2 Broke Girls as modern Gatsby

The American television sitcom ‘2 Broke Girls’ incorporates many aspects of ‘The Great Gatsby’ as well as bringing to mind various similarities between contemporary America and the ‘roaring twenties’ era in America. One of the most obvious similarities between the two ‘texts’ is that they are both (at least partially) set in New York City, which I believe many Americans and people all over the world, view as the place to go to realise your dreams. New York is arguably the modern day ‘land of opportunity’ and seems to be the central place for achieving (or attempting to achieve) the ‘American Dream’.

The main plotline of the sitcom also appears to have similarities with Fitzgerald’s novel; the first series introduces the characters of Max Black and Caroline Channing and their misadventures together. They are both financially poor, struggling waitresses in their mid-twenties who soon become friends and endeavour to fulfil their dream of opening a cupcake business. The background of the character Max is a poor working class family, which draws similarities to many characters in ‘The Great Gatsby’, interestingly however the character of Caroline Channing is from a rich upper class family. This initially seems to differentiate this character from that of Jay Gatsby, however the audience learn that Caroline lost all her money (and thus had to turn to waitressing) because her father got caught up in the ‘Ponzi scheme’ which is arguably similar to some of the misdealing’s of Gatsby and his colleagues.

An aspect of the TV programme that reminded me of Gatsby’s ‘schedule’ to improve himself is that at the end of each episode a tally shows how much they have made toward their goal of $25,000 that they need to open their business. During the second series the girls manage to reach their targe and open up their business, however, before the end of this series the business fails, and in the 18th episode they are forced to give up the lease of their cupcake shop with just enough money to pay off their loan, and thus resetting the end of episode tally to $1.00. During the third season, the girls reopen the business in the back room of the diner, using the window as a walk up window. This concept of remaking yourself no matter what your background, particularly in New York, is a key idea in ‘The Great Gatsby’. However, a similar critique between the two ‘texts’ of the ‘American Dream’ in both contemporary America and 1920’s America is that you can never fully forget and leave behind your past, whether that be your lowly beginnings or your bad mistakes.

Sources:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1845307/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Broke_Girls

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=2+broke+girls&FORM=HDRSC2

Transmetropolitan as the new Great Gatsby

Transmetropolitan is a comic book series written by Warren Ellis which ran from 1997  to 2002. It follows the character Spider Jerusalem who works as a journalist in a futuristic version of New York. In Ellis' vision of the future, morals have been wiped out and people exist in a nihilistic state of religious fervor and materialist greed. Everything, even people, is covered with advertisements, providing a critique of American consumer culture. In Transmetropolitan, the 'American Dream' has become about materialism and greed. The character of Spider himself is not immune to this, as shown when he says "I am so incredibly bored that I will buy a pair of your ridiculous shoes", summing up the apathy and greed that is so strong it even corrupts the main character.

Ellis' harshest critiques are saved for American politics. Through his futuristic setting, he explores the contemporary world of what he sees as corrupt politicians who care more about themselves and their own celebrity than the people they are supposed to govern. In the earlier comic books, Spider is reporting on the presidential election. One of the candidates is referred to as The Smiler, because he is such a fake personality. His character reflects Ellis' concern that presidential elections have become less about policies and more about looking good on the television screen and their policies on paper. This can be seen even in contemporary political campaign ads, which say nothing concrete about the candidate's policies, but only appeal to the cult of personality they have built up around themselves. One example of this is Mitt Romney's ad, which I have discussed in a previous post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTiOLGtiEPQ

Ellis represents voting as the choosing between two evils, with nowhere else to turn. The problems inherent in a two-party system can be seen in the recent US government shut down. It also discusses contemporary concerns of the American people - such as trying to balance personal liberty and safety. In Transmetropolitan, after The Smiler is elected, America faces censorship and media blackouts. Towards the end of the series, the government shuts down the paper that Spider works for and he has to post his columns online. Interestingly, the anonymous online site he writes for parallels WikiLeaks before it even existed.

Sources:
http://comicsalliance.com/i-hate-it-here-transmetropolitan-and-the-election-season/

Starbucks commercial

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/N4qWpSUPsrA?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/N4qWpSUPsrA?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

In this 2004 commercial for Starbucks, the band Survivor follow a man on his way to work. By having him as the focus of the advert, it presumes that the white, middle-class, employed male is the typical American. The lyrics to Survivor's song 'Eye of the Tiger' have been rewritten to praise the man's "ambition" and having a "dream he will never let die". This relates to the idea of the 'American dream', showing that the man is embracing his full potential and aiming to better himself through getting promotions at work. It plays to the idea of the American as the hard-working and ambitious individual.

The commercial also appeals to masculinity and the frontier-spirit, by ending the advert with a picture of Starbuck's double shot espresso and the slogan "Bring on the day". This suggests the values of rugged individualism and rising to any challenge that life throws at you. The colours used in the final scene are earthy browns and the green of the Starbucks logo. Although brown is the colour of coffee and could have been used for that reason, it also reinforces the message of back-to-nature pioneering in the West.

Consumer item in USA: Coca Cola

 

 

 

 

Coca Cola is a renowned consumer item within the United States and around the rest of the world. As I’ve argued in a previous post, Coca Cola is a brand that is often considered as being representative of the ‘American Dream’, particularly due to its humble beginnings in 1886 in Atlanta. The Coca Cola Company has grown and expanded their products ever since and is consequently one of the most famous and influential companies in America today.

While researching Coca Cola advertisements and commercials it became clear that from the very start they wished to get across how ‘American’ its products were and wanted to emphasise the ideals and values they hold, with many highlighting the ‘American Dream’ aspect of the brand. Similarly, something that is also very clear is that each advertisement reflects the time in which it was produced, for example ‘The Great National Temperance Beverage’ slogan from 1906 reveals a time in America when people were moving away from alcohol and Coca Cola took the opportunity to exploit this and offer themselves as the alternative. One of the more recent advertisements (1986) inscribed the slogan ‘Red, White & You’ which most likely would have expressed to the American consumers that if they bought and thus consumed a Coca Cola product they would be doing something very patriotic and even making their country proud. Other advertisements throughout the 20^th century seem to focus on the ideal American family as well as America as the place for adventure and excitement (and the place to drink Coca Cola), such as the ‘Along the Highway to Anywhere’ ad in 1949 and the ‘Look up, America’ ad in 1975.

One of the most recent commercials for Coca Cola (2010) focuses more, I think, on the diversity of the American people and how their products can bring these people together to have some fun and be happy. The ‘Happiness Vending Machine’ advertisements show Coca Cola vending machines across America, primarily in University campuses , dispensing not only their own products but flowers, pizza and many other ‘gifts’ to the unsuspecting students and consequently brings them all together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqT_dPApj9U

This emphasises again how the Coca Cola Company attempts to reveal their American ideals and through this ‘spread happiness’.

Other Sources:

http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-slogans

http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/about-us/history-of-coca-cola-2000-now.html

Jack Daniels: American Advertising

One of the most iconic American brands in my opinion is Jack Daniels. The brand is famously unchanging throughout its history, with a simple black label and white writing on every bottle; I find it slightly surprising that a company that has made very little effort on improving the style or taste of the product, has remained as prominent in the market as when they first started.

This could be because of what Jack Daniels represents and what their simplistic advertising tries to convey. Much like the cigarette advertising showing a cowboy, Jack Daniels portray their drink as a route to freedom; by drinking their whiskey you are taking life into your hands and “standing up for what you believe in.” It is a very masculine message and works very well in modern times when there are so many stories in the news about the government having too much power over the American population.

It is a brand that is so grounded in history, that it can actually claim in its advertising to mention the forefathers of America, saying that they didn’t’ “fight for the right” for Americans to stand in the shadows and be passive. If anything this comes across almost like propaganda, with very direct orders to be free and stand up for you rights.

Wendy's diner: typical American product

Diners are a stereotypical feature of American food as they originate from this country, they are featured all around the United States. Wendy's is one of the most commercialised diner's around the USA. When taking a glance at the website's homepage, it has colours such as red and blue, which suggest a representation of the colours of the American flag. Also when looking at the logo, the girl in the picture has a typically American appearance, but in particular she has a westernised appearance. The logo almost symbolises America as an whole and their way of life.

When looking at Wendy's story on how it was founded, the pictures are typically American and hold american features. For example the design of the diner is very American and resembles a symbolism of cowboys, which also emphasises the westernisation of the american diner. Looking at the founder of Wendy's, it states 'Dave Thomas dreamed he'd run the best restaurant in the world. He didn't just achieve this dream, he shared it with everyone.' This is a typically american view as it utilises the idea of the 'American Dream' and the self motivation and determination that Wendy's seems to pride itself on.

http://www.wendys.com/en-us/nutrition-info

http://www.aboutwendys.com/Our-Company/Our-Story/

http://www.aboutwendys.com/Our-Company/Dave-s-Legacy/

Statement in the notion of the 'American Dream'

"I am living proof that the American dream still exists. It is still alive and well. There is only one trick, you have to be willing to roll up your sleeves and work very, very hard." - Paula Deen
This quotation speaks very truthfully about the 'American Dream', but also relates most to the novel Ragged Dick. The significance of this quotation is the line, 'you have to be willing to roll up your sleeves and work very, very hard.' which can evidently be seen in Ragged Dick. For example, Dick shows a willingness to learn and adapt himself in order to better himself and gain success. Dick's willingness to learn really relates back to this quotation and the notion of hard work and motivation in order to receive the 'American Dream'. 

When looking within context of Paula Deen, she is a famous cook and has written many cookbooks within her career, however has had many struggles throughout life. For example, after her divorce from her first husband she was only left with $200 in order to support herself and her family. Therefore, this also supports the notion of the American Dream being about having freedom, but that it can only come from hard work and determination, which was a key factor within Ragged Dick as Dick willingness to adapt showed his eagerness to learn and motivation.

Although, it also shows that the 'American Dream' doesn't revolve around having a great fortune, but bettering yourself. For example, cooking helped Paula Deen overcome her insecurities and phobias. When linking this to Ragged Dick the notion of the American Dream wasn't about Dick becoming richer (e.g. rags to riches) but by becoming a gentlemen, in other words, bettering himself.


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/pauladeen431865.html#LGWWqEjR0KPdYPRt.99

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Deen

Contemporary Statement on the American Dream

“President Obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America must take to build a 21st century version of the American Dream in a nation of shared opportunities, shared prosperity and shared responsibilities.”

-Bill Clinton

This quote from former President Bill Clinton gives an idea of the contemporary ‘American Dream,’ on the election of Barack Obama. Much like the story of Ragged Dick, Clinton uses the election of Obama as an example of how the ‘American Dream’ is still present in the United States today; a man of humble beginnings is able to become the most powerful man in the country and this should be an inspiration for America to take forward.

The idea of “shared opportunities” that Obama wants to promote is not obvious in the Alger’s world, however this dream of a country where every person grows up with equal opportunities and responsibilities would then give characters like Dick a much fairer chance of success. The fact that Obama was elected on his “values and ideas” shows that even in the 21^st Century, the American people still believe that the ‘American Dream’ is still possible and this desire for everyone to be able to improve themselves and achieve, no matter what their background, is still present today.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/american_dream.html

Pro and cons of gun control: NRA & The Gun Debate

Pro Gun Control:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/11/poll-finds-americans-skeptical-of-so-called-smart-guns.aspx

The NRA website, National Rifle Association, is the most pro website for gun control that you would come across. Not only does it contain information on what the association is about but it includes recent news relating to the use of guns, but only uses news stories that our in favour of gun control. It seems that NRA shows a negative view particularly to the US government, as if they are the enemy. The different news stories almost act as a rationalisation for the right to bear arms, almost a way of their justification. It seems prejudice, as they only include stories that would put gun control in a positive light, or any opposing view of gun control in a negative light, for example US congress or Obama. There seems to be an attack on Obama and the new laws that he is trying to enforce. The NRA almost implies that US congress and Obama are trying to control the US people rather than enforcing these laws to protect them. Also, it uses stories about the US people's view in order to appear as if they have a strong force against the view of anti-control, especially in this particular article, it writes in a persuasive way that makes it appear that they are not apposed to the use of fingerprinted firearms, as they argue against it in a debatable way rather than being totally aggressive about the issue.

The NRA website undoubtedly seems to be biased, but it portrays there to be an enemy against them, as if they are being victimised for wanting 'freedom', through the second amendment. Therefore, they make themselves appear to be under attack by the US congress and Obama, as if these new laws that are being enforced are a way to control American people and not protect them.

Anti Gun Control:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/27/politics/gun-control-polls/index.html

The gun debate page on the CNN news website isn't all pro gun control, however it seems they are less biased against gun control and provide more of an informative and subjective opinion. Although, one particular report speculates the problems within the right to bear arms, the opening line being 'Is the clock ticking on gun control?'

This particular quotation is scary because it suggests that some form of change is no longer possible, as if the freedom of US people is being abused and is no longer freedom but a lack of control. This article seems to address the consequences of firearms in comparison to the NRA website that only focuses on new laws being used as a way of control. It addresses the dangers and seriousness of the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms is such a controversial topic, however it is dangerous because of the lack of laws throughout America. There doesn't seem to be enough control over which Americans are allowed a gun, therefore putting many Americans at risk. Despite many Americans thinking the right to bear arms are used solely for the purpose of protection, when looking at the many events that have happened due to fire arms, they seem to act as a way to attack rather than keep Americans safe. 

Pro and Anti Gun-Control

Pro gun-control:
http://www.demandaction.org/

This is a website that campaigns for stricter gun control laws, specifically enforcing background checks on anyone who buys a gun. They argue that there is a loophole in the law, as only licensed dealers need to ask for a background check, and that it is the people who exploit this loophole who are responsible for gun crime. The website uses statistics to its advantage, such as arguing that " In the U.S., an estimated 40% of gun transfers take place without going through a licensed dealer, including online and at gun shows." It  goes on to refer to other facts and statistics to  back it's points up. It comes across as quite convincing, and obviously has thought through its position, but I think that it has skipped over some issues. For example, what they propose may cut down on deliberate gun crime, but some people will be able to pass a background check, only to break down at a later date and use the gun. Additionally, by only addressing gun crime, they ignore the fact that people can be killed by guns through accidental misuse.
I found it interesting that the website made reference to the second amendment and how the laws they were calling for did not go against it. "Protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, drug abusers, the seriously mentally ill and other dangerous people."  They seem to be saying that only a select group of people are entitled to the liberties offered by the Bill of Rights, which is an issue that has caused problems throughout America's history, one example of which is slavery and civil rights.

Anti gun-control:
http://www.wagc.com/

The website for Women Against Gun Control argue that more gun control will not make America safer. The founder claims that through research she found out that "States that had the LEAST amount of gun control 

laws had the LEAST crime" and that "guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens were used 2.5 million times a 

year to save lives".  She does not specifically state where she got this information from, but does say that she

 researched from a number of sources. Despite arguing against gun control, the website does argue for gun 

safety and has pages for rules on gun safety at home and outside, so they advocate the sensible use of guns.

Although I can see the point that WAGC is arguing from and understand the desire for protection, I do

worry that it is attitudes such as this that mean that gun death continues to take place in America. The site

also claims that gun does not cause crime, which it evidently does.

Pro and anti gun control

Pro gun control

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/082699poll-watch.html

Against gun control

http://againstguncontrol.net/

 These websites reveal the opposing views of gun control in America today.

The first website shows an article from the 'New York Times' by Marjorie Connelly and  reveals  how 'two-thirds' of the American people, particularly following incidents involving gun ownership, wish for stricter gun control legislation. Interestingly, this article was written in 1999 and as predicted throughout, no actual change within American politics has occurred. The interpretation of the second amendment is also considered, with those Americans who own a gun subsequently believing the second amendment gives them the freedom or right to do so. Meanwhile, those who disagree and do not believe they are constitutionally allowed to own a gun by the second amendment, obviously did not. The article also raises the question of whether, even if stricter gun controls were passed, this would decrease the level of violence and crime across America. This, most likely, is an issue that is still discussed today, in particular when gun violence continues to occur and innocent people are put in danger. This article seems to me, to state what many people are thinking about gun ownership and believe that gun control legislation should definitely be made stricter.

The second website, called 'againstguncontrol.net' reveals strong and impressive arguments against gun control in America. The statistics given within the website show how guns are not as prevalent in gun violence as many seem to perceive. However, as I read more and more of the articles on the website, what becomes most troubling was the subtle excuses given to those gunmen that we frequently see on the news. For example, "one thing they do mostly have in common is that they have all been depressed" and similarly, that the statistics for gun related suicides were "almost twice as many" than for homicides. Consequently, I feel, arguing that in the right hands, guns are great; however, as with the previous article, what I think needs to be considered more in America is what happens when guns are in the wrong hands.

Gun Control: For & Against

For gun control - http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/

Against gun control - http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

The two examples I have found offering contrasting viewpoints on increased gun control are a website listing 10 reasons why there should be more control and an interview with the author Jon Lott on his book More Guns, Less Crime.

The interview with Jon Lott challenges his ides that if the ownership of guns across America is higher, crime will decrease because criminals will be deterred by the threat of retaliation. Lott argues this point well and if is very convincing when he states that people often forget the famous statistic “58% of people killed by acquaintances” includes the likes of gang members against gang members, prostitutes against clients and drug buyers against drug dealers. This suggests that the shootings associated with these incidents is often the bi-product of other crimes. However when challenged about the instances in other countries such as Great Britain, Lott dodges the question, seemingly unaware that because guns are much more difficult to obtain in this country, the rate of shootings are much lower.

The 10 arguments for stricter gun control are far more convincing. The website backs up each statement with facts and statistics that are difficult to argue with. Examples such as, “49 of the 62 mass shootings in America over the past thirty years have been conducted with legal weapons” and, contrary to Lott’s beliefs, “92% of Americans would want background checks” to be done on any civilian wishing to bear arms. An argument that I have not previously thought of is also raised, that the rates of suicides would drop as well with the decrease of gun ownership, as is shown by states with less restrictions currently boasting double the amount of suicides over states with more control. There is then an example, similar to shooting in Dunblane, provided about Australia. A mass clampdown on gun ownership in 1996 after a mass shooting reduced mass shootings “from eleven a decade (1986-96) to zero.”

Charles M. Russell and His Friends

This is a painting by Charles Marion Russell, depicting himself in the foreground. It provides a very romanticized images of the American west. In the middle of the picture, cowboys and Native Americans are involved in a skirmish. The Native Americans are obviously being overpowered by the cowboys, who are riding them down.  There is a sense of adventure, movement and overt masculinity. The Native Americans are putting up a fight, appealing to a need for danger, but they are obviously going to lose, which ties in to the feeling of superiority that is a part of 'manifest destiny'. Here, it is inevitable that the white man will triumph and the painting suggests that this is the natural order of things.

By depicting the fight, it also supports the ideas of historian Frederick Jackson Turner, who wrote a paper in which he argued that the progress and challenges faced by those moving west was what gave Americans their national identity. He also argued along Darwinian survival of the fittest lines, and in this painting we are shown that the white settlers are the fittest, meaning that the Native Americans have become obsolete in this landscape. Although proved wrong by later historians, his theories maintain popularity and can be seen in the romanticism that surrounds the West and in paintings such as this one.

The background shows a wide expanse of land, ranging from grasses to rivers, to mountains. It has everything that people could want to start a fresh life, thus encouraging the westward movement into what was thought of as the uninhabited parts of America, even though the Native Americans lives in some of these places. The sun shines down on the land, making it look inviting and idyllic. This reflects how the West was depicted as a type of Garden of Eden.

In the left hand corner of the painting is a skeleton of what might be a bison. These were hunted for sport as well as for their fur and meat by the pioneers. It foreshadows the near-extinction that would face the bison because of this.

Standing in the foreground of all this is Russell himself, gesturing to the scene. His attitude is one of invitation, as if encouraging the viewer to move westward and become a part of the excitement and adventure that awaits him there, and to exploit the perfect landscape. It has overtones of a travel advert, promising a romanticized lifestyle to the west.

Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way by Emanuel Leutze

 

 

This painting, entitled 'Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way' by Emanuel Leutze in 1861 seems to represent what many view as 'manifest destiny'. Displayed in the United States Capitol Building in Washington D.C., this painting clearly idealises the westward expansion in America during the 19th century. It shows a large group of men, women, children, wagons and horses leading the way to what appears to be a 'Promise Land', thus giving the impression that the journey they are making is an ordained pilgrimage to the western frontier.

 

The mountains and valley seen to the right of the painting represents the troubles these voyagers have been through and what they intend to leave behind by heading to the much brighter and opportunistic west. The left hand side of the painting emphasises this idea by showing the sun rising and therefore enforcing the idea of a new dawn and new beginnings. It reveals the entrance to the San Francisco Bay or Golden Gate which is being pointed to by the pilgrim on top of the foremost rock. The swarming crowd of travellers and the figures on the edges of the painting (such as Moses) represents how they are ready to 'fulfill what many nineteenth-century Americans believed was God's plan for the nation.'

Interestingly, the title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted in the era of 'manifest destiny', revealing a widely held belief that progress from east to west is something that has happened throughout all of history.

(Verses on the Prospect of Planting Arts and Learning in America:

Westward the course of empire takes its way;
The first four Acts already past,
A fifth shall close the Drama with the day;
Time's noblest offspring is the last.)

 

Sources:

http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artwork/?id=14569

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westward_the_Course_of_Empire_Takes_Its_Way

 

 

 

 

The Discovery of the Mississippi by De Soto

Of all the paintings I have seen of European settlers moving west, this painting from 1853 by William Henry Powell is the most prominent. It is titled The Discovery of the Mississippi by De Soto and shows, like so many other pieces of art based on this period, the European settlers moving further west and the submission from Native American people. The reason why this painting has so much resonance in particular, is the fact that is the first discovery by European settlers of one of America’s biggest landmarks and most important resources; the discovery of the Mississippi River will go on to represent a major conquest for settlers, which fits in with the idea of ‘Manifest Destiny.’ Should the European settlers have the resources to exploit the river, it will inevitably move them further west and make their frontier inevitable.

The painting shows Hernando de Soto, a Spanish conquistador, leading his troops to the river in spite of the Native American settlement that has already set up camp there. The Spanish outnumber the Natives greatly, and everything about their appearance suggests a modern, burgeoning settlement that is on the move. Their clothes suggest military and many of the men on horseback hold swords and spears and are dressed in helmets; in the bottom right corner, a canon is being dragged towards the coastline. Clearly they are willing to overpower the Natives by force if necessary. The Natives, by contrast are sparsely clothed, huddled together and look frightened: their whole appearance signifying submission and the idea that they are being cornered the further Europeans push them to the west.

As if to mark their territory on this settlement, the Europeans are erecting a crucifix in the bottom right corner with a monk says a prayer next to it. This shows the importance of religion in these settlements, both as a means of trying to convert the Native people and to stamp their authority on this new territory. In the background, the lightest part of the picture shows the Mississippi River stretching on endlessly, representing a further ambition for the Europeans to continue their journey westwards and continue prospering.

Altogether, this definitely backs up the idea of ‘Manifest Destiny;’ there are clear signs represented here of European power and authority over the Native Americans who surrender in their presence. Meanwhile the conquest of another great American resource only fuels extra desire to the objective of continuing west and expanding the United States.

http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/historic-rotunda-paintings/discovery-mississippi-by-de-soto

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/desoto/dsintro.html

Comanche Meeting the Dragoons, 1834–35.

I found this painting on a website dedicated to the works of George Catlin as his paintings seem to be the most prominent in the recording of the movement of American West. This painting indicates a meeting between the Native Americans and the White people. The first thing that you notice when analyzing this portrait, is that the Native Americans seem to be leaning in towards the White people and the Whites are backing away. This can be prominently noticed by the stance of the horses, which ironically are different colours, and contrasting colours. This type of stance indicates to an audience that the Native Americans were attacking the White people, rather than the other way round which what seemed to be the case as shown in historical events. Other connotations of attacking nature are indicated by the weaponry, the fact that the crowd of Native Americans all carry weapons such as spears as if ready to attack, but the Whites stay there unarmed as if to appear as the victims.

More broadly in the portrait, you can observe the use of weather, as if the Native Americans bring a bad spirit in the air. The contrast of light and dark skies represents a good and evil side, with the Native Americans having a negative light, and the Whites to have a positive.

The portrait, the way it has been painted is interesting as it seems to be that only a snapshot has been used as there are many Native Americans, but not many White people. This seems to have been done purposely in order to manipulate the perception of Native Americans to an audience, to create a hostile and negative on them.

Ironically, the hostile nature was seen more in White people rather than Native Americans, but this portrait is indicating the latter. It seems that this portrait was painted in this way in order to convince people thinking of moving West, in particular Europeans or Easterners, that the Native Americans are hostile and dangers, therefore should be pushed out to create a safe environment.

The contrast between the two sides within the portrait indicates that the Native Americans do not fit in with this new ideology of 'Manifest Destiny' because of their supposed hostility, therefore need to be pushed out. 'Manifest Destiny' is being shown as something that needs to happen, but can only happen if the Native Americans are pushed out as otherwise the Whites will go on to be in danger and victimized by the Native Americans. Overall, Catlin seems to be trying to say that Native Americans pose a threat to 'Manifest Destiny' and the civilization of White people in the West.



http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/online/catlin/catlin_highlights2.cfm?StartRow=18

http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/event-root/march-2013/american-indian-images-making-and-breaking-george-catlins-legacy.php?searched=images+american+indian&advsearch=allwords&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1+ajaxSearch_highlight2+ajaxSearch_highlight3

Republican Campaign from 2008 - McCain/Palin

This campaign video is from the 2008 presidential elections for the Republican Party. It’s a video I find very interesting because unlike most presidential campaign it features two people: John McCain and Sarah Palin. Although it was McCain going for President, there is just as much impetus in this advertisement for Sarah Palin to be Vice President. To me, this suggests that the Republican campaign was about unity and equality, trying to get the American population to believe that if McCain were elected it would not just be a one-man job and he would have a strong party behind him. It was originally thought that the of the President would be to ‘preside’ over the nation, as a figurehead, and that if you were to vote in the election you would be voting for the party, not the person. This seems to be the route the Republicans were going down rather than relying on people voting for the personality of the man, like Obama’s campaigns.

Mitt Romney political campaign ad

The main message of Mitt Romney's ad seems to be that control of government needs handing back to the American people, as can be seen when he says "I believe our laws ought to be written by the people". This important idea that the government should work for the people has been prevalent in American thought since the Revolution in the second half of the 18th century, when they rebelled against the rule of King George III and gained independence. It is so fundamental to they way Americans believe that government should work that it was written into the Declaration of Independence, which states that the government should "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed", and the Bill of Rights, which gives states power over anything not delegated to central government. Mitt Romney is linking back to these ideas, especially when he says "I believe in the people of America", suggesting that if he gets into power, he will be ruled by what the people want.

However, there was some contradiction to this 'grass roots' message. For example, the words "Strong. New. Leadership." flash up towards the end of the ad. These tie in to American ideals and the way they think about themselves - they are the 'New World', where people can remake themselves and live the American Dream - but the words also suggest a central figure taking control. This is exactly what some Americans object to about Obama, as they think he is taking too much control over their lives and not allowing them their liberty. Yet  Romney is also proposing to be a single leader, and mentions schools, which some voters think should be a state-run issue. By using these terms though, Romney could be appealing to the popular idea of the President's strength and power, reassuring the people that he will make everything better for them. This is one of the duties of the government set out in the Declaration of Independence.

Bill Clinton campaign 1992

This campaign for Bill Clinton's election in 1992 seems to focus on the 'American Dream' aspect of how he rose to be leader of the Democratic party (and subsequently President in 1993) from his 'little town' roots in which he had a very small income. Unlike many election campaigns today, Clinton does not mention the negatives of his opponents or tries to drag them down in any way. On the contrary, he clearly makes an effort to appear to be humble and to tell those watching that if his dreams could come true than they should have "hope" in their dreams too.

Barack Obama Tv Ad- "The Choice"

After listening to this campaign for Barack Obama's election, I came away feeling as if i thoroughly understood what Obama was saying and what he wants for America. This I find is a rarity, for not just myself, but for most people watching politcal advertisements and campaigns because they are stereotypically filled with out of context quotes and inspirational speeches rather than talking specifically about what is going to be done. This was also evident in peoples responses and comments on the youtube video for the campaign. The fact that the advertisement is only just over a minute long also emphasises the simplicity of the message which can make Obama's message from other candidates.

There is a repeated use of direct address at the begginning and end of Obama's message which could be seen as a foreshadowing technique in order to give a clear structure to the speech and reinforce Obama's message of the people being in control, which could relate back to centuries of history within America of manifest destiny and the right to liberty and freedom.

Even the title alone emphasises Obama's message of the peoples choice, putting the people in control of their country. This ironically, when looking at current affairs within America today (Obamacare), doesnt seem to be the case as Americans seem to see Obama as a dictator and even make references to Hitler. This dictator image that has seemed to have been put apon Obama may be due to the massive changes he plans to inforce within America, but Americans have seen this in a negative light as a lack of freedom and choice.

The Slogan of "forward" seemed to be a clear message for Obama during the election, as was the word "hope". These one word slogans indicate a simplicity in Barack Obama's persuasion towards the people, reflecting his whole campaign and adverstisement as simple and seemed to be a lot different to other electors at the time and in the past elections. Rather than giving a specifically emotional and inspirational speech, Obama keeps it short and to the point and contextualises by summarising his plans for America, which I think really shows his strive for monumental changes within America. The fact that Obama uses the word "forward" really utilises his strive for change and focus on the future of America.

This TV campaign was posted on 23 July 2012, since then it seems that Obama's plan of action has not changed. However, despite these great changes planned, the response from Americans seems to be growing more and more negative. It seems that this is not the plan that Americans had in mind for their country, which is really highlighted when Obama says in his ad; "Over the next four months you have a choice to make. Not just between two political parties or even two people. It's a choice between two very different plans for our country." For example, the latest reaction to 'Obamacare',  it seems that Americans see this as unfair, as some will pay more tax than others depending on income, etc. When certain Americans criticize ObamaCare, they relate it back to the rights of Americans, which shows how they feel Obama is effecting these rights and may be the reason why they describe Obama as a dictator. The message that seems to be recurring from most Americans is that they feel that Obama is trying to seize control rather than 'making a difference' or helping, which they see as a loss of freedom and individuality.


Sources:
http://youtu.be/FBorRZnqtMo


http://www.barackobama.com/?source=site_20131001_splash
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2528999782001/new-reaction-to-obamacare-business-mandate-delay/