http://gunowners.org/
This is the website for the Gun Owners of America, this is a anti-gun control website and unlike many American I find being pro gun ownership a shocking concept and find it difficult not to look at this website and laugh! The websites logo (pictured below) is a American man standing proudly with his gun, the American flag in the background is perhaps relating to the 2nd amendment;to have a gun is your right as an American.Its interesting it is a man in the picture yet they have a whole section of the website called 'womens voice' in which I found an amazing article 'Columbian Nuns Kill Thief'!! (http://gunowners.org/wv05.htm). The idea that baring arms saved the lives of two nuns is in theory a good one but does that not contradict everything these women believe in? This is not the only time in this website religion is used to promote gun ownership, the merchandise section has a t-shirt which depicts a man holding his bible and his gun and the overview reads "Are you clinging to your Bible and your Gun?". In terms of gun control this website has a petition to repeal the gun free school zones act.This act means that in some states you are breaking the law if you go within a certain distance of a school with firearm. This website views this act is an infringement of an Americans constitutional rights. What also strikes me as interesting about this website is its target audience. The advertisements down the side of the homepage are for food stores and flower shops, this suggests this website is aiming itself at everyday Americans who own or 'should own' a gun rather than gun enthusiasts.                                            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=91eaME20Hnk&list=UUFJ2K2gUJJ1ecBU6Sxc3bCA
This is a video from the the GOA's you tube page.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
I have chosen this website as pro-gun control website.Like the GOA the website uses red,white and blue and what appears to be the American flag on the homepage perhaps to appeal to people patriotism. This  website is heavily based on how Guns lead to violence where as the previous website sees guns as a stopper of violence. In the top right hand corner of this website is a total of how many people have been shot this year and today in America. This is one of the many statistics used in this website perhaps to shock the viewer into seeing guns need controlling. I find it interesting that this website is not petitioning for a ban on guns but just more control of weapons. This again enforces the pro-gun attitude of American and although some call for more control it is still their right to bare arms.

The Right to Bear Arms? The 2nd Amendment and America

NRA's Website: http://home.nra.org/

VPC's Website: http://www.vpc.org

"For Zac Guy, it all started with a gun," proclaims a looping article on the home page of the NRA's website, which features a smiling picture of entrepreneur Zac Guy and if you were to click on the picture would lead you to an article about how his great-great-great-grandfather's Winchester Model 1894 and his desire to keep such a precious family heirloom on displace inspired a chain of events that ultimately led him to where he is today, founder of 2 multi-million dollar companies, and family man. It is a very triumphant and human story about the quintessential American ideal - the American Dream - and it is through the use of these human stories that the NRA attempts to advocate Freedom and hence defend the 2nd Amendment.

This can be seen further in the NRA Life of Duty section of the website, focusing on those who serve and protect the American people, especially the military, with the headline video "To Be American" which features the Spooner brothers, a slick, well produced, human and deeply affecting affair, it attempts to remind the viewers of the freedoms they have, to bear arms, to found a company, to sit around in their pajama's if they wish, gained through the sacrifices of the military service men, in particular, to help cement the NRA's argument.

In the NRA Country section, it again features real human beings to support the NRA's argument, this time in the form of popular country artists such as Blake Shelton (also a judge on hit reality show The Voice), Trace Adkins, Justin Moore (as seen in the picture above) and Montgomery Gentry. By using American artist who will be familiar to the American public, especially in areas of greater gun use - so called Dixie, or red-neck - it helps to further increase awareness and support of their views "Respect. Honor. Freedom." as people often do listen to celebrities - why else would Obama have had Bruce Springsteen following him in the later stages of his campaign?

It is through the use of human's across the NRA's website to promote this idea of that the right to bear arms is inherently linked to freedom, and the high production values on the website, which makes it easy to navigate through the sight and find the arguments, that makes it so successful in providing an convincing argument.

Conversely the Violence Policy Center's website feels somewhat more amateurish in comparison, with it's cluttered, unstructured and down right illogical lay out, first impressions are negative to say the least. However once you get beyond this initial impression, the VPC website has some truly frightening stories          to say the least - especially the article in the Huffington Post about how black women who are murdered by men most often are killed by guns, and by those they know as a result of an argument, which is a very chilling thought. Imagine if you're parents where having an argument and to settle it your Dad shot your Mom to death, the thought of should be enough to make anyone want to ban gun's.

The VPC's website also highlights an equally terrifying statistic that in the DMV (District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia) in 2010 gun deaths have outpaced motor vehicle deaths, 1512 to 1280 respectively.

It also turns it's attention to the ever rising problem of gun trafficking from the States to Mexico, and the rest of the world, but particularly Mexico since the launch of Operation Michoacan by the police in December 2006, leading to the start of the so-called Mexican Drug War. According to statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the 99,000 guns submitted for tracing between 2007 and 2011, 68,000 came from the US, a point highlighted on the "US. guns" video on the home page.

However while said video is thought provoking, it seems, much like the rest of the VPC's website, much more amateur when compared with the "To Be American" video on the NRA's website, especially with the stick cartoon figures of Mr. X and Mr. Y, instead of providing a concrete example of a real people actually caught trafficking guns, giving it the feel of being hypothetical and not truly real - something the whole website suffer's from, without human examples and the use of statistics it just all doesn't seem as real as the NRA's Zac Guy and Scot Spooner and Justin Moore and Trace Adkins and Blake Shelton, which is why I'd argue that the NRA's website is more convincing because it has real examples of it's arguments, that the right to bear arms is inherent to the American idea of freedom. 

Gun Crime Statistics.......

Here are a few of the background facts in the role and issues surrounding the ownership and use of guns in the USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

What was the reason for the Second Amendment? To what extent is the terminology the significant problem?

Does 'geography matter'? Explain the where and the why.



John

Pro-Gun, Anti-Gun and the world wide web

When we think of guns and America, we stereo-typically think of them in the hands of in the hands of crazed white supremacist rednecks. However, this anti-gun control website is focused solely on the arming of women. The website is called "Armed Females of America" and the link to the site is below. 

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/

The website is set out in an informal manner, with the main bulk of the content being articles, from females authors and other anti-gun control sites such as the NRA (National Rifle Association). When the site first loads an image of the American flag and a quote of the second amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" are placed at the top of the webpage. 

Not only does the website contain links to articles centered around the themes of anti-gun control, there are also links to dozens of other anti-gun control websites and blogs. Overall the website is effective at delivering its anti-gun control message, and also plays to the audience of female Americans particularly well, by featuring articles that depict the safety of females who carry firearms on their person or in a bag. For me the message of course does not influence me at all because I am not female, but I can see how this could/would influence a female's decision on whether or not to carry a gun, with a seemingly growing fear for personal safety developing, the site clearly states how the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans should not be tampered with.

On the other hand, there are those who are for the need to have gun control. One such website is the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence" and the link to the site is below.

http://www.csgv.org/ 

When compared to the Armed Females of America site the Coalition to stop gun violence site, is laid out in a far more professional manner, with a focused layout. The main page of the site details the 'mission' of the group, which is to "secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy." and it does this rather  well. 

The site contains links to pro-gun control articles, as well as additional information, such as contact details, powerful statistics, links to videos about the issue and so on. The message that this website is trying to get across is done in an extremely effective manner. Where the anti-gun control website was unprofessional and cluttered, the pro-gun control website was professional and streamlined, which made the content of the site easy to access. The website is further helped by the fact that it does not pick a specific race or gender as the sole source of its focus. This means that the site has a large area of research, studies and facts to choose from instead of the potential 'grasping at straws' that can occur from more one dimensional focused sites. 

As an individual who has no problem with guns, neither site really swayed me to change my opinion, this is further inhibited by the fact I am not American. However if I was an American and was made to look at these sites, I would probably lean more towards the side of pro-gun control, because the pro gun control site is more professional and gets its message across in a more focused manner. 

As an added addition, an interesting look at gun control can be found from the comedian Chris Rock, who suggests that instead of gun control, there should instead be 'bullet control' (watch video)

Guns - NRA & The Brady Campaign

NRA  

National Rifle Association. 4.3 million membership. Advocators and protectors of the Second Amendment. Sponsors safely training and marksmanship competitions. Founded by William Conant Church, George Wood Wingate and General Burnside in 1871.

http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg

Brady Campaign 

Formed in 1971 and renamed in 2001 in honour of James Brady, the campaign lobbies for the gun control in the states. 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

The NRA website is a stylish, modern and coherent display of the organisation. The imagery used depicts the power American landscape and symbols of patriotism in the form of: the flag and the bald eagle and unsurprisingly a copious amount of guns. The website uses a subtle contrast of formal and inform to create an official impression upon the viewer. This the results in the website having authoritative and professional  connotations, this effect then gives power to the organisations mandate, as people are receptive to the authority of the website and are more likely to accept the viewpoint presented. 

As advocates of the Second Amendment, the NRA's view of gun control and ownership is obvious. They are rigorous campaigners for the prevention on restrictions on gun control. Members of the NRA treasure America's right to bear arms and its website is a clear indication of this. The site offers multiple information guides to what the NRA stands and what it means for the American people. It champions the careful use of firearms and sponsors courses and programs in gun safety. Sections of the site detail the opportunities for young people and how they too can celebrate the Second Amendment and wield a fireman. 

Overall the site is sophisticated but at the same time all inclusive representation of the NRA's mission to continue the tradition of the right to bear arms. Men, women and children are all represented as well as various backgrounds that stretch from: family, hunting, military and political. This spectrum of inclusion creates illusions of the fundamental importance of gun ownership upon American society, it in itself becomes a symbol of Americanness, supported by the patriotic imagery that is used. 

However this portrayal of the NRA is a muted version of the real life representation of the NRA. The group are a very vocal element of the pro-gun point of view, and their actions often result in controversy. This aspect of the NRA is not to be found on the website, which instead presents the more wholesome family value image. Michael Moore's 2002 documentary Bowling For Columbine, offers an outside (and biased) perspective of the NRA. In the documentary, Moore through an interview with Charlton Heston a prominent figure in the NRA, presents a mocking and disdainful perception of the NRA. 

The NRA website uses non-threating, positive language and patriotic imagery to present a organisation grounded in the tradition and greatness of America. It creates a perspective that confirms American society's values and preconceptions in order to promote its message and illustrate a perception that the NRA is and the ways firearms are used in conjunction with it are devoid of the association of guns and violence. There is no mention of the multiple shooting tragedies that have occurred in America or the gun violence that is prominent in urban areas. The NRA site is a propaganda forum for the preservation of the Second Amendment that presents itself as a organisation that is devoted to the safety and non-violence enjoyment of guns. 

Brady Campaign's website, like the NRA uses symbolic images and colours to associate a sense of Americanness to the charity. However there is less adornment on the Brady Campaign website, suggesting a more informative site and also illustrates its nature as a charity. The site uses facts and statistics and real life tragedies caused by gun violence to incite sympathy from its viewer. The Campaign page leans heavily on news story and headlines to create authenticity for the page, utilising shock techniques to cause a sense of responsibility for gun owners. 

The overall impression of Brady Campaign's website to the NRA site indicates the imbalance in public opinion towards gun control. The NRA is a flashy website that seems more like a business site than a homepage for a organisation, whilst the Brady site relies on the power of the news and figures to impact and effect. This inequality is connected to the economical importance of gun sales as evident in this article from Forbes.com, (http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/07/05/google-sadly-joins-the-anti-gun-brigade/).

In conclusion, both website illustrate the attitude towards gun ownership and the Second Amendment in American society. By comparing the two sites it becomes clear that public opinion is vastly in favour of the freedom the right to bear arms offers and conveys that despite the obvious tragedies that seemingly lax control of firearms results in, the attitude it firmly anti gun control.

The 2012 Election

Obama appears to have been more popular in Europe than in America. Many Americans appear to have a genuine love for the man rather than his policies. It appears Obama had the support of Women as 55% of women voted for him, aswell as also winning the Hispanic vote ' the president made the biggest gains in Colorado, taking 74 percent of the Hispanic vote'.http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/07/us/politics/obamas-diverse-base-of-support.html. It appears that those voting for Romney were predominately white, older and male. This was the type of person who once dominated the elections however it appears that this 'type' is now being outvoted by young people, Hispanic people and women who appear to more republican.  

2012's Mr President a.k.a Mr Popular

The US 2012 elections resulted in a huge sigh of relief across the world at the word of Barack Obama remaining the President of the United States for the next four years. Both Obama and Romney in their campaigns and battle for presidency made fair points in their goals for the role, some far more than others. But in today's modern age, is something as big as the US election truly about what America believes is the way their country should be run or who has the most money or the most colourful logo?

As serious as it may be, the election still comes across as a popularity contest, in some ways it has similar values as something like The X Factor or American Idol.
It is understandable that America may not want a president that it too uptight, but it would seem that the candidate who can crack the most jokes is the one to win. 
For Obama, he was very lucky in this election, not only did he have a high number of voters already in the bag, a lot of his voters were well respected people e.g. Samuel L. Jackson and Beyonce.

For example, this video below shows a number of different adverts Obama used for his campaign starring actor Samuel L. Jackson.

These commercials mainly focus around what Romney will do and those reasons are why people should vote for Obama which is almost a reverse way of trying to get their vote. Whereas Romney is slightly more old fashioned about it and just tries to get his point across which is a respectable approach. However, it would seem that a A-List celebrity telling you who to vote over this (video below) is a much more affective way to reach out to people. 

                                                                             




And very soon, Romney's ideas were made into parodies by popular culture and this  made him very quickly fall down behind Obama who was put back in the lead. 

The YouTube sensation original 'Gangnam Style' has a reputation for being just plain annoying. What does this say about having it re-vamped 'Romney Style'?

As the elections were drawing to a close, there was still that slight fear that Governor Romney would become President. There is a possibility that this video demonstration how the America of today see Romney's 19th century values as something equally as annoying and infuriating as 'Gangnam Style'

As a result of Obama winning the elections I feel it shows how Americans do know their rights from wrongs when it comes to who leads their country. However, going back to the subject of the 'popularity contest' America are still taken more by who has the most entertaining commercials or cracks the most jokes as opposed to just who has better plans for the future of the USA.

American Politics - The Money Race

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

The 2012 Presidential Election is being estimated to have cost around $6 billion (according to Center for Responsive Politics), making it not only the most expensive campaign in history, but $700 million more was spent than the previous election - which at the time was the most expensive. With Obama raising $934 million, compared to Romney's $881.8 million, posing the question, is American politics really a rich man's game? And to win do you just need to throw the most money at it? Not who has the most exciting policies. 

With the concepts of super PAC's (political action committee's - who campaign for a candidate)  and people donating money to the campaigns - for example James H. Simons, President of a hedge fund company, who donated $3.5 million to Obama. Or Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam who donated $10 million each. It raises the question of what they get out of donating? Do they believe in the candidate and their policies that much? Or are they expecting something else out of it? Do these donor's who give astronomical amounts of money to the candidate's expect policies to go their way, and helping hands from their friend the President when it comes to contracts etc. Is the President really running the country? Or do they candidate's sell their soul Faustian style, to these shadowy devils, and let them into the decision making process? After all if you gave that much money away, you would expect something in return right? Nothing's free in this world, as they say. 

Interestingly, both Obama's and Romney's super PAC's spent the majority of the money raised on negative advertisements, flooding the air waves with the likes of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnYvm10bvOU&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XRh_ombvL4&feature=player_embedded

Which are just two examples of millions of examples from over the years, including during the Party Primary stages of the campaign, suggesting that American Politics is based all around negativity and which candidate can put you off the other the most by turning up as much dirt and nasty words as possible. All the debates and rhetoric was just as negative and all you hear is the bad, never the good. Scarily this element is creeping into British politics more and more. For a nation that is supposed to be the defender of freedom and democracy, picking the so called "leader of the world" on a campaign based on name-calling is a frighting thought.

American Election 2012 - People Making a Joke?

In a somewhat risky move, the aspect of the American election that I found interesting is the comedic sketches and videos that have been made about the election and of Obama and Romney. The sketches and videos made have very little in terms of political message but instead try to turn a serious political event into a joke.

This first video was taken from the Jimmy Kimmel show, and is the comedian Chris Rock with a "special" message towards white voters, who Mitt Romney had the larger levels of support from. It is a comedic attempt to generate "white" votes for Obama by portraying him as a "white" president even calling Barrack Obama "Barry", the name that Obama went by during his early years. The video is a sarcastic look at voting demographics of American politics, in the idea that it would take an African-American man to change his name to something "white" such as Barry and acting like a white man, in order to achieve the white vote. 

This is also true when it comes to the black vote as well. Taken from the Jimmy Kimmel show (again), it places Jimmy Kimmel in an African-American barbers and when asked what it would take for Mitt Romney to gain the "Black" vote and one of the responses was "turn black". What these videos show is the almost ridiculous lengths in which candidates would have to go to in order to appease all the demographics of the American vote.

  

The comedic jabs at the 2012 election did not remain on the comedic talk shows and TV sketches, it also went into the real of internet music parodies such as the Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama Epic Rap Battle of History (ERBH) (feat. Abraham Lincoln) and College Humor's Mitt Romney Style (a parody of PSY's Gangnam Style). In the ERBH video it shows the weaknesses of both the political candidates, to the extent that the portrayal of Abraham Lincoln states that the president shall not be "the shiniest of two turds" which conveys the negative public opinion that was held against both Obama and Romney. In the college humor video, it is more of a "piss-take" on the rich affluent life style that Romney leads (interesting comparison to the Gangnam style of the parodied song) and that the only reason he should get your vote is because of his wealth. The Vice President candidate (at the time) Paul Ryan also is parodied in the video and garishly states that he would be cutting the "safety net" of welfare if elected, whilst referring to his "looks" as a reason to be elected. The college humor video appears to be specifically created to make Romney and Ryan look like an absolute joke, and it is very successful (also is a good laugh). There are numerous other videos that are aimed at making a joke of the 2012 election and American Politics itself, such as Jesus Christ, Republican candidate which shows the "fantasy world" that republican voters live in, to the extent that not even Jesus could survive as a Republican Candidate. 

       

American Politics - Women's Rights

The American Election in 2012, has been an event that has consumed the worlds media in its countdown to the 7th November. It's impact is worldwide, simply because of it's critical importance to America itself. If asked would an average American been aware of who the candidates for the British Prime Minister were in 2010? It's doubtful, however it would be unusual if a British citizen was unaware of the battle for the Presidency between Obama and Romney. This juxtaposition of awareness, goes some way in illustrating the power of politics within America.

The relationship between the American citizen and American politics has, in the 2012 election been extremely personal. The issues that dominate, whilst undoubtedly heavily present in American society, become the key aspects of Obama and Romney's campaigns, specifically that of: LBGT equality rights, women's rights, unemployment and healthcare. These elements directly link the Presidential campaign to the way the American individual lives their life.

This perhaps can be seen most explicitly in the debates that have arisen in relation to women's rights. The Republicans lead by Romney decided to dictate a new future for women in America, a future that would potentially strip away the rights and equalities earned for women in America; re-establishing a society that freely endorses male superiority. This stance lead by the Republicans raised heavy criticism from Obama and fuelled the matter into becoming one of the critical issues that governed the 2012 election. 

Through the debate, the role of women in America has been thrown into focus. The argument has created perhaps some of the most controversial events of the campaign; and presented to the world an image of the illusion of gender equality in America. The video in which Scarlett Johansson details her experience as a female voter, helps to convey the importance of the woman's vote in the 2012 election and illustrates just how pivotal women's rights became in the campaign; which become an arena for men to decide how women should live their lives.

Perhaps one of the most critical discussions of the election was the attitude towards rape, abortion and contraceptives. These issues raised outrage amongst American citizens when they came into the Republicans campaign. The fact that these key political figures felt that they could dismantle the current attitude and replace it with a misogynistic perception and calling it Christian duty, was abhorrent to those who believed in equality. However; the fact that these issues where even able to come under discussion, conveys the contrasting opinions held by Americans. Whilst some believe in equality and pro-choice others have believe in more typically religious, 'wholesome' family values, that lean towards a pro-life stance. 

Following the discussion of pro life or choice, that question of rape was brought into the issue. Which resulted in the ugly topic of women's rights and relationship to rape. During the campaign, some of the most controversial quotes came from Republicans view on rape. Richard Mourdock (Indiana Senatorial candidate) stated that: "I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Wisconsin state representative Roger Rivard said "Some girls rape easy." The fact that these men felt they could comment and pass judgement on this issue resulted in a outraged response from the media. Comedian and actress Tina Fey at a gala in New York expressed her outrage at some of these comments; illustrating the power of the media and celebrity during the election. As celebrities come forward to endorse their chosen candidates, and at the same time conveying just how consuming the Presidential campaign becomes and it infiltrates the American society. 

Chief Quanah Parker - The Last Chief

Above is a photograph of Chief Quanah Parker, the last chief of the Quahada Comanche Indians. This picture is believed to have been taken between 1888 and 1891. During the years from 1880 to 1890 there was tremendous disruptions for the natives of Texas as many reservations were formed in Oklahoma and the natives were forced to move. Not only were they forced to leave their homes for their enclosed, limited designated land but they were also forced to adopt Euro-American ways and lifestyle. The image above I feel demonstrates that. The photograph, as far as exciting backgrounds or features go is not all that interesting, however, just Quanah Parker alone speaks out about how a rich culture is being killed by the new ways of the 'new world'. His style of hair i.e. the platted hair is really the only indication we have of his true cultural identity, the rest, is alien to him. He has been driven to abandon his tribal clothes and hand-carved weapons and instruments for no objects to amplify his pride and power and a skin tight suit, every button used. However, behind him, his background is very minimal and simple - much like his native culture's way of living. By this it suggests that, although he is forced to present himself and behave in a European way, he is still forced to live in poverty and is given no hope of a better way of life. Everything about this picture is bleak and artificial. Quanah may have had his pride, however in this image we see a version of him that is almost animated in comparison to how he would naturally be.
This photograph could have simply been taken for mere current affairs (at the time) purposes. However, I see it as an ideal outcome for what the settlers wanted. For natives at the time, were they able to see this photograph, it could stand as a warning of what is to come of them and what is expected. Similarly, it could represent achievement. Something for the settlers to relish - a successful attempt at converting a respectful native to bide by their rules and adopt their ways of living.

Manifest Destiny - good or bad?

What is the political context of this cartoon? What does it say about 'Manifest Destiny'?

Joseph Smith preaching to native Americans.

19th century painting of Joseph Smith preaching to Native Americans in Ohio in the early 1830s.

This painting appears to make the two American stand out with their clothing, they are well dressed men which is in stark contrast to the native Americans who are not wearing many clothes. This carries the suggestion that the Indians are savages;a belief popular among white people at the time. The colours of the clothing of the white men is mainly black in comparison to the native people who are wearing softer colours such as creams and blues.This highlights the stark contrast between the native american and the white man.  The two men also appear to be standing taller than all the natives, and some natives are actually sitting on the floor. This carries the suggestion of the natives being of lower in status than the white men. They also appear to be leaning away from the two white men perhaps out of fear.The two white men seem to be the focus of the painting as they really stand out whereas the Native people although there is many more of them seem to blend into the background.One of the white men is also preaching to the natives;they do not follow the same religion yet he feels he can still preach to these people about god.The white man is pointing towards the sky, perhaps toward god and he appears to be holding a book which is possibly the bible. From the positions of the native people for example one has their arms folded and the fact they are all leaning away from these men suggest they do not believe this mans preaching. 

Currier and Ives - American Homestead Autumn

Between the years 1834 -1907 the printmaking firm Currier and Ives mass produced thousands of prints of pictures such as the one above - American Homestead Autumn 1869 - which was part of the wildly popular American Homestead series. 

American Homestead Autumn depicts a family collecting that years harvest, with the baskets over running with fruit because the harvest was so bountiful, it paints a romantic vision of the West which was extremely popular in the East Coast. In fact you could argue that this print, distributed by Currier and Ives, is a form of propaganda, it was published a post-Homestead Act and post-Civil War era, in which one of the main focuses was the idea of Manifest Destiny and westward expansion, that it was their God given right to rule from coast to coast, and they were trying to get people to travel West to fulfill this. The romanticised feel of images such as American Homestead Autumn - and the whole series which depicts the West as idealistic - can be seen as an attempt to try and encourage people in the East to travel West by suggesting that life will be happy and God will provide them with bountiful harvests, which was far from the reality of life on the Great Plains: pre-railroad era: and farming was much harsher than the pictures promised. 

However the romantic and idealistic feel of the print, and the whole series, (as well as their popularity) could be attested to the public trying to recover from the horrors that they had endured in the Civil War, and the damage it had done to the American Psyche - after all it had been split into 2 separate countries for 4 years - and the romanticism promised by believing in the myths and legends associated with the West provided such relief and comfort for the public - perhaps suggesting why the Western has such a long lasted legacy since the frontier was closed in 1890 but new Westerns are still being made in 2012 - Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained for example.

Also omitted from the picture, along with the true hardships of living out on a homestead in the middle of nowhere, are the Indians, which are omitted from all the American Homestead series, suggesting that the American's believed the idea of the West being virgin land totally untouched, and also suggesting perhaps that the public, since the prints were mass produced, didn't really like thinking about the Indians with it being the height of the Indian Wars and the atrocities that came with it and preferred to adopt this idea of the land being untouched as so to avoid accepting the genocide that was happening concurrently.  

Albert Bierstadt (Again) - Toward the Setting Sun 1862

The painting, "Towards the Setting Sun", was painted by Albert Bierstadt (Born in Germany in 1830 and died in New York in 1902) in 1862, and depicts two Native Americans (presumably a mother and child) gazing upon a sunset on the American Plains. This painting captures both the simple living style of the Native American and the untainted natural wilderness of America where all that can be seen are the plains and the sky.

The inclusion of animals in the painting, show the harmonious relationship that the Native Americans had with their environment and nature itself, this is further shown by the presence of only two teepees on an otherwise empty landscape, whereas in other parts of America, towns and villages were being constructed and expanded at a rapid rate and thus in turn brought deforestation and the destruction of of environments previously untouched. This shows the vast differences between the Native People and the "White" settlers of America, where the Native Americans saw areas of natural beauty, the "white man" only saw an opportunity to exploit , to settle and to make a profit.

For me personally this painting has a hidden meaning, and it is one of the end. The fact that the two Native Americans are watching the sun set, could be interpreted as them watching their own culture and people come to end as only 28 years later, the Wounded Knee Massacre occurred (1890), which has resulted in the incarceration of their culture in so called "reservations" which were areas of land that no one else wanted or could use which only further inhibited the Native American people and the effects of this are still felt to this day (reservations having highest levels of unemployment). If you interpret this painting in that manner it can be a painting that brings out a great sadness as it is almost the "curtain call" of a culture.

Manifest Destiny - Albert Bierstadt

Albert Bierstadt - German American painter who catalogued through his landscape painting westward expansion. A member of the Hudson River School; a collection of 19th century artists - founded by Thomas Cole - who created images of an "idealised naturalism", (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hurs/hd_hurs.htm). 

Collection of Bierstadt's work - http://www.albertbierstadt.org/

The Rocky Mountains Lander's Peak - 1863.

Albert Bierstadt's work captured an idyllic view of the American landscape as it was discovered. His work presented a dramatic and awe inspiring portrait of America. Bierstadt's landscapes often use scale to present this powerful representation of America, the composition of the paintings forms large mountains or trees framing the picture conveying a sense of dominance in the landscape. This technique illustrates how America was viewed at the time; everything is exaggerated and magnified, drawing on the Romantic movement, nature becomes a symbol of power with an element of the divine. The connotations of the Romantic techniques would have presented to viewers outside  America a image of superiority and raw, unspoiled resource and opportunity. 

The Oregon Trail - 1869.

The way in which Bierstadt incorporates people in his work contributes to the connotations of power and divinity in American expansion. The above image depicts emigrants on their journey across the frontier. The painting illustrates the way expansion was viewed by the  burgeoning American society. The people characterised in the painting are literally traveling to a new home, as understood by the wagon's containing their worldly goods and the livestock trailing behind them. However; in Bierstadt's painting the subtext of the image conveys the meaning behind this journey; in the colouring of the painting and the positioning of the sun. Together they imply the ideal of the Manifest Destiny. The people depicted represent the believed right that the land was to be expanded coast to coast and claimed by the American people and way of life. They are placed in a powerful dominant landscape, travelling towards a bright and welcoming future. 

The difference between the two images, is the identity of the people within them. In The Rocky Mountains Lander's Peak it is the Native Americans presented with the landscape but in The Oregon Trail it is emigrant Americans. This combination of the inhabitants of America creates a interesting idea of the attitude towards each. As although both are depicted through their relationship to the landscape, the connotations of what this relationship is differ. In the first image the Native Americans have been placed atop the landscape the relationship is not visibly or explicitly united. The emotion behind it is more clinically observational. However when looking at The Oregon Trail the two elements of nature and society become fused in the colouring and composition; in other worlds they blend. In can be seen then that Bierstadt's landscapes promote the Manifest Destiny of American through his representation of the dominant landscape and divine right of the American expansion. 

Next week's tutorial - Monday, 5th November...

Thank you all for your posts and comments this week. Some interesting views - but some predictable choice of themes! Make sure that your selections of artwork/paintings avoid ...... well, you can guess.
The 19th century images of Native Americans, frontier and 'manifest destiny' should give plenty of choice - from political cartoons and photographs to classic landscapes of the American West.  
Main reason for this post, however, is that next week, Monday 5th November, we shall have to start the tutorial at 9.30am - sorry about this! Remember to set your alarm or request an early call....

Finally, here's another view of American enterprise and search for the 'new'.....
http://www.slideshare.net/astrulik/ameircan-inventions-which-changed-the-world
American inventions!
See you Wednesday - goodwishes,
John

De Crevecoeur letters from an american farmer

I have chosen the Quotation, 'the rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as they are in Europe'. I feel this quote suggests America as 'fresh' because it suggests that there is no class divide like Europe. It appears in this passage the writer feels class divide is a negative thing and should be left in Europe.The new way of living is farming which he describes in a more positive way, he uses the words 'respectable', 'humble', 'dignity' and 'honor'.  In today's America there is the Amish community which i believe still reflect these views and share the writers vision of America. 'The faith group has attempted to preserve the elements of late 17th century European rural culture. They try to avoid many of the features of modern society, by developing practices and behaviors which isolate themselves from American culture'.This quote from a website religoustolerance.org says that the Amish community 'isolate themselves from American culture' however I feel that the writer of this letter would see them as a reflection on how America should be; 'respectable farmers and their wives, all clad in neat homespun, well mounted, or riding in their own humble wagons'. It appears that this writers 'fresh view' of America is not how most of today's America is, it is almost the epitome of the negative things mentioned in this text such as the class divide 'great lords who possess everything, and of a herd of people who have nothing'. 
Below is four pictures the first two show a rich American street in compassion with a poor american street; the class divide that was not present in the writers time, what he seemed to feel made America 'fresh'. The second to are a 17th century farm in comparison with an Amish farmer today. Little has changed and this is how I feel the writer would imagine the idea of  a 'fresh' America being.    

De Crèvecœur - Americans Re-made and Renewed

"Here the rewards of his industry follow, with equal steps, the progress of his labour."

An American Re-Made - Isiah Thomas

In this quotation de Crèvecœur is expressing the ideal that is so intrinsic with the myth of America and the American Dream it could arguably be considered the foundation block, that with hard work one can achieve social mobility and success. In the picture above you find Isiah Thomas, a 12-time NBA All-Star and member of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, a man considered to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time, who long before his sporting success was born into relative poverty in one of Chicago's poorest neighbourhoods, who famously earned a scholarship to St. Josephs High School that required him to travel more than 90 minutes each way. Who through "the progress of his labour" in basketball managed to re-make himself and achieve the success many can only dream of. Although this is an extreme example, it is a great example of an American achieving the "rewards of his industry" through the "progress of his labour," albeit I highly doubt de Crèvecœur was talking about basketball when he wrote the letter. 

Americans Renewed - Curse of the Bambino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnqbf2Vpv0

While hard work and "progress of... labour," can lead to success, the nature of sport being the way it is, there are always going to be winners and losers and when the Boston Red Sox sold Babe Ruth (known as "The Bambino") to the New York Yankees on January 3rd 1920 they embarked on one of the worst championship droughts in sporting history going 84 years without winning the World Series. "How can it pervade every corner , as they were driven there by misfortunes," and while de Crèvecœur may have been talking about the "Last inhabited districts" when he wrote the letter it fits the Red Sox perfectly, as this idea of a curse seemed to forever relegate them to perpetual failure, leading to wacky attempts to break the curse - including attempted exorcisms and the rescuing of a piano supposedly owned by Ruth - however it was finally broken with the "progress of... labour" when the Sox came from 3-0 down to beat the Yankees in the ALCS and reach the 2004 World Series, in which they swept the St. Louis Cardinals to win for the first time in 84 years, finally receiving the "rewards of... industry," and finally renewing the Red Sox's and their fans with success - the result of hard work throughout the 2004 season - see youtube link.