The Tiananmen Square Massacre - Background and Causes

Most people in the western world remember the Tiananmen Square Massacre this way: Students protest for democracy in Beijing, China, in June of 1989.Chinese government sends troops and tanks to Tiananmen Square.Student protesters are brutally massacred. In essence, this is a fairly accurate depiction of what happened around Tiananmen Square, but the situation was much longer-lasting and more chaotic than this outline suggests. The protests actually started in April of 1989, as public demonstrations of mourning for former Communist Party Secretary General Hu Yaobang (1915–1989). A high government officials funeral seems like an unlikely spark for pro-democracy demonstrations and chaos. Nonetheless, by the time the Tiananmen Square Protests and Massacre were over less than two months later, 250 to 4,000 people lay dead. What really happened that spring in Beijing? Background to Tiananmen By the 1980s, the leaders of Chinas Communist Party knew that classical Maoism had failed. Mao Zedongs policy of rapid industrialization and collectivization of land, the Great Leap Forward, had killed tens of millions of people by starvation. The country then descended into the terror and anarchy of the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), an orgy of violence and destruction that saw teenaged Red Guards humiliate, torture, murder and sometimes even cannibalize hundreds of thousands or millions of their compatriots. Irreplaceable cultural heirlooms were destroyed; traditional Chinese arts and religion were all but extinguished. Chinas leadership knew that they had to make changes in order to remain in power, but what reforms should they make? The Communist Party leaders split between those who advocated drastic reforms, including a move toward capitalist economic policies and greater personal freedoms for Chinese citizens, versus those who favored careful tinkering with the command economy and continued strict control of the population. Meanwhile, with the leadership unsure of which direction to take, the Chinese people hovered in a no-mans land between fear of the authoritarian state, and the desire to speak out for reform. The government-instigated tragedies of the previous two decades left them hungry for change, but aware that the iron fist of Beijings leadership was always ready to smash down opposition. Chinas people waited to see which way the wind would blow. The Spark—Memorial for Hu Yaobang Hu Yaobang was a reformist, who served as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China from 1980 to 1987. He advocated rehabilitation of people persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, greater autonomy for Tibet, rapprochement with Japan, and social and economic reform. As a result, he was forced out of office by the hardliners in January of 1987 and made to offer humiliating public self-criticisms for his allegedly bourgeois ideas. One of the charges leveled against Hu was that he had encouraged (or at least allowed) widespread student protests in late 1986. As General Secretary, he refused to crack down on such protests, believing that dissent by the intelligentsia should be tolerated by the Communist government. Hu Yaobang died of a heart attack not long after his ouster and disgrace, on April 15, 1989. Official media made just brief mention of Hus death, and the government at first did not plan to give him a state funeral. In reaction, university students from across Beijing marched on Tiananmen Square, shouting acceptable, government-approved slogans, and calling for the rehabilitation of Hus reputation. Bowing to this pressure, the government decided to accord Hu a state funeral after all. However, government officials on April 19 refused to receive a delegation of student petitioners, who patiently waited to speak with someone for three days at the Great Hall of the People. This would prove to be the governments first big mistake. Hus subdued memorial service took place on April 22 and was greeted by huge student demonstrations involving about 100,000 people. Hardliners within the government were extremely uneasy about the protests, but General Secretary Zhao Ziyang (1919–2005) believed that the students would disperse once the funeral ceremonies were over. Zhao was so confident that he took a week-long trip to North Korea for a summit meeting. The students, however, were enraged that the government had refused to receive their petition, and emboldened by the meek reaction to their protests. After all, the Party had refrained from cracking down on them thus far, and had even caved in to their demands for a proper funeral for Hu Yaobang. They continued to protest, and their slogans strayed further and further from the approved texts. Events Begin to Spin Out of Control With Zhao Ziyang out of the country, hardliners in the government such as Li Peng (1928–2019) took the opportunity to bend the ear of the powerful leader of the Party Elders, Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997). Deng was known as a reformer himself, supportive of market reforms and greater openness, but the hardliners exaggerated the threat posed by the students. Li Peng even told Deng that the protesters were hostile to him personally, and were calling for his ouster and the downfall of the Communist government. (This accusation was a fabrication.) Clearly worried, Deng Xiaoping decided to denounce the demonstrations in an editorial published in the April 26th Peoples Daily. He called the protests dongluan (meaning turmoil or rioting) by a tiny minority. These highly emotive terms had been associated with the atrocities of the Cultural Revolution. Rather than tamping down the students fervor, Dengs editorial further inflamed it. The government had just made its second grave mistake. Not unreasonably, the students felt that they could not end the protest if it was labeled dongluan, for fear that they would be prosecuted. Some 50,000 of them continued to press the case that patriotism motivated them, not hooliganism. Until the government stepped back from that characterization, the students could not leave Tiananmen Square. But the government too was trapped by the editorial. Deng Xiaoping had staked his reputation, and that of the government, on getting the students to back down. Who would blink first? Showdown, Zhao Ziyang vs. Li Peng General Secretary Zhao returned from North Korea to find China transfixed by the crisis. He still felt that the students were no real threat to the government, though, and sought to defuse the situation, urging Deng Xiaoping to recant the inflammatory editorial. Li Peng, however, argued that to step back now would be a fatal show of weakness by the Party leadership. Meanwhile, students from other cities poured into Beijing to join the protests. More ominously for the government, other groups also joined in: housewives, workers, doctors, and even sailors from the Chinese Navy. The protests also spread to other cities—Shanghai, Urumqi, Xian, Tianjin... almost 250 in all. By May 4, the number of protesters in Beijing had topped 100,000 again. On May 13, the students took their next fateful step. They announced a hunger strike, with the goal of getting the government to retract the April 26 editorial. Over a thousand students took part in the hunger strike, which engendered wide-spread sympathy for them among the general populace. The government met in an emergency Standing Committee session the following day. Zhao urged his fellow leaders to accede to the students demand and withdraw the editorial. Li Peng urged a  crackdown. The Standing Committee was deadlocked, so the decision was passed to Deng Xiaoping. The next morning, he announced that he was placing Beijing under martial law. Zhao was fired and placed under house arrest; hard-liner Jiang Zemin (born 1926) succeeded him as General  Secretary; and  fire-brand Li Peng was placed in control of the military forces in Beijing. In the midst of the turmoil, Soviet Premier and fellow reformer  Mikhail Gorbachev  (born 1931) arrived in China for talks with Zhao on May 16. Due to Gorbachevs presence, a large contingent of foreign journalists and photographers also descended on the tense Chinese capital. Their reports fueled international concern and calls for restraint, as well as sympathetic protests in Hong Kong,  Taiwan, and ex-patriot Chinese communities in Western nations. This international outcry  placed even more  pressure on the Chinese Communist Party leadership. May 19–June 2 Early in the morning on May 19, the deposed Zhao made an extraordinary appearance in Tiananmen Square. Speaking through a bullhorn, he told the protesters: Students, we came too late. We are sorry. You talk about us, criticize us, it is all necessary. The reason that I came here is not to ask you to forgive us. All I want to say is that students are getting very weak, it is the 7th day since you went on hunger strike, you cant continue like this... You are still young, there are still many days yet to come, you must live  healthily, and see the day when China accomplishes the four modernizations. You are not like us, we are already old, it doesnt matter to us  anymore. It was the last time he was ever seen in public. Perhaps in response to Zhaos appeal, during the last week of May tensions eased a bit, and many of the student protesters from Beijing grew weary of the protest and left the square. However, reinforcements from the provinces continued to pour into the city. Hard-line student leaders called for the protest to continue until June 20, when a meeting of the National Peoples Congress was scheduled to take place. On May 30, the students set up a large sculpture called the Goddess of Democracy in Tiananmen Square. Modeled after the Statue of Liberty, it became one of the enduring symbols of the protest. Hearing the calls for a prolonged protest, on June 2 the Communist Party Elders met with the remaining members of the Politburo Standing Committee. They agreed to bring in the  Peoples Liberation Army  (PLA) to clear the protesters out of Tiananmen Square by force. June 3–4: The Tiananmen Square Massacre The morning of June 3, 1989, the 27th and 28th divisions of the Peoples Liberation Army moved into Tiananmen Square on foot and in tanks, firing tear gas to disperse the demonstrators. They had been ordered not to shoot the protesters; indeed, most of them did not carry firearms. The leadership selected these divisions because they were from distant provinces; local PLA troops were considered untrustworthy as potential supporters of the protests. Not only the student  protesters but also tens of thousands of workers and ordinary citizens of Beijing joined together to repel the Army. They used burned-out buses to create barricades, threw rocks and bricks at the soldiers, and even burned some tank crews alive inside their tanks. Thus, the first casualties of the Tiananmen Square Incident were actually soldiers. The student protest leadership now faced a difficult decision. Should they evacuate the Square before further blood could be shed, or hold their ground? In the end, many of them decided to remain. That night, around 10:30 pm, the PLA returned to the area around Tiananmen with rifles, bayonets fixed. The tanks rumbled down the street, firing indiscriminately. Students shouted Why are you killing us? to the soldiers, many of whom were about the same age as the protesters. Rickshaw drivers and bicyclists darted through the melee, rescuing the wounded and taking them to hospitals. In the chaos, a number of non-protesters were killed as well. Contrary to popular belief, the bulk of the violence took place in the neighborhoods all around Tiananmen Square, rather than in the Square itself. Throughout the night of June 3 and early hours of June 4, the troops beat, bayoneted, and shot protesters. Tanks drove straight into crowds, crushing people and bicycles under their treads. By 6 a.m. on June 4th, 1989, the streets around Tiananmen Square had been cleared. Tank Man or the Unknown Rebel The city lapsed into shock during June 4, with just the occasional volley of gunfire breaking the stillness. Parents of missing students pushed their way to the protest area, seeking their sons and daughters, only to be warned off and then shot in the back as they fled from the soldiers. Doctors and ambulance drivers who tried to enter the area to help the wounded were also shot down in cold blood by the PLA. Beijing seemed utterly subdued the morning of June 5. However, as foreign journalists and photographers, including  Jeff Widener  (b. 1956) of the AP, watched from their hotel balconies as a column of tanks trundled up Changan Avenue (the Avenue of Eternal Peace), an amazing thing happened. A young man in a white shirt and black pants and carrying shopping bags in each hand, stepped out into the street and stopped the tanks. The lead tank tried to swerve around him, but he jumped in front of it again. Everyone watched in horrified fascination, afraid that the tank driver would lose patience and drive over the man. At one point, the man even climbed up onto the tank and spoke to the soldiers inside, reportedly asking them, Why are you here? You have caused nothing but misery. After several minutes of this defiant dance, two more men rushed up to the  Tank Man  and hustled him away. His fate is unknown. However,  still  images and video of his brave act were captured by the  Western  press members  nearby and smuggled out for the world to see. Widener and several other photographers hid the film in the tanks of their hotel toilets, to save it from searches by the Chinese security forces. Ironically, the story and the image of the Tank Mans act of defiance had the greatest immediate effect thousands of miles away, in Eastern Europe. Inspired in part by his courageous example, people across the Soviet bloc poured into the streets. In 1990, beginning with the Baltic states, the republics of the Soviet Empire began to break away. The USSR collapsed. Nobody knows how many people died in the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The official Chinese government figure is 241, but this is almost certainly a drastic undercount. Between soldiers, protesters and civilians, it seems likely that anywhere from 800 to 4,000 people were killed. The Chinese Red Cross initially put the toll at 2,600, based on counts from local hospitals, but then quickly retracted that statement under intense government pressure. Some witnesses also stated that the PLA carted away many bodies; they would not have been included in a hospital count. The Aftermath of Tiananmen 1989 The protesters who survived the Tiananmen Square Incident met a variety of fates. Some, particularly the student leaders, were given relatively light jail terms (less than 10 years). Many of the professors and other professionals who joined in were simply  blacklisted, unable to find jobs. A large number of the workers and provincial people were executed; exact figures, as usual, are unknown. Chinese journalists who had published reports sympathetic to the protesters also found themselves purged and unemployed. Some of the most famous were sentenced to multi-year prison terms. As for the Chinese government, June 4,  1989  was a watershed moment. Reformists within the Communist Party of China were stripped of power and reassigned to ceremonial roles. Former Premier Zhao Ziyang was never  rehabilitated and spent his final 15 years under house arrest. Shanghais mayor, Jiang Zemin, who had moved quickly to quell protests in that city, replaced Zhao as the Partys General Secretary. Since that time, political agitation has been extremely muted in China. The government and the majority of citizens alike have focused on economic reform and prosperity, rather than political reform. Because the Tiananmen Square Massacre is a taboo subject, most Chinese under the age of 25 have never even heard about it.  Websites  that mention the June 4 Incident are blocked in China. Even decades later, the people and the government of China have not dealt with this momentous and tragic incident. The memory of the Tiananmen Square Massacre festers under the surface of everyday life for those old enough to recall it. Someday, the Chinese government will have to face this piece of its history. For a very powerful and disturbing take on the Tiananmen Square Massacre, see the PBS Frontline special The Tank Man, available to view online. Sources Roger V. Des Forges, Ning Luo, and Yen-bo Wu.  Chinese Democracy and the Crisis of 1989: Chinese and American Reflections. (New York: SUNY Press, 1993.Thomas, Anthony. Frontline: The Tank Man, PBS: April 11, 2006.Richelson, Jeffrey T., and Michael L. Evans (eds). Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History. The National Security Archive, The George Washington University, June 1, 1999.  Liang, Zhang, Andrew J. Nathan, and Perry Link (eds). The Tiananmen Papers: The Chinese Leaderships Decision to Use Force Against Their Own People—In Their Own Words. New York: Public Affairs, 2001.

Examining Views Of Philosophy The Allegory Of The Cave,...

EXAMINING VIEWS OF PHILOSOPHY A FELLOW STUDENT UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE Abstract This essay examines three brief works that introduce core concepts of philosophy. Comparisons are drawn between Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave, The Apology of Socrates and Voltaire’s The Story of the good Brahmin. Warnings about adopting a philosophically focused approach to life are extracted, as are the incentives. A central pursuit of truth above all is established to be my own prime goal, which ties closely to these two philosophers own. Philosophy has no concrete definition, and no set bounds. The realms and reasons for study vary, as do the outcomes and methods, but the underlying goals is the same throughout all disciplines; to discover truth and knowledge. Philosophy is a very personal thing, however there are common themes to be found in most appraisals of it. Both Socrates and Voltaire offer a set of warnings and incentives in this weeks readings, but their focus varies. In the allegory of the cave, Socrates describes the journey from ignorance to enlightenment. His trials dialogue, captured in Plato’s â€Å"The Apology of Socrates†, establish his valuation of philosophy contrasted against freedom, security, and ultimately life as well. Voltaire’s â€Å"The Story of the Good Brahmin† examines the turmoil that is nearly guaranteed for those who navigate life by philosophies road map, and the paradox that it leads all roads lead back to the journeys origin. Although all

Guns Firearm and Gun Free Essays

Gun related crimes kill thousands of people every day. We see it in the news and on the streets. When will it stop? What can we do to help? Already this year, the shootings in Chicago have broken records. We will write a custom essay sample on Guns: Firearm and Gun or any similar topic only for you Order Now Kids and bystanders are getting injured by guns. Guns are easily obtained and can Just as easily take someone’s life. In order to get to the bottom of this issue, one need to take into consideration statistics, Obama’s thoughts, the effects of enforcing guns in schools, new laws dealing with gun control, Homicides and accidental or suicidal deaths that is caused by a firearm. The statistics on gun related violence and homicides are showing a decrease through recent years. The data is based on gun related crimes and homicides that have occurred in the past years to the recent years. However, some communities in Chicago area and surrounding suburbs still see large amount of guns in their neighborhood illegal or legal. There are plenty more guns than shown in the media. According to Statmasters. com, Illinois firearms death equate to 9. 7% for every 100,000 deaths in America. This percentage is very low compared to District of Columbia who olds the number one ranking of gun related deaths by a whopping 31. 2 percent. Alaska has the second highest deaths by firearms at 20 percent. The lowest is Hawaii with 2. 8 percent and the second lowest is Massachusetts with 3. 1(Crime Statistics Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state. N. p. : StateMaster. com, 2002. Web. 10 Dec. 2012). While these numbers are from 2002 there hasn’t been any changes in rankings much. What statistics show about gun violence is beneficial to everyone because it shows us what is really going on in the world? It allows people to e more aware of their surroundings and understand what is happening in their neighborhoods. When a leader expresses their opinions, I feel people would actually take this topic into consideration. The person we call our leader is President Obama. President Obama’s thoughts on guns, is in order to prevent gun crimes, we should limit the people we give guns too. By doing background checks and/or psych evaluations, we will discover if they are mentally stable to possess a gun (Shen, Aviva. Obama: Gun Control ‘Should Be Common Sense’. N. p. : n. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Dec. 2012). Some people might think that this is conflicting with their constitutional right to bear arms; however they have not given thought to if the person’s mental capacity is or isn’t stable and if they are prone to violence or not. Ask yourself, would you rather have a stable person with a gun around you, or an unstable person with a gun? Did you know that there are schools that allow college students to bare arms on campus? Arizona College is trying to pass the law for guns to be allowed. They think knows that guns or provoking violence makes things so much worse. Arizona’s three tate universities estimate that a bill that would allow guns on campus would cost millions of dollars in one-time and annual expenses. (Ryman, Anne. N. p. : n. p. , 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012) the legislation would result in an additional $13. 3million in one- time expenses and an additional $3. million in annual operating costs at Arizona State University, University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University. There are people who oppose that proposal, and won’t accept it. But on the other hand, there are people who support this decision and feel it would keep them free from danger. There are people in this country who think having guns will solve all their solutions. Well through what data that is collected, it hasn’t. The re are laws in different states that say you should ‘stand your ground’ and shoot first if threatened, that law got a kid named Traywon Martin killed. Traynv’on Martin was born February 5, 1995 and died February 26, 2012, by a man who was 28 year old man named, George Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman felt he was doing that law Justice by shooting the 17 year old boy in his chest, but all the boy was doing was walking around a neighborhood where he isited his father and his fianc ©s home only holding a bag of skittles (Traywon Martin Case (George Zimmerman). N. p. : The New York Times, 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012). By this law a man is not serving the appropriate time for murdering a child. The law needs to help prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands by having people who own guns actually have legal permits and the guns shops that are selling them need to have background check on the owners. The law also needs to ban the selling of firearms on the internet. I feel greater about the selling the firearms online, because of recent events. On July 20, of 2012, a man named James Eagan Holmes, Killed 12 and injured 58 People in Aurora, Colorado at a premiere of The Dark Knight Rise (Almasy, Steve. How to cite Guns: Firearm and Gun, Papers

Compare and contrast The Flea Essay Example For Students

Compare and contrast The Flea Essay Metaphysical poetry was type of poetry that was very popular during 17th century. Metaphysical actually comes from the Greek words Meta and physical. Meta meaning beyond or after and physical meaning physical. The poets wrote in contrast to the highly stylized Elizabethan Lyric poetry written by poets such as Shakespeare, Spencer and Wyatt. This poetry was quite traditional in terms of subject e. g. love poetry which was joyful, fluent and full of sweetness and melody. In contrast metaphysical poetry was quite rough in terms of sound and rhythm. Metaphysical poetry comprises several literacy devices such as conceits, and an usually simile or metaphor. A conceit is an extended metaphor with a complex logic that governs and entire poem or poetic passage. It is a far fetched idea which is made believable by the logical and powerful way it is argued. I will be comparing The Flea by John Donne and To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell. Both poems were written in the 17th century, both poems have similar structures as they both have three stanzas therefore Im going to use the layout to organise my essay. I will compare each stanza with the same stanza from the other poem. The first poem of the two is called The Flea written by John Donne. Donne was born in 1572 and died on March the 31st 1631. He was a Jacobean poet, a metaphysical poet, and a preacher. He was also the representative of the metaphysical poets of the period. His works are notable for their realistic and sensual style and include sonnets, love poetry, religious poems. Latin translations, epigrams, elegies, songs, and satires. His poetry is noted for its vibrancy of language and inventiveness of metaphor, compared with that of his contemporaries. He is also famous for his holy sonnets. Donne came from a Roman Catholic family, and so he experienced persecution until his conversation to the Anglican church. The second poem is To His Coy Mistress Written by Andrew Marvell, born on the 31st of March 1621 in winstead-in-Halderness East riding of Yorkshire and died on the 16th of August in 1678. He was also a metaphysical poet, and the son of a church of a Church of England Clergyman (also named Andrew Marvell). As a Metaphysical poet, he is associated with John Donne and George Herbert, he was also a friend and a college of John Miton. His style of poetry was often witty and full of elaborate. Donne begins stanza one of The Flea with very forceful language. We see an example of this when he begins the poem with an imperative straight away, telling the lady of the poem to do something, without giving her the option of saying yes or no Marke but this flea, and marke in this. Its almost as if hes making her look at the flea and then make the comparisons between the option for them to have sex together and the flea. He does this to try and make her see that the choice for them both to have sex together isnt a major ordeal; hes basically saying look how small the flea is, thats how big the decision for us to have sex is. It is a very odd for a love poem to sound and be as direct as this, being very forceful and putting pressure on her for her to say yes. The way he puts forward his argument is very simple but very clever and powerful at the same time. Its as almost as if hes a lawyer trying to put forward his case at court. Also in the first stanza the women which he is talking to is not given a voice, however her opinions of sex are very clear. .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 , .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .postImageUrl , .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 , .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4:hover , .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4:visited , .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4:active { border:0!important; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4:active , .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4 .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u2ac9c8e769c7c22115162e9775a99af4:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Oedipus The King: Free Will Vs Fate Persuasive EssayShe thinks sex is a sin unless married, and she is made out to think that if she commits this sin then she would be going against God. During the time of the Elizabethans they viewed sex as a mixture of blood and other fluids and in The Flea Donne says: Me it suckd first, and now sucks thee, And in this flea our two bloods mingled bee Hes basically saying that now the flea has bitten him and bitten her, that inside the flea both their blood is mixed together. The flea is acting almost like a marriage temple and that they have come together inside it. There is also a codicil at the end of this stanza which is like the summing up of an argument. He stops using forceful language and uses the word wooe trying his very hardest to make her fall in love with him. The very last line of the stanza is and this, alas, is more than wee would doe. He is again reminding her that the flea now has her blood inside of it, and that he has nothing to mark there relationship. Also that the flea has just taken what he wants whereas he should be trying to flatter and woo her. r Both poems have the same theme, of men trying to get their partners into bed. However they both do this very differently, Donne is pressuring her and using forceful language. He uses charm and wit to persuade her to agree to his wishes, he doesnt give her compliments, or any form of flattery. Whereas on the other hand, Marvell is very charming and flattering. Throughout the poem he gives her compliments and makes her feel loved, and in my opinion Marvell would be a lot more successful in achieving his aim and having sex as he expresses the fact that he loves her not only that he wants sex, but is he being truthful? Or being ruthless in the terms that he is willing to say anything to get her into bed. Whereas Donne is trying to sort of manipulate her, and doesnt show his love or affection for her in any way. The first stanza of To His Coy Mistress is very similar to Elizabethan Lyric poetry in the sense that Marvell is very flattering, complimentary, and constantly giving her praise. Marvell also exaggerates time throughout the first stanza, and what he would want them to do if they had plenty of it, for example: We would sit down and think which way to walk, and pass out long loves day