Sunday, March 30, 2008

American West


American West
The western United States includes 13 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada ,New Mexico, Oregon, Wyoming Washington and Utah.
The American West, its context and its connections, continues to be a challenging and exciting theme in American Studies in twenty-first century .
There are two approaches toward American west: some historians and observers like Frederick Jackson Turner emphasized on abundance of free land and prosperity which led to a rapidly developing nation. Others have alterative propositions about the west and are not that much positive. Revisiting the west involves a journey into historiography of the frontier and the west.
From American frontier to American West
Turner’s thesis is based on the idea of existence of an area of what he called "Free Land". This land provided material foundation which enabled millions of people to build United States into wealthy and democratic nation visible at the end of 19 century.
Such frontier trait became American trait and frontier experience was transmitted both geographically across space and historically through time. Though he faced much criticism but he was persistence in his efforts and he made a Turnerian school of history.
Another reaction toward the west emerged in 1930s when serious economical difficulties produced criticism based on scarcity and misuse of resources. The critics believed too much had been attributed to west.
The New West became a colonial area exploited by outside capitalist this west was distinctive for its disappointment and failure. Too many people of color suffered from white invasion. The west was no longer considered to be democratic but distinctly inegaliterian.

The Land and its Ownership
Traditionally Native Americans were considered to use resources inefficiently, and farming irregularly with primitive tools. Newcomers though that they had the right to take the land and use it more productively for the benefit of themselves. They deemed native people to be incompetent.
Leading Americans agreed that the ex-colonist, now states, should form a national entity and they successfully negotiated that the 7 of the original 13 states claiming lands beyond the Appalachian Mountains should yield the title to the federal government.
President Jefferson, intellectual father of expansionism, bought Louisiana from French thereby securing the navigation rights to the Mississippi River and preventing western rebellion.
The purchase of Alaska in 1867 and occupation of Hawaii in 1898 expanded the territories of the United States. Academics discussed that whether this process should be called "Manifest Destiny" or continental imperialism.
The way that western lands were governed was established by Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which was a three-stage political process, enabling settlers to move from subordinate territories to full statehood.
There were major inequities in land disposal policies

Developing Western Resources
Improvement in transport technology and agricultural machinery accelerated production.
Land usage in west was rapid and productive.
Trade and earning were the mechanisms that drove most of the farmers into commercial production and encouraged rapid agricultural development of United States.
Western residents also misused other resources namely forests, fish, animals and minerals.
This process of changing western land into an agrarian empire has been perceived as either as a success or as a danger and disaster for both human and environment.
Native Americans used these resources but either because they respected the lives of others ad the nature or limited access to the weapons, their impact on nature was negligible.
Mining of precious metals such as gold and silver mobilized thousands newcomers.

Peoples and Communities of the American West
American west is a cosmopolitan region with diverse communities and cultures.
Native Americans were the lawful inhabitants of the west whose rights have been exploited by invaders.
New trading patterns and contact with Europeans resulted in ethnic diversity, armed instability and increasing dependency of native people on trade goods.
For many Americans removing natives from western lands became a national agenda and in 1830s it became an official removal policy.
Of other antecedent resident, mestizo, Métis and mulattos are little known. They were mixed native groups, who lived in Northern Province of an independent nation. Most of them were mostly farm workers.
African Americans added a further ethno-racial component. The relatively modest number of African Americans in the west suggests that racism was prevalent in the west.
East Asian immigrants, mostly Chinese were another ethnic group who had no opportunity to integrate into western life.
Another group of residents were whites who were generally labeled as Anglo-Americans, but there was a significant economic, social and cultural difference among them.
The American West comprises the history, myth, legends, stories and beliefs and cultural meanings that collected around the.
Historians approach toward the west and the knowledge about it was based on either myth or reality. For them myth consisted of emotional hazy ideas or beliefs while the history or the real past was a rational enactment of facts. Western United States in 19 century.
So it was essential it "deconstruct" narratives earlier, which were considered to be factual to uncover assumptions within which they were created and to reveal the more complicated truth about their costume written or pictorial information was brought by explorers and travelers which provided a range of stories that encouraged immigration to these places.
The portrayals of the west continued to twentieth century, both popular and intellectually respectable. Holly Wood Westerns contributed most in creating a romantic vision of the west.
Though the attraction declined during the Vietnam war, but it came back with introduction of documentaries. Literature again played an important role, with writers such as Zane Grey and Max Brand.
One's perception about the west is not free from emphasize selectivity and cultural filtering and depends on his or her own state of mind.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

The Role of Israeli Lobby in US presidential Elections



The Role of Israeli Lobby in U.S. Presidential Election

"Bill, I think you're going to be President someday. I think you'll do a good job, but there's one thing above all you must remember: God will never forgive you if you don't stand by Israel."
Paster W.O.Vaught to Bill Clinton (Clinton, 2004:353)

Never in the time that I led the American negotiations on the Middle East peace process did we take a step because 'the lobby' wanted us to. Nor did we shy away from one because 'the lobby' opposed it. That is not to say that AIPAC and others have no influence. They do. But they don't distort U.S. policy or undermine American interests. (Denis B. Ross former U.S. ambassador and peace negotiator under Bill Clinton.)
While most of the countries of the world - at least apparently -are demanding Israel to change and revise its policies toward Palestine and withdrew from occupied territories, United States still supports Israel strongly. For decades US government has provided Israel with military, financial and diplomatic supports; and both major parties of United States, Republicans and Democrats, unquestionably support Israel. America supports Israel despite the great expanses that this backing imposes on America and Americans.
This excessive support is backed and forced by the exercise of influence of Israeli lobby in America. Israeli and Jewish lobby are very influential in Americans foreign policy and this influence becomes clearer when it is compared to other ethnic minorities in U.S. such as Arab Lobbies or Armenians. Perhaps three important factors can explain the reason of this unconditional support: Israel's strategic value, Jewish economic influence and power in various arenas including US presidential election, and the emergence of Evangelical and Christian Zionism.
Many books and articles are written about the influence of Jewish and Israeli lobbyist in the process of American decision making. While some observers believe that Jews play a very important role in American policy, others maintain that this influence is exaggerated. This is the case in the issue of U.S. presidential election: some observers argue that the U.S. presidents have to give special interest after their election due to the financial helps they receive from Jewish contributors in their presidential campaigns; also Jews have a high rate of turnout in presidential election compared to non-Jew Americans. Others believe that the amount of Jew's financial contribution is not that much significant, on the other hand Jews make only 3 percent of American population.
The question is that is Jew's financial contribution in form of campaign donation, and high rate of turn out the only reason for the U.S. president's support for Israel or as it was mentioned there are other reasons responsible for this unconditional support.
The theory used in this paper is political theory of Pluralism; based on this theory the political power in the society is not limited to the governments, the electorate or a small group of elite, but it is distributed among a wide number of groups including interested groups- here Israeli lobby which plays an important role in American foreign policy as the most influential minority group in the U.S. This concept versus the idea that the power is mostly concentrated in the governments.
The method of this research is content analysis: the research tries to clarify the point and illustrate this relationship with providing some data and statistics about the amount of Jew's financial contribution to the process of presidential election, as well as some extracts of Clinton and Bush speeches which is addressed to support this influential ethnic group. The method of data collection is use of books and primary documents (speeches) and the internet.

U.S Presidential Candidates and Support for Israel
In U.S. presidential campaigns all the candidates, no matter whether they are Republican or Democrats, have one commonality and a subject that they all agree, at least publicly, and that is U.S. relation and support of Israel. Though there is a controversy about extend of the support in major parties (Republicans and Democrats); some believe that Democrats are more intense in their support of Israel, others argue that Evangelical Christians who vote heavily for Republicans are stronger in their support for Israel. Nevertheless American Jews vote more to democratic candidates, and it is said that only 25% of Jews voted for George Bush in 2004. This table shows the relationship between party affiliation and religious identification:
As the table suggest the Jews tend to be more democrats than republican.
Nevertheless the republicans, and in this case George Bush defends Israel and its policies. in his speech addressed to American Jewish committee in may 2001 he said that his top foreign policy priority is the safety and security of Israel, and that his administration would support Israel against terrorism and violence steadfastly:
"By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America. Our nation is stronger and safer because we have a true and dependable ally in Israel" (Bush’s Address to the AIPAC Policy Conference, May 8, 2004)
George W. Bush made his first trip to Israel before deciding to run for Presidential campaigns.
Bill Clinton nominated two Supreme Court Justices, both Jewish. In his first term, he had two Jewish Cabinet members and dozens of Jews held other key Administration posts. Clinton's reply after Israeli Ambassador Shoval presented his credentials. In September 10, 1998 he said that America and Israel share special bond and that American and Israeli relation are unique: "Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, as a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted." (September 10, 1998).
After his presidency, Clinton at a Jewish fund-raiser in Toronto said that: If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die." It is while Clinton had avoided serving in Vietnam. In 1995 when all 14 members of U.N. Security Council called on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Jerusalem, Clinton vetoed it.
What is the reason for this unconditional support? It is said that presidential candidates must support Israel to increase their chance of presidency. By supporting Israel they will have the support of the Jewish minority in presidential election both in voting and campaign donation and the media which plays a very important role in public opinion. The candidates promise material and diplomatic support and none of them criticize Israel policies. First of all it is better to have some information about the American Jewish population and demography.




American Jewish population and demography
About 2.5% up to 3% of Americans are Jews, which is near to 5 to 6 million people of the American population. The American Jews do not have the same religious affiliation and they are not homogenous: their population consists of Orthodoxies, Conservatives and Reformists. So as it is clear all Jews are not considered to be extremist. But a poll in 2005 showed that 82% of American Jews supported Israel and 63% said that they support it "strongly". These strong supporters tend to support division of Jerusalem and building a security fence, and naturally the same people would support a president with high commitment to Israeli affairs.
Jewish population in America has high turnout rate in presidential election compared to non- Jew Americans and other ethnic minorities; at the same time most of the Jewish voters, near 89 percent, are inhabited in key states like: California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While it is argued that the low percentage of Jews cannot be that much influential in the result of the election, but the electoral college system is in such a way that even few number of voters can have significant influence on the final result, esp. in this case where the Jewish population is concentrated in important states as it was mentioned.
Another important point is the Evangelical Christians with much greater population compared to Jews and they play an important role in the outcome of the election, this would be described later in the paper.

Jew's Campaign Donations
It is said that Jewish individuals are nearly 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, though this number is not exact and some believe that the number for the rich Jewish Americans is more or less than this rate. Considering the Jewish population (2% to 3% of whole population), 25% is significant. It is believed that this wealthy Jews play a very important role generally in U.S. policy toward Israel and specifically in U.S. presidential election: The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) declared that pro-Israeli groups and individuals have donated more than $ 845,000 to presidential candidates in 2008. In 2004 presidential campaign pro- Israeli interests contributed at least $ 6.1 million to federal candidates and parties. Washington post had concluded that about $ 56.8 million have been contributed by pro-Israel individual and groups since 1990.
But here a question will arise: $ 845,000 or $ 6.1 or even $ 56.8 million in 15 or 16 years is not that significant at all if we compare it with the total campaign expanse which is dozens of millions of dollars and the candidates have to raise enormous amount of money to finance their campaigns. These tables illustrate the amount of money contributed by PACs and individuals in both republican and democrat parties: (the tables are taken from Jewish virtual library which should be taken into consideration, the title is pro-Israel contribution).



Analysis
One the most important problem that the researcher of this paper faced was lack of authentic evidence and information; the tables and statistics had significant discrepancy when they were compared. The reason for this discrepancy and contradictions is that these sorts of information are dependent on the writer's affiliation and tendencies and making distinction between the fake and genuine statistics and information is difficult.
As it was mentioned nearly 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans are Jews, and this rate is significant if it is compared the Jew's total population in America. It can be said that wealthy Jews are very influential in American economy and many important cooperation and companies are dominated by them. The Jews are also very influential in American media including CNN, CBS, ABC, Newsweek and Time magazine due to their wealth and power. In one of the most recent polls reported by Gallup in Feb. 2007, 58% of Americans sympathies with Israeli and 20% with Palestinians, which shows the great influence of what is propagated by media. This influence is seen in other important arenas such as academia and think thanks which shape the public opinion. So, it can be argued that American people are growing up in an atmosphere that is highly sympathetic toward Israeli and Jews; and their perception about the Jews is manipulated and biased, and any critic is silenced or charged as anti-Semitist. Jimmy Carter has written about this reluctance to criticize Israel policy:
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. ...


A Biblical Israel
Another important point is the emergence of the power of Evangelical Christianity or Christian Zionism in America. Evangelists feel an ideological attachment to the Jews and esp. Israel. A recent Poll found 59% of U.S. evangelicals believe Israel is fulfillment of Bible's prophecy; The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates 85 million evangelicals believe God tells them to support Israel -- more than six times the world's Jewish population (God's Warriors, Christiane Amanpour), this great population can be crucial for the outcome of the election. They also raise money to support Jewish settlements in Israel. Evangelist Americans are becoming more powerful in recent years and many of them are active members in The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Many important political figures in America including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, and Barack Obama… had attained and address in their conferences.

Conclusion
It is a common belief that the wealthy Jews are playing a very important and influential role in U.S. policy but this financial helps are not unilateral: "total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $ 140 billion in 2003 dollars." (Greenbook website). Or "Israel receives about $3 billion Dollars annually and is one the largest recipient of American aids since World War II." (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006). So the relationship between Israel and America is a symbiotic one in which the two parties gain some advantages, though there are lots of debates about who benefits more.
Many observers maintain that the Jews are playing an important role in the executive branch due to their financial contribution to presidential campaigns and their high rate of turn out in elections.
But can we argue that the only reason for American President's support for Israel is Jews financial contribution? As it was illustrated by tables and statistics the amount of money which is donated by pro-Israeli groups are not significant when it is compared with the total sum; on the other hand the sum of money contributed by these groups are not very authentic or exact, so it makes it very difficult to draw a conclusion based on the released data and statistics.
As it was mentioned 25% of the Forbes 400 lists of richest Americans are Jews, which is significant compared to Jew's 3% population. These wealthy Jews can be very influential in important companies and co operations, in mass media and academic centers. What Bill Clinton said about fighting and dying for Israel was said after his two- term presidency, or what his paster told him as a young man was long before that. Clinton, Bush and other American politicians were grown up in the society which was and is under the influence of Jews hegemony: this is the media that teaches and influences ordinary Americans, and this academia that educates the elites. And no voice can be heard when there is any critic about the Israel policy, so it is very natural that ordinary Americans or even the more educated or the elites feel more sympathy with the Israel than the Arab Palestinians. Perhaps it can be said that the Evangelical Christian or Christian Zionists are the result of these sort of teaching and educating; "There are a lot more Christian Zionists in America than Jewish Zionists," the former Democratic vice presidential candidate said. "The support of Christian Zionists today is critical to Israel's security and strength and to America's security and strength." (God's Warriors, Christiane Amanpour).
As the researcher of this paper I personally believe that the only reason for Americans support for Israel can not be just the financial power of the Jews; there is a high moral commitment and ideological attachment in American political leaders toward Israel. But it can be argued that indirectly again this is the money who talks: this is the money that can dominate the media, education and the academia and will educate the future leaders of Americas the way it wants.


Bibliography
Clinton, Bill. (2004). My Life. United Kingdom: Hutchinson.
Hertzberg, Arthur. (2003). The Fate of Zionism. New York: Harper Collins publisher.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/71B0C3D9-B04C-4717-88D8-33FBE1F1533A.htm
Amanpour, Christiane. (2007) God's Warriors, Retrieved Feb, 10, 2008. from,
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors
Carroll, Josef. (2004) Partisanship and Presidential Approval among Jewish Population, Retrieved Feb, 6, 2008. from,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11806/Partisanship-Presidential-Approval-Among-Jewish-Population.aspx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,743503,00.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/israelpacs.html
Bard, Michell. (2007) The Israeli and Arab Lobby, Retrieved Feb, 2, 2008. from,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html

Shenkin, Ira. (2007) Trends in American Jewish Demography, Retrieved
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/ajcsurvey.html#Pres
Galen, Richard. (2002) Bill Clinton says he would "fight and die" for Israel, Retrieved Feb, 5, 2008. from,
http://www.mullings.com/clinton-recruit.htm
La Guardia, Anthon.( 2001) Israeli, Palestinian, and the Struggle for a Promised Land. St. Martin's Press.
Marshier, John., and Walt Stephen. M. (2006). The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Harvard University.
Mitchell G. Bard. U.S.-Israel Relations: Looking To the Year 2000. DC: AIPAC, 1991; the various news services, presidential papers.
American Jewish Committee, Near East Report U.S. Census Bureau (2000)

Monday, March 24, 2008

Malcolm X


"When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that he will not do to acquire that freedom. Whenever you hear a man saying he wants freedom, but in the next breath he is going to tell you what he won't do to get it, or what he doesn't believe in doing in order to get it, he doesn't believe in freedom. A man who believes in freedom will do anything under the sun to acquire . . . or preserve his freedom." Malcolm X

Malcolm X was born in 1925 in Omaha
, to Earl Little and Louise Helen. His father was an outspoken Babtist speaker, as well as a member of theUniversal Negro Improvement Assosation. Three of Earl Little's brothers died violently at the hands of white men, and one of his uncles had been lynched.
According to The Autobiography of Malcolm X
, his mother had been threatened by Ku Klux Klansmen while she was pregnant with him in December 1924. His mother recalled the Klansmen warned the family to leave Omaha, because Earl Little's activities with UNIA were "stirring up trouble". In 1931, Malcolm's father was found dead, having been run over by a streetcar in Lansing. Authorities ruled his death a suicide . Malcolm said that the black community disputed the cause of death. His family had frequently found themselves the target of harassment by the Black Legion , a White supermacist group his father accused of burning down their home in 1929, and many blacks felt that the Black Legion had killed Earl Little.
Malcolm Little graduated from junior high school
at the top of his class but dropped out soon after a teacher told him that his aspirations of being a lawyer were "no realistic goal for a nigger ". After enduring a series of foster homes, Malcolm was sent to a detention center. Then he moved to Bostonand held a variety of jobs. After some time in Harlem , he became involved in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery and steering prostitutes. When Malcolm was examined for the draft , military physicians classified him to be "mentally disqualified for military service." He explained in his autobiography that he put on a display to avoid the draft by telling the examining officer that he could not wait to "kill some crackers ." His approach worked. His classification ensured he would not be drafted. In early 1946, Malcolm returned to Boston. On January , he was arrested for burglary trying to steal a stolen watch he had left for repairs at a jewelry shop. Two days later, Malcolm was indicted for carrying firearms. On January 16 , he was charged with Grand Lanceny and Breaking and Entering. Malcolm was sentenced to eight to ten years in Massachusetts State Prison. In early 1946, Malcolm returned to Boston. On January 12 , he was arrested for burglary trying to steal a stolen watch he had left for repairs at a jewelry shop. Two days later, Malcolm was indicted for carrying firearms. On January 16 he was charged with Grand Larceny and Breaking and Entering . Malcolm was sentenced to eight to ten years in Massachusetts State Prison. While in prison, Malcolm earned the nickname of "Satan" for his vitriolic hatred towards the Bible, God and religion in general. Malcolm began reading books from the prison library. Soon he developed a voracious appetite for reading, much of it after the prison lights had been turned off, leading to astigmatism . His brother Reginald wrote letters describing his experience with the Nation of Islam , and Malcolm decided to convert.
For the remainder of his incarceration, Malcolm maintained regular contact with Elijah Muhammad
, the group's leader. On August 7, 1952, Malcolm received parole and was released from prison. After his release from prison, Malcolm went to meet Elijah Muhammad in Chicago . Soon after their meeting, he changed his surname to "X". Malcolm explained the name by saying, "The 'X' is meant to symbolize the rejection of "slave names"and the absence of an inherited African name to take its place. The 'X' is also the brand that many slaves received on their upper arm." This was the rationale that led many members of the Nation of Islam to change their surnames to X. In March 1953, the FBI opened a file on Malcolm X, after hearing that he had described himself as a Communist . Included in the file were two letters wherein Malcolm used the alias "Malachi Shabazz ". In Message to the Blackman in America , Elijah Muhammad explained the name Shabazz as belonging to descendants of an "Asian Black nation". In 1954, Malcolm was selected to lead the Nation of Islam's Temple Number Seven on Lenox Avenue in Harlem . He rapidly expanded its membership. After a local television broadcast in New York City about the Nation of Islam, Malcolm became known to a wider audience. Representatives of the print media, radio, and television frequently asked Malcolm for comments on issues. He was also sought as a spokesman by reporters from other countries.
From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he left the organization in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. He referred to whites as "devils" who had been created in a misguided breeding program by a black scientist
, and predicted the inevitable (and imminent) return of blacks to their natural place at the top of the social order. Malcolm has been widely considered the second most influential leader of the movement, after Elijah Muhammad. He opened additional temples, including one in Philadelphia .
In early 1963, Malcolm started collaborating with Alex Haley
on The Autobiography of Malcolm X . The book had not been finalized at the time of Malcolm's assassination in 1965. Haley completed it and published it later that year. Malcolm criticized the 1963 March on Washington , which he called "the farce on Washington". He said he didn't know why black people were excited over a demonstration "run by whites in front of a statue of a president who has been dead for a hundred years and who didn't like us when he was alive." When asked for a comment about the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm said that it was a case of "the chickens coming home to roost." He added that "Chickens coming home to roost never made me sad. It only made me glad." This remark prompted a widespread public outcry. The Nation of Islam publicly censured their former shining star. Although Malcolm retained his post and rank as minister, Elijah Muhammad banned him from public speaking for 90 days.
Tensions increased between Malcolm and the Nation of Islam. It was alleged that orders were given by leaders of the Nation of Islam to "destroy" Malcolm; in The Autobiography of Malcolm X, he says that as early as 1963, a member of the Seventh Temple confessed to him having received orders from the Nation of Islam to kill him.
On February 21, 1965
in Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom , Malcolm had just begun delivering a speech when a disturbance broke out in the crowd of 400. A man yelled, "Get your hand outta my pocket! Don't be messin' with my pockets!" As Malcolm and his bodyguards moved to quiet the disturbance, a man rushed forward and shot Malcolm in the chest with a sawed-0ff shotgun . Two other men charged the stage and fired handguns at Malcolm, who was shot 16 times. Angry onlookers in the crowd caught and beat the assassins as they attempted to flee the ballroom. Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival hospital .
Malcolm's body was made available for public viewing in Harlem's Unity Funeral Home from February 23
through February 26, 1965, and the number of mourners who filed past his body has been estimated between 14,000 and 30,000. Malcolm's funeral was held on February 27, 1965, at the Faith Temple Church of God in Christ, also in Harlem.






Wednesday, January 16, 2008

American Studies in Iran


American Studies in Iran
American Studies in Iran is full of contradictions and paradoxes. So my impression from America as an Iranian inevitably contains all these paradoxes. My first impression and image from America is not Walt Disney, Mickey Mouse or other sweet and delightful images that would be the answer if you ask other children around the world. The first thing that I remember as a five year old child in 1988 was IR655, a civilian airliner shot down by U.S. missile, and the films and pictures of dead bodies of the victims floating in the water, and my eyes wide open half with fear half with curiosity at the scenes and the TV channel was changed soon because the pictures were too frightful for a baby to watch! I knew that this was done by an American navy in the Gulf and latter when I was fully grown I found that the men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons for what was considered a heroic action: 66 children and a pregnant woman were among the 290 passengers. Thirteen years later two airplanes were crashed into the world trade center, near 3000 were killed, again civilians, the whole world lamented for the lost lives and sympathized with the Americans, two wars were followed in Afghanistan and Iraq, thousands were killed and most of them were civilians.
The first impression was not romantic and delightful but the first impression is not always the last one; I became familiar with American literature, with Gone with the Wind as a teenager (though the beauty of the book was shattered and was gone later when I understood the racial tone behind the beautiful story, but I still love it) and with T.S. Eliot's Waste Land which I never understood fully as a teenager but I loved it anyhow.
When I wanted to decide about my MA in American Studies I was very tentative about the decision, some told me that this major is fully political, on the other hand English literature( I got by BA in English literature) did not satisfy me and I was looking for some thing new. American Studies is an interdisciplinary field of study which contains the study of economics, history, literature, art, media, film and woman studies and combines the methodologies of the literary criticism and historical research; the nature of the major like other interdisciplinary fields is colorful and any one can find a subject of his or her interest. As American studies was developed outside of America other aspects were also added and made connection with cultural studies and post colonial studies.
American Studies outside of America I think has its own limitations and even its own advantages. Iranians can not look to America like Americans, this is the case with Japanese, Chinese or the Arabs.

Friday, January 11, 2008

TheUnited States Presidential Election, 2004



The United States Presidential Election, 2004

The United States presidential election in 2004 was held between two presidential candidates John Kerry and George Walker Bush. George Bush gain both popular and electoral vote, though Bush's popular vote had a slim margin compared to that Kerry's. The election was also different from the election of 2000 in which George Bush became the president of the United States with gaining the vote of electoral collage but failed in gaining the popular vote. So what had happened to public opinion that made them to vote for Bush, the same candidate who had failed to gain the popular vote in previous presidential election? Had Bush proved to be a better President during his first term of presidency? Or was it due to his 2003 invasion of Iraq and the importance of foreign policy that led to his victory? Or by comparing the slim difference between the popular votes of the two candidates can we say that the war on terrorism was not that much important or influential in Bush's election?
Before answering to these questions we should know why do people vote they way they do? Some believe that people vote based on party affiliation e.g. they vote to democrats or republicans because they feel a psychological attachment toward one of these parties. Others believe that party affiliation model is out of fashion in recent years and Americans are becoming more sophisticated. By the emergence of new issues, new generation of Americans decide about their future president based on the important issues of the time. Statistics shows that in 1992 presidential election only about 29 per cent of the voters strongly identified with Republicans or Democrats, which is rather a significant decrease compared to 1960s. So, most voters in recent years are said to be independent.
This paper will focus on issue voting theory: that people decide about their future president based on the important issues of the time, though the writer admits issue theory, while being important is not completely responsible in election of a president.
American public usually prefer to focus on domestic issues rather than foreign policy. But in 2004 presidential election foreign policy was the dominant theme in presidential campaigns. The reason for that was U.S. invasion on Iraq which had started in 2003 and had changed Bush to a wartime president; but there were still some controversies around the issue: Bush, the republican candidate and the president of war focused his campaign on national security and presented him as a decisive leader for war against terrorism while Kerry the democrat candidate believed in "stronger at home, respected in world" policy which suggested more attention to domestic affaires. Another important factor was that the election was held only one year after the invasion on Iraq and considering the swift victory of American military forces and relatively few causalities of American troops, Bush had gained more approval rating (which did not last long with failure in finding weapons of mass destruction which was the logic for the war, and long occupation of Iraq which led to mass protests in future years). Bush's approval rate in the month of May rode at 66% to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. Another interesting point is that when American troops are sent out for a war, the commander-in- chief gains more approval and fame inside the country; though this trend is not long lasting and by the time people are becoming aware of heavy casualties or are becoming dissatisfied due to tax increase, the protests are going to start; this was the case in Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. But with respect to the 2004 presidential election, as it was mentioned Americans were still in high sprit with their apparent victory in Iraq and Bush was gaining more fame and popularity for his heroic actions. So, perhaps it can be said that Americans were looking for a president who would continue these heroic actions and glorious victories for a while.

But it is oversimplification to say that the only reason for George Bush's victory in presidential election of 2004 was his foreign policy attitudes. This becomes more problematic when popular votes of the two candidates are compared: Bush gained 62,040,610 popular vote and his rival Kerry gained 59,028,111. As it is clear the difference between the two candidates is not that much significant and so other factors should be taken in to consideration for a more comprehensive conclusion.

References:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/elec2004
if (window.runOnloadHook) runOnloadHook();
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
Controversies in American Politics& society. Mckey, Houghton&Wroe. Blackwell, 2002.

Social Stratification in America


Social Stratification in America
Social stratification in American Society is not clearly defined or determined; nevertheless social scientist has developed a socio -economic stratification of the American society. Americans believe in a three class society: rich, poor and middle class and most Americans consider themselves as middle class. In reality the American society is more diverse and incongruent and there is an extensive difference among people. The basic determinants that make social class are wealth, education, income and occupation. Some sociologists have divided the American society in six distinct categories including: rich or the upper class, upper middle class, lower middle class, lower class and poor and under class.
It is believed that the people who belong to the same social class share the similar social positions, similar ways of thinking and life styles; others oppose this idea and believe that we cannot generalize characteristic of the people to one another. Social class creates a hierarchy and identity for the people of each class.
One of the indications of the social class in America is income in terms of either individual or household and is one of the most important indicators of social class. Those families who have two income earners are in a better position. Per capita income which means the amount of money allocated to each individual member is also anther important determinant in social stratification. It can be said the families who have fewer members are in a better position.
Another indication in social stratification is education which has a relation with the occupation and income. Higher education itself needs money and paying tuition, so it is clear that most of the time the families who are better off can afford a better education for their children: they can pay for better schools and private schools, colleges and universities. As the result there is an interrelation between money and education.
One of the most prominent features of social class is culture: people of the same social class tend to have similar ways of behavior; though this behavior and culture is not some thing fix and changes with social mobility: people who move upward or downward in their social stratification will acquire the behavior of that social group. But there is diversity inside the same social group as well. One of the important terms in American culture and literature is the concept of "Class Ascendancy": based on this concept each successive generation will have a higher standard of living than its predecessors. Another important characteristic of American social class is achieved status rather than described statues; it means that regardless of his or her original statues, one can become rich and successful and climb the social ladder. But in reality this idealistic view can not be completely true: many people of color are still suffering the racial prejudices and as a result they can not have the proper education and a good occupation which is perhaps the most important class component. These people have lower income and the cycle will continue to the later generations. Despite the existing injustice and inequalities, America is considered land of opportunity, the land which its streets are paved with gold. Thought this belief is exaggerated, Americans have improved their economic situation with their hard working and persistence.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

The White House



"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this House, and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof". John Adams, the first American president inhabited in the White house
The White House was built between 1792 and 1800 based on Pierre Charles L'Enfant's plan for a federal city; the plan was chosen in a competition among nine other proposals. It is said that George Washington was not pleased with the primary plan and found it was too small and simple and not suitable for the nation's president, so the White House was enlarged by thirty percent. James Hoban, an Irish architecture, influenced by a palace in Dublin in designed the White House. The construction began in October 13, 1792 by black slaves as well as free workers most of them were Irish and Italian immigrants. The initial construction took eight years and the White House was ready to use in 1800 and was occupied by John Adams. The building was referred to as the "President's Palace" or "Presidential Mansion", but around 1811 it was called the white House by public because the building was painted in white. In 1814 during the war between American and British the White house was burned by British Troops; only the exterior walls remained and they needed reconstruction. British troops also looted the precious objects of the White House which were never returned or recovered except for a painting of George Washington and a jewelry box which was given back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939. By the time of the Civil War, the white House was fully established and over crowded. Later it was enlarged and extended which included a National Wing on the east and a west wing which itself included the Oval Office.
In 1948 the house was in a bad condition due to poor maintenance and construction and it was declared that there is an imminent danger of collapse. So the reconstruction and modification was carried out by the command of President Truman which led to adding more new places for workrooms, storage and a bomb shelter. Later Jacqueline Kennedy directed a very extensive redecoration of the house and collected new artifacts for the home including antiques and paintings; other luxuries of the house were added by wealthy donors. Different periods of the republic and world history were selected as theme for each room such as Green Room, Blue Room, yellow oval Room, Treaty Room…. .Since President Kennedy, every presidential family had changed the house according to their taste. But every change has to be approved by the Committee for the preservation of the White House in order to keep the unity and integrity of the house.