation falls into the cultural features. The environmental issues as well as the political ones are highlighted to be broken down among the society. Thus, it cannot but make the aboriginal communities lose their temper. Turning back to the Delgamuukw litigation process, Dacks (2002) draws the interim measures for the aboriginal leaders, as benefits provided on the part of the social majority. Several agreements on the participation of indigenous people in such areas as forest management, tourism marketing, training, and some other prerogatives for the First Nations were established in British Columbia (Dacks, 2002). This was a real breakthrough for those who struggle for their rights. Amending some acts and norms of Canadian law system, the representatives of justice were provided constructive decisions on the issue of Aboriginal part in land claims policy: The R. v. Sparrow and R. v. Van der Peet decisions of the Supreme court established the principle that governments can infringe upon Aboriginal rights if such infringements are justifiable, and identified a test for determining if they are justifiable in individual cases (Dacks, 2002, p. 245). Still, the issue of justifiable features in providing lawful initiatives is vague in its meaning. It does not give detailed insights on whether or not Aboriginal people are secured in their property rights and everything which belongs to the territorial and cultural implications. The Aboriginal communities are really diverse in their character. They need special, unique, approach to identify a set of issues to be solved in their claims for lands. It is impossible to separate these critical issues into pieces according to the extent of their significance. Politics and sociologists have taken it into account recently. The only thing is that Aboriginal tribal communities should be discussed and evaluated as historically sovereign territorial-administrative units on the Canadian lands. This is why the issue of APA’s is that complicated currently. Actors and networks in the social domain are now critical for the indigenous people in Canada. Malloy (2001) outlines in this respect the following statement: â€Å"Provincial-Aboriginal interactions comprise two major policy communities: social policy and economic/resource policy† (138). This is why there is no ground to talk about renovations in policing for Aboriginal people, unless there are appropriate agreements on budget assets and duration of such agreements, in particular. To be more precise, since 1973, the Crown and Aboriginal people have finished 22 contemporary treaties (Alcantara, 2007). Thus, it is just the matter of time and cohesion of the provincial and federal governments to the problems of Aboriginal people. However, the thing is that not all indigenous groups in Canada are solid and united in their claims for political and administrative incentives. The question is that there are some contradictions within Aboriginal tribes. Thus, since 1970s, some of the Aboriginal peoples who were involved into the process of comprehensive land claims were not able to fulfill the treaties (Alcantara, 2007). By contrast, Canadian politics still have not enough willingness and, say, powers to single out the most appropriate consensual implication. Coming from the times when indigenous people were considered as the barbarous aliens, such alienation in the Canadian society seems to be taken for granted. It makes no point in making compromises or political steps forward a democratic way of negotiating with such unique layers of the society. Avio (1994) remarkably identifies a line on which contradiction appears: â€Å"Since all aboriginal rights are alienable to the Crown via mutual agreement, those contracts which wholly or partly convert a food fish entitlement to a commercial entitlement must be constitutionally permissible per se† (424). As there are no such permissions yet, the conflict or litigation is in evidence. To make up such issues as self-government provision, taxation policies, economical growth and some other among the Aboriginal territorial unities, Canadian provincial and federal governments should adopt some basically vital agreements. Interestingly, such policies drive two governments to making additional autonomies on the territorial-administrative political map of the country. Supposedly, it interrupts politics to be more intensive in the socio-political process with indigenous people. On the other hand, Canadians do not elaborate on the experience of other countries where suchlike problem took place or currently is in evidence. In addition, another single obstacle in the process of negotiations is that federal and provincial powers do not take indigenous people possibility to vote or participate in the process on the equal basis. The process itself is said to represent â€Å"an advanced form of control, manipulation, and assimilation† (Alcantara, 2007, p. 348). In turn it leads toward consideration of majority-minority relationships with larger emphasis on the opinion of the majority only. It comes out to be that Canadian provincial governments under the pressure of the top politics in the federal government are likely to propose an alternative for the indigenous people. The idea is that self-government form of governance seems no longer possible for the jurisdiction and economical relationships internally. Thus, interim measures could be just like a â€Å"veil† on the face of Aboriginal people. Claims-mandated boards were supposed to work out the problem by implementing them, as â€Å"institutions of public governance† on the historically Aboriginal territories (White, 2002, p. 94). Once again, it brings the overall climate of negotiations toward nothing. To say more, it renders null all attempts to make an â€Å"equal† consensus visible and applicable to the situations. On the other side, the above mentioned proposal on the part of the governments is aimed at reducing the controversy among different tribes. To conclude, the process of treaties between Canadian majority and Aboriginal minorities is still in process. Thus, it is unlawful for the majority of Canada to deny the right of Aboriginal communities to have their lands far from being captured, even though Canada is a largely multinational country. There are still little achievements in the issue of Aboriginal property rights. Moreover, the situation is aggravated by the differences in ambitions of provincial and federal governments posed on the lands occupied by the Indians. On the other side, Aboriginal minorities need to be deeply evaluated as of their pretences (land claims) individually in each province and in each state as well. Until these issues are not solved, there is no agreement as of warrants for comprehensive land claims in Canada for the indigenous minorities. Reference Alcantara, C. (2007). To Treaty or Not to Treaty? Aboriginal Peoples and Comprehensive Land Claims Negotiations in Canada. Publius: TheJournal of Federalism , 38 (2), 343-369. Avio, K. L. (1994). Aboriginal Property Rights in Canada: A Contractarian Interpretation of R. v. Sparrow. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques , 20 (4), 415-429. Dacks, G. (2002). British Columbia after the Delgamuukw Decision: Land Claims and Other Processes. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques , 28 (2), 239-255. Malloy, J. (2001). Double Identities: Aboriginal Policy Agencies in Ontario and British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique , 34 (1), 131-155. White, G. (2002). Treaty Federalism in Northern Canada: Aboriginal-Government Land Claims Boards. Publius , 32 (3), 89-114.

Pearl S. Buck - A Modern Day Hero Essay -- essays research papers

Pearl S. Buck - A Modern Day Hero Introduction A friend of mine gave me a copy of The Good Earth as a birthday gift. Until then, I had never heard of the literary masterpiece or the author, Pearl S. Buck. The story captivated me. I found myself engrossed in the story of the poor farmer Wang Lung whose love for his land allowed him to overcome many odds including famine, flood and a revolution. Through hard work and dedication, Wang Lung became one of the wealthiest landowners in the Anweih province of China. Sadly, Wang Lung’s two sons did not share his passion for â€Å"the good earth† and cared only for their bequest. Wang Lung was still on his death bed when the two sons decided that as soon as their father died, they would sell the land and split their inheritance (Buck, P.S., 1931). The Good Earth instantly became one of my favorite books and Pearl S. Buck, one of my favorite authors. Peter Conn wrote the introduction of the book in the form of a short biography of the author. I usually do not read the introductions until after I read the story because I never want other people’s review to influence my own opinion of the book. So, I saved the introductory pages for last. It wasn’t until I read of Pearl S. Buck’s memoirs that I began to truly admire her, not only for her writing but for her humanitarian and altruistic contributions. Who is Pearl S. Buck? Pearl Sydenstricker was born in Hillsboro, West Virginia in 1892. Her missionary parents, Absalom and Carrie Sydenstricker brought her to China when she was three months old. By the time she was four, she spoke and wrote Chinese as well as English (Conn, NDA). She was at first educated by her mother and tutored by a Chinese Confucian Scholar (Author’s Calendar, 2002). While her parents carried out their Christian mission all over the Chinkiang province of China, Pearl was left under the care of her â€Å"amah† or governess. It was her amah that fascinated her with Chinese folklores and mythical tales of ancient magic, fairies and dragons (Conn, NDA). Growing up, Pearl spent hours wandering the streets of Chinkiang observing how the people lived. She became familiar with their rituals, practices, and traditions. Her first hand experience with the Chinese culture led her to write many novels, including her most critically acclaimed book, The Good Earth. Her intimate knowledge of the Chinese culture was evident in ... ...ca Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?tocId=9017878 Buck, Pearl S. (1931), The Good Earth, NY: The John Day Company Conn, Peter (NDA), Pearl S. Buck (Introduction: The Good Earth), NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Doyle, Paul. A (2000), American National Biography Online: Buck, Pearl S., Retrieved on April 20, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.anb.org/articles/16/16-00214.html Frenz, Horz (1969). The Nobel Lectures, 1901-1967, Amsterdam: Elservier Publishing Company Merriam-Webster Online (NDA). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com on March 9, 2005 PSBI Website (NDA), Pearl S. Buck International Online, Retrieved on April 11, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pearl-s-buck.org/psbi/ Mythology Themes (2000), Sparknotes Online: Themes in Mythology, Retrieved on April 20, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mythology/themes.html Spencer, Stephen (2002), The Journal of American Popular Culture, Vol. 1, Issue 1: The Discourse of Whiteness: Chinese-American History, Pearl S. Buck and The Good Earth, Retrieved on April 11, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/spring_2002/spencer.htm

Global Communications Worksheet Essay

Transcribe the following welcome message for the employees from each country: I wanted to welcome you ASAP to our little family here in the States. It’s high time we shook hands in person and not just across the sea. I’m pleased as punch about getting to know you all, and I for one will do my level best to sell you on America. Complete the table below with your transcribed welcome messages. Also indicate whether each of the countries are more individualistic or relationship focused. Country Transcribe Welcome Message Brazil We wanted to welcome you to our family here in the States and thought it high time we shook hands in person and I am excited to get to know all of you and will do my best to sell you on America. Brazil’s culture is generally group-oriented and asserting individual preferences may be viewed as less important than conforming to a groups norms. Building lasting and trusting personal relationships is therefore critically important with Brazilians who generally wish to close any deals with someone with whom they have a strong bond. Russia I want to welcome you as quickly as possible to our little family here in the States. I think it is high time we met in person and not continue business across the sea. I look forward to getting to know all of you, and I will do my best to sell you on America. Those within the Russian culture have long been dominated by like the tsars and the Communist Party leaders. Because of this, many Russians do not have individual freedom and maintain a collectivist set of values. India I wanted to welcome you to our family here in the States and thought it was the right time to shake hands in person rather than do business across the sea. I look forward to getting to know you, and allowing you the opportunity to know us as well, and will do my best at selling you on America. Indian society is that of the collectivism view and it promotes social cohesion as well as interdependence. China I wanted to take a moment and welcome you as part of our family here in the States. I think the time for us to meet and shake hands in person has been long overdue. I look forward to getting to know one another and will do my best at selling you on America. In China, there is a collectivist approach in where the upholding of a stable and â€Å"in-sync† harmonious society is is seen to be the most important part of ethics.

A Commentary On Society In The 1800s - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1827 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/05/31 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: Pride and Prejudice Essay Did you like this example? Pride and Prejudice conveys a commentary on society in the 1800s; it describes the society at the time while also presenting Jane Austenrs generally dissenting opinion on it. In the book, Austen states certain things like facts and then throughout the story, the characters either fall into place or rebel against societal expectations. This is how she establishes her opinions. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Commentary On Society In The 1800s" essay for you Create order Austen makes the characters who rebel against what society wants sympathetic while showing the issues that arise with the characters who follow along and making some of those characters antagonistic. To provide some examples, Austen uses these situations to prove her points; Mr. Darcy and Elizabethrs first impression and eventual romance, Mr. Collinrs pandering to Lady Catherine, and Mr. Wickham and Lydiars elopement. Mr. Darcy makes a pretty terrible first impression to Elizabeth, and that impression lingers for the better first half of the whole book. At first, Austen has Mr. Darcy fall in line with the social stereotypes for a man of his standing when hers rude to Elizabeth because of her lower class and not being handsome enough for him, as shown in this quote: Which do you mean? and turning round, he looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till catching her eye, he withdrew his own and coldly said, She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me; and I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. You had better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles, for you are wasting your time with me. Darcy is basically falling right into how many men were at the time. Elizabethrs social standing wasnt high enough for him to consider her for a moment. Hers prejudiced against her from the start, which is why the title of the book is what it is. Austen s hows her own opinion on how Darcy acts by making him an antagonistic character. Elizabeth and her family are offended by him because of how he treats Elizabeth. Even when Darcy starts to fall in love with Elizabeth, hers still a jerk because when he proposes to her. He talks about how he loves her even though hers lowering himself to her social standing, as developed in this quote: He spoke well; but there were feelings besides those of the heart to be detailed; and he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness than of pride. His sense of her inferiority of its being a degradation of the family obstacles which had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit. Darcy is still antagonistic at this point. Hers so worried about his class and social standing that he even makes a point of it in his proposal to the woman hers hoping to marry, which the book makes out to be ridiculous and offensive. Austen superimposes many of her views on this subject through Elizabeth. How Elizabeth reacts gives us a hint to what Austen thinks abou t the subject as well. When Elizabeth angrily rejects Mr. Darcy, itrs showing Austenrs opinion on people being so extremely preoccupied with class differences. However, Mr. Darcy doesnt stay as an unsympathetic character, and eventually, the main romance of the book is allowed to develop in tandem to Mr. Darcyrs own development. Slowly throughout the course of the rest of the story, Mr. Darcy realizes that he loves Elizabeth and her class should not and will not have an effect on his desire to marry her. Once he makes this clear to Elizabeth, we see Austenrs opinions again through Elizabethrs reaction. When Lady Catherine confronts Elizabeth with her misguided view that Elizabeth is Darcyrs social inferior, Elizabeth replies, In marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman; I am a gentlemanrs daughter; so far we are equal. Elizabethrs words reveal how Austen thinks marriage should work; that Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth are equal, and any social distance between them should not be a factor considered over love. The second social commentary Austen makes is via Mr. Collins and his relationship with Lady Catherine. Mr. Collins is one of the most extreme characters in regards to his opinions on class. While Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham share his views, at least at first, Mr. Collins is the most bumbling and obvious about it. Mr. Collins basically sees himself as the cream of the crop because hers clergy, as shown here: My dear Miss Elizabeth, [ ] permit me to say, that there must be a wide difference between the established forms of ceremony amongst the laity, and those which regulate the clergy; for, give me leave to observe that I consider the clerical office as equal in point of dignity with the highest rank in the kingdom provided that a proper humility of behavior is at the same time maintained. Hers basically saying here that he considers himself equal to the highest social standing among the nobility, or non-clerical members of society. We can see Austenrs opinion on this purely through th e fact that she makes Mr. Collins extremely irritating throughout the entire story. He never stops being annoying, and he never changes his views on society, unlike Darcyrs character arc. Mr. Collins tries to get with Jane and Elizabeth during the story. He doesnt propose to Jane because he recognizes that Mr. Bingley likes her; however, since Elizabeth is not currently engaged with anyone, Mr. Collins proposes to her. Elizabeth absolutely refuses, much to the anger of her mother. Elizabethrs mother tries to force Elizabeth into marrying Mr. Collins. During this conversation, Mr. Collins further reveals his personality and why Elizabeth and the reader are definitely not supposed to like him: Pardon me for interrupting you, madam, cried Mr. Collins; but if she is really headstrong and foolish, I know not whether she would altogether be a very desirable wife to a man in my situation, who naturally looks for happiness in the marriage state. If therefore she actually persists in rejecting my suit, perhaps it were better not to force her into accepting me, because if liable to such defects of temper, she could not contribute much to my felicity. Mr. Collins is basically sa ying here that he considers Elizabeth foolish for not accepting his proposal, and since hers concerned with his own happiness, he changes his mind about marrying her. Itrs evident that he doesnt care about his future wifers feelings, though. Mr. Collins continues to be characterized as an unsympathetic character, and thatrs Austenrs intentions. When the reader meets Mr. Collinrs patron, Lady Catherine, they are absolutely not supposed to like her either. Lady Catherine and Mr. Collins fit together perfectly in regards to their opinions on class and society. Theyre both extreme examples of what upper-class folks were supposed to think during that time period. When Elizabeth goes to visit Lady Catherine, Mr. Collins makes this statement: Do not make yourself uneasy, my dear cousin, about your apparel. Lady Catherine is far from requiring that elegance of dress in us which becomes herself and her daughter. I could advise you merely to put on whatever of your clothes is superior to the rest there is no occasion for anything more. Lady Catherine will not think the worse of you for being simply dressed. She likes to have the distinction of rank preserved. With this one quote, before we even meet Lady Catherine, Austen makes it clear what were supposed to think about her. The line, She likes to have the distinction of rank preserv ed, is immediately intended to be an irritant to the reader and to Elizabeth herself. Throughout the entire visit, Lady Catherine shows herself to be extremely preoccupied with rank and class, and Elizabeth dislikes her for it. Finally, Lydiars marriage to Mr. Wickham really develops what Austen thinks about reputation. When Lydia runs away with Mr. Wickham, Mr. Collins says this: The death of your daughter would have been a blessing in comparison of this. [ ] Howsoever that may be, you are grievously to be pitied; in which opinion I am not only joined by Mrs. Collins, but likewise by Lady Catherine and her daughter, to whom I have related the affair. They agree with me in apprehending that this false step in one daughter will be injurious to the fortunes of all the others; for who, as Lady Catherine herself condescendingly says, will connect themselves with such a family? Hers saying that Lydia being dead would be better than her running off with a guy! That level of concern about oners social standing is insane. Lady Catherine shares his views, as also developed in this quote: I am no stranger to the particulars of your youngest sisterrs infamous elopement. I know it all; that the young manrs marrying her was a patched-up business, at the expence of your father and uncles. And is such a girl to be my nephewrs sister? Is her husband, is the son of his late fatherrs steward, to be his brother? Heaven and earth! of what are you thinking? Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted? Lady Catherine is saying that because of Lydiars elopement, the entire Bennet family would go into disgrace. Since this is coming from an unsympathetic character, it shows what Austen thinks about that concept. The fact that Lydiars marriage would have ruined the Bennet family is shown to be an offense to the other Bennet sisters. However, despite this, Lydia is still portrayed as an unsympathetic character after she gets married, as shown in this quote: Lydia was Lydia still; untamed, unabashed, wild, noisy, and fearless. She turned from sister to sister, demanding their congratulations; and when at length they all sat down, looked eagerly round the room, took notice of some little alteration in it, and observed, with a laugh, that it was a great while since she had been there. Through Lydiars characterization, we see that while the fact that the Bennet sisters would be shamed is reprehensible, Austen still thinks that Lydiars judgment was bad. Lydia is foolish and made a bad decision when she ran off with Mr. Wickham. However, her choices shouldnt bring shame to the other sisters. Although, the situation that Lydia placed the sisters in made Mr. Darcyrs intervention all the kinder, as he saves the Bennets from shame out of his own pocket. In conclusion, Jane Austen reveals her personal opinion through her characterrs thoughts, actions, and how theyre perceived. Using Mr. Darcyrs character arc, Mr. Collinrs relationship with Lady Catherine, and Lydiars marriage, the reader sees what Austen thinks about the social expectations and rules of the time. Austen portrays characters who are preoccupied with social class and standing as unsympathetic and sometimes antagonistic, like Mr. Darcy at the beginning of the book and Lady Catherine throughout.