Mayors Against Illegal Guns vs. Keep and Bear Arms

Pro-Control - Mayors Against Illegal Guns (Pressure Group) - Everytown.org
Pro-Gun - Keep and Bear arms - keepandbeararms.org

Both of these websites protesting about guns have the same clear message which is 'we know how to keep america safe, and let us teach you' the crucial differing factor is the means in which they intend to do so.

The Pro Gun website quotes the second amendment directly in its title and therefore its position on protecting the constitution is clear, it even has close ties with the second amendment foundation (saf.org). However once opening the first few pages its evident that protecting the American individual and family is very important to these people the main stories are centered entirely on people who have protected something or someone by carrying or owning a gun for example 'Concealed Carrying Mom Opens Fire on Man Who Shot Her 13 Year Old Son in Public' and 'Marine Veteran Uses Shotgun (While Carrying a Pistol) to Stop Home Invasion in Texas'. Both of these stories show that the pro gum movement is first and foremost (according to this website) about safety despite protecting the right to own something capable of killing another in less than a second and without a second thought in most cases.

The pro control website however is also primarily interested in protection however it takes the stance that America is similar to the rest of the world in the fact that if it bans some types of guns then maybe just maybe less people will be shot and killed prematurely in school shootings or just general related gun crime. Although I am an advocate for this theory I have my doubts that this would work since guns are such a huge part of American culture legal action could theoretically have very little effect.

Commonly Pro-Gun websites are better funded than Pro-Control ones (this is partly due to wider support in the US for the second amendment and partly due to the members of the supporting group tending to be rich people who can afford to spend money on political influence where pro-control groups often have to rely on smaller donations by larger sums of less wealthy people which they don't have at their disposal for many reasons I shan't go into here) but this isn't the case here evidently by the pro gun website has the appearance of being unprofessionally made where the modern design on the pro-control. I feel the fact that mayors run it is a large factor in this.

Ultimately the pro-gun movement (as exemplified in this website) relies on protecting life as they know it i.e. Protection of the constitution, Protection of the individual, Protection of the American family and Protection of American culture through ideals and history. these people are scared of change even if its shown itself in other countries to be for the better.

Gun control- For and against

Pro-gun Control - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
This website promotes gun control and shows this through raising many issues that come hand-in-hand with gun violence. The main issue this website raises is gun violence, and how gun-control laws and education on the danger of firearms would help to reduce this violence. One of the main things stated is that shops such as Walmart should not be allowed to sell guns for young children, as it is seen to be promoting the use of guns to children, which it obviously is. The argument here is that by allowing people to buy guns for their young children, it is promoting gun violence from a young age. Not just that but it is seen to be a main reason for so many accidental shootings involving children. This is because when children are young they are unable to maintain concentration for a long period of time, this combined with their lack of understanding of the real dangers of firearms causes way too many fatal incidents, and even deaths. One particular article draws attention to the fact that places such as Walmart that sell guns designed for children, sell them in bright colours, which makes them seem like toys, rather than a dangerous weapon, which does not help with a child's understanding of this. Many American's believe that it is important for children to learn how to defend themselves in the world, and in a country that allows the ownership of firearms, the only way to do so would be to teach them how to use a gun from a young age. This website aims to promote the reduction of gun violence and gun deaths, of which children are so vulnerable to, given the high number of child deaths to shootings, whether accidental or not. 

Anti-Gun control - Gun control is not the answer
This article talks about the issue of gun control in relation to the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, by saying that if there were more gun laws, the shooting would still have happened. The article goes on to talk about other instances of random gun violence, after which there was much discussion about imposing more gun control. It is interesting that they call the act of trying to rid the USA of guns 'unconstitutional', going back to the argument that owning a gun is a constitutional right that every American has. The argument posed here states that not all gun-related deaths are the same, arguing that there are many different reasons for which someone would go on a shooting spree, and enforcing a law meaning that every person who tries to purchase a gun must have a background check would not solve this issue. This is a fair argument, as obviously someone has a clean criminal record until the day that they do go and shoot someone, making background checks pointless. Also, someone who was part of a criminal gang is unlikely to purchase a firearm through honest means, making background checks pointless. However, I disagree that gun control is not the answer. This is because though criminals are not going to get hold of a gun through honest means, it would make sense for the government to focus on stopping the market of illegal weaponry. This website also draws attention to the issue of mental health in regards to gun violence, by saying that for gun violence to be reduced, the government should focus more resources into mental health research and institutions to ensure that there are less mentally ill people on the streets who have access to firearms. This is because there are so many deaths from gun incidences that are not mass shootings, and this website argues that before the government tries to impose more gun-control laws, they should focus on the other factors that contribute to the thousands of gun deaths, such as accidents involving children with guns. Overall this website focuses on the ways in which the government should try and crack down on gun violence by considering the other factors that cause these incidents rather than trying to impose more gun-control laws. 

Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun website comparison

Pro-Gun website - https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/
Anti-Gun website - http://momsdemandaction.org/

The Pro-Gun website promotes the right for Americans to carry concealed weapons on their person where ever they go for protection of themselves and their families. The website is for the USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association) which is an organisation that people can be members of so to gain insurance if you may need to use a concealed weapon for self defence. By offering this service, it encourages people to buy a firearm for protection without worrying about using it if needs be. The organisation promotes carrying by giving examples of stories and scenarios which could threaten the safety of family and the home. As home invasion is a huge fear in modern America, the idea of owning a gun to protect your family is used by the USCCA as another way to encourage people to carry guns. The idea behind the campaign is to try and get people to defend themselves if an incident involving a gunman e.g. the Loby's restaurant shooting and multiple school shootings, some one with a concealed weapon would be able to either have a better chance of surviving, or be able to defuse the situation so that it wouldn't escalate to resulting in multiple deaths. The website also promotes gun safety and training by providing tips and literature on how to train yourself and how to make sure children practise safe use of guns. One of the reasons the idea of concealed carry is suggested by the website is because it doesn't provoke others to challenge people with a visable gun or creates fear for other citizens. Overall, the website and organisation is trying to have people prepared for the increasing amount of guns and the danger they carry and encourage people to exercise their right to carry guns as a way to defend themselves as well their family.

The Anti-Gun website is used to promote a campaign created by mothers to try and get laws passed to restrict children's access to guns in America. One of the issues that the campaign wants to be restricted is the law that allows people to be able to openly display firearms in a public place. Moms believe it is unnecessary for people to have them on display and it may encourage people to become violent in public places as seeing a gun on show wouldn't ring alarm bells with anyone. One of the ways they try to get their message across is by appealing to mothers not to allow their children near guns or to encourage gun use by buying a youth rifle. They try to convince them by  telling them and reminding them of stories of fatal incidents where guns and firearms have been involved. Another one of their campaigns is trying to end the selling of firearms online as it means the people buying aren't having background checks so anyone is able to buy a gun, even if they are a criminal. Overall, this website is run by and for mothers who want to promote the restriction of guns to children as they believe that allowing a child to have that access could cause a fatal accident.

American Studies Blog 7

Emma Watson UN Speech

A YouTube video on an aspect of American Liberty

This video presents the aspect of freedom of speech within America. Emma Watson is not only an actress and model but also a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador. Her speech entailed her new initiative ‘HeForShe’, all about gender equality.

The freedom of speech, the first Amendment on the Bill of Rights, is displayed in this dialogue. This aspect of liberty is denied to many across the world and therefore I feel it is an important discussion point. To me, this is one thing America has done right. However, this ‘freedom’ comes to a price. With opinions, come disagreements, as everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and are consequently allowed to express their view. Emma Watson states “feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.” This is a strong statement which would be disagreed by many for a variety of reasons, whether persona belief, religion or political and would have caused outrage by many.

Gender equality is an on-going issue and to me, one that needs to be firmly addressed. When you think of gender equality you think of women not receiving equal pay, but this equality needs to be reversed in other ways. A way that Emma Watson states “men don’t have the benefits of equality, either.” And she continues; “Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong.”

This video is only one of billions of presenting American Liberty. Singers are another good example of freedom of speech as they’re allowed to sing about what they want. Directors can make films about what they want and to me this aspect of freedom of speech within American Liberty is key. There are some place which would not have allowed Emma Watson to express her views, which are so important to address in todays society.

American Liberty

I have chosen this video as an expression of American freedom as this video demonstrates an American's right to happiness. In the US the issue of gay marriage is a controversial one, one that is quite often more criticised than the issue of gun control. The issues that the video addresses is how same-sex marriage is something that has been growing since the 1980s, when the issue was first touched upon on American TV. Many gay American's protested for the legalisation of gay marriage on the grounds that all men are born equal, as stated in the US constitution, therefore should not be denied the right to marry whomever they wish, subsequently, not being treated equally. It is interesting to note that same-sex marriage was legalised in 2013, which is significant because it just reiterates the idea that freedom and liberty are different. In this case, freedom is being able to love who you want, but liberty for this is granted by the government legalising gay marriage. This shows that your liberty is not something you can decide for yourself, but is something that is decided for you by a higher authority. In reading some of the comments on the video, it is evident that many Americans still disagree with people being gay, by using bible verses to justify their anti-gay views. However, this is not something that is valid in today's secular society, especially in the US where there is such a wide diversity of religions and cultures. 

One of the other aspects of American liberty expressed in this video is the freedom of speech. The video shows many demonstrations and equal rights protests taking place, which is evidence of freedom of speech being practised. This aspect of American liberty is quite significant, not only in this video but throughout the 20th century there are hundreds of examples of people being prosecuted for exercising their right to free speech. Examples include the civil rights movements that occurred throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s, along with the anti-war protests, and to this day, the protests for equal rights for women and homosexuals. 

American Liberty

I had my doubts when I chose this video, it portrays a controversial act that upsets the vast majority of people. The views expressed in the video make me personally uncomfortable however in my opinion one of the crucial aspects of american liberty in the modern day is the freedom of speech that has been twisted by the american people to mean freedom to offend.

The controversy of this video of the Westboro Baptist church protesting at a funeral is obvious; the very nature of protesting means a controversial topic is being discussed; but protesting at a funeral takes this to a new level. 

The recent supreme court decision (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011) has given organisations like this protection since technically they are picketing on public ground about public issues and therefore are protected by the first amendment of free speech. 

There are three things I think are most representative of american views of freedom of speech/expression. Firstly, the raw disrespect that these people feel they must exercise in order to practice their freedom of speech, realistically thinking, ignorance of other peoples feelings is the essence of freedom. Secondly the sheer amount of children that are present -although I think these children believe that they are doing the right thing by protesting at another's funeral, even to the extent of enjoying it and playing about around the protesters and with the signs; they have been taught to think such things in a closed community where they are hardly to blame for only being exposed to these extreme and angry viewpoints. Thirdly the 'if you don't like it don't look' attitude that the Westboro Baptist church exemplifies here, the way in which one of these people shouts 'you dont like it? leave!' (0:00) makes it seem that they're not looking to protest in peace that rather they are looking for conflict over their views. 

You are only free if you choose to look the other way.

A video expressing American Liberty

This video contains an American economist, author and professor at George Mason University, questioning whether the Constitution is actually being the basis of  todays modern laws and if the government are using that document as a guideline for its policies.

This video expresses American Liberty as Donald J. Boudreaux is exercising his right to be able to speak freely about his concerns and questions about the American government. As a fundamental right, described by the Founding Fathers, having the ability to criticise and have free speech about anything is something that cant be taken away from American citizens.

Boudreaux discusses whether the Constitution is still used in todays law making and that the people are expected the government to use the document as a guideline and aren't getting what they expect. This goes as far as people not being able to be as free as they want e.g. pay, the regulations that the government has on guns, and, in some cases, what is considered 'free speech' and what defines 'hate speech' when talking to a mass audience in America. A key issue in the modern day, with the governments policy of 'the war against drugs' being at an all time high, are the policies of institutions asking for people to adhere to random drug testing. As the tests would be done without having any suspicion of the person, it is seen by the public as unconstitutional as it goes against the Fourth Amendment which states that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'.

He also brings up the issue that is prominent in America today, which is the fact that the government are going too far with the regulations within the homes of every American and also the fundamental rights of them too. This is from the wire taping of any phone the government can get a warrant for, to the pat downs and body scanners that are mandatory for every passenger. The issue of how far the government uses its power is also an issue that Boudreaux discusses. He links it back to Constitution, whereby it sets out exactly what powers the Federal Government have and then points out that today the government are taking the words of the Constitution too far and, as far as law making in concerned, the Constitution, when interpreted that way, gives the government too much power than what would be expected by the American people.

The issues that are discussed in the video are expressing American Liberty in many ways; it gives example of free speech as a fundamental right, discusses the issues that affect liberty at government and civilian level and it also talks about the Constitution, which is the basis of modern liberty

An American Mosque

I dont believe there are many people in the West that are not already versed on the existing and historical tensions between American's and the Islamic community. This hatred and contempt for each others beliefs and ideology goes both ways, is long standing and the result of much violence, more so in the years that followed. The clip that I have chosen to examine is of the first American Mosque built 1994 in the US that was subsequently burnt to the ground by arsonists. The reason I picked this is because one can not dispute the fact that this was clear expression of liberty. One of the civil liberties afforded to citizens of the United States is the freedom of religion, where a community has the right to practice their religion either publically or privately. This was simply a community exercising their rights, and it is unfathomable that in the 'land of liberty' these principles are not upheld to the fullest. Those Americans that carried out that arson attack, are a contradiction to the traditions and values possessed by real Americans. David Washburn was an award winning director who took on the task of directing this documentary. He is asked quite a lot, why did you take on this project? His reply; " Our country is greatest when Americans of all backgrounds speak out against injustice, work together in unity, and resist the “otherness” which creates division and fear. History shows this ethos fosters positive change in civil rights struggles, gender equality, and interfaith work. Shouldn't we all ask: “If not me, who? If not now, when?” Its people like these that can be said to give of a real portrayal of what being American should be about, tolerance and acceptance. Its important not to generalise however, it is only a small minority that will do such heinous things. The out pour of emotion from other members of society in response to the disaster proves this. It shows that their is compassion for a new community and its was with this that helped the Muslim community  find the confidence to start all over again. This was a very courageous act considering the assailants could step up their efforts to retaliate, and I believe that this perseverance is an aspect of liberty in itself. Something that would benefit America and particularly the world if it manifested in us all.

Will Smith

Will Smith, a giant in the world of TV, Film and maybe less so music. His catalogue of accomplishments speaks volumes and there is no doubt that he will go down as on of the best and well rounded actors of all times. Emphasis on the word "actor"  not "black actor". The reason I put emphasis on this is because even til now, African-Americans have found it difficult to shake of the tag of "black" and just be known as simply a star in their profession. This may not all together be too important as the recognition is still there, however this tag highlights a distinct lack of progress for African Americans and blacks even today in crossing over that barrier.

An article by Lorrie Palmer examines this concept particularly pertaining to the career of Will Smith and how he is able to appeal to all factions of society. He looks at two pictures of Will Smith and 3 other African-American men, in order to look at the sexual symbolism portrayed in the pictures. In doing so I presume he is able to look at the appeal of Smith's photos in comparison with the other's who are not said to have "crossed over" racial barriers. Similarly the author also notes that reactions from men and women were recorded to Smith's nude scenes in  Irobot In this way it is possible to examine his appeal to those outside the African-Caribbean society which is relatable to his ability to "transcend race".  I think it is also noteworthy that many members of the black community have achieved this sensation known as cross over, Usain Bolt being another example, however extents are paramount in this ongoing discussion and the extent to his transcendence is on a much lower level than that of Will Smith although he is also a mega star in his profession. Time is a fundamental aid to this, and is therefore clearly essential in becoming appealing to all segments of the population.

I'd like to finish my blog on a particular note. Donald Glover aka Childish Gambino is a actor/comedian/rapper whose career very much began like Will Smith and he said something very interesting about how they maintain Smith's ability to cross over race. He says "The reason they say I'm nothin' what they seen or heard, is the same reason Will Smith always opposite latino girls" essentially the message he is sending  is that if Will Smith is in a movie with a black girl, it’ll be “too black” and alienate white audiences however putting him with a white girl is threatening to white audiences and he risks losing his fan base. Latina therefore is just right in order to maintain this balance. Many take this comment as animosity towards Smith and the fact that his career, although promising did not reach the same trajectory as the former. Similarly, I'm sure that those reading this will be confused as to Donald Glover is....... well I guessed he hasn't "crossed over" then.









Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television. Spring2011, Issue 67, p28-40. 13p.

American Studies Blog 6

Historical aspect of race in the USA – Beyoncé

Beyoncé is a global icon. She was born in Houston Texas, in 1981. ‘The New Yorker’ described Beyoncé as “the most important and compelling popular musician of the twenty-first century.”

The article I have chosen to look at looks to identify her as whether she is an icon because of her career or her body. The journalist presents her view that Beyoncé is successful in her career. She performs a range of ‘Black femininities’ and can relate to every time of audience in class and color. She continues by stating how her body portrays a ‘spectacular Black female body.’

To me, Beyoncé is an icon for what she gives back. She has taken part in many campaigns all over the world to help benefit others and contribute in any ways possible. She wants to empower girls to make them feel better about themselves and more confident. She has many feminist and anti-poverty campaigns. Her new song in particular called ‘flawless’ has created controversy due to some of the lyrics, however she wants to inspire women to believe in themselves. She believes a feminist is ‘the person who believes in the social, political and economic of the sexes.’

Beyoncé is the third most honored woman in Grammy history. She has had a total of 46 nominations and 17 awards. She has overall, won 497 awards and is TIME’s most influential person. In addition to being called the most powerful celebrity in the world by Forbes magazine. These high statics demonstrate the extent of which Beyoncé is a successful global American singer, actress and businessperson.

To get to this position Beyoncé worked hard in her career, entering many talent shows in dancing and modeling. Her own father managed her, and her band ‘Destiny’s child’ for a time. This demonstrates how hard Beyoncé has had to work for her success and why to me she such an icon with what she is giving back to the world. Therefore, in regards to the article, it is just in saying she is much more than a ‘Southern hip hop booty shapes.’

<http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/winchester-ac/items/eds/aph/71115495?query=beyonce+icon&resultsUri=items%3Fquery%3Dbeyonce%2Bicon%26target%3Deds%26offset%3D0&target=eds>

Barack Obama

When Barack Obama first ran for the presidency he had to make the decision on whether or not to play on his race or act 'color blind', the decision he made for himself is debatable but no matter what he decided his race would become an important factor in the race for the presidency. his race is an inescapable factor and this is where the article 'Barack Obama and the new politics of race' comes in.

The new politics of race, as claimed by this article, is one of predominantly color-blindness, in the sense that one needs to ignore factors of race in order to give truly equal opportunities, effectively leading to the notion of ethnicity becoming obsolete and ignored by all participants, which although sounds effectively good does lead to people becoming disjointed with their racial past and even separate them more so due to perhaps children being taught as if there were no difference in skin color and then upon noticing that there is they may feel excluded as america, in this case, is still, for the time being, mainly white and so its likely that the color-blind theory is more an 'everyone is white' approach to things, and this is not the way to approach race; diversity needs to be celebrated rather then suppressed.
although the article states that new race politics is mainly color-blindness it does also state that things have and are running deeper than simply that. the author argues that the new age of race politics is defined also by class, that Obama is one of the good black people, he has the advantage of being relatively well-off, a good education, and a history as a lawyer, before he even went into politics. this leading to his positive image where he was loved despite, and perhaps even because, of his race.
Obamas race is claimed to have helped him succeed in nomination and in the presidency, African Americans had the appeal of one of their likeness to an extent in the White House, and white people had a sort of self awarded forgiveness for their racism so they 'loved' him rather than talking about their real feelings toward him which was, at the time of nomination, most likely indifference.
 

Article: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/command/detail?sid=0cced61c-44bf-475c-8381-c71518e6f310%40sessionmgr4003&vid=4&hid=4113

Sometimes one of the effects of putting an assignment back is that you have to put the others back too, or else the sequence of marking and returning work gets snarled. 

This has happened in AM1111. Because we put the first assignment back to help late arrivals to the class, we think it is best to put the others back too.

The next assignment is the iterative essay. That's an essay that you write twice. The first time we grade it, the second time we grade the improvements you make to it in response to our comments. It's a way of trying to get students to understand the importance not just of essays but of feedback and drafts. As you are required to re-write it, we need to make space for you to consult with us. That all pushes things back.

So, here is the change to assignment schedule:

The Iterative Essay is now due Week 9. 

We will return it to you three weeks later, Wk 11. 

That leaves you time to have a tutorial (in person or by email) in Wk12, which also gives you a chance to review your progress with us.

That inevitably means the rewrite now has to be due on the first day of semester 2.

Oprah Winfrey

Oprah Winfrey is a talkshow host who is famous worldwide for the issues she raises in her television show The Oprah Winfrey Show, which was first aired in early 1983. The article I found called 'Talk About Racism: Framing a Popular Discourse of Race on Oprah Winfrey' by Janice Peck talks about the way in which Winfrey has managed to 'transcend race', implying that the notion of race goes beyond biological presumptions, that seem to be set deep in the history of the Africans and other people of colour in America. It is interesting to note that in Peck's article, her research shows that the fact that Oprah is black to white viewers made no difference to their interest in watching the show, whilst black viewers have commented saying 'it is central' to the success of the show. Oprah is the wealthiest black American woman in North America, which is significant because, as mentioned in the article, he was able to, and has 'transcended' the boundaries set by racism, and gender discrimination. The attention drawn to this is significant, as when Oprah's show was first broadcasted it was a difficult time for not only women to become involved and successful in the entertainment industry, but black people as well. So that fact that she was able to become the most successful female in showbiz in North America shows a huge step forward in terms of race equality given her skin colour.  However, whilst a majority of her viewers are white females, Peck talks about how research on the viewers shows that her while they were not bothered by her colour, they felt inclined to watch the show because a black women is supposedly 'less intimidating' than a black man. This shows that with race discrimination is not just about skin colour, but it involves gender as well. 

Pecks states 'it is aligned with the social psychology concept of stereotyping, seen as universal tendency to reduce cognitive uncertainty by organising the world into manageable categories.' From this is can be inferred that the categorisation of different groups of people in to a minimal number of racial types (e.g. black, Hispanic, Latino etc.) is more of a natural coping mechanism for humans, in order to try and understand what is new to them. This reiterates the idea talked about in Tuesday's lecture, that race is indeed, not biological or physical but mental. When Oprah talks about the issue of racism, she says how racism is 'ignorance personified', which is a valid statement, when it is evident that so much in regards to racism, is merely down to people not knowing another persons ancestry when they make a judgment based only on what they can see.  Therefore, in order to overcome this simplicity of race, people must be better educated when looking at race and origins.  This is something that is very relevant when looking at America after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, even through to 21st Century America, as throughout all this time, race has been, and still often is, defined by the colour of a persons skin. 

Source: https://www.academia.edu/1117060/Talk_About_Racism_Framing_a_Popular_Discourse_of_Race_on_Oprah_Winfrey

Carol Moseley Braun

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J501v27n01_04

From the Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, the article 'Gender and Black Presidential Politics From Chisholm to Moseley Braun' talks about the current political environment for Black female candidates and focuses on how Carol Moseley Braun's entrance into the Democratic Presidential primaries in 2003 shone the spotlight onto gender and race issues in America.

One of the issues that the article looks at is the political life of a black women and why that affects their success in politics. The article states that 'black women live in the intersection of race and gender', suggesting that the difficulties that are faced by female politicians, such as Carol Moseley Braun, is firstly due to their race and then their gender. The article then looks back to times when it was said that there were 'no room for black women' because 'all women were white and all the blacks were men' so they had to fight to become acknowledged, which then gave them the image of being
a 'strong black woman' as they were able to stand up against men who tried to supress them. This suppression is also said to be with white women as well and that black women had to 'deal with White women's racism', which caused black women to abandon movements to better themselves. The argument the article makes is that the position of black women in political positions aren't seen to be taken seriously as they aren't respected by their white counter-parts or others from the black community as black women are seen by men as only to be of help to them and the home.

The article also raises the issue of the lack of work and research that has been done on female black political candidates. The article argues that 'although research has been done on female political candidates and on Black (i.e. male) political candidates, there has been virtually nothing done on Black women's political involvement and much less on Black women as candidates'. However, the work that has been done on female black candidates shows that they have to take a different and more difficult road into politics as they are 'rendered invisible in political life' and have to fight to be noticed and to be appointed into and political position. The lack o research done on female black candidates make it hard to understand how they campaign and how voters perceive them even with the stereotypes that are associated with African Americans and women.

The focus drawn onto Carol Moseley Braun in this article is due to the fact that she was one of the first black woman to actually become successful in the political world, but lose out on an opportunity to run for President because of her race and gender. Even with little name recognition, she was said to 'represent an important demographic within the Democratic Party and the anti-Iraq war movement' and 'articulated a much needed voice'. She was see as the most credible candidate to be able to represent the issues and concerns of the black community, and women in general. This was evidenced by an early poll which said that 46% of Democratic voters said there was at least some chance that they would vote for her. Unfortunately, despite all the support from women's groups, black Americans appeared 'more willing to support a Black man unfavourable to 70% than a Black women with the skills and credentials to move forward issues of concern to blacks'. This shows that gender had a great deal to do with her unsuccessful run to Presidency and also shows the prejudice felt even within the black community towards black women as it goes against their perceived and traditional views that their role should be within the home and not within influencing politics.

12 years of Slave

Most people talk of historical dramas being emotional roller coasters. For me it was anger....annoyance, more anger.....more annoyance. There was no straying from these sets of emotions, no happiness, no relief, nothing. I won't deny that an in-depth adaptation of Solomon Northup's story was provided, it was thought provoking, well thought out and presented most key issues that needed to be expressed. Even still, despite what my sister had informed me about the story, it could never had prepared me emotionally for such.

The first thing I recall from the film was how Solomon was sold back into slavery following being lured in under false pretences. His benefactors, Brown and Hamilton, epitomise from the beginning the foul nature that manifests within some human beings. Selfish, without remorse or conscience for such an indecent act as selling someone to be a slave. It really reaffirms from the off what we talked about in the previous lecture, that slaves were regarded as no better than animals. As every well rounded film does it also attempts to perpetuate that feeling of "they're not all bad" and that within a bad crop, they are still good seeds, Ford is the first of these figures in the film. However I do not necessarily co sign the fact that he treats Solomon "well" he just treats him better than other people do. He provides to him what should generally be afforded to someone of his ilk and hard working nature, he pays him compliments and eventually saved him from an unjust punishment. Such actions, should not necessarily mean that such a figure represents a heroin as what was  afforded to him was what should be afforded to any human beings. Similarly it can be said that he himself subjected him to one of his most heinous tenures he had to endure and that was being transferred to Epps farm. In my opinion  both Epps and Ford represent the same thing, Evil. The fact that they both purchase and sell slaves is evil in itself and the simple fact that one is more brutal and less accepting than the other does not change this. Those that believe one is better than the other, are in my opinion, sadly mistaken and not fully grasping the movie as a concept.

The treatment of the slaves throughout is gory, graphic and all out brutal. To think a human being was subjected to such is frankly a joke and just evokes more anger on my part. Regardless of whether or not I subscribe to the theory of whether men and women should be treated as equal, beating a woman like the way Epps beat Patsy was painful to watch. It is paramount to someone beating your mother or your sister, and all I could think about was, what if I, and my family members lived in that time. After her ordeal, Epps stated that where his property was involved "there is no sin". I'm sure God would be shaking his head at the sight of such ignorance. It just serves to highlight the attempts made to legitimise his actions which are without justification. 

One point of interest in the film that disappointed me, was the lack of real resistance posed by the slaves. In the same way I believe that the film provides a well rounded account, I think in this area it fell short. From our lessons we know the kind of opposition that was ongoing, a visual portrayal of this therefore would have made the film complete. However this does not take away from the fact that the movie was  success on many forms. I hope it serves as an eye opener to all creeds alike, and particularly those that think prejudice is acceptable or appropriate in the society we live in today.

12 years a slave

12 years a slave 

It is widely known that this film, although widely controversial, is one of the best films to come out in the last five years. This may be partially because of its novelty in the film industry as it is not only based on a story written by an ex-slave –as opposed to the traditional written by either historians or white slave owners - but it also discusses an often overlooked reality of free black men and women being captured and sold as slaves for profit. I think this is often forgotten because it portray  the white person as a villain but it is more about the racist attitude of the villain that defers directors from choosing the topic.

I personally felt that was quite fast paced however, I feel that Solomon Northup's years as a slave had passed too quickly and I feel like the true strain, effort and monotonous routine that went into doing the exact same thing day in day out for months wasn't really portrayed as well as it perhaps could have been. instead the film went for the shocking aspects such as the beatings and other punishment of slaves, which granted was a large part of the slaves every day lives I feel the living conditions (where they slept, where they went to the toilet perhaps, how long they got in the day to do such things, free time they had if any) could have been examined more.

The reality of this film is a harsh one the shock at the life slaves lead to most people is what makes it so fascinating, as I mentioned previously. Many people see this film as the most accurate portrait of slavery, but it is a film and thus it's accuracy is limited because it's profit relies on success, it's important to remember that some parts may have been overdramatised (however this is less likely) and others may have been left out for the sake of time, and/or because they weren't interesting enough.

Overall the film was in my opinion excellent however should not be rendered the only experience of slaves or the only source to refer to as the experience of slaves because there was so many different circumstances for different people that went un-documented because the slaves that experienced it never learned to write it down.

American Studies Blog 5

Critical Review of 12 Years a Slave

’12 Years a Slave’ is a personal account of Solomon Northup’s journey of being a slave during the 19^th Century. Watching the film for the first time I wasn’t truly able to captivate the depth of which the director ties the key concepts of slavery. However after some research on the film and some time to ponder the films contents it is clear that director, Steve McQueen, illustrates a most accurate portrayal of Solomon's story. However, respectfully stays close to Solomon’s story; “This is no fiction, no exaggeration.”

It is clear that the slaves in ’12 Years a Slave’ have an accurate representation. It is known that slavery was maintained by the fear of punishment through violence.  This is presented through all the slaves on both Ford’s plantation and Epp’s. There are no differences between treatment with black men and black women. They share communal living spaces and both get beaten. Depending on the plantation, both men and women work on the farm, especially the cotton plantation that Epps owns. It portrays the image that slaves did see themselves as less than human. Slaves were compared to cattle and this is seen when Joseph Russell and Alexander Merrill kidnap Solomon and sell him on. Again when Ford sells Solomon onto Epp’s. And is further reiterated with Epp’s showing no remorse with Patsey having gone to get herself a bar of soap. He states “there is no sin where his property is involved.” To me this gives the impression that he has no morality and doesn’t see his slaves as people; that they were created for his personal gain. The noun ‘sin’ is particularly interesting to analyse, as Ford knows that God would have been watching and yet he still shows no guilt or shame in his actions.

The film can be seen as an authentic representation of slaves during this period. Solomon, although a free man is committed into this lifestyle and there is nothing he can do about it. The broken culture is evident in this film as Solomon is torn away from his family which shows sever consequences for both enslaves Africans and Americans. He is stripped from home cultures and is put into a completely different environment. A key moment in the film that reflects this is when Ford gives him a violin, an instrument that he played from his old life as a free American. Interestingly, he takes this instrument with him when he is moved on to Epp’s plantation. The violin is almost a symbol of hope and three quarters of the way through the film this is suggested to have fallen when he smashes the violin up. It is not until Solomon meets the character Bass, who was in fact an actual gentleman the real Solomon spoke to in the early 19^th century, that his hope is regenerated. Steve McQueen doesn’t hold back with the violence in the film, it is vivid and raw, and the emotion behind it is one of astonishment. It portrays the trueness of how slaves have described their treatment whilst being captured.

The character of Bass is interesting to analyse. He is written about in Solomon’s story and so is in fact a true character. He is anti-slavery and speaks openly and honest about his opinion. Many white people in American and globally for that matter believed that they were better than black people and even if not, many would not have spoke their opinions aloud. Bass openly states to Epp’s about how wrong he believes slavery is; “all wrong – all wrong Sir.” The word “sir” is intriguing as he still see’s Epp’s as higher in position than him, yet is not afraid to speak his mind. In addition to this, Epp’s is a rather strong and violent man who doesn’t care about his treatment towards his slaves. He continues and the passage is rather long. He questions a white’s person’s rights on owning a slave and continues to say he would never own a slave even if he were rich. He states the law should be “abolished.” Linking to previously in my essay about how Epp’s states that there is no sin in violent actions towards his slaves; Bass states, “In the sight of God, what is the difference.” This gives the impression that Bass believes that God would not allow these actions.

Captivatingly, the two slave owners that Solomon encounters are rather different in their treatment towards their slaves. This is critical when looking at the slave period. Although the stereotypical slave was beaten, there were a few slave owners who had more respect for their slaves than others. There are many sources to look at which suggest this, not only Solomon’s personal story. At the beginning of Solomon’s slave period, we witness Ford trying to keep a family together and although he isn’t successful in this, he takes the women in and allows her to morn her children. He reads the bible to his slaves and listens to their ideas. Although the people working for him aren’t as understanding, he looks after his slaves. This can be seen when Solomon is beaten by a slave driver and retaliates; “Platt, said he, you will sleep on the floor in the great house tonight.” In contrast to this and unfortunately, to which most slaves had to live their lives, not all were as respectable as Ford can be viewed. Epp’s is a prime example of this. His rough and violent treatment towards his slave is sickening and horrific. McQueen does not hold back when presenting how violent and extreme some slave drivers were of their slaves. Solomon describes Patsey’s treatment as “she had been literally excoriated.”

McQueen’s portrayal of Solomon’s story is undeniably remarkable. It captivates its audience and makes them think of a subject that is usually a dismissed topic of conversation. The way he draws attention to these unnerving, violent times is spectacular. I would suggest that this is one of the best films ever made about the slave trade.

Sources:

Solomon Northup ’12 Years a Slave’ 1853

< http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-years-a-slave.php>

Critical review of 12 Years a Slave

In my opinion, 12 Years a Slave is one of the best representations of life in America for a slave, as a factual account of Solomon Northup’s time in slavery, from his perspective.  There are many other films around that are touch on the issue of slavery and servitude of black Americans, such as the 2011 movie adaptation of The Help. However,  this is the first of its kind looking at the issue directly from the perspective of an African American, who actually had to live the harsh life of being a slave. I believe that because of the perspective of the film, it shows a great step forward in terms of accepting the horror of the history of the US. This must be the first film about African-American slavery that has truly had an impact on me, and the same probably goes for many others, who, for the first time, have seen the American slave trade exposed for it’s true nature. 

One of the first thing that shocks me in the film is the nature by which the African American slaves are treated. It is as though they are thought of as lesser beings by the slave-owners and sellers, like animals. This can be seen through the way in which they are sold to new owners, stripped of their clothes, and forced to stand naked in front of the judging eyes of slave traders, who have are seen to show no care about splitting up a family. When Solomon arrives with Eliza and the other slaves at the plantation,  the mistress says ‘with a little rest and sleep, your children will soon be forgotten’, which I think is very significant, as it goes to show just how little the white people in the south thought of the slaves. From this, it can be seen that the slave-traders want to degrade the slaves as much as possible by treating them no better than cattle at an auction.  Throughout the film, Solomon is seen to have a truly awful experience as a slave, violence and cruelty aside, the living conditions are dreadful, with men, women and children sharing what can barely be called living quarters.  The standard of the quarters can very much be likened to that of a stable, with no beds, or anything that would give the slaves any kind of comfort. 

However,  throughout the account, Solomon does not lose hope that he will one day be free, this is first seen when he attempts to confide in his kindest overseer, William Ford, played by Benedict Cumberbatch.  Solomon is also given a fiddle by Ford, which is evidence that not all slave owners were awful people, like Epps is shown to be in the film. Ford is the only slave-owner who appears to show compassion and kindness towards his slaves, and this can be seen through the way that his slaves are able to laugh together, without fear of being beaten. Though this point still stands, it can not be ignored that despite his kindness, Ford is still unable to help Solomon regain the freedom he is rightfully owed, and ultimately is not distancing himself from the slave trade by actually owning slaves, and participating in the trade.  On Ford’s plantation, his slaves are seen to be accustomed to the violence that goes on around them. One of the most powerful scenes in the entire movie is when Solomon is left hanging by the masters, barely being able to touch the ground, and though one of the other slaves gives him water, they do not even attempt to help him, and go about their work as normal.  This could either be evidence of the slaves having become nonchalant in regards to situations like this, or it could have been that they felt if they tried to help Solomon, they would end up the same for going against their master. 

The film does not hold back at all when it comes to the violence and cruelty that Solomon was forced to endure on the various plantations. Right from the first moment we see Solomon as a slave, the language used is not only harsh but unnecessarily cruel, followed by the unforgiving brutality of his first captor,  of which is certainly enough to make anyone watching the film wince. This is something that carries on for the duration of the film, with Solomon’s encounter with his master, who is never happy with the work Solomon carries out, resulting in him almost being hanged, to him being forced to mercilessly beat Patsey by Epps, in his final plantation. In these scenes,  not once is the focus averted from the reality of what is happening, and what actually happened according to Solomon. Though the overseers are portrayed as unforgiving and cold-hearted towards the slaves, and perhaps a bit far-fetched for effect, the ferocity of the actions carried out, is so much so that it is enough to make the audience realise that this was the kind of thing that actually happened to slaves, quite probably, on a regular occasion. 

This unblinking portrayal of slavery is so significant as it does not shy away from the truth, and because of this Steve McQueen has created a truly remarkable film, that really makes you think, and personally, I found my self finding it hard to actually comprehend the events of the film, such as how the slave owners appeared to have so little humanity. McQueen has made a film that has a long lasting impact on its audience, with the unflinching visualisation of the horrifying reality that was the American slave trade. 

‘What is true and right is true and right for all, white and black alike’ -quote from Bass

Source: <http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-years-a-slave.php>