Horatio Alger's belief that hard work is rewarded through opportunities that are given to an individual, remains to be a central keystone in the princoples of what makes up America.
Though this kind if "mythical" belief of "rags-to-riches" may seem far-fetched to those unfamiliar with American society, but the concept has been achieved many times over. In fact, some of the best examples can be seen every day, and perhaps give some modern day "American idols" justice for achieving the status of "celebrity".
Some examples of those who have achieved this status this way, include Marilyn Monroe: who was an orphan up to the age of eleven, following the death of her father and the mental illness that her mother suffered, whih ended with her being put into a mental institution, Marilyn was forced to marry her neighbourhood boyfriend, still at the young age of eleven. When her husband went off to war she worked on assembly line for aeroplane parts. She was then discovered by a photographer and quickly became a sensation.
Oprah Winfrey: was born to unwed parents, and raised by her grandmother who was poor and sometimes abusive, but taught her to read.
During her home life she was raped by her cousin and uncle at the age of nine and by thirteen had run away from home after suffering years of abuse. At fourteen she gave birth to a son, however he died in infancy. After she was sent to live with her father in Tennessee by her mother, he focused on making her education a priority. Through this she had much success, going on to university and eventually co-hosting a local black radio station and working on television broadcasting as an anchor. She would then go on to front her own TV show, "The Oprah Winfrey Show" which she now presents on American television.
The last example I will use is the President of the United States, Barack Obama. The son of a Kenyan man and a white woman from Kansas, he grew up both in Hawaii and Indonesia, being swapped between his mother and step-father. He knew very little of his father, who lived away from him in Africa, only meeting properly once, when Obama was ten years old. He then died in a car accident some time later in 1982.
Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, by the time he had reached two years old, his father had returned to Africa, leaving he and his mother alone. She eventually met an Indonesian man named Lolo, who Barack's mother, chose for them to go to live with in Lolo's home country.
Barack became known as Barry Soetoro, after his step-father, and showed much leadership potential among his classmates, noted by his teachers.
His step-father, Lolo, gave him boxing gloves one day and prepared to teach him to fight, saying that he had to be strong to survice in a tough world. He told him: "Me take advantage of weakness in other men." As quoted from his book, Dreams From My Father" They're just like countries in that way, better to be strong."
Apparently, when the class was asked to write a poem about their dreams, it was quoted from my source that, "The others said they wanted to be doctors, nurses or soldiers. Berry wrote that he wanted to be a president one day."
I think that these stories of "Rags-to-riches" really emphasise what Horatio Alger shows us throughout Ragged Dick and puts into perspective the importance of this belief in the minds of Americans in the United States. I think that particularly - and not discluding the other examples, Barack Obama's story of having gone from the son of a Kenyan goat-herder growing up in Indonesia living a comparatively mediocre life, to the president of the United States, is a real-life reflection of how dreams can lead you anywhere, no matter your situation. I feel that this unique factor is what contributes to the theme that America has a "Live to work" kind of society.
However some Americans may feel, and not be wrong to have some doubt over whether this ideology is true, and simply not just a fools dream. It may also be fair to say that there is a certain element of "luck" and "chance" - a "who-you-know and not-what-you-know" situation that results in discovering an opportunity - or, as the case me be, the reverse, and opportunity discovering you.
Website list:
Marilyn Monroe: http://youthvoices.net/node/4417
Oprah Winfrey: http://www.cosmoloan.com/money-management/3-impressive-rags-to-riches-stories.html
Barack Obama: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/06/president-obama-story-kenya-to-white-house-part-one
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
For and Against gun control in America
Should guns be more heavily retained, or continue to be distributed "freely?"
The following website:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/arguments-against-gun-control.html
contains an article that looks at why gun control in America is a bad idea.
One of the first points claims that in 2009, 39 percent of the American population voted to ban guns and other weapons altogether in the United States. It argues that if gun control was implemented, then there would be more chance that ordinary, law abiding citizens would be victims. It supports the fact that restricting gun access would be pointless because "there will always be a thriving black market for trade of guns and firearms."
An interesting point it makes in the second paragraph, is when it says that weapons found on students in schools can be justified because they have "found loopholes in the regulations."
With this, the article relates to various examples of rampages that some students in the past have been involved in resulting in the deaths of other students in the school, however, it plays these down as most are isolated incidents, and in most cases the pupil with the weapon had intention to do harm in an act or terrorism or the like, even further promoting how effective a gun would have been in concluding the rampage, should an authorative figure had one on hand.
One of the strongest arguments this article argues is that guns and weapons are a nations' defence aginst tyranny.
With examples of Nazi control in Europe during the second world war which led to the genocide of many millions of Jews, as the German authorities prevented them, along with Gypsies and landowners from owning a weapon. Had guns still been available, the result could have been very different.
What had surprised me whilst researching encouragement for gun control in America, was the lack of any real independent websites that expressed formal opposition against the possession of weapons. However what I did manage to find were articles considering the advantages of gun control in the U.S. This particular website:
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/355611_research-on-gun-control-in-america-today
Contains a member of the website community, Martin Rojas' opinion of why there should be more control of weapons. They open by saying the following statement: "I do believe in the 2nd Ammendment, but I also believe that there should be gun control on three major points. The first point is on what type of gun can be bought by an individual; the second is whether a person should be able to carry the gun either concealed or unconcealed, and the final point is the extent on a background check."
I think that this would be an idealistic approach to how to approach limiting gun possession as it does not descriminate or harbour prejudice against any race or person, making the limits fair and equal to all. It also covers the important aspects of public security.
He then talks about how he agrees that for the purpose of hunting and providing safety for one's family, purchasing a gun would be appropriate. However he does say that there should be sensible limits on specific models of guns. He then draws reference to the banning of purchasing assault weapons in California in 1989, which influenced the states of New Jersey, Hawaii, Conneticut and Maryland to do the same; he and they share the upheld belief that "An individual does not need an assault weapon if they are only purchasing a weapon for hunting or for safety."
[The ban was, however, later allowed to expire in 2004 by congress, and assault weapons can now be bought legally in those sates.]
He draws onto his second point by expressing the fact one shouldn't need to carry a weapon with them all the time. He insists, but does not quote, that crime rates did not change in states where unconcealed weapons (which equire permits) were introduced, and that if challeneged when carrying a weapon would probably "be more easy to kill that person, instead of just defending."
He says how he would "feel very uncomfortable" If he happened to be at a store and saw someone carrying a gun.
Through his final point, the blogger reveals that he was himself, a gun dealer for "A number of years" and when he was first certified to deal weapons in California, was "surprised" at how the background check was set up: "I thought it would be much harder to purchase a gun and that it would be a much more extensive process." He explains how, after submitting all of the necessary identification and paperwork to the Department of Justice, the individual would only have to wait a period of up to ten days to recieve their weapon.
"Some states", he claims, "Impose a waiting period from 48 hours up to two weeks."
He reasons that all states should instate these laws, in order to allow law enforcements enough time to "look into the individuals history; therefore the consumer/purchaser has what is called a "cooling off" period in case they are planning to use it on an impulse."
He also thinks that ten days is not enough time to carry out an extensive background search, and that more time would allow for a more thorough check of a person's history.
At length, after reading both websites it is easy to see from an American point of view, that allowing weapons to continue to be bought as they are would be the most ethnic solution for all, as it is such a passionately shared belief that the restriction of liberties that were implemented in the constitution may allow for more governmental power over the people. With a country with such a bane against big government, such a eat could prove disasterous. However with subtle changes in weapon jurisdiction, it could be possible to keep availability fair, but also keep the select few from causing potential harm to others, and keeping the general public safer in the knowledge that more intensive background checks are being performed to keep guns out of the hands of those with malicious intent.
The following website:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/arguments-against-gun-control.html
contains an article that looks at why gun control in America is a bad idea.
One of the first points claims that in 2009, 39 percent of the American population voted to ban guns and other weapons altogether in the United States. It argues that if gun control was implemented, then there would be more chance that ordinary, law abiding citizens would be victims. It supports the fact that restricting gun access would be pointless because "there will always be a thriving black market for trade of guns and firearms."
An interesting point it makes in the second paragraph, is when it says that weapons found on students in schools can be justified because they have "found loopholes in the regulations."
With this, the article relates to various examples of rampages that some students in the past have been involved in resulting in the deaths of other students in the school, however, it plays these down as most are isolated incidents, and in most cases the pupil with the weapon had intention to do harm in an act or terrorism or the like, even further promoting how effective a gun would have been in concluding the rampage, should an authorative figure had one on hand.
One of the strongest arguments this article argues is that guns and weapons are a nations' defence aginst tyranny.
With examples of Nazi control in Europe during the second world war which led to the genocide of many millions of Jews, as the German authorities prevented them, along with Gypsies and landowners from owning a weapon. Had guns still been available, the result could have been very different.
What had surprised me whilst researching encouragement for gun control in America, was the lack of any real independent websites that expressed formal opposition against the possession of weapons. However what I did manage to find were articles considering the advantages of gun control in the U.S. This particular website:
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/355611_research-on-gun-control-in-america-today
Contains a member of the website community, Martin Rojas' opinion of why there should be more control of weapons. They open by saying the following statement: "I do believe in the 2nd Ammendment, but I also believe that there should be gun control on three major points. The first point is on what type of gun can be bought by an individual; the second is whether a person should be able to carry the gun either concealed or unconcealed, and the final point is the extent on a background check."
I think that this would be an idealistic approach to how to approach limiting gun possession as it does not descriminate or harbour prejudice against any race or person, making the limits fair and equal to all. It also covers the important aspects of public security.
He then talks about how he agrees that for the purpose of hunting and providing safety for one's family, purchasing a gun would be appropriate. However he does say that there should be sensible limits on specific models of guns. He then draws reference to the banning of purchasing assault weapons in California in 1989, which influenced the states of New Jersey, Hawaii, Conneticut and Maryland to do the same; he and they share the upheld belief that "An individual does not need an assault weapon if they are only purchasing a weapon for hunting or for safety."
[The ban was, however, later allowed to expire in 2004 by congress, and assault weapons can now be bought legally in those sates.]
He draws onto his second point by expressing the fact one shouldn't need to carry a weapon with them all the time. He insists, but does not quote, that crime rates did not change in states where unconcealed weapons (which equire permits) were introduced, and that if challeneged when carrying a weapon would probably "be more easy to kill that person, instead of just defending."
He says how he would "feel very uncomfortable" If he happened to be at a store and saw someone carrying a gun.
Through his final point, the blogger reveals that he was himself, a gun dealer for "A number of years" and when he was first certified to deal weapons in California, was "surprised" at how the background check was set up: "I thought it would be much harder to purchase a gun and that it would be a much more extensive process." He explains how, after submitting all of the necessary identification and paperwork to the Department of Justice, the individual would only have to wait a period of up to ten days to recieve their weapon.
"Some states", he claims, "Impose a waiting period from 48 hours up to two weeks."
He reasons that all states should instate these laws, in order to allow law enforcements enough time to "look into the individuals history; therefore the consumer/purchaser has what is called a "cooling off" period in case they are planning to use it on an impulse."
He also thinks that ten days is not enough time to carry out an extensive background search, and that more time would allow for a more thorough check of a person's history.
At length, after reading both websites it is easy to see from an American point of view, that allowing weapons to continue to be bought as they are would be the most ethnic solution for all, as it is such a passionately shared belief that the restriction of liberties that were implemented in the constitution may allow for more governmental power over the people. With a country with such a bane against big government, such a eat could prove disasterous. However with subtle changes in weapon jurisdiction, it could be possible to keep availability fair, but also keep the select few from causing potential harm to others, and keeping the general public safer in the knowledge that more intensive background checks are being performed to keep guns out of the hands of those with malicious intent.
Gun Control
Firstly I will explore the anti-gun control website http://www.goal.org/. GOAL stands for Gun Owner’s Action League and it is the official state firearms association in Massachusetts. On the website it says that its main aim is to protect 'the basic right of firearms ownership for competition, recreation and self-protection'. This shows that they feel that they have a right to own guns and that without this they would be disadvantaged not only in terms of their safety but in terms of leisure as well; this suggests that guns are a part of their everyday lives. It backs this point up by saying, 'GOAL works hard to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against those in Massachusetts who wish to infringe upon the freedoms guaranteed by our forefathers'. Therefore they don't just think it's their right but they feel that denying them of guns is going against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the forefathers and freedom; as we've seen many times before it shows their longing for the past and the idea that America is losing it's freedom and all what makes it great.
GOAL is quite convincing because it does say that it's sponsered by sportsmen and law enforcers (however it doesn't state who) and the organisation does do education programs which teach 'young people firearms safety, discipline and responsibility' because 'we don't want our children to think of guns as toys, or worse yet, as a way to solve arguments'. As well as this, on their website they have detailed case studies, legislature and statistics to back up their point.
For the pro-gun control website I found http://www.csgv.org/. CSGV stands for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and it is made up of 48 very diverse national organisations (religious, public health, socail justice and child advocates). As the name suggests, they believe that increasing gun control is important for people's saftey. They also back up their opinions with case studies and statistics. One part of the website give startling statistics including:
GOAL is quite convincing because it does say that it's sponsered by sportsmen and law enforcers (however it doesn't state who) and the organisation does do education programs which teach 'young people firearms safety, discipline and responsibility' because 'we don't want our children to think of guns as toys, or worse yet, as a way to solve arguments'. As well as this, on their website they have detailed case studies, legislature and statistics to back up their point.
For the pro-gun control website I found http://www.csgv.org/. CSGV stands for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and it is made up of 48 very diverse national organisations (religious, public health, socail justice and child advocates). As the name suggests, they believe that increasing gun control is important for people's saftey. They also back up their opinions with case studies and statistics. One part of the website give startling statistics including:
- Criminals can buy guns without a background check in 33 states and 40% of gun sales nationwide take place without background checks
- the gun lobby (mainly the NRA) has given over $21 million to Congress since 1990, 86% of it to Republicans. The CSGV suggests that 'the gun industry has an ulterior motive to push for less gun control' and that the NRA are trying to convince America that more guns equals more freedom
- Every 17 minutes a person dies because of gun violence. The CSGV suggest that 'people kill people, but without easy access to guns it would be a lot harder'.
These statistics are alarming and certainly makes it hard to see why people are anti-gun control: people's safety are at risk. Guns may be used for self-protection but you are less likely to need this if gun control is increased.
What makes this website more convincing is the fact that they give a more detailed argument including presenting why anti-gun control supporters are wrong. This is especially clear in the Guns, Democracy and Freedom section of Issues and Campaigns. They suggest that the gun enthusiasts who talk about their freedom are specifically meaning freedom from government oppression: 'They argue that the only way to keep centralized authority in check is to ensure that individual citizens retain the capability to confront the government with force of arms'. Therefore the CSGV believe that the right to possess a gun isn't integral to our freedom as a whole and that the view that guns equal freedom 'degrades the democratic values and institutions that protect all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans'. They also say that 'Gun lobby extremists have been perfectly willing to trample on any freedom that gets in the way of their pursuit of unrestricted private access to firearms...this toxic mix of ideology and firepower has moved beyond rhetoric and resulted in real violence in our country'. Another reason why I feel that the CSGV have a more convincing argument is because of the diversity and amount of organisations that the CSGV involves.
Pro-Gun Control vs. Anti-Gun Control
http://www.a-human-right.com/
This website I found first appears to show two sides to the debate over gun control, guns being seen as a "liability" and "a useful tool".Trying to find a website which was anti-gun control, I clicked on "liability", and it let me to a questionairre about general gun ownership and the use of guns. I tried to put myself in the mindset of an American to complete it. It struck me as quite biased, as it used phrases like "morally correct", appealing to the conscience of the American people. It describes using a gun as a necessity, like in the question, "If no police officer is present is it morally correct for the innocent victim to shoot to protect self or dependents from an attack?". This reminded me of the lecture where it's argued that if an American were feeling threatened, they should call for a pizza rather than the police, because it'd get there quicker. The average American would generally defend themselves and/or their families by use of firearms.
"Some say that just owning a gun would make you a violent person; if I just had a handgun, I would:
- go shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant
- go shoot up the nearest Army base
- kill someone I know next time I get angry
- None of the above, I would continue to be a peaceful person
- act even more politely than before so as to avoid confrontation"
This makes me think that the website is trying to promote guns by telling people what a 'violent' person would do with a gun, and so encouraging Americans not to do the same, and warning them that if they had a gun they may be able to lessen the damage done by the people who go and "shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant". This also made me think about the amount of guns owned in America, and that's only a legal count, if people own guns illegally now, then if they are banned, more people will own them illegally. I don't think it will make that much of a difference. These so called 'psychopaths' will continue to be psychopaths regardless of the legality and accessibility of guns.
At the end of the questionnaire it states,
"If your elected officials do not trust you with firearms, unrestricted access to books and the Internet, or with other personal choices do you think they represent you well? What steps can you take to regain your freedom?" This struck me especially, as Americans see owning guns as being free, and if the government banned them, they consider it a breach of their own personal freedom, something quite odd to an outsider but I would guess absolutely normal to an American who feels this way.
Following the questionnaire, which, according to the link is meant to be anti-gun control, it gives the reader lots of information about guns, stating their three purposes, least important being sporting, then hunting, and the most important use - self defence. Even though it is meant to be the "liability" side of the website, all the site is doing is defending guns against people who have criticised them, by giving an explanation that twists the viewpoint completely. Hence the two sides of the site merge into one pro-gun control rant. It talks about the "proud heritage of gun control", and states that "for most gun owners, personal liberty is as much an ethos as Christianity of Judaism". Both the choices "liability" and "a useful tool" endup at the same page, about self defence. The links at the bottom of the website lead to things like, "becoming a fun owner", "art of the arms", "effective guns" and "necessary evil".
http://www.cphv.org/
This website is only anti-gun crime because it is run by people who have been severely affected by gun crime, so people who have experience with the mis-use of guns. The Brady Centre itself was started in 1974 by Mark Borinsky, who was robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, and Pete Shields, who's 23 year old son was murdered in 1974, became Chairman in 1978. In 2001 it was named after Jim Brady, President Reagan's press secretary. He was nearly killed and permanently disabled as a result of an assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, and has since led efforts for stricter handgun control in America. The entire website is trying to appeal to people on a personal level, "fighting for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and the community". It is implying that nobody is safe, and the website itself also gives lots of statistics about gun control, which also makes it more personal to the reader because they can see how much the lack of gun-control affects people on a personal level. The main point that the website makes is "There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America".
I can agree with both sides of the argument, both seeing a gun as a form of self defence and as a dangerous weapon which shouldn't be taken lightly. There is no way of solving the issue however, because even if the government did make tighter laws on gun control, people will still obtain them illegally, especially criminals, and therefore gun-crime will still exist. The only solution in a way, is to ban guns completely in America, but that will never happen because again, they can be obtained illegally and there would be a lot of uproar over personal rights and freedom. Those who have been affected personally obviously have a strong view on it, however I think it is an ongoing problem and will continue to be, because there is no real solution to the problem. If you take away the guns, these violent people will find something else to use as a weapon; there isn't really an answer.
This website I found first appears to show two sides to the debate over gun control, guns being seen as a "liability" and "a useful tool".Trying to find a website which was anti-gun control, I clicked on "liability", and it let me to a questionairre about general gun ownership and the use of guns. I tried to put myself in the mindset of an American to complete it. It struck me as quite biased, as it used phrases like "morally correct", appealing to the conscience of the American people. It describes using a gun as a necessity, like in the question, "If no police officer is present is it morally correct for the innocent victim to shoot to protect self or dependents from an attack?". This reminded me of the lecture where it's argued that if an American were feeling threatened, they should call for a pizza rather than the police, because it'd get there quicker. The average American would generally defend themselves and/or their families by use of firearms.
"Some say that just owning a gun would make you a violent person; if I just had a handgun, I would:
- go shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant
- go shoot up the nearest Army base
- kill someone I know next time I get angry
- None of the above, I would continue to be a peaceful person
- act even more politely than before so as to avoid confrontation"
This makes me think that the website is trying to promote guns by telling people what a 'violent' person would do with a gun, and so encouraging Americans not to do the same, and warning them that if they had a gun they may be able to lessen the damage done by the people who go and "shoot up the nearest fast food restaurant". This also made me think about the amount of guns owned in America, and that's only a legal count, if people own guns illegally now, then if they are banned, more people will own them illegally. I don't think it will make that much of a difference. These so called 'psychopaths' will continue to be psychopaths regardless of the legality and accessibility of guns.
At the end of the questionnaire it states,
"If your elected officials do not trust you with firearms, unrestricted access to books and the Internet, or with other personal choices do you think they represent you well? What steps can you take to regain your freedom?" This struck me especially, as Americans see owning guns as being free, and if the government banned them, they consider it a breach of their own personal freedom, something quite odd to an outsider but I would guess absolutely normal to an American who feels this way.
Following the questionnaire, which, according to the link is meant to be anti-gun control, it gives the reader lots of information about guns, stating their three purposes, least important being sporting, then hunting, and the most important use - self defence. Even though it is meant to be the "liability" side of the website, all the site is doing is defending guns against people who have criticised them, by giving an explanation that twists the viewpoint completely. Hence the two sides of the site merge into one pro-gun control rant. It talks about the "proud heritage of gun control", and states that "for most gun owners, personal liberty is as much an ethos as Christianity of Judaism". Both the choices "liability" and "a useful tool" endup at the same page, about self defence. The links at the bottom of the website lead to things like, "becoming a fun owner", "art of the arms", "effective guns" and "necessary evil".
http://www.cphv.org/
This website is only anti-gun crime because it is run by people who have been severely affected by gun crime, so people who have experience with the mis-use of guns. The Brady Centre itself was started in 1974 by Mark Borinsky, who was robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, and Pete Shields, who's 23 year old son was murdered in 1974, became Chairman in 1978. In 2001 it was named after Jim Brady, President Reagan's press secretary. He was nearly killed and permanently disabled as a result of an assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, and has since led efforts for stricter handgun control in America. The entire website is trying to appeal to people on a personal level, "fighting for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and the community". It is implying that nobody is safe, and the website itself also gives lots of statistics about gun control, which also makes it more personal to the reader because they can see how much the lack of gun-control affects people on a personal level. The main point that the website makes is "There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America".
I can agree with both sides of the argument, both seeing a gun as a form of self defence and as a dangerous weapon which shouldn't be taken lightly. There is no way of solving the issue however, because even if the government did make tighter laws on gun control, people will still obtain them illegally, especially criminals, and therefore gun-crime will still exist. The only solution in a way, is to ban guns completely in America, but that will never happen because again, they can be obtained illegally and there would be a lot of uproar over personal rights and freedom. Those who have been affected personally obviously have a strong view on it, however I think it is an ongoing problem and will continue to be, because there is no real solution to the problem. If you take away the guns, these violent people will find something else to use as a weapon; there isn't really an answer.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Voicing the Tea Party in North Carolina
On the 15th of April 2009, a man by the name of Dr. John David Lewis, an associate professor of philosophy, politics and economics at Duke University in North Carolina, made a strong speech to a crowd of Tea Party supporters in Charlotte, North Carolina. The speech in question, consists of a very strong and constructing argument that starts with a semi-rhetorical opening:
"It's a great day for a tea party and high-time for a tea party, is it not?"
He states that the reason for the gathering is to celebrate the founding of America, and to consider the "crisis" that has supposedly grown for the last three generations in the U.S.
He calls the reason that people have chosen to gather and protest there "A genuine, deserved and righteous sense of outrage as to what has happened to this country." He may have chosen to phrase his words like this in order to connect with the tea party supporters' passion and strong beliefs that their country has been 'misled' by the government, and that as a person of significant knowledge and identity, can reaffirm to them that they are right to be angry and opposed to the way that the country is run.
What makes this speech particularly bold and interesting is when Dr. Lewis informs the protesters that the emotions they feel are not enough to guide them to a "Proper future", and that what they instead need is to act on the "original tea party's meaning", the "Rights of man."
I feel that this is significant because it draws a basis for the argument to be supported by, and this personal nostalgia of the nation's pre-history really gives backing to the Tea Party's voice. The rights that Dr. Lewis talks about, which all Americans share are:
. "The right to life.",
. "The right to liberty",
. "The right to the pursuit of happiness",
. "The right to property".
He uses these to remind the audience that they are the core foundation ideas that the nation is built on. His own personal belief is that without these rights, "It [the U.S.] cannot and will not endure."
John Lewis then explains how these rights can be used to imply about how Americans see themselves. As an "Independent individual, standing tall" or a "Whining, snivelling, dependent, bound to beg to some higher power, some monarch, some king, some Lord for the things you need for your life."
I think that this statement is somewhat controvertial as it may offend some religious members in the audience, who may devote some of their dependence to their beliefs, however for those who are not it can be seen as very bold and challenging to those who want to be in control of their own life.
Lewis keeps the nostalgia flowing, telling the crowd about how the surpressed American farmers had driven the British troops from American shores, sparking the great revolution, freeing the American people and establishing the U.S. He also talks about how the rights of men had to be "deepened" and "extended" in order to eliminate slavery and to give women more rights.
During, what is the second part of the speech, he reverts back to the reason why they are at the Tea Party rally, and this is to fight, what he calls a "Cancer" which he says has "Implanted itself" into the nation, and the minds of the people. The"Symptoms" as he calls them, are a "Corruption and a perversion of the idea of rights." What he claims is that rights mean nothing in the modern America, as they have been "Cut and destroyed" to the point where their meanings are gone.
He asks rhetorically, "What are the meanings of rights today?" to which he answers very honestly: "They mean rights to every whim and wish and desire you might have!" meaning that rights have been stretched to completely include the demands of all American citizens, and the government will provide the means for you to do so. Therefore meaning that the government has the ultimate power and jurisdiction to give you what you want, and will often tell you what you can and can't have. However the reality is that you must go to the government and ask for what you want, and this is what drives Dr. John Lewis to oppose big-government.
He states that people are being "Enslaved" in order for you as an American citizen to recieve something. He uses the example for someone being given a car, who is essentially "enslaving tax payers to provide you with that car."
I think the use of the word "Enslaved" in his speech is a very provocative way of getting people's attention. Especially when he suggests that the American people are being enslaved through taxes for the possessions of other people.
During the closing minute of John Lewis' speech, he encourages protestors to go home and tell their children that they should ignore what their teachers and professors tell them that "Rights mean they have a duty to serve somebody else in order to satisfy their whims." And instead that they have the right to follow the rights of man, with the only duty being to themselves to "Be the best person they can be when they live their own life."
He closes by saying that the only way to save the country is to pass the idea on, and spread the message so that everyone understands.
I think that by communicating in this way, by creating the awareness that the government is supposedly spreading corruption through taxes, Dr. John Lewis gives the Tea Party a voice and more popularity, through feeding on the shared dislike of having hard working citizens' money taken away by the government, and by creating connections through common familiarities such as families and wanting to do the best possible to protect them. I feel that this speech continues to add strength to the cause of the Tea Party because it reinstates the fact that people's rights are being subjected to scrutiny, and the foundations that many Americans have great pride in are losing the authenticity that gave America its own identity in contrast with the "corrupt world" that the founding fathers claimed it would not a part of.
"It's a great day for a tea party and high-time for a tea party, is it not?"
He states that the reason for the gathering is to celebrate the founding of America, and to consider the "crisis" that has supposedly grown for the last three generations in the U.S.
He calls the reason that people have chosen to gather and protest there "A genuine, deserved and righteous sense of outrage as to what has happened to this country." He may have chosen to phrase his words like this in order to connect with the tea party supporters' passion and strong beliefs that their country has been 'misled' by the government, and that as a person of significant knowledge and identity, can reaffirm to them that they are right to be angry and opposed to the way that the country is run.
What makes this speech particularly bold and interesting is when Dr. Lewis informs the protesters that the emotions they feel are not enough to guide them to a "Proper future", and that what they instead need is to act on the "original tea party's meaning", the "Rights of man."
I feel that this is significant because it draws a basis for the argument to be supported by, and this personal nostalgia of the nation's pre-history really gives backing to the Tea Party's voice. The rights that Dr. Lewis talks about, which all Americans share are:
. "The right to life.",
. "The right to liberty",
. "The right to the pursuit of happiness",
. "The right to property".
He uses these to remind the audience that they are the core foundation ideas that the nation is built on. His own personal belief is that without these rights, "It [the U.S.] cannot and will not endure."
John Lewis then explains how these rights can be used to imply about how Americans see themselves. As an "Independent individual, standing tall" or a "Whining, snivelling, dependent, bound to beg to some higher power, some monarch, some king, some Lord for the things you need for your life."
I think that this statement is somewhat controvertial as it may offend some religious members in the audience, who may devote some of their dependence to their beliefs, however for those who are not it can be seen as very bold and challenging to those who want to be in control of their own life.
Lewis keeps the nostalgia flowing, telling the crowd about how the surpressed American farmers had driven the British troops from American shores, sparking the great revolution, freeing the American people and establishing the U.S. He also talks about how the rights of men had to be "deepened" and "extended" in order to eliminate slavery and to give women more rights.
During, what is the second part of the speech, he reverts back to the reason why they are at the Tea Party rally, and this is to fight, what he calls a "Cancer" which he says has "Implanted itself" into the nation, and the minds of the people. The"Symptoms" as he calls them, are a "Corruption and a perversion of the idea of rights." What he claims is that rights mean nothing in the modern America, as they have been "Cut and destroyed" to the point where their meanings are gone.
He asks rhetorically, "What are the meanings of rights today?" to which he answers very honestly: "They mean rights to every whim and wish and desire you might have!" meaning that rights have been stretched to completely include the demands of all American citizens, and the government will provide the means for you to do so. Therefore meaning that the government has the ultimate power and jurisdiction to give you what you want, and will often tell you what you can and can't have. However the reality is that you must go to the government and ask for what you want, and this is what drives Dr. John Lewis to oppose big-government.
He states that people are being "Enslaved" in order for you as an American citizen to recieve something. He uses the example for someone being given a car, who is essentially "enslaving tax payers to provide you with that car."
I think the use of the word "Enslaved" in his speech is a very provocative way of getting people's attention. Especially when he suggests that the American people are being enslaved through taxes for the possessions of other people.
During the closing minute of John Lewis' speech, he encourages protestors to go home and tell their children that they should ignore what their teachers and professors tell them that "Rights mean they have a duty to serve somebody else in order to satisfy their whims." And instead that they have the right to follow the rights of man, with the only duty being to themselves to "Be the best person they can be when they live their own life."
He closes by saying that the only way to save the country is to pass the idea on, and spread the message so that everyone understands.
I think that by communicating in this way, by creating the awareness that the government is supposedly spreading corruption through taxes, Dr. John Lewis gives the Tea Party a voice and more popularity, through feeding on the shared dislike of having hard working citizens' money taken away by the government, and by creating connections through common familiarities such as families and wanting to do the best possible to protect them. I feel that this speech continues to add strength to the cause of the Tea Party because it reinstates the fact that people's rights are being subjected to scrutiny, and the foundations that many Americans have great pride in are losing the authenticity that gave America its own identity in contrast with the "corrupt world" that the founding fathers claimed it would not a part of.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Gun Control: For and Against.
When approaching this topic I tried to imagine myself as an American, to imagine that I had the rights and freedom that they do so as not to be automatically bias with my conclusions. Firstly I looked at http://gunowners.org/protect.htm a devoted anti gun control website by the Gun Owners of America lobbying organisation.
I asked someone I know in NJ, what her opinions are on gun control and to start with she said she didn't really have an opinion on the subject. I said that I thought all Americans had one and then this was her response:
"Not all Americans do. It's not something I'm faced with day in and day out. I don't even know anyone that owns a gun but my cousins who are police officers. Yes in my state (NJ) its hard to get a license to own a gun. Most people go outside the state to get one. And in order to carry a gun you have to have a permit. Not that it'll stop people right? I guess as long as there's crime, they'll be illegal guns on the streets. Its great that they try to control it but when you have corrupt people handling the situation there won't be a real solution."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second site I visited was: http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns which is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
"The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy. Our organizational structure is unique among national gun violence prevention organizations. CSGV is comprised of 48 national organizations working to reduce gun violence. Our coalition members include religious organizations, child welfare advocates, public health professionals, and social justice organizations. This diversity of member organizations allows us to reach a wide variety of grassroots constituencies who share our vision of non-violence."
The same as with the other page, it divides into manageable sections listing it's key issues and campaigns, as well as a section for those new to the issue which I found most useful.
The first argument that becomes apparent is the ability to buy guns without a background check through something called the "Gun Show Loophole." This is alarming when it means that criminals leaving the prison system can come straight back out and buy a weapon. They linked to the following video to explain it better.
On the page for those new to the issue, they are their most convincing to try and win people over to their cause. They pick 3 issues that will hit home with the majority of people.
Both sides talk about freedom, however Coalition against Gun Violence addresses the NRA's description of freedom as "freedom from government oppression" and says that "This toxic mix of ideology and firepower has moved beyond rhetoric and resulted in real violence in our country."
What was most effective in this section was the opening paragraph, which brings the reader in by attacking the NRA.
"The National Rifle Association (NRA) sells everything from its political agenda to its merchandise with a simple equation: more guns equal more freedom. The NRA steadfastly maintains that the 30,000 gun-related deaths with firearms in the United States every year are a small price to pay to guarantee freedom."
"From state legislatures and city councils to the United States Congress and the White House, GOA represents the views of gun owners whenever their rights are threatened. GOA has never wavered from its mission to defend the Second Amendment -- liberty's freedom teeth, as George Washington called it."
The GOA is associated with other 'branches', the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, the Gun Owners of California and the Gun Owners Foundation.
- The Political Victory Fund helps to raise the money to support anti gun control candidates during elections. "GOA has a record of helping pro-gun candidates defeat anti-gunners in hundreds of races across the country over the past 30 years" This includes Tea Party member Marco Rubio, Florida.
- Gun owners of California deals solely with gun related issues that arise in that state.
The GOA's main argument is that owning a gun is in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and is therefore the people's right and any change to this would be a violation of their freedom. "Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment." Within the website, they have a section for "skeptics" which outlines their arguments for frequently asked questions from those who are pro gun control. http://gunowners.org/just-for-skeptics.htm
They say that banning guns would not reduce the number of murders and homicides and takes Washington DC as an example, stating that there has been no proof or any studies showing that taking away the citizens constitutional rights has made a difference. "I am not aware of any credible study which shows these law have worked -- by which I mean that they have reduced crimes by individuals using guns. And the gun-grabbers and their allies are unable to cite any such study." In fact, the senior editor and attorney at the CATO institute says that the murder rate within Washington DC has increased by 50% since the banning of guns 25 years ago.
The site dispels myths about gun control, including gun control reducing crime rates in other countries, specifically within England. Throughout this particular argument, the font changes size drastically, getting a lot larger on points they want to drive home such as: "British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all."
The website is convincing in the arguments it makes because they try to back everything up with facts and figures as well as producing case studies and real life events to defend their points. Events listed include:
- "How to stop a rapist"
- "True stories of self-defense"
- "Unseen self-defense stories"
- "How a gun could have saved my parents lives"
I asked someone I know in NJ, what her opinions are on gun control and to start with she said she didn't really have an opinion on the subject. I said that I thought all Americans had one and then this was her response:
"Not all Americans do. It's not something I'm faced with day in and day out. I don't even know anyone that owns a gun but my cousins who are police officers. Yes in my state (NJ) its hard to get a license to own a gun. Most people go outside the state to get one. And in order to carry a gun you have to have a permit. Not that it'll stop people right? I guess as long as there's crime, they'll be illegal guns on the streets. Its great that they try to control it but when you have corrupt people handling the situation there won't be a real solution."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second site I visited was: http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns which is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
"The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy. Our organizational structure is unique among national gun violence prevention organizations. CSGV is comprised of 48 national organizations working to reduce gun violence. Our coalition members include religious organizations, child welfare advocates, public health professionals, and social justice organizations. This diversity of member organizations allows us to reach a wide variety of grassroots constituencies who share our vision of non-violence."
The same as with the other page, it divides into manageable sections listing it's key issues and campaigns, as well as a section for those new to the issue which I found most useful.
The first argument that becomes apparent is the ability to buy guns without a background check through something called the "Gun Show Loophole." This is alarming when it means that criminals leaving the prison system can come straight back out and buy a weapon. They linked to the following video to explain it better.
On the page for those new to the issue, they are their most convincing to try and win people over to their cause. They pick 3 issues that will hit home with the majority of people.
- Criminals having access to weapons.
- Political parties making money through the sale of guns.
- 9 children dying as a result of gun violence everyday. (Underneath in smaller font it mentions the 75 adults that die each day as well.)
Both sides talk about freedom, however Coalition against Gun Violence addresses the NRA's description of freedom as "freedom from government oppression" and says that "This toxic mix of ideology and firepower has moved beyond rhetoric and resulted in real violence in our country."
What was most effective in this section was the opening paragraph, which brings the reader in by attacking the NRA.
"The National Rifle Association (NRA) sells everything from its political agenda to its merchandise with a simple equation: more guns equal more freedom. The NRA steadfastly maintains that the 30,000 gun-related deaths with firearms in the United States every year are a small price to pay to guarantee freedom."
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Account of an Early Settler
Using the website www.americanjourneys.org I found many examples of people who have explored parts of America from the 11th century to 1844. The one that I chose to use is ‘Third Voyage of Discovery Made By Captaine Jaques Cartier, 1541’ As this account by Captain Jacques Cartier is of his third time exploring America, many of the things that he encounters are less surprising to him than they no doubt would have been on his first encounter. However, there are still several things that do draw his attention and make impression enough for him to write in his journal. These things include mainly the natural resources such as the river and plants. He is unimpressed with the size of the river as it is quite narrow and at ‘low water’ it can be very shallow. This is a problem for possible settlers as it could affect transportation of goods. He does remark on the quality of the trees and land on either side of the river. He is amazed by some of the trees and describes them as ‘the most excellent that I ever saw in my life’. He is also greatly impressed by the variety of trees that the land provides as well as the fruit that grows nearby although not as impressed with the grapes he finds and compares them to a lesser version of those in France. Him and his men stay in this place long enough to test the soil and find out how well they can grow crops there which turns out is very well as they plant cabbages and lettuces and it takes only eight days before they come through the ground. After surveying the land he decides that it is very prosperous and describes it as being ‘as good a countrey to plow and manure as a man should find or desire’.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Tea Party Commercial- Remember in November
This extremely dramatic video is a commercial promoting the Tea Party movement:
Most of the video criticises Obama; however it seems to go further than this, they demonise him. This is done through the loud, heavy, dramatic music and shots of him looking powerful and threatening. At first the video expresses many people’s view: that Obama hasn’t changed anything or lived up to any of his promises, it later lists all the things he’s done which have ruined America. The video even blames the audience for voting him in and later they describe how we were brainwashed (as it seems to be shown in the video) by CNN, abc, NBC etc; this further preys on the idea that Obama deceived America. One of the most interesting parts of the video, in my opinion, was the shots of Democrats laughing. This could be to show that they have fooled us and now they’re all powerful and they can do whatever they want; this reinforces the idea that the government are too big, powerful and controlling. The video clearly shows how much the Tea Party is against progressivism, it even suggests that he is a socialist; this is shown alongside an image of the Constitution burning, this is a very powerful image for Tea Partiers because they worship the Constitution. In general they seem to depict Obama as a tyrant.
It is clear that the Tea Party use images of the past to evoke voters. In this video there are people dressed up as revolutionaries, famous monuments, and pictures of the Forefathers. They long to go back to a time when America was great, or at least they think was great however it has been romanticised and is just an ideology. Liberty, it seems, is what people think makes America special (for example the right to own a gun), the many people protesting and waving the flag in the video shows that they still believe America is/should be exceptional. The video shows that they want to go back to a time where there was more freedom. The fact that they are looking to the past shows that they are worried about the future of America; this is evident by the way they present Obama and his government.
Most of the video criticises Obama; however it seems to go further than this, they demonise him. This is done through the loud, heavy, dramatic music and shots of him looking powerful and threatening. At first the video expresses many people’s view: that Obama hasn’t changed anything or lived up to any of his promises, it later lists all the things he’s done which have ruined America. The video even blames the audience for voting him in and later they describe how we were brainwashed (as it seems to be shown in the video) by CNN, abc, NBC etc; this further preys on the idea that Obama deceived America. One of the most interesting parts of the video, in my opinion, was the shots of Democrats laughing. This could be to show that they have fooled us and now they’re all powerful and they can do whatever they want; this reinforces the idea that the government are too big, powerful and controlling. The video clearly shows how much the Tea Party is against progressivism, it even suggests that he is a socialist; this is shown alongside an image of the Constitution burning, this is a very powerful image for Tea Partiers because they worship the Constitution. In general they seem to depict Obama as a tyrant.
It is clear that the Tea Party use images of the past to evoke voters. In this video there are people dressed up as revolutionaries, famous monuments, and pictures of the Forefathers. They long to go back to a time when America was great, or at least they think was great however it has been romanticised and is just an ideology. Liberty, it seems, is what people think makes America special (for example the right to own a gun), the many people protesting and waving the flag in the video shows that they still believe America is/should be exceptional. The video shows that they want to go back to a time where there was more freedom. The fact that they are looking to the past shows that they are worried about the future of America; this is evident by the way they present Obama and his government.
Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio, a member of the Republican Party, won in Florida in the 2010 elections. From 2000-2008, Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives. During this period, he served as Majority Whip, Majority Leader and Speaker of the House. Rubio also travelled around Florida asking for people’s input, this resulted in ‘100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future’ and then for his campaign he composed his ‘Ideas to Reclaim America’. Here are some of the issues Rubio supports:
· Pro-life
· Pro-taxpayer
· He wants to reform education; including improving scholarship systems and preparing children for the jobs of tomorrow
· Job creation through trade and reducing barriers to trade
· Replaing ObamaCare
(Source: http://www.marcorubio.com/marco-101/http://www.marcorubio.com/)
Here is his campaign video (I tried to embed it but when i posted it it appeared blank): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaQywIdjYbM
Firstly, I found this campaign video interesting because there is only one shot throughout the whole video and it is simply of him speaking. This makes him look genuine, no-nonsense, straightforward and that he’s using his personality, not a flashy video, to win votes. He is wearing a suit and the video is set in what seems to be a study; this makes him presentable and smart.
He says, ‘I want to take a moment to tell you a little bit about myself and a little bit about why I want to serve in the United States Senate’; this makes it seem more personal and emphasises that he’s making time to talk to us. The first thing he mentions is about his family, how he lives ‘just blocks away’ from where he grew up and that he has a ‘small’ law practice; this makes him look humble and like an average person which consequently makes him more relatable.
He then goes on to talk about what he stands for, particularly about taxation and how the system drastically needs changing. He presents himself and his ideas as what everybody wants; for example he describes how ‘some people’ believe that the government should have a great involvement in America’s economy but he then says that ‘the majority of us don’t agree with that view and we deserve a voice in American politics’; this reinforces the idea that he is standing for what most people believe. Rubio then says, ‘I know that there are people more famous than I who may enter this race and I know that the President of the United States himself will travel to Florida to campaign and raise money against me but nothing in life worth doing is easy’. This statement implies that everyone, especially those in government, are against him; this evokes a feeling what many Americans seem to feel at the moment: that difficult times are ahead, thanks to the government who are doing nothing to help people; again this makes him seem like an average American.
Finally, he finishes the video by addressing the audience: ‘Thank you for watching this video today. May God bless you. May God bless your family. And may God bless our country. Thank you.’ Overall this video seems to promote Rubio as caring for Americans and what they want.
· Pro-life
· Pro-taxpayer
· He wants to reform education; including improving scholarship systems and preparing children for the jobs of tomorrow
· Job creation through trade and reducing barriers to trade
· Replaing ObamaCare
(Source: http://www.marcorubio.com/marco-101/http://www.marcorubio.com/)
Here is his campaign video (I tried to embed it but when i posted it it appeared blank): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaQywIdjYbM
Firstly, I found this campaign video interesting because there is only one shot throughout the whole video and it is simply of him speaking. This makes him look genuine, no-nonsense, straightforward and that he’s using his personality, not a flashy video, to win votes. He is wearing a suit and the video is set in what seems to be a study; this makes him presentable and smart.
He says, ‘I want to take a moment to tell you a little bit about myself and a little bit about why I want to serve in the United States Senate’; this makes it seem more personal and emphasises that he’s making time to talk to us. The first thing he mentions is about his family, how he lives ‘just blocks away’ from where he grew up and that he has a ‘small’ law practice; this makes him look humble and like an average person which consequently makes him more relatable.
He then goes on to talk about what he stands for, particularly about taxation and how the system drastically needs changing. He presents himself and his ideas as what everybody wants; for example he describes how ‘some people’ believe that the government should have a great involvement in America’s economy but he then says that ‘the majority of us don’t agree with that view and we deserve a voice in American politics’; this reinforces the idea that he is standing for what most people believe. Rubio then says, ‘I know that there are people more famous than I who may enter this race and I know that the President of the United States himself will travel to Florida to campaign and raise money against me but nothing in life worth doing is easy’. This statement implies that everyone, especially those in government, are against him; this evokes a feeling what many Americans seem to feel at the moment: that difficult times are ahead, thanks to the government who are doing nothing to help people; again this makes him seem like an average American.
Finally, he finishes the video by addressing the audience: ‘Thank you for watching this video today. May God bless you. May God bless your family. And may God bless our country. Thank you.’ Overall this video seems to promote Rubio as caring for Americans and what they want.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Giving Voice to The Tea Party in Wisconsin
The 15th Ap
ril 2009 saw the Madison, Wisconsin Tax Day Tea Party Rally, with radio presenter (Upfront News/Talk show) Vicki McKenna as the main speaker.
"Citizens from around Wisconsin converge on the capitol in Madison to show their disdain and disgust for high taxes and excess spending. Fiscally irresponsible politicians, democrat or republican, we are watching you. Stop taking our money or start looking for another job!"
McKenna, a self proclaimed "converted conservative" has appeared on all major news networks and is a member of the NRA. She strongly supports the Second Amendment - The right to keep and bear arms. For more information on her see: http://www.vickimckenna.com/
The video below, found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBvPFgNTgrM is McKenna's full speech from the Tea Party Rally held in the Wisconsin Capital. It was posted by WisconsinTeaParty and all of their videos from the rally can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/WisconsinTeaParty
There are a few quotes that I found of particular interest in her speech, all of which give voice to one of the key principles of the Tea Party, giving America back to the people.
The reason I find it ironic can be found by looking at this image:
It is a campaign poster from the Presidential Election of 1912, where Emil Seidel who was the first Socialist mayor in the United States, ran alongside Eugene Debs.
In 1910, most of the seats on the Milwaukee city council and county board were actually won by Socialists and even though both of these men lost the race, another Socialist mayor was elected in 1916 (Daniel Hoen) and stayed in office until 1940.
1910 also saw Victor Berger as the first Socialist Congressman in Washington.
In addition, there was a third Socialist mayor, Frank. P. Zeidler who had 3 terms in office. (1948-1960)
The Tea Party seem to be perpetually looking back to how America used to be, but when it comes to this particular state when they look back, they will see a time when the people they oppose were in fact, in power. If socialism is tyrannical then how come they were around from 1892-1960 and why did Socialist mayors continue to be elected?
Although slightly off topic from the original point about giving voice to the tea party, see the video below from around 1.30 for more information regarding Socialist Milwaukee. It does show some interesting images that highlight the irony of Wisconsin being anti Socialism.
Other sources:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9192&search_term=socialism
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-043/?action=more_essay
http://spwi.org/
ril 2009 saw the Madison, Wisconsin Tax Day Tea Party Rally, with radio presenter (Upfront News/Talk show) Vicki McKenna as the main speaker."Citizens from around Wisconsin converge on the capitol in Madison to show their disdain and disgust for high taxes and excess spending. Fiscally irresponsible politicians, democrat or republican, we are watching you. Stop taking our money or start looking for another job!"
McKenna, a self proclaimed "converted conservative" has appeared on all major news networks and is a member of the NRA. She strongly supports the Second Amendment - The right to keep and bear arms. For more information on her see: http://www.vickimckenna.com/
The video below, found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBvPFgNTgrM is McKenna's full speech from the Tea Party Rally held in the Wisconsin Capital. It was posted by WisconsinTeaParty and all of their videos from the rally can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/WisconsinTeaParty
There are a few quotes that I found of particular interest in her speech, all of which give voice to one of the key principles of the Tea Party, giving America back to the people.
- "Time to take back our government." (2.09)
- "Government is an entity to do for you." (4.08)
- "Should never need an appointment to talk to the people who claim to represent you." (5.09)
- Releasing felons ("Shouldn't the victims have a say?")
- Raising auto taxes
- Pushing for welfare entitlement programs. (This is repeated constantly.)
- The Governor is driving away jobs to places like Michigan and Louisiana when they need them in Wisconsin.
The reason I find it ironic can be found by looking at this image:
It is a campaign poster from the Presidential Election of 1912, where Emil Seidel who was the first Socialist mayor in the United States, ran alongside Eugene Debs.In 1910, most of the seats on the Milwaukee city council and county board were actually won by Socialists and even though both of these men lost the race, another Socialist mayor was elected in 1916 (Daniel Hoen) and stayed in office until 1940.
1910 also saw Victor Berger as the first Socialist Congressman in Washington.
In addition, there was a third Socialist mayor, Frank. P. Zeidler who had 3 terms in office. (1948-1960)
The Tea Party seem to be perpetually looking back to how America used to be, but when it comes to this particular state when they look back, they will see a time when the people they oppose were in fact, in power. If socialism is tyrannical then how come they were around from 1892-1960 and why did Socialist mayors continue to be elected?
Although slightly off topic from the original point about giving voice to the tea party, see the video below from around 1.30 for more information regarding Socialist Milwaukee. It does show some interesting images that highlight the irony of Wisconsin being anti Socialism.
Other sources:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9192&search_term=socialism
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-043/?action=more_essay
http://spwi.org/
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Al Franken
Al Franken, member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labour Party which affiliates with the National Democratic Party, is the junior United States Senator from Minnesota. In 2008 he narrowly defeated Republican Senator Norm Coleman by 312 votes, after an automatic recount of votes. He was sworn into the Senate on July 9th 2009, and on September 9th 2008 won the Democratic primary for the senate seat.
Embedding the video unfortunately didn't work, so I've had to put the link in instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhv3_Ir3p50
In the first of the videos I found from his campaign, he openly attacks Norm Coleman's proposals and the quote that stood out for me was "tax cuts for big business, or tax cuts for your family?" which really would have hit home for the voters, as America is seen as very family orientated. Voting for him was also described as "the only choice for change", sort of a spin off of Obama's campaign for Change, promising to do the same, and affiliating Coleman with Bush at the start of the video. Whereas Coleman wanted tax cuts for the rich, billions in tax breaks for big oil and companies that ship American jobs overseas, Franken was in favour of cutting taxes for small businessses and middle class and $5000 for families for college tuition. This would have appealed to the Americans more, hence why he was voted into the senate, as he practically looks like a saint alongside Coleman.
Franken winning the vote was significant, as since senators have been elected in the state of Minnesota, 26 have been Republicans, and the minority - 13 - have been Democrats.
However hard hitting this ad seems to be, I can't help but view it as quite impersonal, it's not as if Franken is speaking directly to the people, which could be seen as a negative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQFaxnwJc8E&NR=1
The second video I found is Franken retaliating at claims made against him by his opponent, Norm Coleman, about comments he made when he was a comedian, and how it would relate to him as a politician. This video is set in his office, he's wearing a suit and looks very presentable. This can be seen as a positive thing, however some may see it as a way of alienating the public, as kind of aristocratic. Considering his party alliance, it is odd to think that he wouldn't want to be seen as one of the people, rather than just another politician in a suit and an office. It does however, set him in quite a positive light, as he tries to justify comments he made, dismissing Coleman's comments as not a real debate, as sort of petty. He puts Coleman down, saying that what he is doing is "No joke", no doubt a pun about his days as a comedian.
Embedding the video unfortunately didn't work, so I've had to put the link in instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhv3_Ir3p50
In the first of the videos I found from his campaign, he openly attacks Norm Coleman's proposals and the quote that stood out for me was "tax cuts for big business, or tax cuts for your family?" which really would have hit home for the voters, as America is seen as very family orientated. Voting for him was also described as "the only choice for change", sort of a spin off of Obama's campaign for Change, promising to do the same, and affiliating Coleman with Bush at the start of the video. Whereas Coleman wanted tax cuts for the rich, billions in tax breaks for big oil and companies that ship American jobs overseas, Franken was in favour of cutting taxes for small businessses and middle class and $5000 for families for college tuition. This would have appealed to the Americans more, hence why he was voted into the senate, as he practically looks like a saint alongside Coleman.
Franken winning the vote was significant, as since senators have been elected in the state of Minnesota, 26 have been Republicans, and the minority - 13 - have been Democrats.
However hard hitting this ad seems to be, I can't help but view it as quite impersonal, it's not as if Franken is speaking directly to the people, which could be seen as a negative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQFaxnwJc8E&NR=1
The second video I found is Franken retaliating at claims made against him by his opponent, Norm Coleman, about comments he made when he was a comedian, and how it would relate to him as a politician. This video is set in his office, he's wearing a suit and looks very presentable. This can be seen as a positive thing, however some may see it as a way of alienating the public, as kind of aristocratic. Considering his party alliance, it is odd to think that he wouldn't want to be seen as one of the people, rather than just another politician in a suit and an office. It does however, set him in quite a positive light, as he tries to justify comments he made, dismissing Coleman's comments as not a real debate, as sort of petty. He puts Coleman down, saying that what he is doing is "No joke", no doubt a pun about his days as a comedian.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Bob Barr
Full name Robert Laurence Barr. Jr but known commonly as Bob Barr, is a former federal prosecutor and represented the 7th district of Georgia in the House of Representatives between 1995 and 2003. He was also the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in 2008.
Some of Bob's opinions and policies have included:
The first quote that stands out for me is when Bob explains that he is running for president; "Because liberty needs a voice and America needs a choice."
The "choice" he refers to is to "get the message to Washington" that the American people will not stand by and watch whilst billions of U.S dollars are spent overseas to fund the American war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan in, to quote from the video, "Operations with no point and no end in sight." He also goes on to say how people with small businesses in America are being told how to run them by the government.
To me, this sends a very clear message that America has too much government involvement both in US functionality and outside affairs and that this should be stopped. By saying this he is promoting himself as the 'perfect' person to deliver this message and change the state of the government.
Towards the end of this video, Bob notably says that Americans "are no longer satisfied with simply voting between the lesser of two evils." By saying this he indictes that people are generally voting for what he has termed as "second-best" and that the American people are not voting for a candidate that represents their wishes because there is not one.
Following the 2008 Election results, Bob Barr and his vice president candidate Wayne Allyn Root recieved 509,478 votes which accounted for 0.4% of the popular vote. Whilst this could not contend with Obama's score, it did, according to an unofficial supporting website of Barr, mean that he had the "Second best result of any Libertarian Party candidate ever."
Referenced websites:
http://www.bobbarr.org/ (Background on Bob Barr)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEV5Zn57HeI (Election campaign video)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9993135-38.html (Background on Bob Barr)
http://www.bobbarr.com/2008/11/14/bob-barr-wayne-allyn-root-2008-presidential-election-results/ (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root Election Results)
Some of Bob's opinions and policies have included:
- Replacing the current tax system with a consumption tax.
- Free trade - allowing more access to private trade with many other countries around the world.
- Voted for the Iraq resolution of 2002, allowing President Bush to procede with the preperations for war. However, Bob has since apparently "regretted" this decision and premotes the call for withdrawal.
- Does not believe in the United Nations and wants the U.S to withdraw some of its functions to bring down America's financial contribution.
- Confidently supports the 'right to bear arms.'
- He is also known as the "Privacy Candidate" for his passion for wanting to protect people's privacy from the government. (For example on the internet.)
- And other such policies as: Free, undefined marriage and more control on illegal immigration.
The first quote that stands out for me is when Bob explains that he is running for president; "Because liberty needs a voice and America needs a choice."
The "choice" he refers to is to "get the message to Washington" that the American people will not stand by and watch whilst billions of U.S dollars are spent overseas to fund the American war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan in, to quote from the video, "Operations with no point and no end in sight." He also goes on to say how people with small businesses in America are being told how to run them by the government.
To me, this sends a very clear message that America has too much government involvement both in US functionality and outside affairs and that this should be stopped. By saying this he is promoting himself as the 'perfect' person to deliver this message and change the state of the government.
Towards the end of this video, Bob notably says that Americans "are no longer satisfied with simply voting between the lesser of two evils." By saying this he indictes that people are generally voting for what he has termed as "second-best" and that the American people are not voting for a candidate that represents their wishes because there is not one.
Following the 2008 Election results, Bob Barr and his vice president candidate Wayne Allyn Root recieved 509,478 votes which accounted for 0.4% of the popular vote. Whilst this could not contend with Obama's score, it did, according to an unofficial supporting website of Barr, mean that he had the "Second best result of any Libertarian Party candidate ever."
Referenced websites:
http://www.bobbarr.org/ (Background on Bob Barr)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEV5Zn57HeI (Election campaign video)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9993135-38.html (Background on Bob Barr)
http://www.bobbarr.com/2008/11/14/bob-barr-wayne-allyn-root-2008-presidential-election-results/ (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root Election Results)
Monday, 8 November 2010
Christine O'Donnell
Christine Therese O'Donnell was the Republican Party's candidate for Delaware in the Senate special election (to fill Delaware's Class II Senate seat, which was held by Ted Kaufman) of 2010, but she lost the race to Chris Coons, 57% to 40%. This was not her first time in a political race, and she did not win the previous ones either.
She can be described as conservative when it comes to political and social matters:
This is the 2008 Campaign ad for Christine O'Donnell entitled "I'm You."
In this ad she tried to use her own mistake, (in this case saying "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven.") to relate to the public by trying to show that she is a normal person and that nobody is perfect.
Therefore as a 'normal person' she is going to act in the best interests of the American people if she is elected. However, this ad just increased the attention given to her declaration made over ten years ago on the TV show, Politically Incorrect. After this ad was aired, she was then quoted as saying in an interview, "I haven't publicly stated this, and I don't know if I'll get in trouble for saying that, but our intention was to kill it, and that's not what happened."
It also led to many parodies of the ad coming out, such as the one below from Saturday Night Live. (Embedding was not available for the full version.)
O'Donnell then released a second ad campaign, called "What I'm made of." It gave the same message as the first, that she is like the regular American, but this time it highlighted her stance on taxes and that they should not be raised, something that would be popular with the public.
Following on from O'Donnell's belief in following the constitution, here are some quotes I found from her on one of the major news network sites:
"A convenant based on divine principles."
"The agents of anti-Americanism who dominate the D.C cocktail crowd have disrespected the hallowed document."
"Republicans must champion the American values enshrined in our sacred text. There are more of us than there are of them."
However, it should be mentioned that the Constitution never once mentions Jesus or God.
Other sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/christine-odonnell-i-regr_n_771236.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
She can be described as conservative when it comes to political and social matters:
- Pro-life and opposes abortion in ALL cases, unless the mother was going to die in which case her family members would decide which life to keep. Also opposes stem cell research and human cloning.
- Says she would never agree to raise taxes.
- Harder punishments for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
- Raising the age you can claim Social Security benefit.
- She revoked her original opinion of anti-masturbation. (1996) "I was a pundit. I was very passionate in my 20s and wanted to share my beliefs."
- Supports building more oil refineries.
- She signed the Tea Party's "Contract from America" which would change the Health Care legislative act to a system that is "competitive, open, and transparent free-market."
This is the 2008 Campaign ad for Christine O'Donnell entitled "I'm You."
In this ad she tried to use her own mistake, (in this case saying "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven.") to relate to the public by trying to show that she is a normal person and that nobody is perfect.
Therefore as a 'normal person' she is going to act in the best interests of the American people if she is elected. However, this ad just increased the attention given to her declaration made over ten years ago on the TV show, Politically Incorrect. After this ad was aired, she was then quoted as saying in an interview, "I haven't publicly stated this, and I don't know if I'll get in trouble for saying that, but our intention was to kill it, and that's not what happened."
It also led to many parodies of the ad coming out, such as the one below from Saturday Night Live. (Embedding was not available for the full version.)
O'Donnell then released a second ad campaign, called "What I'm made of." It gave the same message as the first, that she is like the regular American, but this time it highlighted her stance on taxes and that they should not be raised, something that would be popular with the public.
Following on from O'Donnell's belief in following the constitution, here are some quotes I found from her on one of the major news network sites:
"A convenant based on divine principles."
"The agents of anti-Americanism who dominate the D.C cocktail crowd have disrespected the hallowed document."
"Republicans must champion the American values enshrined in our sacred text. There are more of us than there are of them."
However, it should be mentioned that the Constitution never once mentions Jesus or God.
Other sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/christine-odonnell-i-regr_n_771236.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
Please note that because we have had to juggle the weeks in the module schedule, week 7's task is as follows:
Find, post and comment on any recent US campaign video made by a candidate in the 2008 or 2010 elections. Your first choice should not be Obama or McCain - try to find a campaign video in support of a Senator or a Congressman. They do not have to be the winner, but make sure you know what the result was. Also make sure you comment both on its content and on its style.
If you don't know how to embed Youtube videos, now is the time to learn. If you look under any video you will see a bar which includes the word "Embed". Click on it and it will highlight a code which you can then copy and paste into your blog post. The video should then appear directly in your post - no link required. Try it.
Find, post and comment on any recent US campaign video made by a candidate in the 2008 or 2010 elections. Your first choice should not be Obama or McCain - try to find a campaign video in support of a Senator or a Congressman. They do not have to be the winner, but make sure you know what the result was. Also make sure you comment both on its content and on its style.
If you don't know how to embed Youtube videos, now is the time to learn. If you look under any video you will see a bar which includes the word "Embed". Click on it and it will highlight a code which you can then copy and paste into your blog post. The video should then appear directly in your post - no link required. Try it.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
The Filipino historical presence in America
During my research for various ethnic groups in America, I discovered an interesting website called "Anchorage Daily News" with an article titled "Filipinos helped shape America of today"
This particular article was published recently, (within the last month) as it attempts to make known the importance of other cultural groups in America when it comes to the elections as their votes are equally as significant as those of any other American citizen.
It opens with a brief history of Filipino presence in the United States. A particular quote interested me concerning the settlement of Filipinos: "The first Filipinos landed on the continent in 1587, several decades before the Pilgrims arrived. Before our Founding Fathers declared independence from the Brits, a group of Filipinos had already settled in Louisiana. More than a century before Alaska became a state, Filipinos had already made it here, engaging in fur trade with Alaska Natives."
It then goes on to talk about how Filipinos have helped to build America through the ages, and how their contributions can be recognised throughout history from the very earliest periods as this quote reveals: "In the early 1920s, many Filipinos, called the manongs, left their native country and their family to work in the plantations of Hawaii and California and the fisheries of Washington and Alaska."
And interestingly how they fought both as a separate colony and a unified country "During WWII, Filipinos, both here and in the Philippines, fought with and for the U.S. to help protect our freedom and secure peace in our world."
And more recently the increased opportunity of work available to Filipinos that America presented to them encouraged more people to go to live there, quoting the website: "In the late '60s and '70s, many Filipino professionals left their native country to help fill the workforce of our rapidly growing technology and health industry. As the families of the manongs, veterans and professionals grew, their family members took on the critical jobs that helped in the development of our nation's health and economy. Filipino-Americans worked in the health field, service industry, hospitality, technology, education, government, armed forces and construction, among many others."
Despite perhaps enjoying a more prosperous lifestyle in America, the site goes on to say that "The manongs faced much discrimination and injustice. In the 1930s in California, they were not allowed to marry Caucasians. It was also not uncommon for them to see the sign, "No Filipinos Allowed," on the windows and doors of some business establishments in parts of California. Those who worked in plantations and fisheries faced poor working conditions and did not receive decent pay."
(For reference, the name "Manong" is generally given to the first-born Filipino male in a nuclear family)
Having looked into the reasoning for this, I managed to find that, according to another website under the name of Senator Leland Yee, Ph.D. of California state senate, "The Filipinos were specifically targeted in California because they were known to be romantic bachelors, and were accused of taking away American women from the American farm workers"
This law was amended, however, following a serious raid by radical white men on a dance club, whereby many Filipinos were assaulted, and by the end, one Filipino had been killed. The law then allowed them to marry with people of other Asian background. California was also the first US state to eventually overturn the law and allow Filipinos the right to free marriage in 1948.
I feel that a final quote from the "Anchorage Daily News" website sums up Filipino attitudes in a modern day American society: "Although such blatant forms of discrimination and injustice do not seem to exist today, discrimination and injustice are still problems faced by Filipino Americans. In my recent research study with my colleagues among Filipino-American youth and adults in Anchorage, many still express that they have been subjects of negative stereotypes, racism and discrimination in their schools and workplaces."
I found it very informative to look into the history of Filipinos as I think that we can learn a great deal from the ethical backgrounds of the individual cultures that make up America and how their own fundamental ethos has contributed to the United States' own cultivation from which we can use to look at each individual group to piece together an idea of how their views and perspectives cohere with one another.
Websites used: http://www.adn.com/2010/10/06/1489766/filipinos-helped-shape-america.html
http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={DA377F1D-8DF2-4AE6-B3A0-7909404FC1D1}&DE={09B4D711-EC4C-4B55-B9FF-EB671F34F3E0}
This particular article was published recently, (within the last month) as it attempts to make known the importance of other cultural groups in America when it comes to the elections as their votes are equally as significant as those of any other American citizen.
It opens with a brief history of Filipino presence in the United States. A particular quote interested me concerning the settlement of Filipinos: "The first Filipinos landed on the continent in 1587, several decades before the Pilgrims arrived. Before our Founding Fathers declared independence from the Brits, a group of Filipinos had already settled in Louisiana. More than a century before Alaska became a state, Filipinos had already made it here, engaging in fur trade with Alaska Natives."
It then goes on to talk about how Filipinos have helped to build America through the ages, and how their contributions can be recognised throughout history from the very earliest periods as this quote reveals: "In the early 1920s, many Filipinos, called the manongs, left their native country and their family to work in the plantations of Hawaii and California and the fisheries of Washington and Alaska."
And interestingly how they fought both as a separate colony and a unified country "During WWII, Filipinos, both here and in the Philippines, fought with and for the U.S. to help protect our freedom and secure peace in our world."
And more recently the increased opportunity of work available to Filipinos that America presented to them encouraged more people to go to live there, quoting the website: "In the late '60s and '70s, many Filipino professionals left their native country to help fill the workforce of our rapidly growing technology and health industry. As the families of the manongs, veterans and professionals grew, their family members took on the critical jobs that helped in the development of our nation's health and economy. Filipino-Americans worked in the health field, service industry, hospitality, technology, education, government, armed forces and construction, among many others."
Despite perhaps enjoying a more prosperous lifestyle in America, the site goes on to say that "The manongs faced much discrimination and injustice. In the 1930s in California, they were not allowed to marry Caucasians. It was also not uncommon for them to see the sign, "No Filipinos Allowed," on the windows and doors of some business establishments in parts of California. Those who worked in plantations and fisheries faced poor working conditions and did not receive decent pay."
(For reference, the name "Manong" is generally given to the first-born Filipino male in a nuclear family)
Having looked into the reasoning for this, I managed to find that, according to another website under the name of Senator Leland Yee, Ph.D. of California state senate, "The Filipinos were specifically targeted in California because they were known to be romantic bachelors, and were accused of taking away American women from the American farm workers"
This law was amended, however, following a serious raid by radical white men on a dance club, whereby many Filipinos were assaulted, and by the end, one Filipino had been killed. The law then allowed them to marry with people of other Asian background. California was also the first US state to eventually overturn the law and allow Filipinos the right to free marriage in 1948.
I feel that a final quote from the "Anchorage Daily News" website sums up Filipino attitudes in a modern day American society: "Although such blatant forms of discrimination and injustice do not seem to exist today, discrimination and injustice are still problems faced by Filipino Americans. In my recent research study with my colleagues among Filipino-American youth and adults in Anchorage, many still express that they have been subjects of negative stereotypes, racism and discrimination in their schools and workplaces."
I found it very informative to look into the history of Filipinos as I think that we can learn a great deal from the ethical backgrounds of the individual cultures that make up America and how their own fundamental ethos has contributed to the United States' own cultivation from which we can use to look at each individual group to piece together an idea of how their views and perspectives cohere with one another.
Websites used: http://www.adn.com/2010/10/06/1489766/filipinos-helped-shape-america.html
http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={DA377F1D-8DF2-4AE6-B3A0-7909404FC1D1}&DE={09B4D711-EC4C-4B55-B9FF-EB671F34F3E0}
Minorities in America- Asian Americans
I am going to discuss in this post my findings from the website http://www.asian-nation.org/ this website shows the view of Asian Americans and aims to educate others about Asian Americans.
According to this website the Asian American community makes up roughly 5% of the American population and is rapidly increasing, it says 'we are one of the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups (in terms of percentage increase) in the U.S'. However, despite the fact that this community is quite large they still feel that they are unfairly treated: 'the Asian American community has received a lot of scrutiny over the years but in many ways, still remains misunderstood'.The website also describes how Asian American is quite a broad term and acknowledges that there are many Asian groups within Asian Americans (Korean, Indonesian, Japanese, Filipino etc), it also defines the term Asian American as:
'the population living in the U.S. who self-identify as having Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry, in whole or in part, regardless of whether they're U.S.- or foreign-born, a U.S. citizen or not, length of residence, or in the U.S. legally or illegally. I also use the following terms to mean the same thing: Asian American, Asian Pacific American (APA), and Asian Pacific Islander (API). Of course, being "Asian" is not necessarily the same as being "Asian American" and I focus on this distinction throughout Asian-Nation'.
This website also describes how there are 2 stereotypes of Asian Americans: 'all Asian Americans are the same' and 'all Asian Americans are foreigners'. The first stereotype, they say, is negative because (as mentioned above) 'many people are either unable or unwilling to distinguish between different Asian ethnicities' leading to over-generalization and thus some ethnic groups get ignored altogether. The other stereotype is viewed as also negative because people assume that every Asian American is a foreigner although some Asian Americans come from families where many generations have been U.S. citizens; the website says, 'it becomes easier to think of us as not fully American and then to deny us the same rights that other Americans take for granted...that means prejudice and discrimination'.
The website has many sections such as culture, ethnic groups, and issues (each including various articles and blogs) but I will now focus, in brief, on the early history of Asian Americans portrayed on this website:
- The first Asians settled in the U.S (around what would be Louisianna) in 1750 and then just less than a century later Asians were brought over as slaves to the islands of the Caribbean, Peru, Ecuador, and other countries in South America. However, in 1848 there was large-scale immigration to America due to the Gold Rush and economic hardship in China
- Chinese miners in California were discriminated against in the Foreign Miner Tax which should have been collected from all foreigners but was only collected from the Chinese. Objection to paying this led to being victims of murder and attacks.
- From 1865 many Chinese worked for Transcontinental Railroad project doing the most dangerous jobs but only getting paid 60% of what European immigrants received
- After their labour wasn't needed and they were seen as an econmic threat there was anti-Chinese movements culminating in the Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882. 'This act barred virtually all immigration from China and prevented all Chinese already in the U.S. from becoming U.S. citizens, even their American-born children. For the first time in U.S. history, a specific ethnic group was singled out and forbidden to enter the U.S'. As a response to this discrimination Chinatowns developed from which the stereotypical images of Chinese restaurants, laundry shops and Japanese gardens come from; this was not them trying to force their culture on America but out of neccessity as they had nowhere else to go.
Monday, 1 November 2010
History of Hispanics with The United States
My source for this weeks post is http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3761/is_199710/ai_n8769255/ a website with an article on the "Generations of diversity: Latinos in the United States." It also has other articles on subjects such as "How the United States racializes Latinos; white hegemony and its consequences" and "Latinos/ a rights and justice in the United States; perspectives and approaches."
It begins by explaining how Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States and that "population is projected to swell from 28 million in 1996 to about 100 million in 2050, and is projected to outnumber African Americans by 2005.1."
It then goes on to explain what it is meant by 'Latino' and that "Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a racial group, according to U.S. government guidelines, but this distinction escapes most Americans. Hispanics can be of any race. Most classify themselves as white, a minority classify themselves as black, and an increasing share identify their race as "other," which underscores the ambiguity of race and ethnic-group definitions in the United States."
This site primarily focuses on the history of the Latinos, starting with the Spanish setting up St. Augustine, (Florida, 1565) Sante Fe and New Mexico. (1609) The Spanish then lost some of their territory to the Mexicans after Mexico won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1836, Texas won its independence from Mexico and went on to join the United States in 1845. The rest of the Mexican territory was gained by the United States in 1848, after the war with Mexico.
"The treaty brought the United States land that later became the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming."
The people who were living in these areas then became U.S citizens and that is where the Hispanic population arose from.
The Latino population continues to grow because of high numbers of immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean. The different generations of Latinos living in America have different ways when it comes to their heritage and background.
It talks of the differences between the different Hispanic groups and that because they are so varied in education, class and immigration status, it would not be "wrong to assume that Hispanics are making gradual progress towards parity with Anglos." (Jorge Chapa)
Other facts raised within the article:
"In the past decade or so, immigrants and refugees have increasingly contributed to the labor force in rural and suburban areas throughout the United States.16 Traditionally, foreign-- born Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, have worked in agriculture in Texas, California, and other southwestern states."
One final point that the article makes is about immigration again, and how it has changed throughout history.
"During the l9th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. Hispanic population expanded little beyond the scattered settlements in the American Southwest. Only 178 immigrants from Latin America were recorded in 1820, the first year immigration statistics were kept. More than 8,000 people entered from other countries that year, primarily from Europe. Land arrivals were not completely enumerated until 1908 and official records underestimate the total flow across the largely unregulated U.S.-Mexico border in that period-or into U.S. states along the Caribbean. The statistics show only 750,000 immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, and other parts of Latin America between 1820 and 1920. These early Hispanics-about half of whom were from the Caribbean-- contributed only about 2 percent of the 34 million immigrants who settled in the United States in that period."
This website would be highly useful for anyone looking at the growth of Latinos within America and the obvious problems that go hand in hand with immigration, as well as touching on the issues of American identity and if an identity can ever be achieved with the population of Hispanics increasing so much.
It begins by explaining how Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States and that "population is projected to swell from 28 million in 1996 to about 100 million in 2050, and is projected to outnumber African Americans by 2005.1."
It then goes on to explain what it is meant by 'Latino' and that "Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a racial group, according to U.S. government guidelines, but this distinction escapes most Americans. Hispanics can be of any race. Most classify themselves as white, a minority classify themselves as black, and an increasing share identify their race as "other," which underscores the ambiguity of race and ethnic-group definitions in the United States."
This site primarily focuses on the history of the Latinos, starting with the Spanish setting up St. Augustine, (Florida, 1565) Sante Fe and New Mexico. (1609) The Spanish then lost some of their territory to the Mexicans after Mexico won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1836, Texas won its independence from Mexico and went on to join the United States in 1845. The rest of the Mexican territory was gained by the United States in 1848, after the war with Mexico.
"The treaty brought the United States land that later became the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming."
The people who were living in these areas then became U.S citizens and that is where the Hispanic population arose from.
The Latino population continues to grow because of high numbers of immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean. The different generations of Latinos living in America have different ways when it comes to their heritage and background.
- First Generation often speak little English and keep all ties to their "home" countries and generally live with other immigrants.
- Second Generation are split between the heritage of their parents and that of American society. They still speak Spanish, but from schooling learn English.
It talks of the differences between the different Hispanic groups and that because they are so varied in education, class and immigration status, it would not be "wrong to assume that Hispanics are making gradual progress towards parity with Anglos." (Jorge Chapa)
Other facts raised within the article:
- Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens no matter if they are born in Puerto Rico or the United States and they can move from one to the other as they please.
- They are only counted as part of the Hispanic population if they live in the District of Columbia and they are the largest Hispanic group after Mexicans.
- Many Cubans have entered the U.S since 1980 and in 1996 they made up 4% of the Hispanic population within the U.S.
- "Dominicans are the largest single group within the Other Hispanics category."
- "Hispanics live in every state, but historically their population is concentrated in nine states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado."
"In the past decade or so, immigrants and refugees have increasingly contributed to the labor force in rural and suburban areas throughout the United States.16 Traditionally, foreign-- born Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, have worked in agriculture in Texas, California, and other southwestern states."
One final point that the article makes is about immigration again, and how it has changed throughout history.
"During the l9th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. Hispanic population expanded little beyond the scattered settlements in the American Southwest. Only 178 immigrants from Latin America were recorded in 1820, the first year immigration statistics were kept. More than 8,000 people entered from other countries that year, primarily from Europe. Land arrivals were not completely enumerated until 1908 and official records underestimate the total flow across the largely unregulated U.S.-Mexico border in that period-or into U.S. states along the Caribbean. The statistics show only 750,000 immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, and other parts of Latin America between 1820 and 1920. These early Hispanics-about half of whom were from the Caribbean-- contributed only about 2 percent of the 34 million immigrants who settled in the United States in that period."
This website would be highly useful for anyone looking at the growth of Latinos within America and the obvious problems that go hand in hand with immigration, as well as touching on the issues of American identity and if an identity can ever be achieved with the population of Hispanics increasing so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)