Monthly Archives: November 2009

The Clash of Civilization in Macau.

Ana Margarida is a Macanese. She is 20 years old. She was born and lives in Macau. Her father works as a civil servant in the post office. Her mother is a businesswoman. As Ana’s father is a Portuguese, she learned to speak Portuguese from her father when she was very small already. However, she also knows how to speaks fluent Cantonese in order to communicate well with her mother. But, above all, she says, she is Chinese. “I consider myself not a Chinese although almost all the people surround me are Chinese and I speak Cantonese in most of my time.” Ana said she seldom eat Portuguese food. It’s mainly because her mother is a Chinese. Actually, Ana said that she was somehow puzzled by her own nationality. “I agree that my lifestyle is like the local Chinese. It is hardly for me to see any Portuguese culture in myself, except the fact that I can speak Portuguese,” she says. “However, I don’t feel and believe that I am Chinese. I think I still have something different from the local Chinese, but of course I don’t think that I am superior to them!” The difference between Ana and most local Chinese is their religion. Ana is a Catholic. Ana goes to the church on every Sunday. She also hopes to have her wedding ceremony in the church in the future. Ana’s boyfriend, Luis, is also a Macanese. “I will choose Macanese as my boyfriend because I think that he will understand me well because we are in the same situation,” she says. “I have never thought of choosing local Chinese as my boyfriend until now.” In addition, Ana thinks that she belongs to Macau more than Portugal. She loves the buildings and food of mix-culture in Macau. “I love Macau, this multicultural Macau. I have gone to Portugal for several times only. I don’t even have much impression about Portugal,” she says. “However, my father thinks he belongs to Portugal but not Macau. I think it is because he is a pure Portuguese. He also wants me to have this feeling but I don’t have any!”

From this interview, we can learn that Portuguese take up most of the civil-service jobs in Macau through Ana’s father occupation. While Chinese, like Ana’s mother, will mostly do businesses. There are more and more Macanese like Ana knows to speak Cantonese. They learn the language when they are young; as a result, most of them know both Portuguese and Cantonese. There is a trend that the interracial marriages are between Portuguese men and Chinese women. Therefore, the food that the Macanese eat is mostly towards the Chinese style. Macanese tend to have a tendency to get along with other Macanese rather than the local Chinese. The differences between the Macanese and Chinese become fewer and fewer, the main difference between them now is their religion. Macanese also do not have a sense of belongings towards Portugal. We can see that there is a barrier between these three parties: Portuguese, Macanese and Chinese. It is because these three groups seldom interact with each other. Macanese seems too reluctant to interact with other ethnic groups. In addition, the Macanese are becoming more Chinese in different ways in this local Chinese society. There is a chance that the differences between them will soon disappear between them if the Macanese do not try to find a way to preserve their culture. In conclusion, the boundaries between different ethnic groups prevent us from fighting prejudice and racism. However, the disappearance of these boundaries will also mean the disappearance of different cultures and characteristics of different ethnic groups. So we must we must learn how to find a way that we can live together peacefully and preserve our own culture. We can also learn from other people’s culture and improve ourselves. It is a very good sign that we can live together peacefully; learn from each other in the same world.

A Country Analysis of Mexico.


Government and politics of Mexico takes place in a framework of a federal presidential representative democratic republic. The President is both head of state and head of government and the commander in chief of the military. The divisions include state governors and town presidents also known as mayors. The current president is Vicente Fox, who was elected in 2000. Presidential term in Mexico is six years. There seems to be a constant risk of corrupt government in Mexico. Although it is said that the highest levels of corruption exist in middle government levels and officials, it also exists in the federal government and accusations have been directed to the president. These corruption accusations and actual reported cases range from bribes to embezzlement.


According to the World Bank, Mexico ranks 13th in the world in regard to GDP and have the fourth largest per capita income in Latin America just after Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica. Mexico has established itself as an upper middle-income country. Although it experienced an economic crisis in 1994 to 1995, it made an impressive recovery. The poverty level has dropped from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population.

Mexico has a mixed economy and has recently entered the trillion dollar class. Recent administrations have expanded competition in seaports, railroads, telecommunications, electricity generation, natural gas distribution and airports. Mexico is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. Mexico participates in NAFTA since 1994 and 85% of its trade is with the United States and Canada. Ongoing concerns include low real wages, underemployment for a large segment of the population, inequitable income distribution, and few advancement opportunities in the impoverished southern states. Mexico continues to struggle with such issues as economic control and development. Corruption at certain levels of the administration and crime continue to be chronic problems.

Physical environment

Mexico is in the southwestern part of North America and is roughly triangular in shape. It is bordered by the United States to the North, and Belize and Guatemala to the Southeast. The center of Mexico is a great plateau, open to the north, with mountain chains to the east and west and with ocean-front lowlands lying outside of them. Mexico is about one-fourth the size of the United States.

Most of Mexico is mountainous and has little good agricultural land. The country also lacks in river systems, it only has one main river that provides a trade route with Mexico City. The climate varies from tropical to desert. Many natural hazards exist, including tsunamis along the Pacific Coast, volcanoes and earthquakes in the central and southern regions and hurricanes in the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean coasts.

Natural fresh water resources are scarce and polluted in the north. There is deforestation and deteriorating agricultural lands. There is also a problem with serious air and water pollution in the national capital and urban centers along the US-Mexico border.


Mexico is rich in regional cultures. Every region in the country has a distinct culture, languages and arts. Dancing and music is a big part of the Mexican culture. The Mexican people are family and people oriented. They also have a strong dedication to family especially mothers, wives and daughters. They are also prone to travel within their own country. Mexico is very diverse within its own country. Different cities and areas are characterized by different traits and distinct accents. For example those living in Mexico City are thought to be posh or preppy or dirty and crime-prone if talking about the poor. Another example is the people of Veracruz. They are known for being outgoing and liberal.

Social, health, and environmental

The standard of living is Mexico is higher than most of other countries in Latin America, which draws people from places like Argentina, Brazil or Cuba to search for better opportunities. Mexico is also a racially and ethnically diverse country. Although Spanish is the common language in Mexico, English is widely used in business. English skills are in high demand and majority of private schools offer bilingual education. Mexico’s predominant religion is Roman Catholic. Catholics in Mexico total to 85 % of its population.

There is a great economic divide between the rich and the poor. This has contributed to high crime rates in Mexico. Drug trafficking is also a problem in Mexico. Mexican drug cartels deliver more than half of the methamphetamine supply to the United States. Corruption with police and administration has prevented crime control. Street crime and kidnappings are also a persistent problem in Mexico City.

Most of Mexico’s environment issues are now discussed through NAFTA. Mexico has been asked by NAFTA to raise its environmental protection standards to that of United States. Economic and population growth put pressure on the Mexican environment. Air pollution is a serious problem in Mexico. Mexico City has the worst air pollution and is ranked the most polluted city in the world. Pollution increases because of the growing numbers of factories and the increased truck traffic with United States.

Agrarian Reform that Works: A Study of Brazilian Agrarian Reform.

Since it’s Proclamation of Independence in 1822, Brazil has had a wide and vast spectrum of conflicts that plague the developing country, even to this day. Between resource management, political regimes, and a nearly out-of-control number of lower class, Brazil is looking to the future to emerge as a nation comparable to the economic giants of today. Before tackling global issues, however, Brazil must first deal with internal affairs that threaten to tear the fledging nation apart. One of Brazil’s most pressing political and economic issues of today is the problem of agrarian reform. While the Brazilian government seems to be sitting back and turning a rather apathetic eye to the issue, there is one group out there getting Brazil’s food production means up and running again. Despite the fact that the Sem Terra Movement (MST) appears to be working towards the betterment of Brazil, the government continually attempts to stomp their efforts.

In current day Brazil, land management should be a mute point in the country that takes up just under half the total landmass of South America. The current system under fire can be traced back to the late 1950s and the early 60s when America was in fear of escalation of the Cuban Revolution. The US decided to combat Communistic tendencies in Latin America with a policy known as the “Alliance of Progress” (Graziano). The Alliance aimed to establish a prosperous rural middle class by stimulating reform in the agricultural programs of Latin American nations. The policy would thus create an unfavorable environment for Communism as consumers and businessmen, alike, sought ways to get rich quick. The next step was to establish reform programs that worked, which is where Law 4504/64 (“The Land Statue”) comes into play. The Land Statue intended to provide Brazil with a “democratic solution” to the “socialist option” by boosting capitalism in rural communities (Graziano). While it seemed like The Land Statue would work as many Latin American countries made plans and held discussions, the democratic land distribution efforts never came to fruition – in fact quite the opposite happened. Backed by the military regime in 1964, capitalism’s face was soiled as emergence of the modern large landhold was encouraged through the use of plentiful rural credit. This system, of lots of land in just a few hands, dates back to Latin America’s colonial days when the Kings granted land estates to the noblemen (who did not always use the land to its fullest). After the French Revolution the people took the lands from the nobles by force and the precedent of agrarian reform was set. It was at this time that these estates were viewed as being some of the greatest evils of the nation’s social formation. Attempting to (and succeeding to) once again institute the system of land estates, the Castelo Branco Military Republic successfully boosted the nation’s economy onto the global market and all without the democratization of land distribution (Graziano). To this day, because the classic system of large land estates remains so, too, does the classic problem of having too much land in too few hands.

So what exactly is agrarian reform? In its simplest form, agrarian reform means turning uncultivated land into land for production. According to a 2000 government report on Human Rights and Agrarian Reform in Brazil, nearly 46% of all landing Brazil is held by 1% of the rural landowners. Of the 400 million hectares of land registered as private property, only sixty million is used for planting crops (Brazil). On top of that figures released from the Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) suggest that there is nearly 100 million hectares of land that remains unused. On top of this seemingly fertile land being set aside, of the sixty million hectares reported as being used for crops, that number shrank. From 1985 to 1996 lands that supported permanent crop growth fell by two million hectares while lands that supported temporary crop growth fell by 8.3 million hectares. In the period from 1980 to 1996, the total area of lands cultivated fell by 2% while the population of Brazil rose 34% (Brazil). So what exactly is the government doing wrong? As far as the Administration’s policies are concerned, very little. Article 11 (2) (a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights requires states-parties to fully use technical and scientific knowledge to improve the making, preservation, and distribution of food. It also states that state-parties must use the land to fit in with known nutritional principles to establish a system of agrarian reform that promotes efficient utilization and conservation of the natural resources of the state (Brazil).

Sounds nice on paper, but provides little to no details of how the government would provide for such advances in its reform measures. Much of the modern agrarian reform efforts were established under the Cardoso Administration that was elected in 1995 for two terms. A large part of the reform effort focused on industrialization of agriculture and the elevation of Brazil’s economy into the global market. Like the military regime of the early 80s, Cardoso also believed in the establishment of large land estates that could better prepare the grain grown for export (Graziano). The problem of a growing capitalistic system mixing with impoverished rural farmers is the emergence of rural oligopolies. These large farming entities raise prices on raw materials and prevent small farmers from obtaining them. Similarly, the large oligopolies produce more, faster via technology and manpower that rob the small rural businesses of sales (Graziano). It is a self-defeating cycle that necessitates a need for protection for the small producer to survive. The Cardoso government already took a large step towards agrarian reform by disappropriating 14 million hectares of land but is also self-defeating as it sold millions of hectares of land to large corporations. One business alone bought 4 million hectares of land – an area the size of Denmark. As it currently stands, there are 3,065 farmers hoarding 93 million hectares, 11% of the national territory (Graziano).

On May 4, 2000, the federal government, in response in increased pressures from several national rural laborers organizations, released a package of measures aimed at fixing the current problems in its agrarian reform plan. The majority of this package was seen as useless regardless of the measures the Administration attempted to take to help the reform effort. To better allocate money for agrarian reform the government decided that lands subject to expropriation that possess no productivity would obtain no compensatory interest (Brazil). That is, unproductive lands would not receive government funding. But what renders this measure useless is the fact that farmers can produce a handful of lettuce and still retain their land’s compensatory interest. The package of May 4th measures also allowed for the criminalization of laborers who engage in occupations of rural properties and public buildings with threats to their possible receipts of land title. The package also allowed for the criminalization of the leaders of the landless movement by use of the National Security Law, which was established during the reign of the military regime (Brazil). Just who are these landless laborers the government feels so adamantly about? The bigger question is why does the government see their downfall as a means to promote agrarian reform?

The mentality and need for an internal solution was first established in the 1970s when agrarian reform efforts meant agricultural modernization and the end of countless rural farmer’s jobs. Further backed by the increasing liberation theology of the Catholic Church, the Sem Terra Movement (MST), or “Landless Movement,” found its roots in the landless populations of Brazil (Plummer). “Landless” is the term given to the lowest of the social classes in Brazil, those that work on the lands without actually owning them, and number around 4.8 million. During 1979 and 1978 the Catholic Church began viewing the poor as righteous and dispossessed and began to organize landless laborers through their Pastoral Land Commission (CPT). By 1984 the CPT was looking for an autonomous movement that could unify efforts around rural Brazil. Later that year 1500 representatives from 16 (of the 27) states met and formed the MST. The MST ran under three primary goals: The first, and seemingly most important is to get the land out of the hands of estates and getting a productive farm established. The second goal is the foundation of an agrarian reform program entailing both land distribution and putting policies in place to protect and bolster rural families. The last and simplistically ideal goal is the search for a “more just society” (Plummer).

Under these three principle beliefs the movement set out to provide for the landless and all of the impoverished of Brazil. For years the MST has grown as a grass roots operation; occupations of land by the organization have been increasingly progressive over the years. In 1991 the group involved nearly 15,000 families while in 1995 it had over 30,000 (Graziano). Since 1991 the MST movement has placed over 150,000 families onto nearly 21 million hectares of idle land. By the end of President Cardoso’s first term (from Jan 1995 – Jan 1999) the group had placed 260,000 families on 8 million hectares of land (“Landless Movement”). The appeal of the group is simple; it involves the rural poor in the economical and political affairs of the country. The Cardoso Administration realized this and in 1999 implemented the Banco de Terra program to sell land on the market. But this program was bitterly shot down as groups used the government’s own studies to show that the land was already too expensive for poor farmers to purchase and contend with large-scale agribusinesses (“Landless Movement”). Today the MST operates under much broader goals. Seeking everything from agrarian reform to industrialization of “the Interior” the MST also has established a budget of over 50 million dollars from various enterprises while 60% of the profits come from contributions. Most of this money is either reinvested or used to pay for the work of poor farmers (Padgett). But do not get the impression the MST is only about agrarian reform, in their squatter camps all over Brazil one can now find MST schools being setup to educate illiterate farmers. But how does this group’s non-violent occupations of land help agrarian reform? What the MST does is find an unproductive estate of land and move a family of farmers in on it. The group then petitions the government for the title to the land. Once granted, the family and MST work on the farm as a collective enterprise, making the settlement productive again. Following this process of land reform, the MST truly live up to their slogan of “Occupy, Resist, Produce.”

Regardless of the MST’s success, it has done so only in the face of extreme government repression. From 1985 to 1995 there were 969 assassinations against workers and activists – 820 of those are documented attempts while over 2,400 rural worker, family members, and MST officials have been threatened with their lives (“The Landless Movement”). The movement’s demonstrations have also been the target of government “orders” such as the one on April 17th, 1998. Nineteen activists were killed when military police fired at an unarmed demonstration at what was to become known as the Eldorado de Carajas massacre. The 153 policemen accused of the murders still await trials four years later. But such a lag in trails in characteristic with MST murders. Of the 820 documented assassination attempts, only fifty-six of the assassins have been held accountable for their crimes, of that number only seven have been convicted (Hinchberger).

Violence has been the response of the Cardoso Administration to the MST but the sun has set on the Cardoso presidency and a new President now stands ready to tackle Brazil’s issues. President Lula da Silva has already tackled with the MST when shortly after his inauguration, the MST setup a roadblock on a state highway and took the Minister of Land Reform hostage. The group demanded expropriation of lands as well as support on several land settlements. The Brazilian government claimed that the MST leadership did not know about the action and termed it a “local” event. That statement, however, goes against the MST leadership’s statement that they had full-knowledge of the event. The President decided to negotiate with the hostage-takers setting a dangerous, yet benevolent, precedent between the Silva Administration and the MST (“Lulawatch”). But perhaps Lula has gone one-step beyond helping the MST in their efforts. Lula, having recognized poverty and hunger as a major factor in the streets of his cities, has established the Zero Hunger Program. With an initial budget of 1.8 billion dollars, the Zero Hunger Program aims to setup realizable goals such as the establishment of food banks in urban centers and food rationing cards. (AFP)

With a booming population, and a growing number of hungry, poor, rural and urban families crowding Brazilian streets, perhaps the time has come to promote change. While the MST has succeeded in the face of brutal government repression, imagine its success when unhindered and assisted by the government. The funny thing about the issue is both groups are seeking the same goal, a goal that has been tried for for decades – an agrarian reform that works. Is this the kind of “just society” the MST was aiming for? Has this new president aimed to relieve the immediate pressures of an archaic agrarian reform plan? Only time will tell.

Works Cited

AFP. “FAO support for Lula’s ‘Zero Hunger’ call.” ClariNet. 23 Jan 2003. 31 Mar 2003.


Brazil. Global Justice Center. National Report on the Situation of Human Rights and Agrarian Reform in Brazil. 17 May 2000. 25 Feb 2003.


Graziano, Francisco. Agrarian Reform. 2001. 31 Mar 2003.


Hinchberger, Bill. “Land of No Return? Not Brazil.” The Nation 2 Mar 1998. Global Exchange. 31 Mar 2003.


Langevin, Mark S., Peter Rosset. “Land Reform From Below: The Landless Workers Movement in Brazil.” MST. 23 July 2001. 25 Feb 2003.


“Lulawatch.” The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. 17 Feb 2003. 25 Feb 2003. <>.

Padgett, Tim. “Brazil’s Landless Rebels.” Time. 19 Jan 1998. 25 Feb 2003.


Plummer, Dawn, Betsy Ranun. “Brazil’s Anti-Globalization Squad.” Brazzil. Feb 2003. 25 Feb 2003. <>.

“The Landless Movement.” Brazil Network. April 2003. Brazil Network. 31 Mar 2003. <>.

Mexico vs. United States.

Man, it’s hot! Temperature that exceeds one hundred degrees Fahrenheit is the only thing one finds at the Mexico, U.S. border while waiting to cross it. Yes, the United States and Mexico share a border, but they have other similarities, such as the kind of government, similar shopping facilities and wonderful vacationing locations. Differences also come into play when one has two different countries; these differences are people and government, which lead to other differences.

Some ways Mexico and the U.S. are the same are great vacation areas, similar shopping facilities, same kind of government, and they share a border. First, both U.S. and Mexico possess famous vacationing locations, such as Hawaii, Miami, and New York for the U.S. and Cancun, Acapulco, and Puerto Vallarta for Mexico. Second, shopping places are actually similar. For example, plazas in Mexico are like malls in the U.S. and some stores are the same like Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club. Third, the United States and Mexico have the same type of government, which is a democratic government giving everyone an opinion in any governmental issue. Finally, Mexico and the U.S. share a border that is located along the bottom of the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

On the contrary, being two distinct countries means they also have plenty of differences in between. For instance, the drinking age, driving age, taxes, and poverty, which all fall into the same category: government. If one did not know, the drinking age in Mexico is eighteen (this may be why many seniors head to Mexico for Spring break.) This leads to another age concerning situation: driving age. In Mexico, one has to be eighteen to drive, but neither drinking or driving ages are respected, and the paucity of respect for government is unbelievable. Unlike the U.S., in Mexico, one does not have to pay taxes; poverty is another quandary Mexicans face in their own country.

In addition, other differences are the people that are in both countries. They bring with them more differences to add to the picture that are religion, culture and education. To start, education is a big difference, being the fact that the U.S. has better technology. Now here is what gets everyone what we are learning right now in our basic classes they learned in eighth grade; lets just say they’re a little ahead. In the U.S., many people are from other countries, meaning different cultures and religions. In Mexico, mostly everyone is Catholic and the culture is pretty much the same throughout the country.

As said, Mexico and the United States can be very similar and so distinct at the same time. From government issues to people, many things can be different in two neighboring countries. The interesting part is they also share so much, including the border. I am burning up here; can we please just cross the border already?

I didn’t use any bibliographies for this essay

Ancient Civilizations Along the Rivers: Assyrian and Indus Valley.

Ancient civilizations have taught and passed on knowledge to following civilizations and have given us insight to what life was and how life was thousands of years ago. Two very similar yet different cultures are the Assyrians, which were a part of the Mesopotamian civilization, and the Indus Valley civilization. Mesopotamia stands for the “land between rivers” in Greek (The British Museum). The Indus Valley Civilization also existed about the same time period and flourished along the Indus River. In this paper, I will compare similarities and differences between the Mesopotamian and Indus Valley civilizations and also relate how both cultures influenced our cultures today.

Mesopotamian is a general term for Sumer, Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires. Mesopotamians created many city-states along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Specialized labor and agriculture, aided by irrigation and flood control systems, helped this civilization survive. The Assyrians were warriors who defeated Babylonians, Hittites, and Elamites. Much of the Assyrian architecture, statues, murals, and sculptures depicted the cultures warring ways. Ethnic differences can be seen in Assyrian art as the physical appearances of enemies appear different than that of the Assyrians. The palace walls were covered with stone slabs and carved with images of court rituals, hunting, and war. Moreover, texts were found next to reliefs which were used to identify specific people who were important. People were also depicted by standardized clothing and headgear rather than their physical form (Bahrani 48-59). The Indus Valley civilization was a large civilization which extended over 400,000 km2 The Indus Valley civilization established itself along the Saraswati and Indus River (Lal 6). The cities were well planned along with well established farming villages. The Indus Valley civilization also had a standardization of weights and measures which portrayed “impressive administrative and economic discipline.” This complexity helped lead to the development of shell-working, bead-making, and ceramics with multi-layer patterns (Krishnan 691-703). Both cultures were very similar in many aspects. Both were established along rivers and well planned. Both the Indus Valley civilization and the Assyrians existed during the same time period, around the first and second millennium BCE. However, the Assyrians were war-faring warriors whereas the Indus Valley civilization maintained order and civilization. The Assyrian art also involved sculptures and distinguished people by clothing and head-ware in their art. The Indus Valley civilization specialized in pottery, ceramics, and beads. Both cultures set a base for future cultures to learn upon and establish upon. The well thought and planned cities and towns of the Indus Valley and Assyrians have played a very important role in shaping our cultures today. The extensive planning these civilizations undertook millenniums ago tell us how the smart these civilizations were. The ceramic art and sculptures made way for later cultures like the Greek for example; multiple layers of detail done to ceramics paved the way for future cultures to expand upon. Today, ceramic is used particularly for tile, but if it was never created and improvised upon centuries ago, it would not be what it is today. Also sculptures are a very skilled form of art which tell us how much people art has progressed over the years.

Taking a look into history, we cannot help but stand in awe at the accomplishments of previous civilizations. Overall, ancient civilizations have taught and passed on knowledge from civilization to civilization teaching us how life was thousands of years ago. It also teaches us how much cultures have progresses over the years. The fact that both the Indus Valley civilization and the Assyrian Mesopotamians chose to settle along rivers and spread surprises ms; this portrays that food and transportation were a major concern. Just like today, a small settlement alongside a river has flourished and spread north to south, east to west like cities today. This has further lead to an assimilation and exchange of ideas. From the works of these ancient civilizations, we have created our new world. Surprising as it may be, ancient civilizations already began to reach a high level of advancement. However, with most civilizations and cultures being long gone, we have been left with relics and pieces of art, providing us insight to the ancient worlds.

BibliographyBahrani, Zainab. “Race and ethnicity in Mesopotanian antiquity 1. “World Archaeology 38.1 (Mar. 2006): 48-59. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Chambers Library, Edmond, OK. 4 Jan 2009

“Geography”. The British Museum. 31 December 2008 <>.

KRISHNAN, K., I.C. FREESTONE, and A. P. MIDDLETON. “THE TECHNOLOGY OF ‘GLAZED’ RESERVED SLIP WARE—A FINE CERAMIC OF HARAPPAN PERIOD*.’’ Archaeometry 47.4 (Nov 2005) 691-703. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Chambers Library, Edmond, OK. 4 Jan 2009

LAL, VINAY. “The Indus Valley Civilization.” Introducing Hinduism (Apr. 2005): 6-6. Humanities International Complete. EBSCO. Chambers Library, Edmond, OK. 1 Jan. 2009 <>.