Tuesday, 12 November 2013

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


Wednesday, 6 November 2013

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.

The inclusion of Sarah Palin in the video and having her on an equal level of airtime and importance suggests that the Republicans were also trying to win more votes from women. There is a real sense of equality in the video with the repetition of “he” and “she.” Were it not to have a small message from John McCain at the end of the video, it would be difficult to work out who was being touted for which position. The inclusion of Palin could also be considered a negative one in the video however. While in previous campaigns, the presence of Obama, Romney and Clinton is enough to win over voters; the presence of John McCain was simply not enough to win votes and Sarah Palin was used as an alternative for America to vote on.


The video is slightly unusual in the sense that it doesn’t show either candidate talking or have any clips for viewers to see what the two people are like. Instead it uses newspaper headlines and a voice over artist to boast of their achievements in the build up to the election. It is a strong part of American culture to follow the news and believe what you are told; therefore when the viewer hears and reads emotive words such as “battle,” “take on” and “fought,” their reputation increases far more. Finally at the end of the video there is a nod towards their opponent. The Obama campaign was all about ‘Change’ for America; McCain and Palin take that slogan and shift ever so slightly to ‘Real Change’ if you vote Republican, a subtle reference to the man they are going up against.

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.

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

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.

Something that most likely would have appealed to those watching would have been his declaration that he 'didn't care about making money' but instead wanted to make a 'difference'. The campaign then goes on to focus on the progress his party had already made and how much more change they could bring (without actually giving details of how these changes will come about). There is a sense throughout the campaign that Clinton can be seen as just a normal American trying to do good for his country and this invariably would have won many voters.

However, the aspect of the campaign that struck me was an idea of equality for all, consequently reminding me of the Declaration of Independence  in which it was stated that 'all men are created equal' and therefore would have reminded many Americans of their ideals and values. Similarly, the constant push in this campaign for the 'American Dream' to be recognised in Bill Clinton seemed to hark back to the 'unalienable' right of the 'pursuit of happiness', also found in the Declaration of Independence.  The main theme of this campaign seems to be to give Americans fresh hope in these ideals from the United States beginnings and to try and provoke the people into believing they can not only pursue but achieve their 'happiness'.
Sources:

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/

Monday, 4 November 2013

Obama 'Hope' Campaign Poster


I have chosen the 'Hope' campaign poster from Barack Obama's 2012 campaign for President.

When Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008, he was the first black man to ever hold that position. He was born to a father from Kenya and an American mother, exemplifying De Crevecoeur's idea of an American as a "new man", as he has a "strange mixture of blood" - here meaning that he is of multi-nationality ancestry - but has come to be an American. As President, he is the public face of America. Obama has left behind whatever ancestry he has to become wholly American. That he could become President supports the idea of De Crevecoueur's of America as a "melting pot", in which nationalities blend together to become a whole under the banner of Americanism.

As Obama is the first black man to become President, he supports De Crevecouer's portrayal of America as a place of the new and exceptional. By electing Obama, America can be seen to have lead the way in innovation and the taking down of racial barriers. This can be seen in an opinion poll carried out by the Wall Street Journal, which revealed that 70% of Europe thought that America's political influence would be better after the election of Obama. This showed how faith in America was restored after Bush, when Europe saw America being innovative and new.

The slogan on the poster, 'Hope', is also a typical American expression of freshness. There can't be hope without the promise of something better, something newer. This is something that De Crevecouer promises immigrants to America - "New laws, a new mode of living, a new social system. Here they are become men." He states that America is a place where man can remake himself and 'be who he was always meant to be'. By using the word 'hope' in his campaign, Obama is suggesting all these things to the Americans who will vote for him, offering them something new and for the better.

Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ_AmericaSurvey_090618.pdf
Letters From An American Farmer, J. Hector St John De Crevecoeur