Extreme Wealth Inequality

The article I found that outlined the extreme wealth inequality evident in the US had embedded this YouTube video that effectively demonstrates the differences between what Americans think is the case with the wealth distribution, what their ideal would be and what it actually is.

The video concludes with these echoing lines:

"We certainly don't have to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair for hard-working Americans. We don't even have to achieve what most of us consider might be ideal. All we need to do is wake up and realise that the reality in this country is not at all what we think it is."

Looking through the comments of the video, on YouTube, it became quite evident to me that Americans, even after seeing the evidence right in front of them, are still adamant that becoming a 'millionaire' only requires knowledge, persistence and hard work. Despite the fact this video has told them otherwise. One comment that stuck out was from 'strangetamer' with only sixty-two likes, out of the sixteen million people that viewed the video.

"Your super hard work ethic doesn't scare the hyper-rich, in fact, they love you for it!...The harder you work the more you get screwed. Its the perfect system...they'll buy politicians who will be paid to tell you to that the American dream is just around the corner and you just have to work a little harder and get the right qualifications for a good job. They want you to succeed in the work force so they can steal your money in the form of dividends and profits."

This comment, understandably, sparked a whole new debate amongst the comment-ers. It's supposedly quite easy to earn money if you work hard enough for it and not just work hard.

"You know who that one percent is? Millionaires. There is nothing wrong with that. I want to be a millionaire one day, and I don't think 75% of my income should go to the fucking government. And btw, literally anyone with a good work ethic, and some creativity and intelligence can become a millionaire."

This comment-er seems to believe that it is ridiculously easy to become a millionaire in the United States, and he or she evidently embodies the type of person the video is aimed at - the completely disillusioned.

The article ends on this single note:

"Maybe we really do need a socialist revolution."

And maybe they do.

Sources: http://bigthink.com/praxis/why-do-americans-tolerate-extreme-wealth-inequality & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Urban Poverty

The above picture is taken from a collection of photographs of a Mrs Ella Watson, taken by renowned photographer Gordon Parks (1912-2006) who wanted to document the African-American experience in Washington D.C. This photograph was taken at dinner time, as the collection followed both her public and private lives to draw attention to the multiple roles in her life, and depicts a busy room full of children. We can see Mrs E. Watson feeding one child on her lap, with two more sitting at a small, cramped table and feeding themselves. In the mirror there is a reflection of another, older, child who is watching on. as if supervising.

Mrs E. Watson would go to work at 5:30 p.m. and clean offices, halls and toilets before returning home at 2:30 a.m. From the photograph we can see how cramped life was for them. Despite having a stable job, Mrs E. Watson was still forced to live with her family, which included five children in total, which she supported on a salary of $1,080 a year in a cramped apartment.

Above we can see a similar image. An African-American family with a small living space and a lot of children. This image depicts a life so similar to Mrs E. Watson's and her family's that it is almost impossible to believe that they're over seventy years apart.

Sources: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.05814/ & http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/

The Right to Bear Arms: Gun Control

Pro-gun control - http://momsdemandaction.org/

I found this website when searching the simple term 'anti-guns in America' however this website of 'moms' is not exactly anti-guns, they just want to raise awareness and have some form of 'gun sense' policies introduced to avoid senseless and avoidable shootings that leave families heartbroken. Their aim is to 'mobilize moms and families to advocate for stronger gun laws', something that, from Caitlin King's story, is very needed.

"It's time for all of us to come together and demand lasting changes that will keep our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren safe." 

Caitlin King, San Francisco, California

Caitlin King is one of the 'Faces of Courage' listed on the website, and she wrote an article explaining her reasons for fighting for better gun control. As a teacher, she experienced guns a lot with students falling into gangs and, when teaching in New York, every few months or so they'd receive a notice from their principle to alert them to the fact that a student had been shot, sometimes fatally. She comments that, more often than not, students handled this better than teachers, something I found quite interesting. Surely other students, that would have seen this person in the halls and gone to lessons with them, would be able to relate to the person more and would therefore be more shocked than a teacher that maybe taught them once or twice a week? Caitlin answers my queries in the same sentence, it was "because they were used to it". 

The pure idea of someone not being shocked by the fact that someone had been shot, and possibly killed, near to their school or maybe in their neighbourhood is completely foreign to me, mainly because I haven't been brought up in a society that so readily allows guns. The fact that students became "used to" hearing about people, their friends, being shot is evidence enough that momsdemandaction.org need to persevere in their mission.

#GroceriesNotGuns is one of their main campaigns as the grocery store 'Kroger' has policies that allow customers to openly carry guns in its stores, "where moms and their kids shop every day". We've all heard about senseless shootings in public places, well a few have taken place at 'Kroger' brand stores in recent years, a fault in their policies allows things like this to happen. 

"Private businesses like Kroger have the responsibility to protect their customers when the law won't."

This is evidence of their main fight, the fact that the law will not protect people that are caught in these shootings. By allowing open carry and such freedom of guns, there are more and more innocent citizens put at risk, even the ones that carry guns responsibly themselves. There are a few people that cannot control their guns and they should not be allowed to carry them but with weak laws in most states it means that a majority of people, as long as they are the right age, are allowed to buy and carry guns without a background check or training. There's a sense of recklessness of legislation portrayed by the momsdemandaction website when they speak of the flimsy laws that allow shootings to happen daily, and the government do not even try and prevent it. 

Anti-gun control - http://home.nra.org/

Whereas momsdemandaction want stronger laws, the National Rifle Association describe themselves as America's "longest-standing civil rights organization", as they defend their second amendment rights. 

"When you sign up to defend your Second Amendment freedoms..."

On their membership page, it is written that you will receive a multitude of 'member-only' discount at many nationwide brands and this seems to almost be used as a bribe to support the freedom of guns. Despite the website aiming to support the liberty that comes with owning and bearing arms they seem to feel the need to create an exclusivity to their association to entice more people to join – with discounts and the feeling of fighting for and 'supporting' their civil rights.

The NRA believes that their second amendment rights should not be taken away or restricted as they were in the original promise of liberty that the country was founded upon. On the other hand, momsdemandaction believe that stricter laws need to be introduced to prevent senseless crimes whereas the NRA believe that citizens need to be protected for the sake of their liberty and right to bear arms. 

Same-Sex Marriage in the US

When asked to find a video that effectively expressed an aspect of American Liberty I did not really know what to choose, however when I stumbled across this video of two women getting married, I decided that the topic of same-sex marriage would be interesting to look further into. The video shows two women, who had originally been thinking of going to other states where same-sex marriage was legalized to get married, who 'couldn't pass up the opportunity to get married in [their] own state'.

Rev. Nancy Petty from North Carolina views same-sex marriage as positive as it presents America as being an 'accepting, tolerant, diverse community', which is exactly what America should be with its complete diversity.

Thirty-two of the fifty states now allow same-sex marriages to take place, which is a large step considering it was only just over ten years ago that same-sex couples weren't allowed to get married. The first state to allow this kind of union was Massachusetts on May 17 2004, almost ten and a half years ago. The fact that now a majority of states allow this form of marriage just shows how American citizens are exercising the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and using it to their advantage to strive towards equality in their country.

'It's confirming that our relationship has the same worth and dignity as any loving couple.' Kate Burns statement seems to epitomise the idea of equality as in her opinion all love should be considered the same.

Brian Silva, Executive Director, Marriage Equality USA, speaks of how while there are still states that do not allow this union, there are people that are being denied social security, access to state benefits and all the protections that come with marriage which directly affects their liberty. There should be no reason for people who want to get married to be stopped and denied access to the freedoms and protection that they, as American citizens, should be entitled to despite the sex of the person they want to marry.

Same-sex marriage is a controversial topic in America, with Miss California stating in 2009 that, in response to her opinion of gay marriage, 'in [her] country and in [her] family [she] think[s] that [she] believe[s] that a marriage should be between a man and a woman'. This answer was received with great controversy, when she was exercising her freedom of speech that she as an American is entitled to, as a majority of American citizens are fighting towards equality and as it was banned in California at that time, she was completely within her rights to voice her own opinion. Could freedom of speech therefore only be valid when you are agreeing with a majority of the 'free' voices?

Contemporary Icons: Chuck D.

Carlton Douglas Ridenhour, better known as Chuck D., is an American icon, famous rapper, author and producer.

Yet, I have never heard of the fifty-four year old American man. This made me question how on earth he could be considered an icon, even an American one, because the stereotypical American contemporary ‘icons’, the likes of Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey and Will Smith are world-renowned, and yet Chuck D. was just a name I had heard once or twice – I would not exactly recognise him when I walked down the street. I would have put this down to my own naivety of celebrities and icons that do not directly affect me, but when I asked around literally no one had heard of this man. My family, my flatmates, my friends and even a student that lives in America had not heard of him.

I found this quite odd. How could no one have heard of a supposed American ‘icon’ to such an extreme scale? I realise that most of the people I asked were British, but if I had asked them the same about the icons listed earlier, a high percentage would know who I was talking about.

Public Enemy’s ground-breaking body of work established Chuck D. as one of the most intelligent, articulate spokesmen for the black community.

From <http://www.mtv.com/artists/chuck-d/biography/>

Chuck D. is actually an incredibly smart and intellectual man which is especially shown through his declination of the offer of an architecture scholarship so that he could pursue his own dreams and study graphic design. This small sign shows that he, in fact, is quite unlike the stereotypical rappers of today that rap about girls and partying just so that they can live the very lifestyle they rap about. His main influence lies in the genre of hip-hop after his involvement with Public Enemy and he is apparently known for his ‘distinct’ rapping voice above anything else. However, upon listening to some of his music, I found nothing out of the ordinary, though again that could just be the fault of my personal opinion as I do not ordinarily listen to much rap music.

During the mid-1980’s he helped to create politically and socially conscious rap music, a great alternative to the modern day rapping concerning partying, drinking and taking drugs. His music had actual meaning and he used his position of power to help to influence American society in a positive manner, which is portrayed through his countless television interviews as the way he speaks just oozes passion on the subject.

As the founder of Public Enemy, Chuck D. is one of the most colossal figures in the history of hip-hop, not to mention its most respected intellectual. He redefined hip-hop as music with a message, and his strident radicalism ushered in an era when rap was closely scrutinized for its content; although rap's primary concerns have changed over the years, its status as America's most controversial art form has only gotten stronger since Public Enemy hit the scene.

From <http://www.mtv.com/artists/chuck-d/biography/>

As mentioned in the article above, Chuck D. is considered to have “redefined hip-hop as music with a message” which links to my earlier point on his attempts to use his position of power to influence society positively. His songs contain social and political messages that help create a politically and socially conscious society. He is not like the other rappers of today in that he wants that ‘rich’ and ‘famous’ lifestyle, he genuinely wanted, and still wants to, make a positive difference in American society which, I feel, is the best way to define someone that should be considered an American contemporary icon.

Chuck D.’s legacy is secure enough to keep him a respected voice on the American cultural landscape.

            From <http://www.mtv.com/artists/chuck-d/biography/>

Twelve Years a Slave

Twelve Years a Slave is a film that portrays a complete sense of authenticity that grips the viewer and takes them on Solomon's journey with him, as if it was actually him that had written, directed and acted in the film to show people life through his eyes. This could be a feature made real by the screen-writer, who worked directly from his memoirs, or could be the work of the brilliant director. America may be quite hesitant to admit that it was the work of the director that made it so worth watching, mainly because he was English rather than American. The fact that an Englishman has somehow managed to capture the essence of slavery in 19th Century America in a more dramatic and relatable way seems to say quite a lot about American film in general.

It shows a sense of incompetence amongst American film directors, a factor that could be put down to the way Hollywood and American film seems to be more centred on what will sell and make money rather than what will accurately portray true events. This could be further explored through the comparison between Django Unchained and Twelve Years a Slave. There is a general acknowledgement that Django Unchained is more 'entertaining', which could be considered quite an oblique way of thinking. It was the stereotypical Hollywood film that was directed by a white person on a topic that they had tried to make entertaining by showing slave masters as receiving their comeuppance. It could be considered a flimsy attempt at condemning slavery, but how can that truly be showed unless you actually look into the reality of everything in a film without humour? It's almost offensive to attempt to find the humour in such a serious topic. 

Django Unchained is known as a revenge-fantasy. For good to prosper it requires the complete masculinity of the protagonist to rise up and fight against one or two 'bad guys' in a climatic final scene. In Twelve Years a Slave that's not the case at all. It becomes all the more real through the questions that are left unanswered, despite history already being written. We don't know what becomes of Patsey or the other slaves on the plantations that we've met along the way, nor does Solomon. The unknown and unfinished ending that simply shows one slave making it out only acts to raise more questions about the hundreds still trapped; there's no simple cut ending. Even by comparing the films' posters it is quite evident that Django Unchained is more concerned with the masculinity and strength of the character overcoming the 'bad guys', seen by the protagonist's size on the poster, whereas Twelve Years a Slave shows a frightened Solomon trying to run from what has been thrown upon him, it creates a real sense of desperation and fear which makes the film seem all the more dramatic and real.

"An insult or slight, real or imaginary, becomes the justification for “retaliation” in the form of destroying a government or an entire country along with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of its people. It seems pretty easy to sell that idea to us Americans – maybe because the revenge-fantasy scenario is woven deeply into American culture –  and it’s only in retrospect that we wonder how Iraq or Vietnam ever happened."

From <http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/11/04/the-revenge-fantasy-django-unchained-vs-12-years-a-slave/>

Jay Livingston wrote a blog post of Django Unchained Vs. Twelve Years a Slave, the above quotation is taken from it, and discusses how Django Unchained is an idea that was easy to sell to Americans, supporting my earlier point of it being the stereotypical Hollywood film that was made to entertain rather than inform its audience.

There's a raw power in Twelve Years a Slave that leaves the viewer almost awestruck and speechless, despite some reviews of the film criticising the fact that it is not as gritty as the original memoirs written by Solomon Northup. But this doesn't make it any less difficult to watch and there's no way to stop yourself from becoming slightly immersed in the story of the man. Even though there is a raw power, the film doesn't seem to focus on anyone in the film, there's a multitude of characters and no real focus on any of them, despite the whole film being based on Solomon Northup's memoirs.

The abundance of famous and familiar faces used in the film, from Benedict Cumberbatch to Brad Pitt, takes away from the 'realness' of the story. If you combine this with the number of characters, it seems to add an unnecessary complexity to the already emotionally troubling film. This makes it all the more difficult to understand and fully engage with the message to the audience, one of sheer honesty from Steve McQueen, the film's director. His style promotes honesty as he doesn't seem to lead the viewers to side with any of the characters portrayed, he leaves it completely up to them in his delivery of the story. There is a sense of trust left with the audience for them to be intelligent enough to understand the small expressions and actions as well as the speech, shown in the many close-up shots of the actors and actresses, rather than relying on being spoon-fed the plot line and morals they are meant to be taking away from it. 

Therefore, despite the complete 'realness' and authenticity of the film, there is a sense of unnecessary complexity to it that confuses audiences which leaves half of them emotionally distraught and the others completely unaffected - choosing to prefer the typical Hollywood portrayal over the informative, real one.

Federal Writers' Project

Dr John  W. Fields, ex-slave of Civil War period (77-80)

Dr John W. Fields was born into slavery, however when his mother's master died he and all of his siblings were split up amongst other slave owners in order to settle the estate, a usual occurrence in the world of slavery. "Three disinterested persons" were chosen to come to the estate and the names of a few different heirs were written on pieces of paper that were then "passed among [the] slaves" in a "hat" which could be considered quite an infantile and unsophisticated way to choose where these people would go. There seems to be no system at all, as if these people were completely meaningless and almost irrelevant, which makes the term "disinterested" much more apt. I feel it shows the pure insignificance of the 'slaves' to the people that weren't like them, despite the fact they were all human, the 'slaves' were treated as cattle and simply split up and sent to new plantations when their master died. At the age of six, Dr Fields found himself working on a new plantation about 115 miles away from his mother and original plantation home. In a modern day situation, a boy at the age of six could not be expected to handle the hard labour of a 'slave', nor could he be expected to be separated from his mother by such a distance. So why was it so acceptable back then?

In Dr Field's account, he goes on to mention that "in most of us colored folks was the great desire to read and write" and that they therefore "took advantage of every opportunity to educate [them]selves". It seems that these people, these 'slaves', were not given the same opportunities as everyone else, which is ironic in terms of the original promise that America gave to the people of the world. The promise of a new start, your own piece of land and absolute equality. How could there ever be equality in a country where other men, women and children were treated as though they weren't even human?

Dr John W. Fields, Aged 89.

"Our ignorance was the greatest hold the South had on us. We knew we could run away, but what then?"

They were almost sheltered, as if this was the only way of living for them, which must have been easier over time when slaves were born into this life - they would have known nothing else. They wouldn't have even known of the freedom this great country once promised. Their "ignorance" was most likely down to the slave masters keeping them confined and constricted within the boundaries of the plantations. These men, women and children had no way of refusing their status, they would be punished for doing such things. They had no choice but to accept that this was how things were for them. It presents white people to be holding all of the power, but who put them on a pedestal? It raises the question of who, disregarding the colour of their skin, thought that treating other human beings as slaves would be an acceptable thing to do? What did these people do to deserve the way they were treated? 

"But what then?" Exactly the question that would've kept them doing as they were told and in order. What could they do? They wouldn't know anything outside of the plantations, they wouldn't know where the next town was, they wouldn't know if they'd be accepted outside or thrown straight back to work, or worse. These people could have fought back and revolted or run away but, in Dr Fields' words, "what then?" 

Sources:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snvoices01.html

Texas

It's become evident that more people move to Texas rather than out of it which means people must have something to move for, be it employment or the enticing Southern charm that it offers, as there is over 110,000 more people moving to the state than leaving in 2011 alone. This could be considered quite surprising as 2011 was when Texas was hit by some of the most extreme weather and was said to have had it the worst in that year. It was hit by eight of the national billion dollar disasters, which is the most of any state in the U.S. The most common disasters were due to the extremely hot weather of Texas, including extreme heat and wildfires, which had left them in almost a year long drought. Another surprising factor is that, when these statistics were taken, unemployment had risen and been at a constant high for about a year, only to begin to drop in the following years, which is when it would be expected to have a higher proportion of people moving into the state.

The heat of Texas is always the first thing to come to mind, along with the sheer size and vastness of the state. With such a large and hot state to live in, it's filled with ranches and it's safe to say that there aren't many things that are close together. This leaves the residents to drive around in their 'massive pick-up trucks' with 'Don't Mess with Texas' signs on them which, according to one American blogger, is entirely stereotypical of them.

The people of the state are also apparently known for being racist. In a list on one Texan's blog, she listed everything that she has noticed in her day to day life, it is mentioned that most Texans have 'racist grandparents' and 'hate immigrants', despite a large quantity of their country's people being the descendants of immigrants. In fact, unless they are direct descendants of Native Americans, their heritage is almost certainly that of some immigrants. In fact, as seen on Claire's post last week, a majority of Texans identify themselves as being Mexican or German, with only a third identifying themselves as American or African American.

Sources:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/top-ten-states-hit-hardest-by-2011s-extreme-weather/P2
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/2010-census-state-migration-statistics.html
http://jenniferlioy.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/a-list-of-stereotypically-texan-things-that-some-texans-actually-do/

Languages Spoken in America

The US Census Bureau released an interactive map that showed the official results of a survey on the languages, other than English, that were spoken in America as first languages in 2011. The report allows us to come to the conclusion that Spanish and Chinese are amongst the most widely spoken languages and that most of the nation is able to speak English, however also has an option to let us see who speaks a different language and speaks English less than 'very well'. To be more specific, 58% of US residents aged 5 and over can speak English 'very well', which leaves 42% unable to do so.

The map, from 2011, demonstrates the absolute diversity in America by showing the wide array of languages spoken there with the map containing fifteen different languages that are used by the citizens of America, other than English. 

By tracking the concentration of other languages spoken we can see that California has the highest percentage of people that speak another language at home, with 44%, and that West Virginia has the lowest, with 2%. This could be down to the fact that California is the third largest state in the USA and is the most populous, with one out of eight people that live in the USA living there, whereas West Virginia is the 41st largest area and the 38th most populous of the 50 United States. This allows for much more diversity in somewhere like California. It could be linked to the California Gold Rush that started in 1848 as it led to dramatic social and demographic change with large scale immigration both from abroad and the U.S., which could still be affecting the population in the modern day.

The Midwest tended to have lower concentrations of different languages spoken, with the exception of Illinois. It could be argued that this statistic has something to do with the fact that a majority of the states in the Midwest are located, at least partly, within the Great Plains region of the country which is known for extensive ranching and agriculture, and therefore aren't so densely populated.

Unfortunately, there was no way to combine this into one picture, so I shall demonstrate the use of the map below by showing the Spanish speakers below, with 12.9% of the U.S speaking it as their primary language, and insert a link to the official map page.

1 dot = 100 people

US Census Language Map

America and Liberty

The image above epitomises patriotism in America, mainly because it is a photo taken on Independence Day, one of the most celebrated and iconic national holidays of America. It affirms the association between America and liberty for a number of reasons, namely because liberty's literal meaning is 'the state of being free within society' and the day celebrates the 'independence' that the country has. Also, children present the future and by having them brought up in an independent and free country they are, by definition, free. The outfits worn depict parts of the American flag, commonly known as 'stars and stripes' and they seem to be walking in a carnival type parade which seems to be quite typical of America. This complete patriotism and love for their country only strengthens the link between America and liberty, as without liberty there would surely not be such enthusiastic displays of patriotism.

This second image depicts a US Army soldier holding his dog tags, one of which shows the unity of America with the phrase 'United States of America One Nation Under God' however the whole image is completely juxtaposed. Despite the clear patriotism, and stereotypical theme of religion, the soldier is still fighting in a war. The US Army is the oldest and largest established branch of the US military which makes them quite a strong foundation, and if the foundations of the country still have to fight for their freedom then it could be considered that they were never free at all. The 'mission' for the army includes 'preserving peace' which does suggest there is indeed peace in America, for them to be able to preserve it, however it seems quite self-destructive to maintain peace and liberty by fighting for it. This could lead us to question how 'free' America is, if the citizens need to continue to fight for their country and its independence, which I feel negates the association between America and liberty to a certain extent.

Both images present different uses of the flag, one shows people celebrating the freedom and independence they believe they already have whereas the other shows it as being used as a motivator to strive towards true fairness, freedom and liberty, suggesting that actually the people don't have the things that were supposedly promised by their country.