American Dream

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/2012/06/the_american_dream_is_dying_here_s_how_we_can_fix_it_.html

The above link leads to an article which argues that the likely hood of one obtaining the American Dream is in decline, but however argues it can still be restored. 

The article stresses the growing inequality in contemporary American society. It does this by outlining the poor state of the economy and highlighting 'inequality indicators' such as average income levels, healthcare and life expectancy. It also argues that the wealthy 'at the top' benefit  'from exploiting the poor'  and that 'Those at the top, in such cases, are enriched at the direct expense of those at the bottom'. It finally ends stating that 'America can no longer regard itself as the land of opportunity that it once was.'. This suggests in order to 'restore' the American Dream improvement in 'equality' is the key.

This article relates to Ragged Dick as inequality is prominent throughout the novel as Dick is one of the few who achieves his 'American dream', and other inequality features are also present such as inequality in gender roles and clear racism. 

American Dream

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/17-0

Above is a link to a website where every day Americans blog about various topics, I came across one in particular that I found interesting, which also had similarities to that of Ragged Dick. The article is titled ‘Dead Woman Working: American Dream Died Long Ago’ although the article explores the perspective of one woman’s personal experience of the American Dream, its context applies to many working class Americans, Smith states;

The American system ‘ has been stacked against us from the start’ and similarly to class division present in Ragged dick, Smith further states ‘The class in control doesn’t care how they stay on top.  They do not care about you and they do not care about me’ and ‘our ruling class doesn’t care that many people are disengaged from the process.’ This article contrasts also with ragged dick in some ways, as it suggests despite being ‘scrumptiously honest’ and hardworking like Richard in the book ‘Ragged dick’ ordinary working class citizens in today’s America like Mrs Smith are the ones most aloof from achieving the American Dream ‘Hard work might keep you afloat at times, but in these United States, it’s just not enough.  Work 50 years?  Believe you’ll retire in dignity?  It’s an illusion.  It’s a lie.’

American Dream

This article suggest that the American Dream still exists today.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/28/american-dream-polling-opinions-columnists_0129_john_zogby.html


''It takes a lot to blunt the optimism of the American people, and this recession has certainly put a dent on our outlook. However, when we measure how people feel about their long-term goals in life, it is remarkable how optimistic they remain.''

The article looks at polls and statistics taken from American people and tries to understand if the American Dream is still relevant in contemporary society. The statistics show that following the 2008 election (second week of January, 2009) 56% of people still believed that the American Dream exists.

The statistics in this article relate to Ragged Dick in many ways. The polls from this article were completed during a very difficult point financially in the USA similar to what it was like many years ago. Also, the article considers people who make less money (similar to Ragged Dick) and shows how a large percentage still believes that they can achieve their dream. 

American Dream

http://www.amazon.com/The-Price-Inequality-Endangers-ebook/dp/B007MKCQ30

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/american-dream-myth-joseph-stiglitz-price-inequality-124338674.html

In his latest book, The Price of Inequality, Columbia Professor and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz examines the causes of income inequality and offers some remedies. In between, he reaches some startling conclusions, including that America is "no longer the land of opportunity" and "the 'American dream' is a myth."

Stiglitz provides a contemporary view which heavily doubts the notion of an achievable ‘American Dream’. He points out that average income has seen a serious decline, further weakening the opportunity of the so desired ‘American Dream’, along with a lack of quality health care and education for those in desperate need. Individuals in the top one percent of the United States wealth bracket, are the ones with the control and ability to achieve this dream. Stiglitz predicts an increase in this unfair divide and reveals the harsh reality that unfortunately majority of Americans will never attain the so highly regarded dream. Inequality is a significant theme in the novel Ragged Dick, and the disappointing truth that not everyone’s dreams can come true is a crucial part of the plot. 

Gun Control

Pro-gun Control - Protest Easy Guns - http://www.protesteasyguns.com/artist.asp?ArtistID=21054&AKey=qcjqt2xp

This website has many facts and statistics that relate to ownership, purchasing and violence of guns. The website believes that it is 'too easy to purchase guns in America'. The website states that 'it is time to put common sense into our gun laws' suggesting that rules related to gun ownership and control within the US is not how it should be and things need to change.

Although this website does state that it does not want to completely take guns away from people, for activities such as hunting, they believe that there should be restrictions and limits to how many guns there are and how easily it is to obtain one.

This website shows how gun control is important for the safety of Americans and how new 'common sense' laws will be beneficial to everyone.


Anti-gun Control - Woman Against Gun Control - http://www.wagc.com/

This website deals with female gun owners who believe that their rights to owning a gun should not be taken away from them. They believe that it is important for women to 'believe in and work to preserve the Second Amendment'. The website also has a pledge that each member has to agree to and one of the points says that they 'do not believe that guns cause crime'.

They focus on issues such as being a female and needing a gun for self defense. The website states that 'not all woman want to be victims' and they suggest that the way to avoid this is by owning a gun. They believe that a message should be sent to politicians, especially female, to show that not all woman agree with gun control.

This website shows how a group of people - in this case female - believe that gun control will disadvantage them and will take away their 'rights' as an American.

Gun Control

Anti gun-control: 
http://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/the-second-amendment.aspx

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American non-profit lobbying group that advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defence in the United States.The NRA website justifies why and how the  American people have the right to bear firearms by outlining and interpreting the second amendment. The website supports its argument against gun control by giving referince to the 'founding fathers' of America, stating they also supported the ownsership of arms. 
Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."
Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed."
Richard Henry Lee wrote that, "to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."

It also supports its view on fire arms by outlining the consequences of gun control  by stating that "Criminals ignore gun bans, and law-abiding people will be even more at risk with no effective means of self-defence." It further supports its view by analysing areas which have adopted gun control and compares it to crime rates. "New York City has very strict gun laws, more strict than the rest of the state of New York. In spite of this, New York has always had significantly higher violent crime rates. Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Ill. have banned the ownership of handguns, and both these cities have much higher violent crime rates than the surrounding areas"

Overall this website strongly and clearly expresses that it favours gun ownership. It justifies the American people's right to bear fire arms by heavily relying on the second amendment, criticizing pro gun-control arguments    while analysing gun laws in relation to crime and death rates in the United states and in other countries to further justify its view. 

Pro gun-control:
http://nyagv.org/
The next website opposes the website's argument above, arguing that gun control should be enforced and more strict in the USA, specifically New York. The website supports its argument of enforcing gun control in several ways, one being factual information of deaths caused by fire arms in the USA. "More American citizens were killed by guns in the last thirty years than were killed in all the battles in all the wars our Nation has fought since 1775." 

This website like the anti-gun control website analyses areas which have adopted gun control and compares it to crime and death rates etc.  68% of crime guns recovered in New York State and 85% of crime guns in New York City are first purchased from states like Florida and Georgia where background checks are not required on sales of guns" This means that the guns used to commit crimes in New York are obtained and accessed in other states which have "weak" gun control laws, and as a result New York is one areas that is "punished" and "suffers".

The final method in which this website expresses its view on gun control is the usage of emotive language (which the other website uses significantly less) "When felons, the adjudicated mentally ill, domestic violence criminals and other prohibited people have such easy access to firearms, something is terribly wrong" and  "Mothers, fathers and children die every day in America because guns are in the wrong hands." By listing the common type of suspects who usually commit gun crimes overwhelms the reader and is further enhanced by including "mothers, fathers and children". By doing this it makes it more emotional and personal, thus engaging the reader more within the text, which as a result makes their opinion on gun control more effective towards the reader. Therefore due to the heavy usage of emotive language makes this website's argument more influential that the anti gun-control website.  

Gun Control

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003080F/favorite.htm

This link grants access to a website that argues why controlling the rights of gun owners is a waste of time and will do little good at preventing one of the most debated issues of safety. It is stated in the website that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, should allow people to keep their guns and that gun laws will defeat the amendments purpose. Another argument used by the author is that new gun laws will interfere with American's hobby of hunting. Similarly, the ridiculous point of accessibility to knives is made and is viewed to be another reason gun laws are an impractical approach at preventing violence.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-gun-control-a-pro-life-issue-78976/

Oppositely, this website is pro-gun control. The "Christian Post" published an article using the example of the recent tragic shooting in Colorado to argue their case as to why gun laws must be enforced. They use the issue of pro-life to make their case and that a lack of gun control could prevent ones right to life. Although pro-life is an entirely different issue, their hopes at making a connection between the two topics will cause a reaction amongst gun owners, particularly conservative Christians, who may be persuaded by the guilty conscience effect this may cause. 

Gun control

http://gunowners.org/protect.htm

Above is a link to the, Gun Owners of America (GOA)which  is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. GOA has a nationwide network of attorneys in almost every state in the nation to protect gun owner rights. GOA has also worked with members of Congress, state legislators and local citizens.

This website encourages those who feel that their right is being restricted by anti-gun laws, should take a stand and join the ‘no compromise’ campaign. A few things I noticed is that it has a great deal of influence in government, regarding health and safety boards, pro-gun control candidates etc.
‘It raises funds to support the election of pro-gun candidates at all levels of government. GOA has a record of helping pro-gun candidates defeat anti-gunners in hundreds of races across the country, and will continue to do so as long as our supporters provide the necessary financial resources.’
Another key feature of the website is its professionalism, it’s very academic, and provides a lot of information regarding government action in relation to bearing arms. It really emphasises the second amendment and that it is every citizen’s right to bear arms, and how important it is that Government does not take away that right.
The use of emotive language also plays a key role in the support base for the organisation;
‘Strength comes with numbers and the more concerned Americans join Gun Owners of America, the more we can do to protect the Second Amendment and our freedom. We need you! Shouldn't you become a member of Gun Owners of America? Join here.’
Thus makes this website a very professional, effective organisation that due to its large membership and connections with congress/Government makes it believable and appealing to those gun owners, therefore this  has allowed it to become one of the biggest lobbying organisations in America.

 http://www.bradycampaign.org/

The other Website I found that poses the opposite view to bearing arms was this one. Although this website doesn’t specifically suggest that bearing any form or arms should be made illegal, it does suggest a pretty strong opinion on the use of guns being very restricted. Such as;
Making ‘it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get guns in the first place.’
The website puts forward ideas/solutions to moving forward in the crackdown on gun control for example it states;
‘We can do this by passing laws such as requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement’s efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.’

One key area that I noticed about this website it its appeal to safety and more importantly ensuring your family’s safety, The Brady campaign, emphasises the importance of this, again with the use of emotive language to appeal to those who live in fear of the bearing of arms.

‘Thousands upon thousands of people will continue to die and be injured needlessly each year without stronger, sensible gun laws. The Brady Campaign fights for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and your community.’

In comparison, both websites display a very professional outlook on either point of view, however, America is very divided in its ideas/support for the right to bear arms, thus I feel that the second website poses a much more sensible and realistic approach by promoting restrictions, when tackling the large issue of gun crime which causes so many Americans to question the right for an ordinary American to bear arms.

2012 Election

I believe that the second victory of Obama proves to people that may see America as a bad place that it is not all about the rich getting richer with a disregard to the poor. Though many people are quick to slate Obama for not doing much over the past 4 years, it is evident that he has done enough to win the majority of American's over a second time.

However, the result can also show us that despite all of Obama's and Romney's campaigning, despite a few rises and falls in electoral votes and a couple of states switching overall from Democrat to Republican, there hasn't really been any shift in the political opinions of each U.S. state since the last presidential election in 2008. This shows us that whilst many American's may think that Obama hasn't achieved much, that he still isn't a bad president. I could be completely wrong when I say this but after looking at the last three presidential election result maps, it seems that the last time a landslide win from states (despite only a victory by 35 electoral votes) was the 2004 election in which George W. Bush beat John Kerry. The lack of success from George Bush and all the controversy that arose during this period of time could be what made many states change from Republican to Democrat in the 2008 election, and now in 2012 people may still be too afraid to make the transition back to the Republicans even if they do agree with Romney, purely because of what happened last time they were in power.

Back to the 2012 result, it tells us that America are very much influenced by celebrities and other people in the public eye. Obama had thousands of people, compiled of comedians, actors, musicians, business people, former governors, even porn stars and more influential people of the U.S. (minus the porn stars) formally endorsing or just showing support for him and his policies. On the other hand, Romney had a list of these supporters that was disturbingly shorter than Obama's. Of course this is down to the fact Obama has already been president, but due to the likes of people in these lists it seems to mainly be down to personal choice. A lot of Romney's endorsers tend to be older, i.e. Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger, whereas Obama's tend to be younger, i.e. Anna Kendrick and Jesse Eisenberg. This shows how many people safely stick to what they know as well as the fact that America believes that Obama is doing a good job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2012#Actors_and_actresses

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/ElectoralCollege2004.svg/350px-ElectoralCollege2004.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/349px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/ElectoralCollege2008.svg/349px-ElectoralCollege2008.svg.png

2012 Election

The 2012 election didn’t change much on the face of things for America, the Democrat-Republican vote differed acutely to that of the 2008 election, after spending 6 billion dollars on campaigning, all to result in Barack Obama being decisively re-elected, with Republican control of the House of Representatives and the Democrats the Senate. Thus ‘the nation that has re-elected its leaders this week is the same nation that thinks its government is on the wrong path.’ Political analysts this week have suggested that one reason for the re-election is that American voters were unprepared to face spending cuts and higher taxes, so voted for a progressive leader and a fiscally conservative Congress, hoping that the two will work together moderately. However since 2012 the more realistic outcome has been Deadlock.

Many have found it difficult to understand why America in its current economic state, and unemployment levels reaching record highs, have voted for continuity, in what has ended up as one of the most immobile status quo election results for many years, although it cannot be denied there was a moderate shift to the right in voting patterns, however as the results show it was significant enough, to change anything.  Thus it is very clear that in America, incumbency is extremely high.

What is interesting about the 2012 election is the significantly growing gender gap; women remain the earthwork of the party of the left, whilst men vote for the right. Furthermore probably the most significant feature present in the 2012 election result is the significance of the Hispanic popular vote, which will reshape 21^st century America in the next century. Remaining one of the few groups that moved even further left in its support for Obama than in the 2008 election, with 75% support nationwide compared to that of 67% in 2008, Obama owes a lot of his success to the wins in New Mexico Colorado and California all of which are majority Hispanic votes. Hispanics also saved Obama this week in places such as Florida and Virginia, highlighting that their growing influence could eventually affect even the most republican states, such as Arizona or Texas. In which case one thing that has been extensively highlighted in the 2012 election is that if nothing changes the future of the Republican Party looks weak.  Republicans need to respond to the growing Hispanic population or risk suppression.

http://96ws6.newsvine.com/_news/2012/11/07/14996220-what-do-the-2012-election-results-mean-for-america-from-a-libertarian-point-of-view

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/07/us/politics/obamas-diverse-base-of-support.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/07/obama-reelected-2012-status-quo-election

 

2012 Election

Obama predominantly gained votes in the eastern states and western states with his votes containing non-whites (mixed race, Latino and black), young people, atheists and particularly women. Mitt Romney’s votes predominantly came from the central and southern states of America.  For women Romney stated that he would be ‘delighted’ to sign a bill banning all abortions while Obama said he believes women’s health decisions should be decided by them not politicians. He did live up to his expectations in some areas as job creations have gone up significantly since Obama took office in 2008. However the national device as almost doubled in contemporary America. Despite this many Americans still have faith in Obama’s plans such as an nhs. There are other factors as to why Obama was re-elected such as the war in the middle east as Obama wanted to withdraw American troops as  asap, while Romney was against the withdrawal. As these voting patterns are almost the same for many elections it can be identified that the country is almost 50-50 (split) when it comes to political ideology. In my opinion I forecast more victorious  elections for the Democratic party due to higher populations increasing in the eastern and western states (which are democratic) due to higher birth rates, immigration etc. 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19794259

2012 election

The Contest: There seems to be a pattern of states belonging to each nominee - Many of the states belonging to Obama are on the East and West coasts. Whereas, states belonging to Romney lie in south and central America. This may suggest that each state, and states near each other, share views depending on tradition and opinions therefore sticking together.  How close the results actually are - Obama has the lead in most swing states this year but only just beats Romney. This clearly shows how the country is almost split down the middle on the outcome of the election. The results are very close at the end of the election suggesting that the contest could go either way.  The Result Despite views of many troubles and lack of improvement over his first 4 years the people have re-elected President Obama.  There are many factors which could be reasons why this has happened: Minorities - This election showed that Obama secured big support among Hispanics, African-American's and Asians. As well as 40% of white votes. This may be because as a member of a majority group within USA Obama has proven that he can make it, despite his background (just as he says in his acceptance speech) Obamacare - Obama has explained that this program will take a long time but will pay off in the end. This suggests that many people need/want this program to work and the voters have faith that it will pay off.  Economic Recovery - Although the unemployment rate has risen since Obama was elected President, he has stated that the economic recovery is a slow process and will pay off in the end. The re-election of Obama suggests that although times are difficult financially they are willing to have faith in Obama's plans.  End the war - Romney had stated that the decision to remove troops from war was a big mistake. By re-electing Obama it suggests that the voters believe that Obama is making a good decision to bring home the troops and end the war that affects so many families within USA.  http://www.votenight.com/ http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-TOP-return-of-barack-obama-its-all-about-the-money-4020506-NOR.html  http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/slideshows/10-reasons-obama-should-be-re-elected

OBAMA 2012 Election!

The recent results of the presidential election in America prove that the country are pleased with how Obama had run the country, over the four years he was in power. During his time in presidency, Obama pushed on improvements in social security and safety that saw him order and oversee the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. This may have been a large contributor toward his win in the recent elections, for he was the president in charge at the time that managed to capture the countries most wanted man. Similarly to this he also kept many other promises - following his 2008 election win - improving the economy by overseeing the creation of many jobs in 2010, which Bush wasn’t able to do in the 8 years that he was in power. Obama saw a 96.7% success rate, in winning congressional votes in his first year of power.

Furthermore, the competition was open to seven candidates however the media were only focused on two, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Obama is a democrat, a liberal man whose views are on the community and social responsibility, in contrast to Romney a Republican. Romney is a conservative man, whose beliefs are on individual rights.

Obama emphasised a move forward instead of backward throughout his campaign and during the elections he promised a number of things. Obama supported gay marriage in comparison to Romney who opposed it, Obama also wanted to create jobs that were stationed in the U.S; by cutting back on tax, in comparison to Romney who wanted to keep tax incentives, for jobs that were overseas. Similarly to this is the overwhelming amount of votes that Obama received from women, he wanted to allow women to feel part of the community, thus putting women in charge of their own healthcare decisions, which Romney also opposed. Romney wanted women to have less control; allowing employers and the government the authority to limit access to birth control, to allow insurance companies to continue charging women more than men and to eliminate funding for planned parenthood.

Other areas that got Obama votes was in the education sector where Romney wanted to increase fees and make spending cuts, which would result in sending pre-school students home to learn, in contrast to Obama who supported education, by strengthening public schools in every community.

Finally another area that also saw votes rocket for Obama was in immigration, for Romney refused to speak on the matter of deportation - for those who went to America as children - and would also consider deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants. Obama was against this idea and planned to keep families together, allowing those who were undocumented in the U.S the chance to apply for a citizenship.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

http://2012election.procon.org

http://www.barackobama.com/plans/immigration-plans

2012 Election

The re-election of Barack Obama in the recent 2012 presidential election reveals that majority of the people of the United States of America are pleased with the efforts of the president over the past four years and would like to see his work continue and his future plans enacted. Obama fights for those who lack a distinct voice in the political scene, such as, small businesses and middle class families. Due to the economic issues over recent years, not surprisingly it has been the topic of conversation among the people of America, and is similarly also one of Obama’s focuses and he talks of a long-term plan to improve the economy. With the increase in young voters and the boom in political interest among students, the current president has rightfully put an emphasis on investing in the education system and cutting tuition fees, which clearly played in his favour and he received majority of youth’s votes. Furthermore, Obama has made an effort to appeal to female voters, and stressed the importance of women’s health care and their own personal choices regarding their wellbeing, and due to the fact that Mitt Romney was less than supportive of Obamacare and wanted to limit women’s freedom of choice and access to birth control, it was therefore rather obvious that majority of the votes of female Americans went to Obama. Overall, the outcome of the debate was not surprising given each candidates stance on current issues and the views of the majority of Americans, but at some points it did seem as if things may not have turned out the way they did.

http://www.barackobama.com/economy?source=primary-nav-om

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/youth-vote-2012-turnout-exit-polls_n_2086092.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/07/why-obama-won-womens-vote

Here is a photograph of Yosemite falls, taken by Carleton Watkins in 1861.
I can't tell for definite but to me it seems like one of the earliest photos taken of Yosemite falls. I believe this because in more modern photographic depictions of it, the greenery surrounding it is in the foreground and the waterfall itself is in the background. However in this picture Yosemite falls stands in the foreground despite being in the back of the picture. This could just be down to the fact that colour photography wasn't around in 1861, but photographers were still aware of the optical illusions they could create with lighting. They have made the waterfall the main object of this photo, taking it from an angle showing its might. It towers above the beautiful landscape that it leads in to.

Also, what strikes me about this photograph is the fact that it isn't showing the marvellous view from the top of the waterfall or even a close up of the plunge of the upper falls, it is a far away shot absorbing every single aspect of the waterfall and what surrounds it. To me this makes the photo very reminiscent of the time it was taken in. Because it is a photo that shows excitement about the very existance of the waterfall. New people living in America would've seen this photograph as representing theur strength and unity, as everything in the photo surrounds the waterfall yet at the same time comes together to make something beautiful.

There are no wildlife present in this photo, not even birds high up in the sky. I believe this has been done deliberately, to show the tranquility of the waterfall and the forest it leads to. It is showing the people of America how lucky they are to live there, and what a picturesque place they live in.

I enjoy this picture so much because I know that in today's times not very many families would stay at this view of it for long, they would be more interested in the top, and the majestic view from the top, rather than the wonder of the waterfall itself that was held by people in the 19th century.

Native American Negotiations

This painting shows a group of Native Americans from various tribes, gathered in perhaps the white house in Washington D.C, addressing the President of the United States (Andrew Johnson?). The Native Americans are dressed in traditional outfits which although the image is black and white we can see still contrasts sharply with the society dress of the whites in attendance. What I find interesting is that for what many described the Natives to be ‘primitive’ and ‘uneducated’ this painting shows a very cultured and diplomatic consultation in which the natives seem to be trying to negotiate with those that have simply taken over their native land, without any consideration or permission. Thus this painting almost seems ironic and very ignorant of Americans. Its subject is thought to be the Indians of North America negotiating land possession in the 1860-70’s. As we know many tribes were forced to make agreements/treaties with Government, in order to protect the future of their tribes, and protect their homes etc. The very fact that in the picture the natives are heavily outnumbered by the whites, echo’s the future of their existence and the arrogance in the way the president and other whites in attendance are gathered/ standing emphasizes their ignorance to the damage they caused to the Natives. The picture was originally featured in Harper’s weekly Magazine ‘the journal of Civilisation’, on March 17, 1867. And I felt was a true reflection of the mass annihilation of the Native Americans during the settlement period. 

The Oregon Trail 1869

The painting above is by Albert Bierstadt, which was produced in 1869. This was a time when America was being developed and built up, they would head west to make a farm, build houses, a town and then it would become a city. This painting suggests just that. These men are heading west which suggests that they are packing up and moving on to settle and build up new areas before moving on again. The sun would also imply that there are better things to come, portraying a new beginning. 

It is not visible that there are any natives in this painting, which would therefore suggest they have already been pushed out. Ways in which this is also clear is the amount of cattle following behind these men, and also the carriages and equipment in their possession which the natives would not be able to afford. To the left of the painting there is a tree that has been chopped down which indicates civilization, in that they are chopping them down to build houses, roads etc...Ruining the peaceful structure that the natives enjoy.

19th century painting - yosemite valley

Albert Bierstadt's - Yosemite Valley, California

I believe that this painting was used as a useful tool for encouraging westward expansion during the 19th century. The use of natural beauty such as water, mountains and trees all suggest a desirable place to immigrate to. The specific colours used in this painting also enhance what is being shown. The variation of greens, yellows and oranges reflect the elements of earth and nature.

The mountains are emphasized as being very tall and the separation between the mountains in the middle of the picture suggests that there is more to be seen over the other side. The blue skies, big open spaces and exaggerated sunlight may attract future expansion especially from European travelers because it is completely different to their home land.

The fact that there are no people or animals shown in this painting creates a sense of calmness and harmony and the idea that this part of America has been untouched. It creates the idea that nature is the most important part of this place.

An important part of this painting is the fact that it is in California. California is on the western side of America and this image suggests that westward expansion was important at this time. Although this image is not of the California we usually see today, Yosemite Valley is a protected national park.

Analysis of a 19th century painting

The American landscape is something that is often captured in photographs and portrayed in paintings and is held highly regarded by the people of the nation. For Americans this picturesque landscape symbolises the unique beauty of America and the fact that regardless of an individual’s circumstance, this is something that can be enjoyed by all and is there for anyone to appreciate. The multitude of different landscapes allows for a vast variety of possible pictures and is something that makes America even more exceptional, in the fact that it contains all terrains and can suit any and every one.  Albert Bierstadt's "Lake at Franconia Notch, White Mountains" is one of the more tranquil and typical scenic interpretations of the American landscape that so many Americans prefer for outsiders to witness, to appreciate their country. The sublime mountains lead off into the distance and create a sense of mystery and unknown. It leaves the viewer wondering what is just over the hills and what future lies ahead for the beholder. The still and idyllic lake reflects the scenery and provides a looking glass effect, possibly mirroring the idea that all things American are reflected and apparent in all other societies and cultures and this nation is constantly being echoed. A young dear stands alone in the painting denoting Americans newness and innocent nature, both character and wildlife. This painting exists as a perfect representation of the American landscape and though not false, is not truthful to whole nation.