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.

Tea Party

http://www.teaparty.org/


This website outlines what the Tea Party is and what it stands for. It explains how thousands have joined and keep referring to themselves as "patriots", this to me says that although they are unhappy with the way things are they still are very pro America. It is interesting to read the rules that are involved and are "non negotiable". The majority of the rules are about what the government can do. One of the rules states that the "government must be downsized." This is interesting as surely if the government is downsized then the people left would have to work harder causing more strain on them which could potentially effect the country.


On the main page there is different stories a lot of them to do with Barack Obama and how he is viewed and how they think he is going to do in the 2012 election. What I've noticed about this website as it always focuses on the negatives instead on what they could do to improve or how they could work around it. Which is interested as usually people put Americans into the stereotype that they are very patriotic so the fact that they looking at there government in a bad way is quite shocking to see. Although by trying to better America it could be seem as them being very patriotic as they are trying to make their country the best.


On the about us page it says, "We serve as a beacon to the masses that have lost their way", showing that they are giving hope to people who do not necessarily believe in what the American government is enforcing. It also shows how they are unhappy with the way their country is being run and that they would be better suited. Although they don't really give any reasons as to how they could do it better, they only list things that need to change.


On the website it also states; "Remember Our Heroes, For Freedom Isn't Free", throughout this paragraph they talk about freedom and how they are "keeping alive the voice of freedom". This is showing that they would like a change in their government and this is their way of voicing their opinions.

http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

From the off the 'Tea Partiers' use quotes from famous American historical figures so any die hard patriots will immediately be immersed in what they have to say afterwards,you can tell the site is one that wants to grab the attention of any American in order to convey it's point to the masses. The website itself is one that describes the ideologies of the Tea Party Movement itself and their want for society to rebuild itself due to the current eonomic situation.

The site then gives you several links to follow allowing you to find out about the party, what it is etc. And then it tells you who the 'Tea Partiers' are and again putting in a few quotes every paragraph said by people like Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln in order to keep people interested. The way this particular site conveys its beliefs is as if society has missed all the obvious key points in the economic downfall, talking as if no one notices what goes on in America and they are the ones with their bold historical quotes who are sent to fix this mess and not a soul wishes to listen to them.

The next section entitled "Tea Party Ideas" puts across their want of change the fact that contemporary American society again has no idea how to combat the current debt and therefore needs them. Their beliefs seem more than reasonable to quote them they wish to: "Reduce taxes, reduce debt, reduce spending." After actually looking through these "ideas" i can gather the generalizations made are just as bold as the heading and again they use various quotes used by historical figures in order to forward them.

The final section "voice of the Tea Party Movement" tells the reader that party is not politically registered yet the politicians it backs are destined to win, key example Being Randall "Rand" Paul who garnered sixty percent of the vote after being backed by the Tea Party. Again they talk of Ameria's serious need of attention talking of the problems yet no solution is provided, which is where they have gone wrong for me essentially as they seem to want more people to join due to their biased views rather than give them a solution.

The Tea Party

I used http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/tea-party-movement as a start for looking at the Tea Party, the site gives a clear over few of The Tea Party and constantly updates with articles regarding up and coming news within The Tea Party. From here I was able to find out who are the Tea Party and what what they aim to achieve. The term Tea Party deriving from, the Boston Tea Party which occurred in 1773 this being a protest by colonists objecting against the British tax on tea. The movement today by conservatives in America has similar motives in which they oppose taxation much like the original tea party they also endorse reduced government spending and the reduction of national debt, this being just a few of the areas which sparked the Tea Party movement. The site links us to the ‘Five parties to watch’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/04/five-tea-parties-to-watch here saying “The Tea Party is a political party that isn't – it has no leader, no national committee, no website. Instead there are many groups who vie to lead and speak for the movement” As the movement has no official party it allows for many different groups to form within the Tea Party title.

Within the Tea Party there are many groups, the founders of the modern tea party being the FreedomWorks, they are a “key ideological powerhouse of the movement” and use the powers of social networking very affectively to gain followers. The Tea Party Patriots like the FreedomWorks use the internet as a platform for unity many smaller groups that arise across America with the same ideals. Their focus, like FreedomWorks is very much “economic rather than social conservatism”. The most well known and influential of the groups is the Tea Party Express. The organisation “has rapidly grown from its base in Sacramento, California, into one of the richest and most influential parts of the movement.” They are able to spread the Tea Party ideas by the use of a “luxury bus” which tours America promoting the Tea Party. Other smaller organisations such as Tea Party Nation; an early attempt at trying to give the “movement a national structure”, and The 9/12 project the latest of the groups which ideas arose in order to “capture the spirit of patriotism and purpose that had defined America on the day after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/04/tea-party-five-to-watch Despite not having a leader it does however have many key figures, such as Dick Army; a very influential ex republican politician. Glenn Beck ” the anti-patriot Obama”, Sarah Palin; a much publicised figure within the party, Beck and Palin having close links as they aim to “Restore honour”. Sal Russo a key player in getting right wing candidates nominated this political consultant is behind the idea of the Tea Party Express, the “largest money-spinning group”. Finally David Koch has used his wealth to back conservatives, in founding his own campaign “Americans for Prosperity”. What unites these key players are the common dislike like for Obama and his ideas. Their aim is to spread Tea Party’s anti-government message, and with the looming re-election no expense will be spared to end Obama’s reign.

The American Tea Party

http://www.teapartyofamerica.org

Firstly some might ask what is a 'Tea Party' and well this website allows you to explore into its meaning, in that tea parties were set up to help the people of America get their views and opinions across if they are not happy or satisified with the way the politicians are running the country. Furthermore, by joining a 'Tea Party' it also allows a large volume of people to come together and protest for what they think is right or in this case what they think is wrong with the way the president and other political candidates are trying to solve particular issue or get their points across.

In addition this website has various links you can click on including one thats titled "A message from the President" and on this webpage it displays different questions that people may ask about the way the country is going such as; "Are you sick of not being heard by your leadership?" and "Do you feel as though your very freedom is slowly slipping away?" therefore these questions touch upon some of America's key values and so it is no wonder that several 'Tea Parties' are being organized when the people of America are questioning some of the founding key factors that make America different from other countries around the world. It is also these reasons that American's are very passionate about bringing change to their country that will have a positive effect because it is evident that they are disappointed and want to get back on their feet: "We are active America. We are real and we are going to change the landscape. We are bringing honesty, integrity and morality back to American politics."

The Tea Party of America also have a link that reveals their mission statement: "Restore America to its once revered and respected state.Support and defend the Constitution of The United States of America and its laws.Bring respect and honor back to our Government through the election process.Always remember and respect that “Freedom isn’t Free.”Respect and honor the Patriots.Maintain an organization for all Patriots and not the agenda of any one individual or special interest group." and directly under this there is a quote from Thomas Jefferson that just about sums up what the people of America are feeling and this is why they have the mission statement they do.

Therefore, it is clear to see that the citizens of America are very annoyed and angry with the way the country is being run and so to go about creating a positive change they have recognised that they need to come together as one in order to have the type of government they want and not the government they have.

The Tea Party Express Website

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/

The above website belongs to a faction of the Tea Party movement named The Tea Party Express. Through their website they publicise national tours they have taken throughout America to encourage the Tea Party movement, and proudly proclaim themselves 'the most aggressive and influential Tea Party group in the political arena.' They also actively participate in propelling conservative candidates into election seats; deeming themselves the deciding factor in the majority of elections.

One of the most interesting things to note about this website, and indeed the Tea Party movement itself, is that they desire to hold the controlling vote; confidently (in some cases arrogantly) considering themselves extremely influential, especially with regards to presidential elections. Although, they are split into many different factions and divisions of individuals, who appear to have their own specific purposes for backing the movement; they are united in a main cause they describe as 'simple', but they are divided in their approach.

The general wordage used in their captions is very patriotic and invokes historical expressions, such as 'shining city on a hill' and 'American prosperity', as incentives to back their cause - this method would particularly appeal to many Americans who still believe in the American dream as their 'natural' right. The overall attitude seems to be concerned with removing government control and reducing spending in all avenues of American life; viewing the government as being 'out of control.'

Their approach could be perceived as being rather hypocritical, with one of their main principles being to 'reduce intrusiveness' of the government, when they themselves intrude on both political parties by selectively choosing candidates to back. Their website even contains photographs and names of political persons they specify as 'targets'.

Their tour is detailed within the website, named 'Reclaiming America', where they offer up a large scale map with precise timings for their debates across the nation. Another link reveals a blog which appears centred around the theme of counteracting racist claims; based upon their infamous anti-Obama strategies and suggestions the Liberal party has made towards their ethics.

An important link on the website contains a video of Herman Cain, speaking to the media on the last stop of their recent Tea Party tour. It reveals that, although the Tea Party asserts adversion to being fully submersed in American politics, by denying the creation of a third party in a notoriously two party nation; they are in fact considering endorsing a Tea Party member for the 2012 presidential election. This could be construed as a move to control the system for themselves, despite their overall party ethos.