A clear sense I got from Crevecoeur when I read Letter III 'What is an American' is a freedom and ability to work for yourself, to live off your own private owned land, to farm and feed yourself and the rewards you would get from this would be incredible.
'They receive ample rewards for their labours: these accumulated rewards produce them lands: those lands confer on them the title of free men.'
'The American is a new man, who acts upon principles; he must therefore entertain new ideas a opinions. He has passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by ample subsistence. This is an American.'
My view on these quotes is that both similarly use the word 'reward,' working off the land will earn you something worthwhile, something you want, it will earn you something that will make you feel happy. 'Labours,' 'lands,' 'nature,' all seem to point to a view that Americans will work one on one with nature and the rewards and freedom that come out of it are blissful. Many moved from Europe to America to be free men, to work for themselves and not others and personally this seems to me to be idealist. You gain your own rewards, you do not have to share your hard work with others, just yourself and your family. If America was founded upon these philosophies I believe America is more 'European' than Europe. For example: 'The US Government breaks employment into groups, for example there are 235,086 Civilian noninstitutional employees as of 03/31/09' (http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-americans-work). This shows me that a very small percentage of Americans do not work for others or their society or companies, showing that very few Americans work for themselves any more or off of the land. As America has developed it has become the super power Crevecoeur's ideas of what Europe was like, work is not for yourself anymore, nature is unimportant and working off the land is not the first choice of livelihood anymore. Personally I think this is a shame.
Reading further into this thought I looked at how an American could go about living off the land and looked to a website called 'EHow' a website which helps people to be more creative and artsy and live for themselves, at first glance at this instruction website there was no mention of any permanence. 'Ever gotten the urge to quit the rat race and live in the wilderness? In
fact, it's very difficult for a solitary person to live comfortably off the
land.' (http://www.ehow.com/how_136589_live-land.html#ixzz2m3NoQDGH)
From the offset it tells you it would be 'difficult' to live comfortably off the land and almost tries to put you off not living within society. All of the points also point towards buying things from society to help you to live independently, like going on a course within the wilderness and buying many tools to help you in the process or even point 11) 'Keep an apartment in Manhattan for those times when you need to get away from it all.' This all points to consumerism that even if you want to escape society and live for your self you should still give to society to help you towards it.
Nowadays Crevecoeur's idea of living off of the land is null, people will buy from supermarkets, work for society and not for themselves and their family will most likely continue this chain further. Thus showing that work and the 'land' are not what they used to be.
Friday, 29 November 2013
Manifest Destiny painting... Is it as positive as it seems?
'WESTWARD THE STAR OF EMPIRE TAKES ITS WAY'- 1867
The first thing that draws my attention in this painting and this title is the use of a star. The train headlight draws your eye to it's light immediately showing it's grand importance and also distracts your eye from the desolate landscape surrounding the light. This immediately made me think of religious terms, where a star guided the wise men to their destiny and to their faith. This symbolises the mystical and religious aspects of Manifest Destiny, men are being lead to their destiny through the Christian faith and it would be obvious that this would be depicted through a star. The fact the star is in fact a train symbolises the technology and the travel of this time is the destiny guiding those to their path. The next thing I notice within this painting is the cracked train track which would derail the train if it were to pass this point, this interested me and made me wonder if this was a metaphor for Americans taking Manifest Destiny too far and if it passes a certain point it may derail and be destroyed. This then makes me wonder whether this painting is more of a warning than a presentation of Manifest destiny, the light creates a positive connotation but also draws you away from the immanent dangers in the surroundings, this could be a warning, 'do not be blinded by the light, open your eyes and see.'
Further from the train rail we see Deer flocking from the train with a look of fear and confusion, this could be a message that Manifest Destiny is destroying the nature and the surroundings, nature is running away from the people. This is also represented through the desolate and bare surroundings in the left hand of the picture, most of the trees are stumps and what you are left with is a single house, this could show how much a single person or family could affect nature, with so many trees being cut down is this a representation of greed, taking too much from nature. In turn we get a dark and almost fearful sense within this side of the picture. This was apparently supposed to represent San Francisco, which would later become a beautiful and nature friendly area of America, however this depiction shows a lack of nature, a lack of light and a lonely place. This to me seems ironic that a place that has a depiction of being against nature later became one of the places helping to preserve it. I believe this painting is all in all a mere warning that Manifest Destiny may go too far, it is against nature and is a dark place to follow.
Although the star/ train has a positive connotation of Manifest Destiny it is almost a sign that the light and the mystery and the magic of Manifest Destiny is blinding your sight to the darkness which surrounds the rest of the picture, I believe that Andrew Melrose the artist has intended this painting to show the negatives of Manifest Destiny that no body saw, he wanted to get past the ideology and show that destroying nature was dark and stripped all of the beauty out of America like it has done in the painting.
The first thing that draws my attention in this painting and this title is the use of a star. The train headlight draws your eye to it's light immediately showing it's grand importance and also distracts your eye from the desolate landscape surrounding the light. This immediately made me think of religious terms, where a star guided the wise men to their destiny and to their faith. This symbolises the mystical and religious aspects of Manifest Destiny, men are being lead to their destiny through the Christian faith and it would be obvious that this would be depicted through a star. The fact the star is in fact a train symbolises the technology and the travel of this time is the destiny guiding those to their path. The next thing I notice within this painting is the cracked train track which would derail the train if it were to pass this point, this interested me and made me wonder if this was a metaphor for Americans taking Manifest Destiny too far and if it passes a certain point it may derail and be destroyed. This then makes me wonder whether this painting is more of a warning than a presentation of Manifest destiny, the light creates a positive connotation but also draws you away from the immanent dangers in the surroundings, this could be a warning, 'do not be blinded by the light, open your eyes and see.'
Further from the train rail we see Deer flocking from the train with a look of fear and confusion, this could be a message that Manifest Destiny is destroying the nature and the surroundings, nature is running away from the people. This is also represented through the desolate and bare surroundings in the left hand of the picture, most of the trees are stumps and what you are left with is a single house, this could show how much a single person or family could affect nature, with so many trees being cut down is this a representation of greed, taking too much from nature. In turn we get a dark and almost fearful sense within this side of the picture. This was apparently supposed to represent San Francisco, which would later become a beautiful and nature friendly area of America, however this depiction shows a lack of nature, a lack of light and a lonely place. This to me seems ironic that a place that has a depiction of being against nature later became one of the places helping to preserve it. I believe this painting is all in all a mere warning that Manifest Destiny may go too far, it is against nature and is a dark place to follow.
Although the star/ train has a positive connotation of Manifest Destiny it is almost a sign that the light and the mystery and the magic of Manifest Destiny is blinding your sight to the darkness which surrounds the rest of the picture, I believe that Andrew Melrose the artist has intended this painting to show the negatives of Manifest Destiny that no body saw, he wanted to get past the ideology and show that destroying nature was dark and stripped all of the beauty out of America like it has done in the painting.
German views on America.
http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t146811-30.html
When looking for a source of information to base an entire countries view on America I unsurprisingly had some difficulties. It is hard to round up enough people who represent their country and unique viewpoints well enough to be statistically accurate, so I thought instead of trying to use statistical views or percentages I would use a blog site full of opinions because after all having a view on something is merely an opinion. So what better than to use a blog site of German people 'rambling' and joking over their stereotypes of America.
First of all what I found obvious was that most of the topics followed food and drink, media, TV and music. German being a country who is stereotypically proud of its food and drink it did not surprise me to see quotes like this: 'And don't get me started on American beer or bread.' Another obvious view point that came from Germany was a slight fear and reluctance of American patriotism, they found it disturbing, however we have to ask ourselves if this is due to the past in Germany and their inherent fear to love their country and follow their leader too much because of the happenings around WW2. We have to ask ourselves whether Germany dislikes certain parts of America because it is American or because they do not want to pick out their own flaws and because they are all too proud of their produce.
Another interesting point that people addressed was it's America's vastness, although they had views on the industries of America, their food and their scandalous tabloids they would not specifically negatively portray the people themselves, they mention that, 'I think there are Americans that are assholes, idiots, and ignorant people, just like you'll find the same type of people here and any other country in the world.' This view surprised me, so many people on the blog were ready to argue that American culture and its portrayal in the world is negative and wrong, however the specifics about its people remain mainly positive, this view makes me feel that Germany does not think that American people are bad, they believe it is their portrayal through the media, their music and food industry that remains the worst part of America.
The German views I found within this blog especially in pages 2 and 3, seemed to skim over the important factors like WW2 and their own history and concentrated on less important factors like beer, their ability to cook and their scandalous and corrupt politicians which seemed to be very ironic coming from a German point of view. One of the first criticisms of America on this site was, 'Americans are over-sensitive to past sins of their politicians,' this adds to the irony that Germans within this blog post are trying to avoid the obvious large elephant in the room when it came to discussing America. Therefore I do not believe that Germans on this blog have talked about anything specific about American people because they understand that because of the stereotypes of their own country it would be wrong or hypocritical to talk about America in a way which does not involve the obvious issues of music, TV and food.
Here are some of the quotes I found interesting and quite funny within the blog:
'I do think many Germans are too harsh in their opinions about the US, and don't see the full picture, simply because of how Americans are represented in the media (which is pretty far off reality in my opinion).' An issue of media portrayal within America.
'Not to generalize, but I find that Americans are, surprisingly, more interested in whistling and less in frottage, while they enjoy leather trousers they do not spend enough on talcum powder, their notion of a flan is frankly laughable and their attitude towards a souffle would shame a Botswanan bushman, while at the same time their resourcefulness in avoiding goat herds deserves all our admiration.' An Issue of the production of food and Drink within America
'It's that last sentence that really stands out. I'm disturbed at the notion that anyone in the world hasn't carefully compiled a comprehensive opinion of Americans.'
'The thread is ridiculous, because you can't compare an American from bum-f*ck Arkansas to one from San Francisco. The country is HUGE. It's like comparing a Hamburger to a lederhosen-clad Bavarian, only worse.'
When looking for a source of information to base an entire countries view on America I unsurprisingly had some difficulties. It is hard to round up enough people who represent their country and unique viewpoints well enough to be statistically accurate, so I thought instead of trying to use statistical views or percentages I would use a blog site full of opinions because after all having a view on something is merely an opinion. So what better than to use a blog site of German people 'rambling' and joking over their stereotypes of America.
First of all what I found obvious was that most of the topics followed food and drink, media, TV and music. German being a country who is stereotypically proud of its food and drink it did not surprise me to see quotes like this: 'And don't get me started on American beer or bread.' Another obvious view point that came from Germany was a slight fear and reluctance of American patriotism, they found it disturbing, however we have to ask ourselves if this is due to the past in Germany and their inherent fear to love their country and follow their leader too much because of the happenings around WW2. We have to ask ourselves whether Germany dislikes certain parts of America because it is American or because they do not want to pick out their own flaws and because they are all too proud of their produce.
Another interesting point that people addressed was it's America's vastness, although they had views on the industries of America, their food and their scandalous tabloids they would not specifically negatively portray the people themselves, they mention that, 'I think there are Americans that are assholes, idiots, and ignorant people, just like you'll find the same type of people here and any other country in the world.' This view surprised me, so many people on the blog were ready to argue that American culture and its portrayal in the world is negative and wrong, however the specifics about its people remain mainly positive, this view makes me feel that Germany does not think that American people are bad, they believe it is their portrayal through the media, their music and food industry that remains the worst part of America.
The German views I found within this blog especially in pages 2 and 3, seemed to skim over the important factors like WW2 and their own history and concentrated on less important factors like beer, their ability to cook and their scandalous and corrupt politicians which seemed to be very ironic coming from a German point of view. One of the first criticisms of America on this site was, 'Americans are over-sensitive to past sins of their politicians,' this adds to the irony that Germans within this blog post are trying to avoid the obvious large elephant in the room when it came to discussing America. Therefore I do not believe that Germans on this blog have talked about anything specific about American people because they understand that because of the stereotypes of their own country it would be wrong or hypocritical to talk about America in a way which does not involve the obvious issues of music, TV and food.
Here are some of the quotes I found interesting and quite funny within the blog:
'I do think many Germans are too harsh in their opinions about the US, and don't see the full picture, simply because of how Americans are represented in the media (which is pretty far off reality in my opinion).' An issue of media portrayal within America.
'Not to generalize, but I find that Americans are, surprisingly, more interested in whistling and less in frottage, while they enjoy leather trousers they do not spend enough on talcum powder, their notion of a flan is frankly laughable and their attitude towards a souffle would shame a Botswanan bushman, while at the same time their resourcefulness in avoiding goat herds deserves all our admiration.' An Issue of the production of food and Drink within America
'It's that last sentence that really stands out. I'm disturbed at the notion that anyone in the world hasn't carefully compiled a comprehensive opinion of Americans.'
'The thread is ridiculous, because you can't compare an American from bum-f*ck Arkansas to one from San Francisco. The country is HUGE. It's like comparing a Hamburger to a lederhosen-clad Bavarian, only worse.'
Thursday, 28 November 2013
Thursday, 21 November 2013
American Studies Blog Week 9
American
Studies Blog Week 9
Compare any TWO websites, one pro-gun
control and one anti-gun control. If your views are pro-gun control, analyse
the video in favour of guns and explain its point of view - and vice versa if
your views are anti-gun control.
Being in
favour of gun control myself, I selected a source that is against the idea of
restricting the ownership of guns in the U.S. The video I chose is from a
public hearing concerned with the prevention of gun violence. The speaker is Henson
Ong, an American citizen, presumably of Korean or Chinese ancestry. He argues
that the proposed gun-control measures would “do nothing to deter future
crimes” and that real problem that lies behind gun violence today is “societal
decay”. It seems that here he is expressing his belief that crimes would
persist regardless of whether firearms are banned as the problem with violence
lies with people. He reinforces this point by claiming that firearms have
existed for years, whilst it is only recently that we have seen them used in
tragic circumstances, like the massacre at Columbine High School.
Other
points he makes include a reference to the high crime rates of cities such as
Washington D.C and Chicago, which persist despite their strict gun control
policies, and an argument against the notion that “assault rifles” or AR-15’s
are “weapons of mass destruction.” Here
he claims that the Department of Homeland Security described such firearms as
“suitable for personal defence of use”. Another reason he gives for being allowed
to own firearms is the claim that “assault rifles” saved Koreans during the LA
riots, as they allowed them to defend their lives and protect their businesses from
being burnt down, unlike other people who did not possess such weapons. He also
refers to the Tiananmen Square protests in China in 1989, noting that the
number of students that were killed would not have been so high had they not
been unarmed.
As is the
case with many anti-gun control activists he also refers to the Second
Amendment. He categorically states the “state” to which the Second Amendment
refers to is not the “government” but the “people” and as such it is their
right to bear firearms. He also makes it clear that he believes there is no
relation between the Amendment and hunting, stating that the right to own
firearms is specific to the “preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated
militia”. The “militia” in this context means, in his understanding, any male
capable of “acting in common defence” and he states that the Amendment requires
all men to appear “bearing arms supplied by themselves” if called to serve their
country. He concludes by quoting a statement from a court case in 2003 by Judge
Alex Kozinski who said that the “Second Amendment is a doomsday provision” that
is designed for “those exceptionally
rare circumstances when all other rights have failed”.
As we can see, there are two main
points on which his argument rests: 1) Society is to blame for gun violence; 2)
It is the constitutional right of Americans to bear firearms. Yet the first
point can easily be refuted as the “societal decay” to which he refers to is
far too vague and difficult to prove. Also if the “decay” is meant to refer to mentally
ill people, for example, it would seem to be in the general population’s
interests to ban firearms to prevent such people from having the means of
causing the tragedies to which Americans have become accustomed to today. The
examples that he uses to highlight the positive uses of firearms are valid, but
it seems that more often than not there are more negative aspects and problems
associated with firearms. His second point is also weak in places, as the
language of the Second Amendment itself is vague and is open to interpretation.
In addition, his point about the “militia” is contradictory, as it seems as
though it suggests that it is only in the context of protecting the country
that one has the right to own and use firearms.
In conclusion,
although his arguments appear initially to be well constructed and valid, they
have had little effect in changing my opinion in favour of gun control. However,
it is interesting to note that his point on crime rates being high in
Washington DC and Chicago despite gun control, correlates with the similar crime
rates of UK and Australia which have not been reduced despite the banning of
firearms. This suggests that gun control is not quite as effective as I thought
it was.
Anti-Gun Control Sources
http://angrywhitedude.com/2013/01/meet-henson-ong-few-saw-the-third-reich-coming-until-it-was-too-late/
Pro-Gun Control Video - http://vimeo.com/67635001
Anti vs Pro
I choose to discuss the anti gun control arguments that is
found on the progressive cynic website. This site is used too find particular articles, and there is an article on anti gun
control. There is a comic like picture
that is used at the top of the web page and the person holding the gun kinda
looks like what death would look like. This could by symbolism for maybe that
owning a gun will only cause nothing but death to the person who owns the gun
but if we read it does go to agree with the amendments so why is the character
with the gun still looking like death if this is meant to be an anti gun
website? This article that is written is very formal and constantly looks back
at the amendment for gun control and how it affects the anti gun control
believers. The article is full of facts like the fact between 2007-2011 there
was over 46,000 people killed by firearms. Yet guns are still legal how much
effort will the anti gun control societies have to fight to get rid of the gun amendment
like England has or countless other countries who do not have the rights to own
a gun.
Pro gun control
http://home.nra.org/
For pro gun I chose the NRA official website. NRA, this
stands for National rifle association. Just in the name you can tell that they
are for guns. I thought this was a really good example of
pro guns because of the fact that they are in fact a association that goes
hunting and trains people in the area of firearm training. Although the
training is useful for area’s like police no one else should really be allowed
to have the right to train because they do not need it, hunting doesn’t have to
happen that is a choice just like it’s a choice for the criminals who own a gun
to shoot people. The NRA organisation
was founded in 1871 and its objective is to promote the use of firearms. The NRA is one of America’s biggest
organisations in safety firearms and training programme’s for the police. This website has a lot more things going on
for it than the first one which might attract
the audience.
No matter what side you look at this argument there will be an answer. If your anti gun control you against the school shootings and the amount of murders that happen per year in american as well as being against the police firearm training that police would have to go through but how would it be okay for them to have a gun and not the rest of the citizens to not be able to protect there homes.. But then if you are pro you are against firearms altogether and even though this may be the right thing to be it's not always as simple as that as it causes alot of problems like the police not being able to protect themselves on the street.
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Anti-Gun control verus Pro-Gun control
Anti-Gun control verus Pro-Gun control
Anti-Gun control
I
choose to discuss about the website called ‘Brady Campaign’ which is in favour
with the anti-gun control. Mark Borinsky is the founder of the campaign; he
created it after having been robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint. The
organisation has been founded 40 years ago (1974) as the National Council to
Control Handguns. The
center has been renamed after James Brady who was permanently disabled as a
result of an assassination attempt on U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1981. (
James Broday was a former Assistant to the President and White House Press
Secretary under U.S. President Ronald Reagan)
The
Brady Campaign believes that it’s not complicated for dangerous people to get
arms (weapons, guns..) in the United States. They are trying to make it more
complicated for convicted felons, people who are mentally ill or dangerous to
be around to, people who are not stable or others.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/?q=our-history
_________________________________________________________________________
Pro-Gun Control
In opposite I choose the website call ‘Gun owners’ – Gun Owners
of America or GOA
In 1975, ‘Gun Owners of America’
(GOA) a non-profit organization is formed to preserve and defend the Second
Amendment rights of gun owners: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
GOA was founded in 1975 by Sen. H.L. (Bill) Richardson (now retired)
‘The GOA Board of Directors brings over 100 years of
combined knowledge and experience on guns, legislation and politics. GOA's
Board is not satisfied with the "status quo." Americans have lost
some of our precious gun rights and WE WANT THEM BACK! This is why GOA is
considered the "no compromise" gun lobby.’
https://www.gunowners.com/
After looking through different website I decided
to be in favour with pro-gun control. I watched few videos on YouTube and
analysed them. Some of them are quite repetitive. I was watching a debate about
pro or against gun control and I realised I was agree with both sides but some
arguments from the Pro-gun side got my attention.
In this video, a 15-years-old girl is arguing Pro
–gun control. She has few good argument, notable:
‘Guns are not the problem, people are’ -
‘..instead
of liberating American citizen over constitutional rights’
‘..you are not eliminating guns through our society but the ability to
protect our lives and liberty of pursuit of happiness’ .
This video specially got my attention because we
could think that she is really young to discuss about guns. But the fact she is
talking about happiness… Having a gun, is something that make people happy?
That’s really what we want people to think about America and happiness?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)