How is jack out of lord of the flies similar to hitler

In William Golding's novel Lord of the Flies, the character of Jack represents the dark side of humanity. Unlike Ralph and Piggy, who deliberately seek to retain a sense of humanity, Jack and his followers quickly descend to the most vile, basic instincts of man. Jack becomes consumed with blood lust and leads his faction among the young boys in creating a violent tribal environment. When the effort to hunt down the pig and consume its meat becomes an obsession, he cries out in primal enthusiasm, "Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Spill her blood." In Chapter 5, Ralph and Piggy discuss their concerns about Jack and how the latter holds dangerous grudges against them for their role in controlling the fire and for the simple fact of their refusal to join Jack's group. Jack, in short, is a bad boy. He is capable of anything, and the boys with Ralph know it.

So it is established that Jack represents the dark side of man. Does that equate him, a twelve-year-old boy stranded on an island, with the most reprehensible figure in history? Probably not. Jack's circumstances and his youth clearly separate him from an adult who knowingly conceptualizes a theory of racial superiority, who maneuvers himself to the top of a government, and who proceeds to carry out the greatest crime against humanity in history. To the extent that Jack can be considered a microcosm of Hitler, even that comparison is weak. Again, the circumstances surrounding Hitler's rise to power, in the most technologically advanced nation in Europe, and the circumstances surrounding Jack's descent into inhumanity are so disparate that, again, the comparison is seriously weak. Yes, Jack creates a dysfunctional and brutal environment; no, he is not Hitler.

yes

explanation:

the play romeo and juliet was one of the most famous love tragedies ever written. this love story unfortunately had a fatal ending. many people argue over why the lovers had died, was it over free will or fate?  

the death of romeo and juliet was partially because of free will. the fact that romeo and juliet got married knowing that there was a bitter feud between their families, the montague and capulet’s. this feud brought on many problems, such as the murder of tybalt by romeo. juliet knew that this might be a problem for her and romeo. juliet had said: “what’s in a name”? which explains her ill fate of being a capulet and romeo being a montague. when romeo tells his servant “ ay, mine own…show more content…

i believe they had died over the love they had for each other, strong enough that their lives could end so suddenly if something horrible had come between them, and that was exactly how it happened. this tragedy occurred within five days of the two meeting, they experienced love at first sight, got married and quickly were dead. free will became a part of this when juliet decided to take friar laurence’s advise in inhaling a potion that will make people assume she is died but will awake in 42 hours prier to when she took it. when romeo had heard the news that juliet was dead, he assumed it was true, and responded with the line; “well juliet, i will lay with thee tonight”. to me this line indicated how he feels for juliet by dying in her will. the fact that free will didn’t take control of the story; it left fate to be the murder of the lovers. fate first kicked in when their eyes met at the capulet party. when romeo and juliet spoke, their words had powerful contentment; they had such a strong feeling for one another that they could lay in each other’s arms forever. their happiness didn’t last long; there were many reasons for this, for example; the marriage lord capulet arranged between paris and juliet. i believe that the plot of the play thus far leads the audience to believe that the deaths were a result of fate. the last act will determine once and for all if it is fate or free will. romeo again challenges fate.

explanation: