The sense of the 'American Dream' can still be seen throughout the contemporary world in media, people, culture, etc. For example Drake's song 'Started from the Bottom' is a modern example of the idea in the
'American Dream' that anyone can make something of themselves with hard work and be successful.
"The greatest discovery of all time is that a person can change his future by merely changing his attitude." - Oprah Winfrey. This contemporary statement relates to the 'American Dream' with the idea of the ability to change your future and also relates to success. Oprah Winfrey also had a bad childhood just like Ragged Dick. She had an unmarried teenage mother who traveled north leaving Oprah with her Grandmother in Mississippi, for her first six years in poverty, having to wear dresses made out of potato sacks. Similarly Dick had was in poverty with no parents and had to wear worn out clothing sizes too big. Although she was taught to read by the age of 3 by her Grandmother. At six she moved away with her mother who ended up giving birth to 3 more children, 2 of which died due to cocaine addictions and AIDS. Winfrey has stated she was molested by her cousin, uncle, and a family friend, starting when she was nine years old, When discussed the alleged abuse with family members at age 24, they refused to accept what she said. After suffering years of abuse, she ran away from home at the age of 13 and became pregnant at 14 but her son died shortly after birth.
She moved back in with her mother but she started stealing money from her so was sent to live with her dad. Her dad made education her priority and she soon became an honors student. This can be seen in Ragged Dick where the help of adults get him further on in life to become something better. For Example, Mr Greyson taking him to church and Frank's Uncle giving him his first five dollars to save up. Without the help of the adults the story would not be the same.
Oprah got her big break at 17 when she won the Miss Black Tennessee beauty pageant, which came with a job at a local radio station and a university scholarship. She left university to focus on broadcasting. She was offered a job at a struggling Chicago television show which was later renamed The Oprah Winfrey Show and syndicated nationally. After winning a series of Emmys she founded Harpo Productions to focus on producing television, movies and magazines. Now off-air the 59 year old managed to top Forbes' list of the 100 most powerful celebrities with earnings of more than $77 million in the last year. This shows the element of luck which is seen throughout Ragged Dick. Dick was lucky to meet the wealthy figures that helped him achieve, such as when he overhears Frank and his Uncle, luckily being in the right place at the right time. Pluck is also a big element as without his street sense and knowledge and his willingness to work and save money he would not achieve as much and not be so 'lucky'. Oprah also had luck with winning a job at a radio station and university scholarship. Her pluck of hard work and focus on broadcasting is what made her succeed in getting her own TV show.
So it can be seen that the 'American Dream' can still be seen in contemporary and modern situations, seeing people go from 'rags to riches' just like in the story of Ragged Dick. The contemporary statement"The greatest discovery of all time is that a person can change his future by merely changing his attitude." is valid in both Ragged Dick and Oprah as they both have to change their ways to create a future for themselves; Dick not gambling but instead saving money and Oprah making Education her priority. Therefore the notion of that 'American Dream' and creating yourself a new future with success and happiness is still being achieved today.
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Success and Self Improvement
"Make your vision larger than yourself" is a contemporary statement by Chris Gardner that I believe uses the notion of the 'American Dream' and also relates to the ideas of success presented in Ragged Dick. As of 2012, Chris Gardner is a successful American entrepreneur, investor, stockbroker, motivational speaker, author, and philanthropist. However, Gardner's success began with a personal struggle of establishing himself as a stockbroker in the early 1980's whilst also managing fatherhood and homelessness, which is portrayed in the 2006 motion picture The Pursuit of Happyness.
Gardner was living on the streets with his young son whilst trying to pursue a career in finance, despite not having any experience or a degree. Gardner also describes his childhood as "marked by poverty, domestic violence, alcoholism, sexual abuse and family illiteracy". It can then be said that the ideas of success presented today match those present in Ragged Dick since both stories have their similarities. Dick, like Gardner, grew up in poverty, having lived on his streets his whole life, and also suffered with illiteracy. The success stories are further similar as whilst Gardner had to work on a low paying training program in order to gain experience for a more prestigious job, Dick too had to increase his education as a form of experience in order to achieve a more prestigious job.
I therefore believe that the statement "Make your vision larger than yourself" uses the notion of the 'American Dream', and presents the same idea of success that is present in Ragged Dick, since both stories contain the theme of starting at the bottom and rising up through handwork, patience and endurance.
Rags to Riches
I have chosen to look at the American Business man Kirk Kerkorian. His story is somewhat similar to the character 'ragged dick' from Horatio Algers book. Kerkorian was born in 1917 in California to American immigrant parents. His parents were poorer than most and he did not have a very stable upbringing, consequently he dropped out of school in the 8th grade resulting in him not having a good education. Much like the character ragged Dick, Kerkorian was forced to fend for himself on the streets of a busy city. Fortunately he didn't have to become a shoe shiner like the characters however he took up boxing and mastered the skill to become the Pacific amateur welterweight champion. This matches the character in Alger's book as Dick had to master the skills of the streets and become 'street wise' to stay alive and do better for himself (this is shown in his confrontation with the man selling him the wallet stuffed with paper).
Luck played a part in Kerkorian's early life as in 1939 he met a man named Ted O'Flaherty (when installing a wall furnace) who happened to take flying lessons and who subsequently introduced Kerkorian to the world of flying. This is similar to Dick's first encounter on the way to his riches story when he was lucky to meet Mr.Whitney and his nephew Frank. Both of these stories required more luck than pluck in how they panned out. After learning to fly Kerkorian became involved in many mission within the second world war and this won him much admiration and status. Much like the character Dick who won status on the streets which consequently helped him to achieve his goals in life. Both of these men, met the right people at the right time. Another similarity in these rags to riches stories is how Kerkorian used his money after the war. It is believed he saved his money (something which Dick did as well) and used the skills he acquired when he was younger to gamble and play to win more money. This story can be seen as the American dream as he worked hard to make the money in the first place. He wanted a better life for himself and knew the only way to achieve this was to work hard (again, something which Dick also knew and did).
The idea of the American Dream presented in Ragged Dick can still be seen in Americans today. This is evident in the story I chose of Kirk Kerkorian.
Luck played a part in Kerkorian's early life as in 1939 he met a man named Ted O'Flaherty (when installing a wall furnace) who happened to take flying lessons and who subsequently introduced Kerkorian to the world of flying. This is similar to Dick's first encounter on the way to his riches story when he was lucky to meet Mr.Whitney and his nephew Frank. Both of these stories required more luck than pluck in how they panned out. After learning to fly Kerkorian became involved in many mission within the second world war and this won him much admiration and status. Much like the character Dick who won status on the streets which consequently helped him to achieve his goals in life. Both of these men, met the right people at the right time. Another similarity in these rags to riches stories is how Kerkorian used his money after the war. It is believed he saved his money (something which Dick did as well) and used the skills he acquired when he was younger to gamble and play to win more money. This story can be seen as the American dream as he worked hard to make the money in the first place. He wanted a better life for himself and knew the only way to achieve this was to work hard (again, something which Dick also knew and did).
The idea of the American Dream presented in Ragged Dick can still be seen in Americans today. This is evident in the story I chose of Kirk Kerkorian.
Thursday 21 November 2013
Gun control debate
http://www.policymic.com/articles/72067/gun-control-debate-the-argument-that-every-gun-owner-needs-to-start-making
This is from the pro-gun side of the debate, written by James Banks (whose article history show him to be far from a rabid conservative, having written articles about sympathy for prison rape victims and more economic protection for the poor). His argument corresponds to one raised in the lecture: ultimately, he thinks the occasional massacre is a price that must be paid for freedom, and "sometimes living in a free society means living with the people who abuse their freedoms." He argues that the right to bear arms should not be restricted because it would "make society safer" (which he does not believe would exactly happen anyway), as that is not a goal mentioned by the amendment in the first place. "Alcohol does not make society safer (and Prohibition saved lives)", he says as comparison, "but we assume that it should be legal and have a constitutional amendment to defend ownership of it as well." At heart, his argument is that personal freedoms are more important than personal safety and that Americans have to tolerate abuses of this freedom if they want to remain a truly free country.
I have my sympathies with this view. I would also liken guns to alcohol - Prohibition may have saved lives, but in the end it was a failure, and I believe it would be similarly difficult to implement gun control laws. I also believe, philosophically, that there is nothing inherently wrong with responsible, background-checked adults owning firearms for self-defense or recreation. In the end though I would place personal safety and the stability of society over personal freedom to own firearms.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm
This, meanwhile, is by Jason Asahi who writes for a university newspaper and is widely traveled. He goes in-depth in his arguments for gun control. He argues that the freedoms provided by the original amendments can be infringed (the right to free speech, for example, does not give the right to stand up at a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" without justifiable cause as it may result in injury), so pro-gun advocates should not hide behind the second amendment as it is not an impenetrable wall. He also cites the disagreements between gun advocates on the matter of how much the amendment's reach should be restricted, as few believe anyone has the right to own a nuclear weapon - surely this means they believe in restricting the amendment anyway? He also brings up statistics from several studies, including that a gun in the household is 43 times more likely to kill a member of that household or friend than a malicious intruder, and also that 340,000 firearms are stolen every year which probably contributes to the criminal shootings. He says "I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible", a rather radically liberal view in America.
Philosophically I do not ultimately agree with him, either. America is a nation founded on the idea of personal liberty to do many things, and responsible ownership and use of a firearm seems entirely fair to me in a society which upholds such ideals. Practically, however, his use of peer-reviewed studies as sources for his opinions lend him a lot of credibility and I agree with his belief that the second amendment is not absolute.
My stance on gun control is that guns should be legal for Americans to purchase, but background checks must be mandatory in every state in order to prevent known criminals or the mentally ill from obtaining them. Gun safety courses should also be mandatory if one wishes to purchase a gun, and the handling of guns by minors should be illegal if it is not already. As such I agree most with Asahi, who proposes both of these things as his practical solution.
This is from the pro-gun side of the debate, written by James Banks (whose article history show him to be far from a rabid conservative, having written articles about sympathy for prison rape victims and more economic protection for the poor). His argument corresponds to one raised in the lecture: ultimately, he thinks the occasional massacre is a price that must be paid for freedom, and "sometimes living in a free society means living with the people who abuse their freedoms." He argues that the right to bear arms should not be restricted because it would "make society safer" (which he does not believe would exactly happen anyway), as that is not a goal mentioned by the amendment in the first place. "Alcohol does not make society safer (and Prohibition saved lives)", he says as comparison, "but we assume that it should be legal and have a constitutional amendment to defend ownership of it as well." At heart, his argument is that personal freedoms are more important than personal safety and that Americans have to tolerate abuses of this freedom if they want to remain a truly free country.
I have my sympathies with this view. I would also liken guns to alcohol - Prohibition may have saved lives, but in the end it was a failure, and I believe it would be similarly difficult to implement gun control laws. I also believe, philosophically, that there is nothing inherently wrong with responsible, background-checked adults owning firearms for self-defense or recreation. In the end though I would place personal safety and the stability of society over personal freedom to own firearms.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm
This, meanwhile, is by Jason Asahi who writes for a university newspaper and is widely traveled. He goes in-depth in his arguments for gun control. He argues that the freedoms provided by the original amendments can be infringed (the right to free speech, for example, does not give the right to stand up at a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" without justifiable cause as it may result in injury), so pro-gun advocates should not hide behind the second amendment as it is not an impenetrable wall. He also cites the disagreements between gun advocates on the matter of how much the amendment's reach should be restricted, as few believe anyone has the right to own a nuclear weapon - surely this means they believe in restricting the amendment anyway? He also brings up statistics from several studies, including that a gun in the household is 43 times more likely to kill a member of that household or friend than a malicious intruder, and also that 340,000 firearms are stolen every year which probably contributes to the criminal shootings. He says "I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible", a rather radically liberal view in America.
Philosophically I do not ultimately agree with him, either. America is a nation founded on the idea of personal liberty to do many things, and responsible ownership and use of a firearm seems entirely fair to me in a society which upholds such ideals. Practically, however, his use of peer-reviewed studies as sources for his opinions lend him a lot of credibility and I agree with his belief that the second amendment is not absolute.
My stance on gun control is that guns should be legal for Americans to purchase, but background checks must be mandatory in every state in order to prevent known criminals or the mentally ill from obtaining them. Gun safety courses should also be mandatory if one wishes to purchase a gun, and the handling of guns by minors should be illegal if it is not already. As such I agree most with Asahi, who proposes both of these things as his practical solution.
Wednesday 20 November 2013
Gun Control
America is probably the first place you think of when the word gun crime is used, or at least it is for me. With approximately 270 million registered guns across the states. Controversy has been circulating and growing with the continuous school shootings, murders and manslaughter resulting in no changed legislation.
Pro Gun Control:
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/
Pro Gun Control:
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/
"My name is Joshua Sager and I am the progressive cynic. After graduating from Boston University with a degree in political science and earth science, I began this blog in order to post my articles for view by the public."
This site includes 21 arguments used against gun control and debunks them. Every argument is followed with paragraph after paragraph tearing them apart and also has an image related to that argument, normally comical. Some arguments used are “The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, thus gun control measures are unconstitutional.”, “Guns are a right in our country so that we can rise up against a tyrannical government.”, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” or “ Limiting guns will only lead to violent people simply using other methods of killing large numbers of people”, “Violence isn’t due to guns; it is due to culture and violence in the media/entertainment industry.” and “Instead of attacking guns, what we really need is to register the mentally ill”. Debunking these arguments makes light of how stupid some of them really are. Statistics are also used as evidence behind points.
Anti Gun Control:
"The Clause is a student publication dedicated to providing a realistic educational experience for students of Azusa Pacific University; to seeking truth and reporting it boldly, fairly, and accurately; to enhancing the University community by providing a student voice imbued with truth, responsibility and accountability."
In comparison this site includes 5 arguments against gun control. A lot less than the previous website, and their arguments are also debunked on the Pro Gun Control site. Their arguments include "There are already 300 million privately-owned guns in the U.S", “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”, "Mass shooters don’t follow the law", and "Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence.". Their arguments are proved with minor statistics but isn't backed up by much evidence behind their points.
In my opinion, the Pro Gun Control site is a lot more valid and more convincing to listen to. I also agree with Gun Control. Most of the time it seems that anti gun control arguments never include the stories of children getting hold of guns and killing themselves or other children. There has been a number of deaths due to gun crime in America especially school shootings. After Columbine, nothing was done. In comparison after the Dunblane shooting in the UK, there was a ban on handguns within a year. I know that it is nearly politically impossible to ban guns completely due to the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court however regulations and laws should be put in place so it is harder for people to get guns and it should be harder for children to find or use guns.
Gun Debate in America
The use of guns and gun control in the United States has been a controversial issue in American politics for the last several decades. The issue regards the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment and the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime, thus there is much dispute between those that are for gun control, and those against.
Against Gun Control -
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/
I chose to use the website above which was published on CNN by LZ Granderson, a CNN contributor who writes a weekly column for CNN.com; the former Hechinger Institute fellow has had his commentary recognised by the Online News Association, the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. He is also a senior writer for ESPN.
The writer argues that gun control is not the answer, and makes specific reference to mass shootings such as Newtown, Aurora, Sandy Hook and the recent Washington Navy Yard. Granderson argues that crime will not be reduced if gun control is put into effect, for example, Granderson states that "Guns shops are illegal in Chicago... yet each week people continue to die in the streets from gunshot wounds." He concludes his argument stating that there is no one solution, and that "gun-control advocates need to abandon the routine of using mass shootings to turn law-abiding citizens into social pariahs and instead focus on something that could work."
Pro Gun Control -
Against Gun Control -
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/
I chose to use the website above which was published on CNN by LZ Granderson, a CNN contributor who writes a weekly column for CNN.com; the former Hechinger Institute fellow has had his commentary recognised by the Online News Association, the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. He is also a senior writer for ESPN.
The writer argues that gun control is not the answer, and makes specific reference to mass shootings such as Newtown, Aurora, Sandy Hook and the recent Washington Navy Yard. Granderson argues that crime will not be reduced if gun control is put into effect, for example, Granderson states that "Guns shops are illegal in Chicago... yet each week people continue to die in the streets from gunshot wounds." He concludes his argument stating that there is no one solution, and that "gun-control advocates need to abandon the routine of using mass shootings to turn law-abiding citizens into social pariahs and instead focus on something that could work."
Pro Gun Control -
I chose the website indicated above named
TopTenz.net. The website describes itself as the ultimate top 10 list site with
topics such as pop culture, movies, music, history and politics. The article
was published by Dustin Koski a free lance writer and a regular contributor to TopTenz.
Koski produces an argument that is for increasing gun regulation in the United States. In the article, he gives the example of the success of Australia's gun ban; since Australia's mass shooting in Port Arthur (1996), there has not been a mass shooting since, and gun crime over all dropped 59% in the past decade. Koski also contributes the point that guns are counterproductive in home defence, he states that "a gun is twenty-two times more likely to discharge a bullet into a member of the household than into an intruder."
My personal opinion is in favour of gun control. Although I do agree with some points that the opposition make e.g. that even if guns are banned, there will still be gun crime. However, I do not think that gun control would increase due to the restriction, for example like the outcome of prohibition, therefore I agree that although gun crime will not cease, it would surely at least decrease with gun control in effect and thus it is my opinion that gun control is positive.
Guns in the USA
Gun control is one of the most argued issues in the USA today. Many people believe there should be laws that control who are allowed to have a gun and more extreme people believe no one should be able to have guns at all. Many other people believe there should be no laws controlling who is allowed to buy guns because it would infringe upon the right in the Second Amendment of the constitution.
FOR GUN CONTROL
http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/
This is a website discussing why Americans should have laws that control who is allowed to purchase and use guns. The page was published by the site Listverse. They publish many lists of ten things such as this list for 10 ten reason why Americans need gun control, and some of the lists are submitted by fans. It has been featured in different countries like England, Scotland and the USA. This list states reasons why Americans need laws controlling guns such as there are more homicides with guns, there are more suicides, and there are more mass murders that happen with guns. I agree with this website. It makes me uncomfortable to think that so many people are allowed to carry guns. At my university so far this semester there has been 3 or 4 robberies at gun point and I just don’t think that’s right.
AGAINST GUN CONTROL
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/arguments-against-gun-control.html
This is a website discussing why Americans shouldn’t have laws controlling who can purchase guns. It was published on Buzzle.com. This site is about informing citizens who want to know things on many different topics. They do research on topics and then publish articles about them. Some different arguments on why people shouldn’t be allowed to make laws controlling guns are people who are victims of crime won’t be able to defend themselves, states with the lowest gun crimes are the states who allow people to carry guns, and it will infringe on Americans rights granted to them by the Second Amendment.
I personally am pro-gun control. I think it can be scary thinking anyone around me can be carrying a concealed gun and I don’t even know it. I’m American and it makes me uncomfortable. I do understand the arguments against gun control made by this site though. There are people who do need to defend themselves and it does make citizens feel safe. Also people should be able to defend themselves from the government since that’s what the Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the amendment. They wanted people to be able to form a militia in case the government got out of control.
Gun control is a very controversial subject and many people, including myself, have mixed views on it. I can see both sides of the arguments. This is one issue that will probably not go away for Americans for a long time.
Wednesday 13 November 2013
Native American Boarding Schools
(Tom Torlino, a Carlisle School student, before and after spending time at the school.)
An Indian boarding school is a school that was established in the United States in the late 19th Century to educate young Native Americans according to American Standards. They were generally forbidden to speak their own language, were taught Christianity instead of their own religion and were forced to abandon their Native identity and adopt American Culture.
It is noted that the three main themes of Manifest Destiny are; "the virtue of the American people and their institutions; the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States; the destiny under God to do this work". - http://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/empire/manifest-destiny/
This can be overtly seen in this image as, the Native Americans are being forced to become what Americans see as Americans. They are forcibly spreading their institutions on people who they do not refer to as American, even if they have been there longer. Attempting to 'Christianise' the Native is 'through God's eyes' from an the American's point of view and they are trying to remake everything into the image of the United States.
This process then effects and destroys many Native American lives. This image shows not only the loss of identity and culture but also the loss of a person completely. He loses his hair, clothing, beliefs and even maybe his emotions.
They are also universally pleasing to the eye. This romanticism - from the colours of the leaves to the mountains in the distance to the lovely weather - is essential to the idea of the manifest destiny as it presents the new lands being taken as paradisaical, as according to the "Providence" idea. It would hardly be motivating to present the explorers taking new land that was cloudy or cold or dull in colour. The motivational aspect of these paintings should not be forgotten - people had to be convinced to live in the new areas too, so the paintings presented the areas as nice to live in, and thus create "our yearly multiplying millions".
Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way (1861)
http://arthistory327.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/westwardhostudy-1861.jpg
I chose a mural painted by Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze, a German American history painter, in 1861 titled Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way . I chose this painting because it signifies the concept of Manifest Destiny. The painting emphasises the belief that the American settlers were destined for Western expansion and exploration. The mural's title is taken from a poem written by an Irish poet, George Berkeley, in 1726, which became a motto and symbol of Manifest Destiny in America after 1850.
I therefore, chose this painting to illustrate the concept of Manifest Destiny as Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way demonstrates how the American settlers had the opinion that it was their God given right to own the land in the west, which thus resulted in the eradication of the Native Americans.
The picture I have chosen is entitled 'The Discovery of the Mississippi' based off a painting done in 1541 by Ferdinand De Soto. This picture was then published in 1876 by Currier & Ives. The picture depicts a scene from when the firs europeans (emigrants) found the Mississippi river within the west of America. There are 7 people (all men) in the forefront of the picture giving thanks to God for helping them find their way to the river.
The men are probably all in the military army at that time and all of importance. There appears to be a priest or monk bowing down leading the praying, this shows that religion was at the forefront of American living even back then. This picture also shows how the Americans were expanding as a nation rapidly, into more areas of unexplored american land. The picture is also a great example of how the new Americans were slowly pushing out the native Americans and didn't think highly of them as individuals. This is made evident by the fact that there is only 1 native American portrayed in the painting and he is in the background of the picture. This shows manifest destiny as the new Americans thought it was their right to explore the land and push the Natives out of their homes. The Americans within the painting are looking optimistic whereas the Native American looks pessimistic and uncertain of his future within the society/home he lives in (again, showing manifest destiny). The native American is also wearing his original dress, this shows that the manifest destiny can not alter everything, as the native hasn't been forced into American society and customs as of yet. He is, in a sense, still a free man. However the fact that the Americans are on horses shows they have power and authority over the Native American who is depicted to be below them (in the picture and in society as a whole).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)