Pro Gun Control Vs Anti Gun Control... Which is more controlled?

I have chosen two very juxtaposed website on the idea of gun control both in the argument itself but also the way they have chosen to put forward their argument. Both of the websites I have chosen however have had a slightly confusing method of argument where throughout it is almost uncertain of whether they are for or against gun control.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/baldwin/130921

The first thing that draws your attention on this web page is the title of the article itself 'Guns don't kill people: Gun control laws kill people,' this hard hitting title gave me a hint that this website would be slightly too forward and cynical to make a convincing argument. Through most of this web page I found myself cringing at the racist and bias remarks against the government and without a single mention of the gun control issues itself properly until after a what seemed like a moan from the writer I was driven off of the argument against gun control altogether. Another thing that caught my attention on this webpage was the top banner 'Renew America' with a picture of the signing of the Constitution, this made it very clear that the argument was against Gun Control, with renewal being Ironic as the argument is against change but the argument itself is arguing that every thing should stay true to history and the constitution of America. Statements like, 'This is the second time in recent memory when some wacko shoots up a military installation. The first killer was a Muslim; this one was a Buddhist. He also happened to be a black man and an Obama supporter' made me feel like this particular website was not specifically against gun control it is in fact against people of other cultures (Muslim), races (Black), religions (Buddhist) and more specifically those who supported Barak Obama. The hindrance in this web page is their slanderous terms against others and their government which made the web page overall a very uncomfortable read which left me feeling slightly outraged and angry.  However we do have to ask ourselves why such an article against gun control uses an argument like this to argue for their cause. 'It is past time for these so-called conservatives in the GOP to grow some man stuff and start taking their oaths to the Constitution seriously.' The harshness and immaturity of this article makes it one that should not be taken seriously, it's argument is very rash and bold in the wrong way, the message is very clear that their issue is not with the gun control itself it is more of a way to moan about the 'miscreants in Washington.'

http://proguncontrol.net/

 

Similarly to the Anti gun control website the argument on the website is slightly vague, this is seen through the use of the title 'Whether you are for or against gun control, the statistics are on your side.' Firstly this makes me believe that this website is in fact a balanced argument of gun control arguing both sides however this is not the case when you read through the site. At the offset the title makes the argument seem very weak and worthless, however it gives the site more of a liberal feel, it gives you a sense of freedom to choose, it isn't as overpowering or offensive as the first website. This instantly makes it seem more convincing as an argument. The website in general seems more factual, the website is more statistical based rather than opinionated which also makes the argument seem more convincing. However because the title makes the website seem balanced and the argument is not strong it is more facts around gun control and the opinions of those who are pro gun control like, 'Some of those in the pro gun control movement want to see certain guns taken off the shelves, while others believe that they should be outlawed entirely.' This makes the argument seem unspecific and too vague to be a strong and convincing argument.

All in all, both of the websites have there weaknesses and are both unconvincing in their own ways, the first is too strong and opinionated and can often seem too biased or insulting to be a convincing argument. Whereas the second website is not strong enough, the facts show the truth behind gun control but do not evoke any passion towards the cause, making it also unconvincing.

Currier and Ives

This is a painting of a home on the Mississippi made by Currier and Ives. This painting was made in 1837. In this painting there is no seeing of any kind of native american's so they have removed them obviously, so they could build on there land. The reason for there not being any native Americans is because round the time this painting was made the native american's were forced to live on reservations so the Americans were able to change america into a more living country and destroying all of the native american's resources like there Bison and removing them from claiming the Mississippi as a place for one of the many tribes to live. This painting is also proof that the american's actually manifested there ideas of homes rather quickly giving the century that this made in. Although there is no native Americans there are some black people standing by the fence which is just showing that maybe slavery for the blacks are fading even if they are not equal in the white Americans eye they have come along way to even be looked upon as people on a painting made in a rather racist era of time. 

Currier and Ives was a successful printmaking company, the company was controlled by Nathaniel Currier. It was based in New York between 1837-1907. The reason for the company being called Currier and ives was because of Nathaniel Currier move to partner with Ives, but ives didn't start appearing until 1857. But that same year that Currier joined ives company, Currier made ives a full partner

Week 8 Blog

American Studies Week 8 Blog

Select and analyse any 19thC painting or photograph of either the American West or the native American peoples, and explore the implications of “manifest destiny” in the image, both overt and hidden. Make sure not to choose something  from the East coast or something obscure, eg it should be something that is culturally recognised as associated with the West and expansion.

First Image - http://antiquesandthearts.smugmug.com/Covers/American-Buffalo/i-Z9Cf69S/A

This painting by George Catlin depicts a scene in the American West. Three Native Americans are in the process of hunting some bison. It is set in an upland wilderness with grass, scattered trees and majestic, bare mountain peaks, and is painted with vibrant colour, especially green, illustrating the lushness of the environment at the time. The mountain range in the background is symbolic of challenge posed by the country that needs to be conquered, a destiny with which Americans have come to associate themselves today. It could be said that the scene is a kind of paradise, as Catlin describes this particular setting that he painted as “like a fairy land”. If so, it was the destiny of American settlers to occupy and cultivate this Eden.

The reason for this is that within this huge natural setting Catlin has only depicted three isolated living figures of Native Americans, who are hunting half a dozen or so bison. The landscape is extremely empty, uncultivated, unused. The Native Americans seem to have done nothing to improve it. Manifest destiny was seen as calling to American settlers to move west and put the land to much better use. There could be farms and crops grown here, and the area could be filled with people instead of being some kind of ‘wasteland’. To American eyes, it is completely uncivilized. From this picture, it seems that the price to be paid for this would be small. There is no sign of other animals such as elk and wolves, and so it ignores two species that would come to suffer greatly as a result of the desire of the Americans to realize their manifest destiny. As is well known, the bison were also hunted to the brink of extinction during this era and as a result the Native Americans who had depended on the animals as their livelihood greatly suffered. It also goes without saying that the Native Americans also suffered from genocide and were forced to relocate from such settings as depicted in the paintings as the white people migrated westward. But there are so few of them here that it seems ridiculous that they should be allowed to stand in the way of progress. So in many ways, the painting is representative of the ideas about Native Americans and the wilderness that allowed them to be destroyed as a result of manifest destiny.

It is true that the painting did not attempt to depict the Native Americans as something evil or bad. If one was to look at other paintings, such the American Progress by John Cast, they are clearly depicted in this manner with the use of dark clouds painted above their heads. However in Catlin’s painting, there is nothing of the sort. They hardly seem to exist as a problem.

Second Image - 

http://hoocher.com/Charles_Marion_Russell/Charles_Marion_Russell.htm

            A second painting, by Charles Marion Russell, depicts an encounter between gold diggers and Native Americans at the very end of the 19^th century. Entitled A Desperate Stand it shows several men making a last stand by forming a circle and using their horses to protect themselves. Native Americans are circling on their horses.

In the painting Russell clearly attempts to portray those making this stand as heroes who were being attacked by barbaric Natives. It is most likely that the audience of the time would have viewed this painting as another example of the Natives being an obstacle to the progress of American society and as people who were occupying land and resources that were rightly theirs. The gold diggers were simply trying to better themselves and take advantages of natural resources that they Native Americans had neglected and to which they therefore had no right. They clearly need to be excluded from the landscape because they have no ideas of civilized behaviour in attacking such a numerically inferior enemy.

In reality, of course, such confrontations as depicted in the painting were caused as a result of the repeated violations of the treaties by gold diggers who would venture into Native American territory in search of gold. The painting also serves as a premonition of how the manifest destiny/expansion to the west would eventually result in the Native Americans being driven out of their land and forced into territories and reservations against their will. No such concerns were allowed any value in paintings like this. The artist’s sympathies were all on one side.

19th Century photography

A 19th Century photograph of the American Landscape

 Landscape: Browns Park, Colorado

Timothy H. O'Sullivan (1840-82) was a photographer widely known for his work related to the American Civil War and the Western United States.

"Not only was O'Sullivan one of the most intrepid and successful of the U.S. government expedition photographers who roamed the West under appalling conditions in the late 1860s and 1870s," from the Tucson Weekly wrote in 2003 by Margaret Regan, "he was one of the best of the Civil War photographers. His photos of the war's anonymous dead, lying bloated in the bloody fields of Gettysburg and elsewhere, are emblazoned into the consciousness of Americans."

O'Sullivan toook photographs of the American West between 1867 and 1874,During two expeditions administered by the U.S. War Department (one led by Clarence King along the 40th parallel and the other by Lt. George M).

What marks us in these images is the curiosity shown by the photographer, the perfection of the composition and the beauty of the wild landscapes of the American West, which are already being radically transformed deeper. 

We see one character surrounded by the enormous landscape. Which could represent the fact that us, human are really small in the world? The character also represents a man which takes the land as his possession. Thinking this land belong to them.. Which emphases the 'manifesty destiny'

I believe that this photography was taken to show the 'incredible landscape' and natural beauty of west and encourage people to travel west, to discover new area and encourage western expansion.

 

American Studies Week 7 Blog

American Studies Week 7 Blog

Find and embed any video advertisement for a candidate in an American election – local or state. The advertisement does not have to be current. Analyse the message given in the advertisement and relate it to the ideals and recurrent themes of political life in the American republic

Chosen Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEyZZz5LXw4

            The video advertisement selected, was made for Democratic candidate Nate Shinagawa, who was running for Congress in 2012. The candidate’s target audience is the country’s mainstream citizens and the message is very clear: he will help to rebuild the middle class and thus improve the economy. The video very cleverly portrays the plight of people since the recent financial crisis, using black and white shots and focusing on their lives and somewhat poignant expressions. It concludes with a colour shot of the candidate who endorses the message and states that “I choose the middle class” representing himself as someone who can deliver on their hope to escape their current situation.

But for this to happen the candidate has to be elected, so the video also appeals to audience by emphasizing the importance of their choice. For example the first 10-15 seconds of the video focuses purely on the importance of the choices of their votes by claiming that the “future of our country depends on a series of choices” and that “the next representative will help choose if we are going to rebuild a middle class”. It then asks those watching if they are going to choose to allow “Tom Reed cut taxes for the wealthiest” and “reward companies that ship American jobs overseas”, re-emphasizing the importance of their choice and in the process also attacking his opponent, the Republican candidate Tom Reed.

In general the video highlights the importance of the people/community, a view representative of the Democrats. However we can also see that by focusing on the topic of “choices” the video is also indirectly referring to, and emphasizing the nature and importance of individual rights. This is interesting because the Republicans value such rights as much as the Democrats, though they interpret them differently. The right of the people to choose its representatives was a key feature of the struggle for American Independence and has been a recurrent theme in U.S. history, as in Lincoln’s definition of democracy in his Gettysburg Address as ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’.

The problem of taxes is also mentioned in the video, and this is another recurrent theme in American politics from the time of the American Revolution. By exploring this topic, the video links the candidate to his country’s past. The statement “Tom Reed cut taxes for the wealthiest” clearly implies that the rich will have it easy whilst the working/middle class people will be forced to take upon another unfair burden, that is eerily similar to situation of those poor Americans before 1776 who were forced to pay exorbitant taxes to the crown in comparison to those who lived in Britain. So the video actually manages to portray his Republican opponent in the same light as the Revolutionists viewed King George III and England. Finally, by focusing on the American flag, the video appeals to the country’s patriotism, seen most strongly in time of war, against enemies like the British or Japanese. It accuses Tom Reed of rewarding companies that ship American jobs overseas, which is a kind of treason, helping America’s economic enemies, just like Benedict Arnold helped the British during the War of Independence.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157244/Democratic-Party

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/498842/Republican-Party

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

Bill de Blasio

 Bill De Blasio.

                                           A picture of the Bill De Blasio's family.

This is the campaign video for Bill de Blasio. De Blasio, a former alderman and current Brooklyn mediator of the city, who chose to conduct his campaign by proposing a radical change from the policy of Mr. Bloomberg, accused'' have contributed to widening inequalities within the population of New York.Councilor representing the 39th district of New York from 2002 to 2009, he has held since January 1, 2010 as a mediator of the City of New York (New York City Public Advocate).
 

I have chosen this video campaign, firstly because it’s actual; it’s on news, the election was only two days ago.

I think this video is really interested to discuss because his son is the one in the campaign.

In the advertisement Dante talks about Bill de Blasio being the only democrat who only raise taxtes on the rich ‘Tax Weathly’.

He mentioned that de Blasio defines early childhood, and after school programms. It prove that education is needed.

It’s important to comment on ‘he’s the only one that will end a stop and frisk error that unfairly targets people of colour’ – A lot of young coloured people in America are victim of it.

The main message given I think about is how family is important, the support of his 16-years-old son. The fact that a teenager is giving his view on the election is really essential. It proves that he can stand for himself, tell and think what he wants even though he is related to De Blasio