How do Hamlets Soliloquies reveal his Changing thoughts and Moods throughout the play Essay Example

How do Hamlets Soliloquies uncover his Changing considerations and Moods all through the play Paper The play Hamlet is fundamentally about existence and passing. We see this through the character Hamlet. Villages character isn't one dimensional, their are numerous sides to his character. We can tell this by the manner in which his state of mind fluctuates all through the play. Just in the monologues does Hamlet uncover his actual self, and we the crowd start to build up a superior comprehension of his intricate character. A discourse is a discourse wherein a character (for this situation Hamlet) uncovers to the crowd his considerations and emotions which he can't communicate to different characters in the play. So at the end of the day, speeches give a voice to Hamlets musings. This is the reason discourses are so significant, on the grounds that a character can communicate his most internal contemplations with out judgment from individual characters in the play. The three talks I have contemplates resemble signs in the play. They control us through Hamlets mind at various focuses in the play. The principle focal point of my examination will be on various on-screen characters translations of this play, just as the real substance and language of these three unique monologues. The principal discourse I am considering is in act one scene two. We will compose a custom paper test on How do Hamlets Soliloquies uncover his Changing considerations and Moods all through the play explicitly for you for just $16.38 $13.9/page Request now We will compose a custom exposition test on How do Hamlets Soliloquies uncover his Changing considerations and Moods all through the play explicitly for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Recruit Writer We will compose a custom article test on How do Hamlets Soliloquies uncover his Changing musings and Moods all through the play explicitly for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Recruit Writer In this first speech Hamlet discusses how in the event that it wasnt for divine beings laws (6th rule, a strict law), he would board of trustees self destruction. This is because of the world at war, his expired dad, and how his mom has remarried. O, this too strong substance would soften.. his group gainst self-butcher. Hamlet keeps on letting us know, the crowd, about how he is disturbed (or you could even say angered) with life and how purposeless everything in this world is by all accounts. tired, stale, level, and unfruitful Seems to me all the employments of this world! Just as how the world is degenerate. He communicates this by contrasting his quick world with a nursery invade, dirtied by noxious weeds. . tis an unweeded garden that develops to seed; things rank and gross in nature gangs it only. Hamlet isn't generally grieving his dads passing in this monologue, however he is irritated with his mom for remarrying his uncle so not long after his dads demise. That is should resulted in these present circumstances! Be that as it may, two months dead-nay less, not all that magnificent a King. After this Hamlet keeps on clarifying how nothing can happen to make this circumstance any better. In any case, this doesn't mean Hamlet will never really, acknowledge everything. This isn't sufficient for Hamlet, something must be finished. The crowd is attracted to feel along these lines since we can tell Hamlet is a cunning man (we can tell this by the manner in which Hamlet ponders circumstances, which he sees as off-base, in his psyche e. g. his mom remarriage. Additionally Hamlet is sufficiently astute to remain quiet about his considerations consequently he just communicates his sentiments in speeches). Hamlet likewise looks at his dad and uncle. The manner in which Hamlet does this is by contrasting them as a Hyperion with a satyr. This examination of the two men makes his dad sound terrific, amazing, lovely and as a legendary animal. Hence proposes that Hamlet feels that his perished father is the legitimate ruler, and Claudius is second rate compared to the King Hamlet. This additionally appears this is the main way Hamlet can discuss his dad contrasted with Claudius. Also, this over clarification performs these two characters. Additionally this makes King Hamlet nearly appear to be a God, and with respect to Claudius well he is viewed as a hireling (contrasted with his dad). This recommends King Hamlet will consistently be better than Claudius, even in death. We, the crowd, can likewise observe that these are Hamlets genuine internal musings as they nearly stream out of his mouth as he becomes involved with the occasion. Advertisement this talk is loaded with understandings, surges of thought and language, which additionally proposes that Hamlet is becoming involved with the occasion. The language in this talk looks like a line of reasoning. The words stream along with commas that proceed with this stream. Just as examining the content of Hamlet, I am likewise considering two adaptations of Hamlet as a play. The two movies I observed each depicted these talks in various manners. The primary recognizable contrast between the two is the way that, the Peter Brooks adaptation focuses on the entertainers face that plays Hamlet. While the Mel Gibson rendition concentrates more on the setting. I don't feel that the explanation behind this is one is a low spending film while the other isn't. I believe that the two adaptations need to depict Hamlet in various manners. The Peter Brooks form depicts Hamlet as a solid disapproved of character, concentrating on each word that Hamlet expresses. While the Mel Gibson form likewise does this (yet not close to so a lot), yet as a ton of the emphasis is on the setting, this proposes Hamlets words can not communicate his actual sentiments also. It is however the setting performs the words that Hamlet expresses. This likewise is an explanation behind why in the Mel Gibson variant, of this talk, has been chopped down. The main closeness there is in the two movies is that; the entertainers never take a gander at the camera. I believe this recommends Hamlet doesn't have to substantiate himself to anybody; he isn't attempting to persuade us, the crowd, that his emotions are correct (or the correct method to think and feel). Hamlet accepts that his are convictions are valid and realize one will alter his perspective. Villas character doesn't have to keep a hold of the crowd by tending to them with looks or intriguing gangs. So as of now in this first discourse we perceive how keen Hamlet is, the means by which he thoroughly considers circumstances. He doesn't simply kick back and accept out of this world. It is however Hamlet as of now, sub-intentionally, realizes that Claudius is unlawfully the ruler. So from here the crowd feels like Hamlets character is solid disapproved, savvy and a profound mastermind. Right now the crowd doesn't have the foggiest idea whether Hamlet will be fearless enough to change things. However, we do get the feeling that Hamlet will simply accept out of this world. This is the place the crowd applauds their first sense that activity may occur sooner rather than later. Hamlet is likewise observed as nearly as valiant, as it appears he is going to change this to cause them to appear to be correct. He isn't viewed as a quitter for this very explanation, just as, he has not ended it all. However, this is chiefly down to the way that it is a transgression. So perhaps he isn't so fearless. Anyway the crowd looks past this as not a demonstration of weakling ness but rather as a demonstration of dauntlessness to stand-up in what he puts stock in. The second monologue that I am considering is in act 2. Here Hamlet express dissatisfaction with the manner in which he can not act to vindicate his dead dad. . cap a rouge and worker slave am I! Hamlet later clarifies how he is going to trap Claudius. Hamlet is likewise disappointed how on-screen characters can act with emotions, while villa has loads of inspiration (and motivations) to retaliate for his dad yet he can not follow up on this. Is it not immense that this player here, But in a fiction, in a fantasy of energy power his spirit so to his own vanity.. Hamlet is likewise as yet attempting to comprehend the world. I think in this speech we, the crowd, perceive how smart and mindful Hamlet truly is. He even views himself as a quitter. Furthermore, this is the first occasion when we the crowd think Hamlet is really a defeatist, and really begin to ponder is Hamlet will satisfy what he is stating. Am I a defeatist But I am pigeon livered, and need nerve To make abuse unpleasant Alliteration is utilized in this Soliloquy. Out of the speeches I am considering, this is the main that I have seen similar sounding word usage. The utilization of similar sounding word usage makes the words watch out from the rest, it accentuates them. This implies they should be significant for such accentuation to be laid upon them. Particularly the way, in any event, when u read them, they make u let them out. It is however they are appalling, harmed, and practically dishonorable. These words are said as villa is addressing about how he never really retaliate for his dad. So this shows the manner in which he is embarrassed about the manner in which he sits idle. Wicked, indecent scalawag! With Hamlets acknowledgment of how he has never really vindicate his dad, he thinks of a thought. Hamlet will watch his uncle to perceive how he responds when he sees a play of a homicide which looks like King Hamlets. Hamlet likewise shows his nauseate in Claudius by considering him an animal. This shows Hamlet imagines that for somebody to kill, they should (nearly) not be human. Murmur I have heard That liable animals sitting at a play Have by the guile of the scene Been struck so to the spirit The Mel Gibson form of this focuses on the annoyance that Hamlet is feeling. This is appeared by the manner in which Hamlet is standing. It seems as though Hamlet can not hold up under it any longer (all his annoyance) and requirements something to be finished. The Mel Gibson form additionally begins mostly down the speech. This is on the grounds that mostly down, in the monologue, Hamlet begins to get moving along these lines gets increasingly forceful. Additionally Hamlets character is viewed as increasingly capricious as seventy five percent down the content, Hamlet quiets down. This is on the grounds that he has at long last idea of an arrangement. The Peter Brooks rendition is extraordinary. In this adaptation Hamlet is seen more quiet and in profound idea more than the Mel Gibson form. This is communicated in the manner that the entertainer is plunking down. Additionally wicked indelicate scalawag is forgotten about. This also causes Hamlet to appear to be less forceful. The route none of the content is removed, mak

James Monroe Essay -- essays research papers

James Monroe was conceived in the tranquil town of Westmoreland County, Virginia on April 28, 1758. His dad, Spencer Monroe, was hitched to Elizabeth Jones in 1752. Spencer Monroe was a circuit judge and a rancher for the town (Kane 40). Monroe was the most seasoned of five. There were four other kids; Andrew, Joseph, and Elizabeth. His third sibling had passed on in his youth. He went to language school at a little foundation for young men. This school had gained notoriety for serving the best of men, similar to George Washington and John Marshall (Kane 40), which is one of a kind since he later followed George Washington as president. George Washington was a family companion of the Monroe’s. He appreciated Washington and was affected by him at a youthful age. At age 16 his dad Spencer Monroe kicked the bucket. Monroe was left to be the man of the house. A relative proposed that James should proceed with his instruction at the William and Mary College. Monroe selected the mos t troublesome program that the College offered (Stefoff 11). Inside a time of his participation at William and Mary College, the shot heard far and wide at Lexington happened. War broke out with England, and Monroe needed to take care of business. At age 18 he later joined the military enrolling in the Third Virginia Infantry (Stefoff 12). Monroe was delegated lieutenant after a gathering of troopers assaulted a British house taking firearms and supplies. He later was familiar with George Washington when the Third Virginia Infantry was gotten together with Washington’s troops in New York (Stefoff 13). During the war he was injured in the Battle of Trenton however not harshly. Monroe doled out to deskwork was inquired as to whether he would send a letter to the legislative head of Virginia requesting more troopers. Monroe was sitting tight for a reaction from Washington yet never got notification from him, so meanwhile he considered law (Stefoff 15). Monroe turned into a guide under Thomas Jefferson, Governor of Virginia likewise impacted his life. Monroe and his great school companion dealt with the governor’s discourses and composed gatherings. This readied Monroe for what was to happen to his life as President (Stefoff 21). Since the war was all the while going on, he had a crucial the military. Monroe was approached to go south and spy on British soldiers, since American soldiers expected that they were arranging an unexpected assault on them (Stefoff 21-22). After Monroe’s fruitful strategic British soldiers a... ...eted a few undertakings that he thought about which should have been tended to. One of them was saving area for Indians west of the Mississippi River.      Monroe left Washington on March 3, 1825 and set out for Oak Hill with his family. In spite of the fact that he was exceptionally effective throughout everyday life, after his retirement he fell into monetary difficulty. The most recent six years of his life was troublesome. His obligation had mounted and keeping in mind that hanging tight for cash Congress owed him, on July 4, 1831, James Monroe kicked the bucket, bankrupt (Damon 95).      James Monroe was an astounding president and cherished by all individuals. His primary concentration to enable our nation to prevail as a country together, kept us brought together and solid. In spite of the fact that there were terrible occasions, his prosperity compensated for those. He had an incredible effect in our history as a country. He made the Monroe Doctrine, made it difficult to claim slaves, helped Indians discover land, and helped our nation join as one. He battled for us in the War of 1812, which he was injured. He adored our nation and was consistent with the U.S. Monroe was the ‘Era of Good Feeling’ and will consistently be recall as James Monroe, who brought to numerous individuals a period of positive sentiments. James Monroe Essay - expositions inquire about papers James Monroe was conceived in the peaceful town of Westmoreland County, Virginia on April 28, 1758. His dad, Spencer Monroe, was hitched to Elizabeth Jones in 1752. Spencer Monroe was a circuit judge and a rancher for the town (Kane 40). Monroe was the most seasoned of five. There were four other youngsters; Andrew, Joseph, and Elizabeth. His third sibling had kicked the bucket in his youth. He went to language school at a little foundation for young men. This school had gained notoriety for serving the best of men, similar to George Washington and John Marshall (Kane 40), which is extraordinary on the grounds that he later followed George Washington as president. George Washington was a family companion of the Monroe’s. He respected Washington and was impacted by him at a youthful age. At age 16 his dad Spencer Monroe kicked the bucket. Monroe was left to be the man of the house. A relative proposed that James should proceed with his instruction at the William and Mary Colleg e. Monroe took a crack at the most troublesome program that the College offered (Stefoff 11). Inside a time of his participation at William and Mary College, the shot heard the world over at Lexington happened. War broke out with England, and Monroe needed to take care of business. At age 18 he later joined the military enrolling in the Third Virginia Infantry (Stefoff 12). Monroe was designated lieutenant after a gathering of troopers assaulted a British house taking weapons and supplies. He later was familiar with George Washington when the Third Virginia Infantry was gotten together with Washington’s troops in New York (Stefoff 13). During the war he was injured in the Battle of Trenton however not harshly. Monroe relegated to deskwork was inquired as to whether he would send a letter to the legislative head of Virginia requesting more officers. Monroe was hanging tight for a reaction from Washington however never got notification from him, so meanwhile he considered law ( Stefoff 15). Monroe turned into a guide under Thomas Jefferson, Governor of Virginia likewise affected his life. Monroe and his great school companion chipped away at the governor’s discourses and composed gatherings. This readied Monroe for what was to happen to his life as President (Stefoff 21). Since the war was all the while going on, he had a crucial the military. Monroe was approached to go south and spy on British soldiers, since American soldiers expected that they were arranging an unexpected assault on them (Stefoff 21-22). After Monroe’s fruitful crucial British soldiers a... ...eted a few ventures that he thought about which should have been tended to. One of them was saving area for Indians west of the Mississippi River.      Monroe left Washington on March 3, 1825 and set out for Oak Hill with his family. Despite the fact that he was extremely fruitful throughout everyday life, after his retirement he fell into money related difficulty. The most recent six years of his life was troublesome. His obligation had mounted and keeping in mind that sitting tight for cash Congress owed him, on July 4, 1831, James Monroe kicked the bucket, bankrupt (Damon 95).      James Monroe was a superb president and cherished by all individuals. His principle center to enable our nation to prevail as a country together, kept us brought together and solid. In spite of the fact that there were awful occasions, his prosperity compensated for those. He had an incredible effect in our history as a country. He made the Monroe Doctrine, made it difficult to claim slaves, helped Indians discover land, and helped our nation join as one. He battled for us in the War of 1812, which he was injured. He adored our nation and was consistent with the U.S. Monroe was the ‘Era of Good Feeling’ and will consistently be recall as James Monroe, who brought to numerous individuals a time of positive sentiments.

The Secret Financial History of Voting

The Secret Financial History of Voting The Secret Financial History of Voting The Secret Financial History of VotingTheres a lot of money in politics today, but old-timey politicians used to straight-up bribe them for their votesâ€"sometimes with booze!As our increasingly divided country gets ready to cast its ballots on November 6th, there’s one thing we can agree on: that we can’t wait for the political ad deluge to finally stop. Granted, next spring will likely see the 2020 presidential campaign begin in earnest, bringing with it even more ads, but we’ll take whatever kind of breather we can get.Nowadays, American elections cost more than everâ€"by a lot. The 2016 election involved a total of $6.5 billion in spending.  $2.4 billion was spent on the presidential election while $4.1 billion was spent on all the other races put together. And that’s not even as much as was spent in 2012, which came in at $7 billion.All this spending is driven by the candidates themselves and by Super PACs, outside groups that can raise (and then spend) unlimited amounts of moneyâ€"generally donated by very wealthy supporters. However, both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump found great success in 2016 soliciting millions upon millions from small-dollar donors.All of this spending is pretty cut and dryâ€"and more than a little dull. Meanwhile, the history of American elections is, likewise, awash with spendingâ€"large portions of it coming via bribes, purchased votes, and barrels upon barrels of liquor. That sounds way more fun, right?We certainly think it does. With that in mind, sit back, relax, and enjoy these highlights from the secret financial history of voting. In Colonial America, elections were bought with booze.In colonial times, voting was usually done viva voce, or by voice. Basically, people would gather in town squares and speak their support for candidatesâ€"a process similar to modern-day caucuses. This meant that election days were oftentimes rowdy, raucous affairs: a perfect place for imbibing an alcoholic beverage or five.In fact, a lcohol wasn’t some sort of electoral side effect: It was the main attraction. So much so that candidates would purchase liquor and spirits to give to the assembled voters. And if they didn’t, their chances of winning were practically zilch.You know how people nowadays say that they’re voting for a candidate because they’re the one “they’d like to get a beer with?” Yeah, this was like that, only it was the candidates were literally thrusting frosty mugs of brew into voters hands.One politician who got bit by their refusal to hand out free booze was a young George Washington. In 1755, the 24-year-old future president was running for a seat in the legislature. He was solidly against the practice of plying voters with alcohol (sometimes referred to as “treating”) and was determined to stand on nothing but his own merits.Stop laughing. Washington lost in a landslide: 271 to 40. When he ran again three years later, he shelled out approximately 144 gallons of free liquor. And wouldnt you know it? This time he won.Eventually, decades after the American Revolution, states would decide that maybe this wasn’t such a great way to decide the leaders of our nation. Beginning with Maryland in 1811, the practice of plying voters with free booze was banned.During the 1800’s, election day was … sort of The Purge?Up until the 20th century, elections on the wholeâ€"and election days in particularâ€"remained pretty wild. Many considered public voting (as in, not keeping your vote a secret) to be a hallmark of the American system. Violence at the polls was also common, with the whole ordeal being seen as an almost Hunger Games-esque test of one’s manly mettle.In an article for The New Yorker, journalist Jill Lepore recounts the story of George Kyle, who was attacked on his way to the polls in Baltimore, 1859. Kyle was wounded by a bullet, while his brother was killed. They never did get a chance to get their votes, and their candidate lost.The results were challenged in court but were eventually upheld. Lepore writes:Voting in America, it’s fair to say, used to be different. “Are you not a man in the full vigor of manhood and strength?” a member of the House Committee on Elections asked another Harrison supporter who, like Kyle, went to the polls but turned back without voting (and who happened to stand six feet and weigh more than two hundred pounds). The hearings established a precedent. “To vacate an election,” an election-law textbook subsequently advised, “it must clearly appear that there was such a display of force as ought to have intimidated men of ordinary firmness.”Much of this chaos was due to the U.S. Constitution, which remained vague on matters of electoral conduct. Matters were mostly left up to the states, which combined with these somewhat barbaric traditions to create a system that was, as Lepore describes it, “higgeldy-piggeldy.”Even states that chose to vote “by paper” weren’t much better, as many early ballots weren’t much of an improvement on viva voce. These weren’t provided by the government, but rather by (primarily) political parties. From Lepore:Printed ballots came to be called “party tickets,” because they looked like train tickets (which is why, when we talk about someone who votes a single-party slate, we say that he “votes the party ticket”). The printing on ballots of a party symbol, like the Free Soilers’ man-pushing-a-plow, meant that voters didn’t need to know how to write, or even to read. Not surprisingly, the ticket system consolidated the power of the major parties. Curiously, it promoted insurgency, too: party malcontents could “bolt,” or print their own ballots, listing an alternate slate of candidates; they could “knife” a candidate by stacking up a pile of tickets and slicing out his name; and they could distribute “pasters,” strips of paper printed with the name of a candidate not on the party ticket, to be pasted over that of his opponent. (For this, polls were stocked with vats of paste.)Undeniably, party tickets led to massive fraud and intimidation. A candidate had to pay party leaders a hefty sum to put his name on the ballot and to cover the costs of printing tickets, buying votes, and hiring thugs, called “shoulder-strikers,” to tussle with voters. To make sure all that soap was paying off, ballots grew bigger, and more colorful, so bright-colored that even “vest-pocket voters”â€"men who went to the polls with their ballots crammed into their pocketsâ€"could barely hide their votes.Okay so maybe we overstated it slightly when we invoked The Purge. But still, this era of American elections was defined by chaos, violence, and fraud. And if that doesn’t sound like the perfect recipe for buying votes, then we don’t know what is.Why buy ads when you can just buy voters.If you want to know more about the history of buying votes in U.S. elections, we recommend you check out Lepore ’s piece as well as the delightful The ABCs of Buying Elections from Jaime Fuller in The Washington Post. Here is our favorite selection from Fuller’s piece:Everybody in Maine (1880): A Democratic editor of this town with whom I talked today, sadly admitted that Maine was full of purchasable votes. There is many a place, he reported, where men can be bought up at so much a head, and the price is not high either. A dollar often fetches them, but frequently a pair of trousers, a coat, a pair of boots, or a hat does the business. Another well-informed politician told of a case in which the Democratic candidates for the legislature gave a man a pair of pantaloons a few days before the election. Approaching the polls in his new clothes, the voter was questioned as to his choice by a suspicious Democrat. Im going Republican this time, was the dogged reply. What, with those Democratic trousers on? rejoined the Democratic solicitor, thinking that a hint that he was in the secret would b e enough. Yes, said the free citizen of Maine: mebbe you dont know the coat is Republican, and its the best part of the suit.'Throughout the 1800’s, candidates were able to shamelessly court voters by offering them money in exchange for their support. And public voting made this practice all the easier. From S.J. Ackerman on  Smithsonian.com:In some states, politicos could buy votes confident of knowing whether the voters stayed bought; they could watch at the polls as their conspicuously marked ballots descended into glass-sided ballot boxes. Sometimes voters handed their votes to election clerks for deposit, inviting further fiddling with the results. Apparently, ballot fraud was so common it developed its own vocabulary. “Colonizers” were groups of bought voters who moved en masse to turn the voting tide in doubtful wards. “Floaters” flitted like honeybees wafting from party to party, casting ballots in response to the highest bidder. “Repeaters” voted early and, so metimes in disguise, often.And while these practices persisted into the 20th century, the widespread adoption of secret ballots meant a corresponding need for secrecy amongst election fraudsters.Payments now were being made behind closed doors, and the people getting paid were more and more likely to be party bosses and local bigwigs who would then go out and manufacture vote totals. (This is a good time to mention that we’re based in Chicago: the former home of America’s premier political machine.)Finally: one interesting fact about President Benjamin Harrison.Still, there was one vote-buying scheme that stands head and shoulders above the rest. That Smithsonian Magazine article quoted above was about the presidential election of 1888, when Republican Benjamin Harrison outright bought the presidency out from under incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland.In short: Harrison needed to win his home state of Indiana in order to take the electoral college, but the massively popular Cleve land presented a challengeâ€"especially since Indiana Democrats, themselves, had a history of electoral fraud.While Harrison campaigned on free, untainted elections, Republican National Committee Treasurer W.W. Dudley instituted a massive vote-buying scheme, instructing local leaders to “Divide the floaters into blocks of five, and put a trusted man with necessary funds in charge,” being sure to “make him responsible that none get away and all vote our ticket.”Despite newspapers getting wind of the story, Dudley’s scheme prevailed through sheer force of financial will, sending Harrison to the White House. Fans of karma will rest easy, however, knowing that Harrison was a total bust as President, eventually losing his re-election bid four years later … to none other than the now-even-more popular Grover Cleveland.Vote buying still occurs today, but only on a very small scale.You might be surprised to learn that vote-buying isn’t entirely extinct. How, in these modern ti mes of ours, could someone be so brazen as to go around giving people money for their votes without fear of getting caught?Well, it’s because most of these schemes are happening in very small local elections, ones where all it might take is a grand or two to push you over the finish line. In 2012, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David A. Fahrenholdt covered a number of recent cases for The Washington Post:It may still be possible to steal an American election, if you know the right way to go about it. Recent court cases, from Appalachia to the Miami suburbs, have revealed the tricks of an underground trade: Conspirators allegedly bought off absentee voters, faked absentee ballots, and bribed people heading to the polls to vote one way or another.What they didn’t do, for the most part, was send people into voting booths pretending to be somebody else.Money is an issue in the American electoral system. It always has been, and it always will be. Yesterday it was poll taxes, today i t’s dark money. Who knows what tomorrow will be? Something to do with cryptocurrency? or people trying to vote via Alexa and accidentally ordering a new washing machine?At the very least, we’re not being beaten at the polls anymore … though we’re also not being handed free liquor at the polls, either. All in all, we can judge that part a wash.To learn more about the history of personal finance, check out these related posts from OppLoans:25 Little-Known Presidential Money FactsWait, Why ARE Employers the Ones Providing Health Insurance?The 12 Worst Financial Scandals In HistoryIs There a Secret Money Lesson Hidden In “The Wizard of Oz?”What else do you want to know about the history of finance? We want to hear from you! You can find us  on  Facebook  and  Twitter.Visit OppLoans on  YouTube  |  Facebook  |  Twitter  |  LinkedIN