The Great Gatsby and Hope

Whilst googling the term 'Hope Springs Eternal' I found numerous results from across the globe, all linking to completely unrelated events with just one thing in common - the promotion of optimism, despite bad forecasting.

Hope for the future is what keeps a man going - this is what Alexander Pope was trying to convey when he wrote this verse within An Essay on Man, and this too is what Fitzgerald, an educated man who would have been familiar with Pope, embodies throughout his novel The Great Gatsby. 

Fitzgerald promotes the ideal of seeking happiness, of reaching for your dream and grasping it with both hands, but not blindly, and definitely not to the expense of all others. In The Great Gatsby he champions the dreamer, the optimistic man who strives for excellence because of a vision he has - his individually unique American Dream. And although he clearly expresses doubts as to the importance that dream should have in your life, and the methods you should use to get it, he does endorse the importance of having a dream.

This optimism is still alive today, and may well survive into the endless and unknown future - something untouched by time and society. Dreams can become corrupted, as we see with Gatsby's vision of Daisy, but optimism is a state of being that all people must enter in order to find existence bearable. Whether we hope for death or hope for life, we all express hope.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/news/x1626870456/Waltham-voices-Can-hope-spring-eternal#axzz1gQ3lfpqR

This article from the website of a local news company in Waltham, MA questions whether hope can really spring eternal. It asks, 'what makes hope worthwhile in this secular life?' in much the same way Fitzgerald questions the value of hoping for something honest in the hedonistic society of 1920s America.

The article goes on to relate hope and expectations to the upcoming holiday season, speaking of the anticipation of receiving expensive gifts and the high expectations people hold, regardless of the current economic climate. It indicates that we come to expect too much from other people, and put too much pressure on ourselves to spend money on gifts - money that may have a better and more practical use.

This is very reminiscent of the attitude Gatsby holds towards Daisy - he embodies her with qualities she doesn't have, and strives to better himself in expensive and complicated ways because this is what society would expect from him. And just like Gatsby, upon achieving a pale version of his dream, people are inevitably disappointed over the Christmas period when they do not always receive what they want, or what they want is not everything it should be.

The author of this piece hints that hope cannot exist without conflict, but that the main conflict in life exists within ourselves and the battle we have over doing the right thing. Throughout The Great Gatsby Fitzgerald can be seen to be in agreement with this notion, especially with regards to the character and choice of narrative in Nick Carraway - a man who struggles to see the good in a world that is growing increasingly convoluted. Through Nick, Fitzgerald admires Gatsby as a great dreamer, but he doubts in his character because of the ways he tries to achieve his dream - the bootlegging and other nefarious activities we are left to guess about.

The article then suggests that 'Whatever conflict(s) occur in our lives, the combination of optimism and positive thinking just may be the best approach to avoiding hopelessness.' And I think, were Fitzgerald alive today, he would agree with this summary. Gatsby may have had a tragic end, but his hope kept him alive for that long, and if in the end the right thing had been done, he may have survived to see another day.

The Great Gatsby and money

The Great Gatsby is centred on money and wealth, despite initially seen as just a novel regarding the relationship between the protagonist Jay Gatsby and Daisy, the story is very much centred on money, who has it, who wants it and who will do anything to get it. This image reflects the materialistic views of not only the characters but American society in the 1920’s in which The Great Gatsby is set. Due to the rise in the stock market, it allowed for people from any social standing to gain access to large amounts of money in which to boost their own personal wealth, this however created a class of frivolous spenders where buying and consuming was a regular occurrence. The dollar sign clearly reflects this idea of money being central, and as the man clutches the money his facial expression is one of pleasure and excitement at holding such large amounts of money.

Money within The Great Gatsby is centred on the two terms old and new, Daisy and Tom have old money. This is reflected in there geography of where they live, living in East egg reflects there élite power of wealth. They have inherited their money and had a very wealthy upbringing. This differing from Gatsby as his money is seen as new money, this being translated to his own location in which he lives. West egg is seen the home of new money, the people who inhabit it have made their own wealth through hard work. This like Gatsby’s background which is seen as a “Rags to Riches” story, unlike Horatio Alger Gatsby can be seen to create some of his own money through the less legitimate business of bootlegging, in the selling of alcohol.

Many of the characters within the story are very money centred. Daisy wants to marry in to a good family. Instead of waiting for Gatsby like she promised she chose to marry Tom, who could provide her with the aristocratic background of wealth and power that she so desires. Myrtle can also been seen as a character striving for wealth and status, her affair with Tom is aimed to increase her social status, and allow her access to the life that she so desires. The dollar glasses in this photo could represent how both Daisy and Myrtle view the world. They see everything as an opportunity to increase their own social standing and thus power.

The way that the man is clutching the pile of money, can reflect the greed associated with The Great Gatsby. This being as many of the characters aim to create their own wealth and thus fore-fill their own personal American Dream. Gatsby displays his wealth much like the man in the photo, but in the form of his lavish parties. These are designed to gain Daisy’s attention, as Gatsby believes that if he has money and shows this to her she will return to him. This however is not the case as Daisy continues to choose Tom over Gatsby as he is seen to be the better option on paper then Gatsby.

The Horatio Alger Myth

http://snunes.blogspot.com/2011/10/horatio-alger-myth.html

Looking over the beliefs shown in books like Horatio Alger's Ragged Dick the values put across seem to reflect that of De Crevecoeur's Letters, that idea of hard work despite the odds that stand in their way, the work pays off and eventually they become prosperous. The ideals themselves seem to be promoted for purposes of propoganda in order to keep the average American working almost divulging a fear of the working class as they seem to hold up the foundations of society, meaning if they were to stop working the rich would no longer be able to live their lives of excess. So Alger's book can be viewed as either propoganda or a means of hope as all seem to want to live a life of comfort where wealth is not a problem.

I chose the blog post as it seemed to be written from the point of view of the average American it is not a reputable academic source but it is more from a realist perspective that I chose the post due to the fact that this particular person has to live in today's class system to which Horatio Alger's beliefs do not seem to apply.

The blog itself seems to be rather biased due to the fact it's author seems to be rather upset that the story itself is beloved by so many but in a reality the events shown seem to be a mere fantasy, especially in today's economic climate it seems that Alger's stories now hold little meaning.

The Street Where Originality lives: Adidas Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNOA3Veod8s

Predominantly most people you ask in today's society about which shoe is the most popular will say Adidas, Adidas has been around since the early twentieth century and has provided various people in various walks of life with the footwear they "need." Originally starting as a sports shoe made in a wash kitchen in 1924 then eventually achieving commercial success after being worn by Olympic athlete Jesse Owens in 1936 Adidas has been on the up ever since.

The commercial itself is a conveyance of how we as a society need Adidas not just as an individual but in order to emanate individuality an generally differ one's self from the rest of the crowd which is where the advert essentially contradicts itself due to the fact that the shoe is made in order to fit in with everyone else and everyone who wears an Adidas item seems to be part of one huge street party.

Filled with a huge amount of brightly colored Adidas clothing the advert shows us what we apparently want as the consumer with all who partake in the advert only being over the age of twenty if they are a celebrity. The purpose is for young people to indulge in the brand as this is what the brand itself has now been established as, as well as making sporting goods, the point being that the company is branching out to increase profit by making as much money from its fashion range as it does in football for instance.

In the society we live in today it is important that we are individuals yet we do this by looking the same in order to fit in with everyone else, Adidas see this as a perfect time to capitalize upon this opportunity taking advantage of our own misled ideals in order to make a ridiculous amount of money. Not to mention the constant flurry of celebrities thrust in the viewers face throughout the advert using the typical concept of "well if he/she wears it then why aren't I?"

The advert plays on the audiences juvenile mindset knowing that after watching a significant amount of their thought will be devoted to them questioning themselves as to why they do not own any or more new Adidas products? Again, we as a society or the youth of society fall for this inept consumerist ideology that we need more 'stuff' in order to be happy therefore spending increasinly expensive amounts of money on things we don't need.

Money can't buy happiness

http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/2011/10/26/demotivational-posters-money-cant-buy-happiness/

It is said that money can't buy happiness and this is a statement that has been said for many years and it is evident to see this is theme that clearly runs throughout the story; 'The Great Gatsby'. This image demonstrates that if you buy material things such as cars, food, alcohol and many more than it can provide you with happiness although this is not always true as many believe that true happiness is earned through hard work.

This particular image enables you to believe that happiness is through expensive objects and in the story of 'Great Gatsby' it explores these ideas because the character of Gatsby is poor but he pretends to have money. As a result of this he meets a girl called Daisy of whom he takes a liking to, but in order to become friends he thinks he has to have money and things take a turn for the worse when the other characters in the book find out that Gatsby was lying about having money. Furthermore, later on in the novel Gatsby becomes rich and he thinks this will be able to buy him happiness and love as he tries to rekindle with Daisy as he now has money although things don't work out as hoped as Daisy loves Tom and Gatsby is left alone once again. Therefore, even though initially thought that money can buy you happiness it is always the case as seen in this novel because even when Gatsby was rich he still couldn't have Daisy and so he was still unhappy.

In addition this is a saying that is normally the case with most people because although you think your happy with everything you may own, you are subconsciously unhappy and unsatisfied with the lifestyle you may lead. Therefore, as presented in the novel 'Great Gatsby' money can't buy happiness or love no matter how much stuff you have.

Discover Card Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=yZXZAlfykpo


This video commercial from 2010 advertising the American Discover card, America's number one cash reward credit card, is particularly interesting when the idea behind it is related back to the iconic Henry Ford, and the way he treated his workers.

He attracted a greater number of employees to his assembly line by paying them more than the average business owner and shortening their hours, all so that they could remain consumers themselves, even as they provided objects of consumption for the public through their work. This idea of allowing your employees the time and the means to become consumers, in the hope that the money you're paying them will in some way work its way back into your pocket, could be viewed on a grander scale.

Consider a country such as USA, if all Americans were to get their credit from a single source, an American company such as Discover, who offer cash back incentives for using your card within American companies; then all money earned in America would be spent in America, through American companies. In essence, they aim to cut out the middle man and strengthen their economy - this is achieved by promoting the strengths of 'All American' companies, and belittling foreign enterprise.

The advert depicts a group of foreigners in a remote cabin, running a call centre for 'USA Prime Credit', answering the phone call of an American woman. She is trying to resolve an issue and is being parcelled off, put on 'hold' and passed around a room; to then end up speaking to the very same person she started with. Her frustration is to be alleviated by trusting in Discover, as you'll 'get the help you need the first time around'.

Not only can this advert be found comical, in the very real sense that many people have experienced the annoyance of having to speak to someone about something of importance, only to find a language barrier preventing you from achieving your task; but this commercial is also subtly promoting the idea of American exceptionalism. If you go with an American company such as them, the experience is uniquely better.

People are told it 'Pays to Discover', and indeed it does pay off to use their services, but their service is primarily to provide the consumer with a means to consume even more, at a faster rate and with higher penalties. This advert sends out the message that incurring debt is a sensible decision when it is done through them. The fact it was voted one of the top 10 commercials of last year emphasises the idea that many Americans were able to relate to it, and therefore many of them view debt as a viable means to consume.

This in itself highlights the fact Americans don't seem to be overly attentive to the sheer amount they consume as a nation, and perhaps indicates a need for their overall attitude towards consumption to be reviewed.

Levi's 501 Advert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u06rDf-kUt0

The Levi’s laundry advert can be seen as one of the most iconic advertising campaigns of its time. Through the power of sex and desire Levi’s managed to alter their brand reception in to something wanted by many.

The brand Levi’s was established in 1873, the patent for the rivets which were used to strengthen the pockets of the jeans made them unique; this made the jeans a practical item. They were worn by working class as they were durable and hard wearing.

The changing of this brand identity from the practical sense to the fashionable came in the 1985, with the promotion of the stonewash jean in a tv advert featuring model Nick Kamen. The advert shows a small town in America in the 1950’s. Nick Kamen the model and actor in this advert walks into the laundrette to the backing of Marvin Gaye’s Through the Grapevine the song choice aids in the imagery of the brand being exclusive whilst creating a retro theme fitting of the time period displayed in the ad. The idea of the ‘Grapevine’ shadows that of the intensions of the advert that word of mouth will gain more interest and people will want to watch due to the hype surrounding it. The actor is modeled on the image of James Dean, a popular movie star and rebellious figure who wore blue jeans. A sense of youth is created due to the age of the model and the styling of the Ray Ban sunglasses. The jeans are highlighted due to the plain t-shirt and lack of other clothing. The advert shows the actor put stones in to the washing machine adding a sense of intrigue to the audience. Two young boys watch him do this showing that the youth aspire to be like him and want to look like him. He then continues to strip until he is just in his underwear, captivating the attention of his fellow laundrette uses. The strong use of sex appeal is used in this advert and creates the idea that you too can achieve a high level of sex appeal by wearing Levi’s jeans.

The brand has further created a sense of exclusivity through the labelling of their jeans and the naming of them such as the “501” this advert has managed to turn the average jean in to an iconic symbol that should be worn by all who aspire to be as “cool” and to hold as much sex appeal as Nick Kamen does in this advert

Coca Cola

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/dynamic/press_center/avcenter.html?assetId=73901&assetTag=advertising

This is just one of the new Coca Cola advertisements for Christmas and it represents the happiness that Cola can bring as it can help make friends come together. Furthermore, Cola has used Santa Clause for 80 years, starting in 1931, and this is a key factor in the success they have had because as it gets nearer to Christmas people of all ages start to think about the Cola adverts as they took over the representation of Santa and this helps links them together. In addition by linking them together it comes back to the point that Cola can bring people together just as this seasonal holiday does.

Even though Coca Cola has been around for over a decade, 125 years, it is still seen as a contemporary product in the USA and around the world as well because the taste has continued to please many people and even bring cultures together as the recipe that makes this drink taste good remains a secret, which show the company want to keep its originals routes and continue to be the one drink that every one wants to buy. Thus keeping the company values at the forefront of the product because they aim to;

"refresh the world, inspire moments of optimism and happiness, create value and make a difference."

Furthermore, this particular advert shows all of these values, just as others do, because the actual drink refreshes Santa Clause who tilts a snow globe which makes toys come alive and the two friends that are sat opposite playing on their game consoles then put them down and get up to play together, which shows the overall effect of Cola bringing them to realise they have each other and that has a positive effect on the target audience that will be watching this advertisement. Cola doesn't just show a positive impact in this advert because as a company they are also trying to have a positive impact on the world which is why they teamed up with WWF (World Wildlife Fund) to create a product such as the Cola can with polar bears on it to raise awareness about the damage to the climate in which polar bears live and this will hopefully help protect their homes if Cola help show the affect.

This particular advert also has an underlying and deeper meaning to it because we see Santa looking into the globe and he expresses the thought that he doesn't like what he sees and so he takes a sip of Cola and then tries to change what is happening. Therefore, creating the vision that Coca Cola look over the world and try to make a positive change to the world just as we see Santa Clause doing in this advert. Moreover, you could also say that the mouthful of Coke gave Santa the strength and willpower to do something good and as a iconic/magical figure his character is seen to create good in the world and so by using Cola it reinforce that they have this same visionary principle and want to do something that will have a global affect on the way we think and act.

This is why I believe that the different Coca Cola advertisements has a positive impact on people because they always keep their values at the forefront of everything they do in order to remain as reputable and positive as they can be and have always been.

The 'Horatio Alger Myth' in Texas

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204528204577011652396660864.html

This article discusses the presidential candidate Rick Perry, a man who has been the governor of Texas for the past eleven years, in relation to the financial success of his state. Texas has indeed proven to be one of the most economically successful states within America; with an output apparently exceeding that of many countries a similar size. Though, much of this is due to a steady influx of people with money to spend, and the relocation of several large companies. For example, 'In 1990, one of the world's biggest companies, Exxon Mobil, left New York City for Dallas.'

The question of why this is happening is discussed within the article, and aside from the obvious differences in taxation and overall cheaper company costing, it is apparent that 'working amid a culture of competence' is also of great importance. The community within Texas is viewed as hard-working, with the ability of 'getting things done and doing them well.' New York is depicted as 'a notoriously overbearing tax authority' with a disputable work ethic, much in contradictory juxtaposition to Alger's representation of the city within 'Ragged Dick'. Meaning, the opportunity to gain social mobility exists in contemporary Texas, but no longer in New York.

Though, despite this difference in location, the understanding one develops of Texans because 'they believe in the whole Horatio Alger myth' is especially significant when compared with the knowledge obtained from reading 'Ragged Dick'. The Texans are described as having an attitude of 'we have to make do with what we have and work together to get things done and survive' which is reminiscent of Dick's treatment of fellow boot shiners, or other street children. Dick helps those he views as less fortunate than himself, despite his lowly circumstances - in return, Dick is helped by those more fortunate than himself. Also, hard work by any means possible is an ideology developed and nurtured within the novel, and represented here by the Texans.

Another instance of accurate recognition to the Alger myth which can be gained from reading this article is the reference to The Irving Chamber of Commerce, and the instant help companies received upon arrival in Texas. They are described as having provided 'orientation sessions for employees and spouses, even helping with new-house searches. Or "little things"' in effect, going the extra mile to help and make companies feel welcome. This echoes the idea of assisting people to the best of your ability, and also reveals how just one person showing kindness can improve the lot of another.

The article then goes on to explain how people enjoy working in Texas, and even with the recent lay-offs they have experienced, many choose to stay within the state because 'It seems everyone in Texas high-tech knows everyone, and if they can help each other, they will.' This example of people not wanting to leave such an enterprising place, despite their possibly low income, resonates with the choice some of the young boys in 'Ragged Dick' make to stay in New York. As though the City itself is responsible for their hopes and dreams, and is where they are most likely to succeed.

Texas' future prospects are very much attributed to their belief in the 'Horatio Alger myth' producing a better work ethic, and therefore a more economically prosperous and stable community. This is in keeping with the ideas presented in 'Ragged Dick' that through hard work and honesty, prosperity can be won; therefore, social mobility is not dependant on your circumstances at birth, rather your ability to integrate and grasp opportunities made available to you.

The Horatio Alger Myth

The Horatio Alger myth comes from ideas set out in the novel Ragged dick. The myth states that young boys can rise from a poor social class into a higher one, succeeding in life and creating forms of great wealth. Horato Alger’s story is very much a rags to riches tale, embodying the key concepts of the American dream.

http://www.chabotcollege.edu/learningconnection/wrac/online/essays/Exampleargumentessaytwo.cfm

This webpage comes from an American collage, showing an essay in which the question “Using evidence from the essays in your textbook, make an argument concerning the potential for Americans to achieve success (“the American Dream”) through education” was asked.

The essay sets forth to evaluate both sides of the argument in relation to the Horatio Alger myth. Is starts by looking at the positive associations towards the myth. The first being that “the Horatio Alger myth is one of the oldest myths in the history of the United States of America” thus providing “The “hope for everyone who isn’t raised in a wealthy environment.” Children who grow up with nothing are still able to believe in the myth in an optimistic sense in which “hope” is a key factor in believing the Alger myth, as to come from nothing it is a comfort to many to believe that dreams can be achieved through hard work.

The riverside to the argument however states that “the poverty level is simply too high for the “Alger Myth” to be anything other than a fairytale.” The levels of which poverty are stated are “14 percent of the American population – that is, one of every seven – live below the government’s official poverty line (calculated in 1996 at $7,992 for an individual and $16,209 for a family of four) (Rereading America 321)." the essay goes on to condradict the Horato Alger myth as for many of those in poverty they continue to work hard and not achieve the American dream. The essay says that they work “just as hard if not harder than anybody in the upper-class and are reduced to living in poor conditions with little to no chance of every escaping the situation they are in.” This being the realty for the majority of Americans living n poverty, not the idealist dreams of Horato Alger.

The essay concludes by drawing on the Declaration of Independence, in which “The United States of America was supposed to be a country where every man and woman was treated equally” this not being the case as there is still a strong class system and wealth certainly has its advantages. The ending sentence sums up that the Horatio Alger myth as it is merely a “false myth that in many ways does more harm to the lower-class than good.” This idea clearly shown in the strong opposition within the essay.

The Horatio Alger Myth

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2004/01winter/algermyth.htm

This article discusses the Horatio Alger Jr. myth and how after the world war 11 it was seen that this could be the case that hard work enabled you to a better lifestyle.

"Many poor and working class Americans did achieve a better way of life, buying a house and sending their children to college."

Therefore, this demonstrates as the myth says by working hard and saving money you can enable yourself to do better things in life. However, this article does go on to say that it wasn't necessarily the myth that helped make hard workers gain as its states it was the force of the people coming together to make a change and get higher wages to pay for these.

Furthermore, the Alger myth also suggests that the poor can become better of whereas this article would say otherwise:

"The gap between the rich and the poor are growing" and "Working people would be better off with universal health insurance, access to college education and a living wage."

So this demonstrates that the Alger myth can't completely be applied in today's society because the poor stay poor no matter how hard they work and the rich get richer even if they are not wokring as hard as poor working class Americans.

Pro Gun Control and Anti Gun Control

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

The NRA is the National Rifle Association.

On the website there is a an option to "search by interest", this ranges from beginner in which it gives you options about different programmes you can part take in and to help you find a local shooting range. Although they state that their training methods "develops safe, ethical, responsible shooters" there is nothing about not using guns or the bad points to having a gun. Which is what you would expect from a Rifle Association because they want people to join so they are going to promote it.

There is also a news feed on the home page which welcomes people to the NRA aswell as a link to "Chicks with Guns", which is a collection of photos with woman with guns which shows that they are appealling to all audiences and trying to get people to join. The fact that the women are dressed up shows this fact that they are trying to appeal to every audience whereas it used to be only men that they would appeal to.

There is an option at the top to join, which has a man with a white cowboy hat on, this has been chosen because cowboys are always seen as heros and carry guns so this is to connote the idea that to join would be a good thing. As soon as you click on it the sub heading on the page says "There's never been a more important time for you to join NRA." This makes people believe they should join and it also gives a list of the things you are entitled to as a member this includes a free hat aswell as insurance for you and your guns. This was interesting as it offered things that are very different, for example I can see why they would offer insurance as they are a rifle association so are trying to promote it.

http://www.csgv.org/

This is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

As soon as you are on the homepage you can see a fact about gun crime which changes everytime you load the page. There is also a mission statement above this "The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy."

There are links across the top which have things such as "Get Involved" and there is a donate link in the top right hand corner, whereas the other page used the colour white on their "join us" page, this website uses the colour red throughout which connotes the idea of blood. So people reading this will see this and this helps to make their statement that guns are wrong.

On most the pages as soon as you click on them you are shown facts about how gun crime is wrong and there is even links to videos down the side explaining some of the facts. As this is an anti gun website it is something you would expect as they are trying to get their point across and a good way to do this is to constantly have facts there as then people will believe it as it is from a reliable source.

The two websites are similar as they both set up their websites so there is the oportunity to join right away as well as links to news and facts about them. But they are different because on the NRA website everyone is smiling as they are trying to sell themselves and want people to see it as a good thing whereas on the other website everyone is looking sad and this is trying to promote that gun crime is bad.

Website comparison: Pro Gun Control versus Anti Gun Control

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/15/gun-control-is-anti-american/

For many Americans and for this website, their stance on the gun control issues are very negative, they believe that “America is defined by its freedoms.” And that Americans have the right “to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Therefore by having such laws around gun control, is against their right as Americans set out in the Declaration of Independence and the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, prohibiting their freedoms to bear and carry arms. The webpage says that “Gun control uses fear to disarm free people” once again reiterating the fact that they are free, this time drawing on people’s fears of not carrying a gun.

The article goes on to blame the government, saying that we can no longer trust our government and drawing on the Declaration of Independence once again. The fact that the government is “for the people, by the people and made up, of the people it represents” so that by having gun control laws the government fails to represent the people who are pro guns.

The article concludes by “saying Gun control uses fear to control people that don’t have the time to learn.” Once again drawing on fear, and the ideas that those who are pro gun control haven’t taken the time to look in to the positives in bearing arms, and seen the benefits. The articles final line is that “It is and always has been about control. That is not American.” it reiterates the idea of American freedom and lack of it in gun control.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

For many Americans however they agree with the ideas of gun control and that it is a positive thing. This website sets forth “a case for gun control” and express’s many reasons why we should have laws controlling the use of arms. Like the first website this one draws on the amendments on the Bill of Rights but instead of saying it holds absolutely power it states that it is “important to note that no right is absolute” therefore applying that to bear and carry arms although stated in the bill of rights, is not always the right thing for America today, and there are limitations to everything.

The Article simply states that “The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person.” This being very true, it goes on to show facts and figures surrounding guns for example “60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms.” Here putting a negative view on guns.

The article not only plays on the fact you could kill someone else but also the ideas that having a gun present is more likely to result in suicide.“Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns”

It seeks to offer a response to ideas of self defence by saying that “research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.” Thus for many times the gun is not used for its purpose and results in the opposite of what it is stated to do, to protect.

The webpage concludes by not proposing to outlaw guns completely, but by offering a “proposal for rational gun control” in which he “would consider a valid compromise” as so many Americans despite information and facts given on guns prefer to Carry and bear arms.

Gun Control

http://libertariananarchy.com/articles/the-case-against-gun-control/

This website describes an outline for the gun-control argument, in which it states why guns will continue to be bought into the possession of American citizens. Therefore, merely suggesting that they are anti-gun control because they believe "gun control cannot work; it cannot achieve its stated goal of curtailing gun production and ownership." Furthermore, this clearly demonstrates that they think by having gun control it will cause more disruption than it will solve and this is apparent by the fact they say "there is one way in which gun control works: in favor of the criminal." They believe it works in favour of the criminal because they think it will allow wider opportunities for criminals to take action as their victims will likely be unarmed, which means they are unable to defend themselves in the way they can if they carry a weapon, whereas the criminal is likely to obtain a gun from the black market.

In addition this website suggests that they are in favour of keeping guns on the market to buy because it reduced gun crime and violence in that it stopped people from creating mass shootings as the law allowed citizens to carry a weapon, which means there is a chance that citizens can simply stop a criminal by using their gun in order to prevent a massacre.

However, in retrospect to this there are people that believe in pro-gun control because they think the situation has got into a global issue that has a negative impact as it allows crime to take place by holding a weapon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/17/arizona-shooting-jared-lee-loughner

This website expands on the point that some people are pro-gun control because they believe some citizens need training in how to take proper care of the weapons and equipment surrounding it as well as how to handle a gun correctly: "Why can't the United States have a grown-up, rational discussion about reasonable gun control measures." This therefore, suggests that citizens want more explanations as to how the government and law enforcements are planning on taking control of this particular issue that put lives in dangerous situations.

Moreover, even though this websites expresses the view that there needs to be some control it also states that they also believe guns are good to have as it can stop killings; "Guns don't kill people: people kill people." This statement represents the fact by allowing people to carry guns around in public gives them the opportunity to kill someone because it enables them to have the free will to do as they please such as shooting someone with a gun and that gun will only work with a person there to control it.

Thus it is for this reason that I believe America need to make the laws that allow citizens to buy guns stricter and the police force and government need to crack down on the criminals that are using guns in ways that create tragic events. However, I do think that at the moment America's crime rate has decreased by the use of handheld guns and this is presented by various statistics, which therefore suggests it may not necessarily be a bad thing as long as they are used in appropriate ways such as on a firing range and for self defence on your property.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

The Brady Campaign is basically aiming to combat gun violence and reduce gun related crimes in America, by doing this they have a number of aims in their campaign which they feel will also win over those against gun control by putting conveying that in many states anyone can get hold of a gun. And it is the individuals who use the weapons as anyone with a gun is liable to cause damage no matter how much practice you have had with the instrument itself anything is possible and statistics are given showing the amount of unintentional wounding and killings each year in America.

They start with the debate on concealed weapons and the fact that it doesn't matter whether a gun is on show or not the individual carrying it could be in any form of mental state at that point and it is their unsound mind that causes the situation itself. They ask for extensive checks to be done for the individuals who wish to purchase the weapon and if theirs is a want to carry it round with them. Also mentioning the huge concern it causes the police in certain states due to the fact they cannot react despite the large amount of people carrying weapons.

The site puts across its point with a very thought out and extensive study into gun violence and the reasons why it should be at least quelled, but the way it is set out with pictures reminiscent of that of a modern cigarette packet couldn't be less needed as it almost takes away that serious element of the piece due to their desperation for emotional response but nonetheless they seem to be fighting the good fight by trying to emphasize the fact there is a reason for those who are for gun control to be angry, with their use of statistics and argument against the nonchalant stance many Americans seem to take towards the fact anyone in this day and age can purchase a gun.

http://libertariananarchy.com/articles/the-case-against-gun-control/

This is a blog article on which commenting has been banned probably due to the fact that it is strongly anti-gun control and it starts by saying that in a society where weapons brandished freely any problems can be solved easily and in a quieter manner. The author then developing the argument into a list of categories in in detail about how guns benefit rather than stifle a peaceful society with the main emphasis being crime allowing a high moral standing to be taken when saying that ordinary citizens who carry guns have more chance of preventing a crime than if we were to rely upon the police.

The article then talks of how it is the victims who need to be armed as they will be scarred for life whereas the criminal will only be disarmed. Also the fact plenty of other options are available that can hurt us just as badly, so what will help those who stand a significant chance of being the victim of a crime, carrying a gun! This then means that because mass killings do not occur as frequently as the smaller scale gun crimes in America it would be better to merely arm citizens so that they are ready to combat a crime when it happens to them.

The two arguments made seem to conflict in so many ways yet they strive for the same objective which essentially is a crime free society, but i feel that in a society full of guns how can their be no crime as there is always the threat that all it takes is that one single action of pulling the trigger to change everything. Yet again there is that doubt in the back of my mind that we as humans will always be violent whether we have weapons or not, and perfection in that area will never be achieved as people will always be bringing up new ways to kill each other and disarming American citizens seems very unlikely.

Pro-Gun Control Vs Anti-Gun Control

http://www.guninformation.org/

The above website is strictly pro-gun control and begins by offering up a selection of 'myths' anti-gun control citizens will often cite, and then methodically debases those myths. It refers to crime rates in other countries, such as Australia and the UK, as having benefitted from the banning of firearms, and heavily tries to persuade people that having a gun does not increase personal protection, pointing out that 'those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide.'

They even go so far as to point out how 'Gun ownership was legalized in Germany in 1928, five years before Hitler rose to power' and note that 'Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime'; highlighting examples of gun ownership offering no protection against tyranny. This being the main reason Americans introduced the amendments in the first place, as a way to set new governing rules unlike those of Britain; their deeply ingrained fear being for America to turn into a tyrannical nation like the one they had escaped.

They hold to the view that 'If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns' and by making guns legal, you are handing criminals easy weapons and effectively asking for trouble. Other parts of the website refer to freedom and rights, and explain how those can be infringed upon by allowing people to bear arms so loosely, and neglecting to control their usage and ownership.

Their argument is a very persuasive one given the nature of their findings, and the constant reassurance with specific dates, facts and figures; along with examples from all over the globe of similar bans, or cases where owning a gun hasn't helped. They even refer to the Swiss law for the army keeping firearms in their homes, which is a direct reference to the idea that the founders of America only meant for the militia to have access to weapons, rather than every individual. According to them, 'When the second amendment is read as a whole, it is clear that it protects the right of the people to bear arms within the context of an organized militia.'

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

This anti-gun control website, however, tries to convince people that 'the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms,' meaning that being a part of the militia was not a prerequisite to owning a gun. Though, they also argue that in this modern age, every American civilian can be considered a part of the militia and therefore they have the right to bear arms.

Unlike the first website, which heavily relies on using statistics and experiences to support its argument against the use of guns, this website tends to use interpretation of the amendments and historical documents as its foundation; relying on emotional tactics to justify itself by talking of 'freedom' at every available opportunity. They view the words from the constitution as mutable, and proceed to offer definitions of terms used in the second amendment, such as 'well-regulated', 'militia' and 'to keep.'

There is a big emphasis on the restriction of individual liberties, explaining that 'The original right of self-defence' is not a modern concoction and how American history shows that the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is ingrained in the constitution. The website is also rife with anti-gun control court cases that have been won using their word play.

This website is a lot less convincing, with parts of their argument appearing contradictory or as though they shouldn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Inclusive of this is how they admit that when the term 'people' is used in the constitution it could be interpreted as meaning people on the whole, rather than people as individuals, and with that in mind revert to extend the militia to include ordinary citizens.

Although there is a lot more information to be found on this website than the pro-gun control site, it appears to be defending its choice for anti-gun control, rather than constructing a good argument for the legalisation of fire arms, making it inferior and much less appealing.

"The Massacre of United States Troops by the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians, Near

Fort Philip Kearney, Dakotah Territory, December 22nd 1866."

When viewing this particular piece you can see the blatant emphasis upon the apparent savagery and malevolence of the Cheyenne and the Sioux. The artist's aim being that when the public view this image their opinion of these "savages" will shift immediately to hate. Thus meaning any doubts that society had about stealing Native American land will now be washed away due to the fact that apparently, like the image is trying to convey these people are uncultured and do not wish greet the morals bestowed upon them by the settles with violence. Therefore any wrong doing by American's in the past in now alleviated allowing a now positive perspective to be put upon their soldiers whose job is to protect the honest citizens from tribes like the two shown in the picture.

Pictures like this and their biased nature are prime examples of propaganda used in the nineteenth century when the Native American genocide was thriving in order to remind the people who they were dealing with despite the fact that the massacre was essentialy the other way round. Though due to America's desperation to thrive in prosperity they tended to feel the tribes dotted about the land were standing in the way of commerce and industry. The fact that they were there first did not enter into it and it was drawing like this that conveyed to them that if these people were violent and ungodly they had no right to be there.

Looking at the picture itself the Natives are given the dominant stance in order to show what i have talked of previously and the fact that the soldiers are begging for their lives is being used for the purpose of emotional response again for the same purpose. The fact that this is probably a rare victory for the Native Americans or that the whites weaponry was much more advanced (and not even shown properly in the picture) will not be thought upon. The viewer would be too busy fearing for his/her own life looking upon the vicious image in front of their eyes, the slaughter of men begging for their lives who despite being scalped and brutalized still fight on for their right to be American. The faces of the natives are used for this purpose also their wild sadistic glares striking the American people with fear and anger despite the fact the picture's problem is that the artist wasn't there.

Images like these were used to justify what went on whilst trying to achieve the American dream and they were there to justify the slaughter of the Native peoples who were there first. The images differ greatly from the early sketches a couple of hundred years before that were used to entice people into coming to America which shows how greedy society had become due their want to push out the land's original inhabitants for their own purposes of wealth.

Native American Reservation photo

This Photo was taken in 1892 at San Carlos Agency, Ariz. (National Archives) and shows the distribution of food, at the reservation dole office.

This particular photo comes after the collapse of the Apaches, their conformity to being herded in to these reservations was by military force but the “absence of any acceptable alternative for the Indians, given the loss of their land and traditional means of livelihood, provided the most powerful incentive.” The photo shows a queue of Native Americans lining up to collect their dole of food or clothing the government’s way to keep the Native Americans content. The fact they are queuing is a very European idea, it shows their conformity to the reservations and the way in which they have been civilized. The dole for many Natives was seen as being “the ultimate humiliation for the Indians, once a proud people.” The photo shows the settlers influence on their clothing as it is more western in style, as the Natives are forced to abandon their traditional dress in favour of this, due to there being no alternative.

At the start of the 19th century, as the United States further developed the white settlers saw that the Indian nations were standing in the way of their progress. They were eager to acquire the land from the native Indians and harvest it for their own gain. These selfish demands by the settlers caused the federal government to put restrictions on natives by taking their land and in return offering them un-wanted areas which they called reservations as shown above in the photo. The government thought that if they created these reservations they could avoid further conflict between Native Americans and the White Setters, by confining them to one area they could be watched and appeased by proving for them. As the White settlers increased, Native American land became increasing desired by the white settlers, whilst the Native Americans were seen as an impediment on the growing America. This caused reservations to be made smaller. The land that they had been given was the pieces unwanted by white settlers, as a result the native Americans found it hard to make a living from the land.

For many the solution of the Native Indian problem lay not only in the constriction of their land but, by transforming the Native Indian, “into a God-fearing tiller of the soil enjoying the blessings of Christianity, education, individual instead of tribal ownership of land, and national citizenship” They were able to use the reservation system as a way to do this. As the Native’s further began to rely on the government; like in the photo for food and clothing, it comes as no surprise that they should try to change them in to the people that they wanted them to be. They created a more western Native American by teaching the farming techniques, and instilling Christian values upon them. For many they found themselves “overwhelmed by the civilizing process” as it was a stark contrast to what they had been used to. The whites however had managed to retain their land and deal with many problems surrounding the Native American.

Hudson River Valley, 1867

This painting was creating by George Inness using oils on canvas and it was created in 1867. This image shows the landscape of the Hudson River valley at the time of the nineteenth century and it is clear to see that its very open land that no one has started to claim and take over. Although, it would appear that there is a herd of cows and so it is likely that people will eventually move there and use the cows for either food, materials or they could use them for milk.

Furthermore, if you look closely into the background it would appear as if there is some kind of building that may suggest that there are native Americans living in that area, although there is only the one construction and so this may imply that there are few Americans there or they are only just settling in that particular area. Moreover, another explanation for this could be European settlers that are moving west to explore different areas of the land and that want to create towns in different regions.

In addition I think this painting gives a positive view of America in the nineteenth century because it is represented as a peaceful and tranquil place, but that doesn't go to say the rest of the country was like this. This image also gives a positive view of America because the colours used are very light and it almost looks as if the sun is shining over this area to show it is a good place to

move to and create a good lifestyle that will suit the European settlers or even the Native Americans.

However, if the same place was painted today then I think it would look completely different because as the century went on more people were going to America and more pleople started moving west as towns and cities were created as well as things such as electricity.

Battle of Wounded Knee

This a photograph of the scene of Big Foots Camp after the Battle of Wounded Knee, I decided to use this image as it is quite horrific and shows how much the Americans wanted everything to move west so the country would be the same.

 The fact that everything has been destroyed shows how little the Americans cared for the Native Americans, and by looking at this image they seem to have forgotten that the Native Americans were here first and now they are taking over their land. But I think that goes back to the ideology that the first time people arrived in America and met the them they immediately thought they would make good slaves. So its almost as though everyone else now believes that the Native Americans don't have the same rights as them.

This is photograph of a mass grave for the Native Americans after the battle. I thought this image would be good to use as it is as though people had no respect for the Native Americans as there is one grave for everyone, instead of honouring everyone that had died. This re-enforces the fact that the Americans wanted everything to be theirs even if that did mean killing a lot of people.

Also the fact that they have been put in the grave in a pile shows that they is no respect for them as they have just been thrown in there, not even placed side by side. This reminded me alot of the image of the buffalo heads in a pile as it showed that no one really cared about them.

Although they are all stood around the grave, this could show that even though they have done what they believe is right for their country they still showing some respect for the dead even though very few are looking at the grave.

'Progress' by Asher Brown Durand

This painting by Durand, a historically acclaimed American landscape painter and the engraver of 'The Declaration of Independence' in 1823, is very aptly named 'Progress' or 'The Advance of Civilisation'. Durand was a founder of The Hudson River School and many of his paintings became iconic for their unique connection between nature and man; as such, various meanings can be inferred from his work, and even the titles he gave his paintings. This particular painting from 1853 depicts the vanishing wilderness of the Native Americans, and the growing economic development brought by the Europeans, in what has become known as 'the landscape of investment'.

Durand helped define American sensibility about the land, in an effort to set it apart from old traditions in their European homelands. Within this painting there is a marked connection between the forest and the natives; their placement is in a small portion on the left hand side of the picture, in significant darkness, lurking and watching the interactions of the Europeans with interest. This, along with the conspicuous title of the painting, could be observed as the bias Americans held towards the natives and their way of life; seeing them as savage and resistant to change they believed would benefit society. By placing the natives in such a small part of the whole, Durand could be accused of brushing them aside; rendering them as inconsequential, in the same way by which they were martialled off their own land for the sake of development.

The most elaborate part of this painting is the dazzling city which appears on the distant horizon, bathed in sunlight and hovering below an expansive sky. The differences in lighting between the wilderness and everything European related is reminiscent of the painting, 'American Progress' by John Gast; envisioning the good and progressive path as that of the enlightened, or as being sanctioned by God.

Many saw this as a bold move from Durand in the obvious endorsement he gives to the manifest destiny belief, that the states should be expanded towards the Pacific. Normally accredited for his realistic approach to landscapes and nature, preferring to portray the truth rather than seeing it as an expression of God's glorification, Durand has entirely imagined his topography. Not only with the glittering City, but the Catskills and Hudson River are pictured as being abundant with villages, farms, steamboats and a railroad. The foreground with the Native Americans shows a rubble road leading out of the picture, as though expecting their disappearance at any moment - this echoes the idea of Americans desiring the eradication of the Natives.

This painting could definitely be regarded as a celebration of change and indeed by naming it 'Progress' Durand is showing a certainty in the advancement of Europeans across American soil. The ideas within this painting are especially potent given Durand's high standing within the community that existed, and his honest nature.