The idea of the American Dream is that anyone has the opportunity to make themselves successful in life. These ideas are embodied in Ragged Dick as he is a poor street boy who with determination and hard work managed to turn himself into a clerk.
A contemporary example of this is The Pursuit of Happiness (2006) - which in relation to 'ragged dick' he is homeless and in order to be successful he works as an intern at a brokerage, he works very hard and eventually gets employed and becomes rich (rags to riches). And so it relates to the idea that if you work hard and are determined you can achieve the American dream.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcZTtlGweQ
Wednesday, 27 November 2013
Contemporary statement of the American Dream
The American Dream is the idea that anyone can achieve the best opportunities, through the notion of hard work. Ragged Dick as a text deals with this notion with the portrayal of a young boy who goes from working and living on the streets to achieving his dream of owning his own space and having a good job. Dick has much luck along the way, which helps him to gain his happy outcome eventually, which can be seen as a challenge to the American Dream, indicating that it is perhaps it is lucky circumstances and being in the right place at the right time which is the key to achieving the American Dream. Nevertheless Ragged Dick is a useful text which suggests that the American Dream can really be achieved by even those it seems hopeless and likely for.
One contemporary example of the American Dream is the film Legally Blonde (2001) which stars Reece Witherspoon.
Legally Blonde is about a girl whose boyfriend breaks up with her, so to get him back she works really hard to get into Harvard Law School. This film shows the American Dream, as Elle, the lead character gets into one of the most prestigious schools in the country and becomes an outstanding lawyer, despite being unlikely to. She achieves this through hard work and determination, proving that anyone can really achieve anything if they put their mind to it. This relates to the ideas portrayed in Ragged Dick, as both lead characters are advocates of the unlikely success story, proving that the American Dream is accessible to all who wish to seek it, all you need is the believe in yourself and from others to earn it.
One contemporary example of the American Dream is the film Legally Blonde (2001) which stars Reece Witherspoon.
Dick & De Crevecoeur VS Society
Horatio Alger's 'Ragged Dick' explores 'rags to riches' theory throughout the novel, a young homeless orphan who eventually flourishes to a respectable clerk by working hard to achieve an education and takes every opportunity that is available to him, which is (fictional) proof of De Crevecoeur's theory of 'handwork'. De Crevecoeur states "idleness is the most heinous sin that can be committed". He also suggests that hard-work and determination is the only way to get anywhere in the United States of America.
The idea present in Ragged Dick, is the notion that education is the way forward. However, a modern social issue that challenges this idea, is that after leaving education it is harder for one to gain a job. A film that challenges Ragged Dick, especially in today's society, is 'The Internship' (2013).
There is a scene within 'The Internship' in which the characters talk about the 'fantasy' that is the American Dream. Young, tech-savvy geniuses are fighting for the same job, because they feel as though, it is hard to get a job, even after being educated. There is also the idea that people who aren't educated, can try and work there way up, although being extremely difficult in todays world.
Realistically, the idea that in order for someone to succeed they have to be educated, yes is still present, for those who are not may have difficulty, but on the other hand, even if you are educated, the American Dream, isn't so readily available.
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Gun Control
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/17/why-im-against-gun-control/
This article is not wholly against gun control however it does explain that gun control will not work and does not make people safer. Peter Tucci suggests that restrictions on gun control such as background checks would not work as there are many owned guns in the country (270 million) in which criminals can get there hands on with no background check, through family and friends or theft. Also the fact that there are so many firearms in the US makes it hard to ban guns as not only will that violate the 2nd Amendment but it will be hard for the government to eliminate every gun. He also states that gun control will affect law abiding citizens and will remove the protection they feel by having a gun.
http://www.demandaction.org/issues
This is an activist website who want tough action on gun control, they have three plans of action, make background checks needed for all gun purchases, ban military weapons and high capacity magazines, make gun trafficking a federal crime.
1. it is necessary for background checks as 40% of guns sold are online or at gun shows with no background checks - as of 2012 that is 6.6 m guns.
2. military guns can be purchased by people even with criminal record or mental illness by an unlicensed private seller (no background checks) which is a problem as between Jan 2009 - Sept 2013 14% of mass shootings were with military style assault weapons.
3. there is no clear effective statute against gun trafficking however thousands of guns are purchased out of state and in cities like New York 90% of gun violence are from weapons from outside the city. No one is keeping track on the export of theses weapons.
I agree with demand action and that there should be more enforcement from federal law to keep records and tracks of guns, even if guns can never be banned entirely there should be definite restrictions on who can sell and buy guns and where the guns go.
This article is not wholly against gun control however it does explain that gun control will not work and does not make people safer. Peter Tucci suggests that restrictions on gun control such as background checks would not work as there are many owned guns in the country (270 million) in which criminals can get there hands on with no background check, through family and friends or theft. Also the fact that there are so many firearms in the US makes it hard to ban guns as not only will that violate the 2nd Amendment but it will be hard for the government to eliminate every gun. He also states that gun control will affect law abiding citizens and will remove the protection they feel by having a gun.
http://www.demandaction.org/issues
This is an activist website who want tough action on gun control, they have three plans of action, make background checks needed for all gun purchases, ban military weapons and high capacity magazines, make gun trafficking a federal crime.
1. it is necessary for background checks as 40% of guns sold are online or at gun shows with no background checks - as of 2012 that is 6.6 m guns.
2. military guns can be purchased by people even with criminal record or mental illness by an unlicensed private seller (no background checks) which is a problem as between Jan 2009 - Sept 2013 14% of mass shootings were with military style assault weapons.
3. there is no clear effective statute against gun trafficking however thousands of guns are purchased out of state and in cities like New York 90% of gun violence are from weapons from outside the city. No one is keeping track on the export of theses weapons.
I agree with demand action and that there should be more enforcement from federal law to keep records and tracks of guns, even if guns can never be banned entirely there should be definite restrictions on who can sell and buy guns and where the guns go.
Safe and secure…???
ANTI-GUN CONTROL
http://www.armedandsecure.org
Armed and Secure is a website, TV commercial and radio ad that is Anti-gun control, it believes that the right to own firearms, is the only way to protect oneself. An example of that is posted by 'Armed and Secure is a video that can be found on youtube. http://youtu.be/4-CU0PmzET4
"
http://www.demandaction.org/">http://www.demandaction.org
Whereas, Demandaplan.org explores the millions that want to take action against gun violence and put a stop to any gun related tragedies that occur just because people are allowed by the second amendment, to own a gun. Here is a highly popular commercial, made by demand action, featuring celebrities and their view on gun culture. http://youtu.be/1SqDocHFJ8k
Armed and Secure is a website, TV commercial and radio ad that is Anti-gun control, it believes that the right to own firearms, is the only way to protect oneself. An example of that is posted by 'Armed and Secure is a video that can be found on youtube. http://youtu.be/4-CU0PmzET4
"
http://www.demandaction.org/">http://www.demandaction.org
Whereas, Demandaplan.org explores the millions that want to take action against gun violence and put a stop to any gun related tragedies that occur just because people are allowed by the second amendment, to own a gun. Here is a highly popular commercial, made by demand action, featuring celebrities and their view on gun culture. http://youtu.be/1SqDocHFJ8k
gun control
http://www.comeandtakeit.com/index.html
The first of the websites I have chosen to discuss is "come and take it", which in itself sounds confrontational and stubborn already. The website is keen to point out what is said in the constitution and how to go against the constitution would be un-American. another of it's focuses is to tell the people that it is particularly important for an American to defend themselves. Rather than highlighting the role guns have in making an American feel safe, it's instead more worried about making you more conscious and afraid and that to be an American without a gun means you're not safe, almost to say to not trust your fellow countrymen. Their aim is to make the people who view the website to be scared and feel afraid if they do not have a gun on the person, which is a desperate attempt to make people believe that guns are a positive thing.
The website generally seems to be hugely right wing and massively patriotic. It sells American flags and states that all the "goods" sold are 100% American material and used American workers to make them. It states that they do not advocate the use of slave labour from the "communist countries". This to me is a ploy of heightening the person, who views the website, level of patriotism as a way of converting them onto their side to make them a pro gun campaigner.
http://www.gun-control-facts.com/Anti-Gun.php
I think that the US has not wanted guns to be part of their way of life for some time. This website states that even in the 1930's heavy taxations and strict regulation laws were put in place to make gun control more manageable. This ploy of making the availability of guns recede is a sign that the US doesn't actually want guns. They are merely stuck with an amendment, which some see as a bible, that means that they have to put up right wing citizens which leaves a country with regulations that it doesn't really want.
However, this website does not want a ban on all guns; it would rather have the screw tightened as far as the regulation and distribution of guns is concerned. The reason it gives for this is so guns are kept out of the hands of "shady dealers" and "dangerous individuals". Other reasons it gives is that the statistics of children and women murdered are quite shocking. I believe that this is a ploy that makes the viewer of the website feel sympathy and gain an understanding that the most innocent are getting killed by irresponsible, mental (couldn't think of a more PC word) individuals.
The first of the websites I have chosen to discuss is "come and take it", which in itself sounds confrontational and stubborn already. The website is keen to point out what is said in the constitution and how to go against the constitution would be un-American. another of it's focuses is to tell the people that it is particularly important for an American to defend themselves. Rather than highlighting the role guns have in making an American feel safe, it's instead more worried about making you more conscious and afraid and that to be an American without a gun means you're not safe, almost to say to not trust your fellow countrymen. Their aim is to make the people who view the website to be scared and feel afraid if they do not have a gun on the person, which is a desperate attempt to make people believe that guns are a positive thing.
The website generally seems to be hugely right wing and massively patriotic. It sells American flags and states that all the "goods" sold are 100% American material and used American workers to make them. It states that they do not advocate the use of slave labour from the "communist countries". This to me is a ploy of heightening the person, who views the website, level of patriotism as a way of converting them onto their side to make them a pro gun campaigner.
http://www.gun-control-facts.com/Anti-Gun.php
I think that the US has not wanted guns to be part of their way of life for some time. This website states that even in the 1930's heavy taxations and strict regulation laws were put in place to make gun control more manageable. This ploy of making the availability of guns recede is a sign that the US doesn't actually want guns. They are merely stuck with an amendment, which some see as a bible, that means that they have to put up right wing citizens which leaves a country with regulations that it doesn't really want.
However, this website does not want a ban on all guns; it would rather have the screw tightened as far as the regulation and distribution of guns is concerned. The reason it gives for this is so guns are kept out of the hands of "shady dealers" and "dangerous individuals". Other reasons it gives is that the statistics of children and women murdered are quite shocking. I believe that this is a ploy that makes the viewer of the website feel sympathy and gain an understanding that the most innocent are getting killed by irresponsible, mental (couldn't think of a more PC word) individuals.
Should Americans be allowed guns?
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the right to bear arms, an amendment which has caused much debate. Owning a gun is seen as a given right, in the land of the free, with gun ownership being traced back to the times of settlers. However, many argue that although guns can be viewed as quintessentially American, they have no place in society today, and view them as unnecessary and dangerous, which has been highlighted in cases such as the Sandy Hook school shooting.
For Gun Control: http://www.policymic.com/articles/72067/gun-control-debate-the-argument-that-every-gun-owner-needs-to-start-making
This website allows people to post their perspectives on topical arguments, giving balance and incite into issues. This particular article interested me as it pointed out why it would be a good idea to allow for gun control, highlighting all the benefits that would be gained from this. The writer discusses the notion that more guns means more crime, and therefore the best way to solve this is to have no guns at all, but also realises that this means that crime will still continue in other means. Having no guns just means that people who really want to commit a crime will find another way to do so. The writer also identifies that Obama, who said that it is an 'obligation' to try and save one child if we could, is making a promise that really cannot be fulfilled. While the writer is saying that gun control is a good thing, I believe what they are really saying is that it is down to the people who own and use guns to be responsible for their actions.
Against Gun Control: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/movies/assaulted-civil-rights-under-fire-is-a-paean-to-the-second-amendment.html?ref=guncontrol
The New York Times is one of the most iconic newspapers within the United States. This article is written about a documentary about defending gun control called ‘Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire’, directed by Kris Koenig. It details how the documentary talks about how gun ownership is the only way to defend those who are vulnerable, such as women and the disabled. They even go as far as to liken gun control laws to that of Hitler and Stalin. This shows that some Americans feel very passionate and strongly about defending their rights of gun ownership, as they feel it is their personal responsibility and their right to protect themselves and their families. After all as Thomas Jefferson said (Proposed Virginia Constitution 1776) "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms".
For Gun Control: http://www.policymic.com/articles/72067/gun-control-debate-the-argument-that-every-gun-owner-needs-to-start-making
This website allows people to post their perspectives on topical arguments, giving balance and incite into issues. This particular article interested me as it pointed out why it would be a good idea to allow for gun control, highlighting all the benefits that would be gained from this. The writer discusses the notion that more guns means more crime, and therefore the best way to solve this is to have no guns at all, but also realises that this means that crime will still continue in other means. Having no guns just means that people who really want to commit a crime will find another way to do so. The writer also identifies that Obama, who said that it is an 'obligation' to try and save one child if we could, is making a promise that really cannot be fulfilled. While the writer is saying that gun control is a good thing, I believe what they are really saying is that it is down to the people who own and use guns to be responsible for their actions.
Against Gun Control: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/movies/assaulted-civil-rights-under-fire-is-a-paean-to-the-second-amendment.html?ref=guncontrol
The New York Times is one of the most iconic newspapers within the United States. This article is written about a documentary about defending gun control called ‘Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire’, directed by Kris Koenig. It details how the documentary talks about how gun ownership is the only way to defend those who are vulnerable, such as women and the disabled. They even go as far as to liken gun control laws to that of Hitler and Stalin. This shows that some Americans feel very passionate and strongly about defending their rights of gun ownership, as they feel it is their personal responsibility and their right to protect themselves and their families. After all as Thomas Jefferson said (Proposed Virginia Constitution 1776) "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)