Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Friendship of faiths in America


America is a religiously as well as ethnically diverse country. Although the majority of people are Christians, we do see many other religions as well. How far are American people religious tolerant? Does inter-faith dailogue promote religious tolerance? Well, first we need to know the meaning of inter-faith diologue. “The terms interfaith or interfaith dialogue refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions (i.e., "faiths") and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional level with the aim of deriving a common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world.”[1]
Inter-faith diologue is not something new. In fact it has existed since long time ago. Now, we see that in America the inter-faith dialogue between three clergymen has made them good friends of each other


The three Muslim, Christian and Jewish clergymen have tried to show people that people believing in different religions can be good friends.




All three clergymen are in the liberal wing of their respective faiths. Mr. Mackenzie, 65, is a minister in the United Church of Christ, and recently retired from leading a large congregation, the University Congregational U.C.C., in Seattle. As a young man, he taught in Lebanon. Rabbi Falcon, 67, is a Reform rabbi with a doctorate in clinical psychology who founded synagogues in Los Angeles and Seattle that meld meditation with Jewish tradition. Sheik Rahman, 59, is a Sufi; a path of Islam focused more on spiritual wisdom than strict ritual. He is the son of a diplomat from Bangladesh. He co-founded an unusual mixed-faith congregation in Seattle, the Interfaith Community Church. Today, these three friends first went to an Indian restaurant in Nashville and then attended a Presbyterian church where they delivered speeches to 250 people about how they had wrestled with their religious differences and emerged as friends. These three clergymen call themselves “interfaith amigos”. They said that they had managed to establish friendly relationships by running straight at their conflicts and not avoiding them. “One of the problems in the past with interfaith dialogue is we’ve been too unwilling to upset each other,” Rabbi Falcon told the crowd at the Presbyterian Church. “We try to honor the truth. This is the truth for you, and this is the truth for me. It may not be reconcilable, but it is important to refuse to make the other the enemy.”




They then recited what they regarded as untruth in their religions. The minster regarded “Christianity is the only way to God” as the untruth, the Rabbi referred to the notion of Jews as “the chosen people” and the Sheik referred to the “sword verses” in Koran like “kill the unbeliever”. He regarded this phrase as an “awkward phrase”. As one of the people present in the church said “Talking about the untruths of each tradition is very courageous. It gets it out of the platitude category and into dialogue.” However, I don’t think there is anything in Islam that can be regarded as untruth. Sheik Rahman said that some of the phrases are taken out of Koran without taking into consideration the context in which the phrases were used. He pointed out the Koran does not distinguish between literal, metaphorical and other phrases but we know that there are interpretations on the verses of Koran. Thus we have to refer to the interpretations before saying that there are “awkward versus” in Koran. Nowadays many have deviated from the straight path of Islam and what they represent to the world as Islam is not the real Islam brought to us by our prophet peace be upon him.Despite all these, the notion of inter-faith dialogue, I believe, is something that our society is really in need of. We in Iran have to express our religious ideas and also listen to what other religions have to say. This is especially important since the majority of people in Iran are Shia and there are many misunderstandings about this branch of Islam.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith
* taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24amigos.html

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Film Review




The Great Debaters
Director: Denzel Washington
Producers: Oprah Winfrey, Joe Roth, Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein
Writers: Jeffrey Porro, Robert Eisele
Starring: Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker, Nate Parker, Denzel Whitaker, Jurnee Smollett
Music: James Newton Howard
Cinematography: Philippe Rousselot
Editor: Hughes Winborne
Release date: December 25, 2007
Running time: 126 min
Country: United States
Language: English
Budget: $15 million
Gross revenue: $30,236,407


The Great Debaters is a 2007 American drama film. Denzel Washington, the director of the film who plays the role of Melvin Tolson, Wiley College English professor, has won the Academy Award twice. Also, Forest Whitaker is the other African-American playing in this film who has won the Academy Award for best actor in The Last King of Scotland. The film is based on a true story taken from the article written about the Wiley College debate team by Tony Scherman for the 1997 spring issue of American Legacy. Wiley College is a black college situated in Marshall, Texas. Melvin Tolson, English professor of the college, inspired by the Harlem Renaissance and his clandestine work as a union organizer, coaches a debate team in the college. The story takes place in 1935 when Jim Crow laws were common and lynch mobs were a great fear for blacks.




There are four people in the college team including, Samantha Booke, the first female in the college debate team and James Farmer, a precocious 14 year-old boy. The team, trained well by Tolson, defeats most of the other debate teams from different colleges and enters into the first debate between U.S students from white colleges and black colleges and the winner is Wiley. Having gained a lot of victories, the team is eventually invited to face Harvard University champions. This final debate is another victory for the Wiley College debate team.

The film beautifully portrays the Jim Crow south of America during the 1930s when the blacks were suffering so much from racism and lynch mobs. There are some moving scenes in the movie like the humiliation of a black doctor, James’s father, in front of his family over a dead pig or the scene where a black is lynched by a white mob who set his body afire. Although some people may think that these scenes take the focus off of the debating at times, I think they are essential to the film since they help us understand the characters better and the feelings that go into their debate arguments. Black life is all about segregation and discrimination and the audience have to see that black achievement and victory are not easily obtained.

The Great Debaters shows how the black realized that education was the key to their success. Mr. Farmer, James’s father, is the first African-American who manages to get a doctorate degree in Texas. He very much wants his son to follow his path and urges him to study hard. Also this emphasis on education and knowledge is seen in the scenes where Mr. Tolson is giving instructions to the debate team. He tells them that the whites have tried to keep their body, and kill their mind. They want to keep them psychologically dependent so that they can never improve and Tolson tells them that his is “trying to help save their righteous mind.”




The issues selected for debating are interesting. Long scenes are allotted to the young debaters expounding on school integration, civil disobedience and other big Issues. Although the speeches are prepared by Tolson, at the end we see the success of the team when they are left on their own to prepare themselves for the debate with Harvard.

Tolson’s being endangered by working as a covert labor organizer for local farmers and the team being threatened by lynch mobs remind the audience of the volatile politics of the time, when a black man could be attacked for simply owning a suit and a car. This gives the movie a nice political undertone.
The climactic debate at the end of the movie is between the Wiley College and Harvard University. However, based on the real story it should be between Wiley and the University of Southern California. This is done deliberately in order to highlight the great achievement of Wiley debate team.

Overall, I think The Great Debaters is an honest look at the 1930s Jim Crow south. It enjoys believable characters with solid acting and invokes emotional reactions in viewers. You can share the feelings of fear, shame, disgust, pride and happiness with the black people especially the debate team. Also this film shows us the great efforts of people who paved the way for civil-rights movement to happen. Tolson, the strong debating teacher, teaches the team members how to stand up for their rights and at the end of the film we learn that James becomes one of the leaders of the civil-rights movement and founds the Congress of Racial Equality. Finally I think that this movie is emotional, educational, and uplifting and arouses our feelings of sympathy for the black people.

http://oprah.about.com/od/harpoproductions/gr/greatdebaters.htm
http://www.bvonmovies.com/2007/12/25/the-great-debaters-review/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309/plotsummary
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935673.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/movies/25deba.html

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Participation of U.S. citizens in 2000 and 2008 presidential elections



One of the manifestations of people’s interest in the political system of their country is their participation in elections. Voter turnout shows how important the system is for people and high voter turnout can make a country to be a representative democracy. United States claiming to be the representative of democracy has recently had a lower voter turnout in national elections comparing to European countries. “About 40 percent of the eligible adult population in the United States votes regularly, whereas 25 percent are occasional voters and 35 percent rarely or never vote.” (O’Connor et al, 2009, 347) There are different reasons for this low turnout. In this essay, I am going to investigate the voting behavior of American people by focusing on two presidential elections. 2000 presidential election is chosen as a case for which there was relatively low turnout and 2008 election is chosen as a case in which the U.S. had higher voter turnout comparing to the elections in the last few decades. These two cases should help us find out the reasons for people’s non-voting and voting.
In order to find out the voting behavior of people we need to know the factors that influence voter turnout and also the factors that lead voters to choose one candidate over another. O’ Connor at al (2009) state 6 factors that influence voter turnout. They are education, income, age, gender, race and ethnicity and interest in politics. Regarding the vote choice party identification and issues are stated as factors which influence individual’s choice.
In 2000 presidential election, 51.3 percent of the eligible voters, voted whereas the turnout for 2008 election was 62 percent. In 2000 presidential election the turnout was slightly above the lowest turnout in modern times which was 48.8 percent in 1996 election. However, in 2008 election the turnout was highest since 1996. Why was the turnout low in 2000 election? Considering the recent decrease in voter turnout, why did more people participate in 2008 election?
One of the reasons for low turnout according to McKay et al (2002) is the difficulty of registration for voting in America, as the burden of registration is put on the individual rather than the government. O’Connor et al (2009) add difficulty of absentee voting and great number of elections (twice as many national elections as other western democracies) as the other reasons for low voter turnout. These are the factors that normally affect all elections in the U.S. But as I am focusing on two cases of presidential election, I think we need to consider the situation of America before both elections to find out the reason for low turnout in 2000 election and higher one in 2008.
Before the 2000 election, President Clinton was in power since1992 for two terms. White House website delineates the period of Clinton’s administration as the time when “the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.” Moreover, Clinton managed to “point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.” Based on this description, therefore, it seems that at the time of 2000 election, there was no issue causing people to be worried. According to McKay et al (2002) low turnout may be a sign that people are generally happy with the system and they see no need to change it. I suppose that might be the reason for the low turnout in 2000 election and also the reason why Al Gore, the candidate of the Democratic Party, won the majority of people’s votes. Although Al Gore did not win the Electoral College votes, I think the majority of people chose him because they were happy with the previous system run by a Democrat. Moreover, economy is both the driving force for people’s participation in election and a determining factor for their choice. O’Connor et al (2009) believe that voters usually “reward the party in government during good economic times and punish the party in government during periods of economic downturn.” so, I think that in 2000 election, people felt no need to participate in the election and since they were happy with the party in government, majority voted for the same party again. However, Republican Party became the party in government and President Bush took office from 2000 up to 2008.
During Bush’s first term of office, United States did not experience a period of peace and stability domestically and got involved in two wars. September 11 endangered American people security leading to the launch of wars on terror. However, passage of time showed that there was no WMD in Iraq which was the reason for the initiation of the war in Iraq. The wars did cost a lot. People felt that President Bush had lied to them and as the American death toll increased day by day, people became disillusioned with the government. All these events together with economic crisis provided the incentive for people to participate in 2008 election. They really felt the need that their participation could make a difference. At this time when people were tired of the existing situation, Obama’s motto, ‘change’, suited public’s taste. Moreover, his rhetoric and his plans for economy and job creation seemed to be more promising than his rival, McCain.
Another important factor which led to the greater participation of minorities especially African-Americans was Obama’s race. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 65 percent of blacks and 49 percent of Hispanics participated in the election resulting in higher voter turnout in 2008. 2008 presidential election also enjoyed an increase in young voter turnout. 53.4 percent of people between 18 to 24 years old voted in 2008 election while in 2000 only 45.3 percent participated. According to Erika Johansson, a project coordinator for Declare Yourself Survey “Many youth were dissatisfied with the current administration and caught onto the idea of change. In addition, young people gravitated toward common issues, such as the economy and climate change, that made it easy to come together.” Among the young people, many voted for Obama explaining that they chose him because for the first time in history he had paid attention to the youth. He was also more appealing to the youth since he was young and charismatic. 2008 presidential election enjoyed high voter turnout due to financial crisis and people disillusionment with Bush administration. Hence, they wanted to the current situation to change. As Obama promised to bring good changes and he was not from the party which people held accountable for their unfavorable situation, he managed to defeat his rival from the opposite party and win the election.

References:
1.McKay, D. Houghton, D. Wroe, A. 2002. Controversies in American Politics and Society. USA. Blackwell Publishing.
2.O’Connor, K. Sabato, L. Yanus, A. 2009. Essentials of American Government. USA. Pearson Education, Inc.
3.http://www.whitehouse.gov, retrieved on 2.11.09.
4.http://www.thetartan.org/2008/11/10/news/elections, retrieved on 01.11.09.
5.http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm , retrieved on 2.11.09
6.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, retrieved on 2.11.09

U.S. Mosque Seizure


Another move to increase tensions between the two countries. The U.S. seized four mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a Muslim nonprofit organization suspected of Iranian links. In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors on Thursday 12th November filed a civil complaint in federal court against the Alavi Foundation, seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets. The assets include bank accounts; Islamic centers consisting of schools and mosques in New York, Maryland, California and Houston; more than 100 acres in Virginia; and a 36-story Manhattan office tower [1]. Iranian authorities have condemned this action. Parliament speaker, Ali Larijani denounced this disgraceful action saying that these moves show that President Barack Obama’s slogan for change was deceitful. It seems that Obama’s ‘changes’ are increasing the tensions between the two countries. Iran was expecting to see a New America with President Obama in power. However, now parliament speaker says that Obama is no different from Bush. Larijani said that confiscating the properties of Alvi Foundation and the extension of sanctions against Iran for another year was a real disgrace. Obama came with the slogan of change but changes are easy to say and hard to practice. So you cannot really expect big changes to happen while Obama is in office because he has to work within a system in which he has faith. At least we should be happy that the word ‘terror’ does not exist in Obama’s literature as much as it was in the Bush’s. This is a positive change!

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111500694.html

Powerpoint Presented in Class




A new introduction to American Studies
Chapter9: Industry and Technology
Author: Christopher Clark

Christopher Clark grew up in the London area, studied at the University of Warwick, and obtained his PhD in History at Harvard. He taught at the University of York for eighteen years, and was Professor of North American History at the University of Warwick for another seven years before moving to UConn in 2005. He is a specialist in 18th and 19th century North American and United States social and cultural history; the social history of economic life; the history of American capitalism; rural societies and industrialization; abolitionism and utopian communities and New England. His current research interests are rural society and land reform in the U.S. and overseas, c. 1750-1960. Some of his publications are Social Change in America from the Revolution to the Civil War and The Roots of Rural Capitalism: Western Massachusetts, 1780-1860
http://www.history.uconn.edu/people/clark.php


World's attention to the U.S. for:

1. Political system and ideologies
2. Technological advances and industrial power
*Industry and technology: hallmarks of American accomplishment symbolizing America as archetypal ‘modern’ society
*Benjamin Franklin epitomized the virtues of practical ingenuity and pursuit of useful knowledge
*A few poor colonists came to excel all nations
*Inventive figures like Franklin, Morse, Whitney: true subjects for the history of the U.S.
*Emergence of an industrial power from an overwhelmingly rural and agrarian society
*Connection between farm and factory, nature and machine helped shape the processes that drove industrial expansion


Four main phases of American industrial and technological change

From colonies to Civil War: between revolution and civil war a new manufacturing economy grew up in close connection with patterns of rural economic life
 After the Civil War: manufacturing became modern, rural America still expanding which helped shape industrial growth
 20th century: industrial and urban activities outstripped their rural origins
 Postmodern era: tendency to conceal processes of production, connection between agriculture and industry obscured by other concerns


From colonies to Civil War

 Roots of American industrial development in the colonial period
 Iron production, house-based textile production, urban craft trades and ship building
 Export of raw materials and producers’ goods from Britain to America
 Industrial development: a means to secure a hard won political independence
 Developments after the revolution:
i. Transfer of technologies to America from abroad
ii. Development of new technologies within the framework of American manufacture
 The most dramatic innovations involved the establishment of machine-based factory process especially in textile industry
 New textile technology introduced from England
 1814 onwards, eastern Massachusetts: group of merchants invested in large-scale textile production in mills
 1820, town of Lowell: grew rapidly into an industrial city with large mills drawing water power from the company’s dams and canals
Most manufacturing in the hands of craft workers and farm families
 Small-scale producers produced different goods from shoes, tools and implements to pumps, metal ware, furniture and clocks
 By 1820 American manufacturers achieved higher productivity than their British counterparts
 Key factors influencing early American manufacturing:
 Imported technology
 Diffusion of mechanical skills across rural and urban populations
 U.S. manufacturers outperformed their British counterparts by installing machinery where the British used hand-powered equipment
 Hallmarks of antebellum industry: development of techniques for using machines to help make finished goods & produce the machines themselves
 Early American machines: labor-saving
 19th century: rapid growth in population and land area, plentiful land but scare labor, high labor wages
 Scarcity of labor: incentive to introduce machinery to reduce the number of workers and lower the costs of wages
 Early 19th century: capital scarcity as well as labor scarcity
 Rapid expansion of machine-based industries after 1850s when immigrants from overseas helped reduce labor shortage
 Rural character of early America fostered the adoption of mechanized techniques
 Development of simple interchangeable devices by furniture makers, tool makers and wagon builders
 Advances in gun making and clock making: British commissioners were sent to the U.S. to learn ‘the American system of manufactures’
 Interest in inventiveness and experimentation with devises diffused among the people, many patents were issued
 Early American achievement : capacity to use machines and make them
 Yankee ingenuity Vs south slavery: claims about practical ingenuity: part of the sectional struggle leading to the civil war
 South concentrated on staple-crop production using slave labor
 Yankees worked for themselves, not relying on chattel slave to do their work from 1840 onwards, most immigrants avoided south
 Reasons for North’s military success in the Civil War:
 Economic diversity
 Technical dominance of manufacturing
 Supply and transport requirements essential for military operations


From Civil War to the Great Crash

 Turning point in industrial development under the stimulus of war production , population growth and higher capital expenditure
 By 1880 employment in manufacturing and mining exceeded that in agriculture
 Farming: more mechanized except in the south
 Processing activities such as meat-packing developed on an industrial scale
 Iron, steel, coal: central components of technologies
 Steel: provided rails, bridges and trains for railroad system and other construction purposes
 1880s onwards: the first urban skyscraper office buildings the prime symbols of American modernity
 By 1906 the average size of American manufactories had reached 67 workers whereas in 1869 it was less than 5
 Considerable shifts towards mechanization
 working conditions different from those of the antebellum period
 Interchangeability became broadly feasible in the production of a range of products
 Subdivision of work: many tasks were accomplished by relatively unskilled labor
 Industrial technology: a system of interdependent parts capable of producing more than its individual components
 Firm sizes & capital investment grew
 Social contexts shaped the process of technical change
 Growing workforces: growing influence of labor unions
 1870s & 1880s: strike action and conflicts over wages
 Companies pursued competitive advantage over rival firms and greater control over their own workforces
 The effort to achieve optimum output led to the adoption of new techniques of shop-floor organization and management
 By the end of 19th century: time-and-motion studies, premium-rate methods, production planning, system design were introduced to factory work
 Lewis Mumford: “clock : the key machine of the modern industrial age”
 First 2 decades of the 20th century: new techniques of closely managed production emerged in the new automobile industry
 Michigan manufacturer, Henry Ford: evolved a culmination of various 19th century developments in the new production line methods
 Ford evolved the moving assembly line by adopting the principles of efficient layout and division of tasks from the scientific management movement, the principle of interchangeability from 19th century machine production and sequencing and belt systems from the slaughterhouses of meat-packing industry
 Ford evolved the moving assembly line in which the speed of production was controlled by management and the line itself was the instrument of labor discipline, Fordism, later called Mass Production
 Toward the end of 19th century: institutional changes fostered further technological developments
 From abroad: chemicals and electrical applications
 From domestic developments: telephony, electricity, automobile and aviation technology
 Immigration from Europe and other parts of the world affected technical change
 Steel framers, elevators, electricity, chemical and petroleum-based technologies, automobiles and wireless transmission
 Stimulus for industrial investment: growing market for consumption
 Significant shift in the social character of invention
 Edison: America's most prominent inventor, also noteworthy for pioneering new methods of industrial research based on capital investment and collaborative effort
 Edison and his group adopted factory methods for the very process of invention itself
 Inventiveness removed from domestic, individual environment and became corporatized
 Ordinary people were now the subjects not the agents of industrial progress
 Science finds, industry applies, man conforms


The state and the industrial complex

 Most developments emerged in private sectors
 Calvin Coolidge: the business of the U.S. is business
 Industry and technology in private hands
 Growing role of government as a sponsor of industrial development after World War II and the Great Depression
 National Bureau of Standards: founded in 1901 to establish consistency and interchangeability across systems and manufacturers’ products.
 Ford: you can have any color you like as long as it’s black
 1929 to 1933: economic depression drove down industrial production
 Under Roosevelt's New Deal ,government agencies played active parts especially in the areas where the private sector had failed
 Technologies extended to rural areas
 WW II brought government into industrial production more directly by manufacturing tanks, guns , ships and aircrafts
 After WW II government kept close connection with industry
 Symbiosis of government and industry produced many key developments like sending people to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s
A postmodern era
 Dehumanizing character of industrial society
 Industrial activity despoiling and polluting the landscape
 Skepticism about the atomic power and space program
 Japanese manufacturers’ use of ‘lean production’ techniques outstripped U.S. mass production methods developed by Ford
 Plant closures and job losses
 New technological developments replaced older industrial work
 A shift in emphasis from manufacturing employment in the traditional sense toward s work based on service functions and communication of information
 Knowledge and data: raw materials and output of new industries
 Interest in knowledge about techniques of production faded
 Many facets of production became concealed, micro technology worked in hidden ways only accessible to specialist understanding
 Atomic technology in its military form spelled the potential for destroying the world
 New technologies no longer seemed simply beneficial


American industry in national and international contexts

 Shifts towards ‘postmodern’ interpretations of American industry influences its place in wider world history
 All phases of industrial change contained important elements of U.S. involvement in developments overseas
i. Pre-Civil War: intersection of domestic social structures and cultural patterns with technology transfer across the Atlantic, growth of international commerce, arrival of great numbers of skilled and semi-skilled immigrants
ii. Mid 20th century: rise of state government, creation of military-industrial complex, emergence of America as global power
 Early 20th century: more than half of the world’s biggest companies were American and the U.S was the largest importer of immigrant labor
 Now only one-fifth or fewer of the world’s largest companies are American-based mainly caused by influences from other parts of the world especially Asia
 Continuation of American economic leadership is challenged by the relative weakness of its industrial base
Key to American success in technology
Improvement on imitation

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Fort Hood Massacre


Nothing seems to work. It’s like you have one choice left. The last choice and perhaps the worst one. You don’t want to be violent but it seems that’s the only way you can get rid of your nasty job. You don’t want to kill your Muslim brothers and sisters. Why don’t these people understand? You have long tolerated their insults. You wanted to quit but they didn’t let you. And now, you are faced with something you never expected. You are on the wrong side. You have to go and help the enemies of your Muslim brothers. What can you do? Is there a way out? You don’t want to hurt anyone but how can you stop them from sending you to Iraq? These thoughts are driving you crazy. And at last you go for the last option. Gun is the solution. Not the best one but the only one left. You know that your action is not justified but you do it anyway and you kill 13 people. This is what happened at Fort Hood, Texas, on Thursday 5th November. Nidal Malik Hassan, an army psychiatrist, did not want to go to Afghanistan. So he shot 13 people dead and injured 31. Now the story of Major Hassan’s shooting is all over the media. He is a Muslim. You hear and read this many times. Muslims are terrorists. But have we not seen such shootings in the army before? Aren’t many Americans the victims of gun? In fact “at Fort Hood some violence is too familiar.” According to New York Times “ Staff Sgt. Gilberto Mota, 35, and his wife, Diana, 30, an Army specialist, had returned to Fort Hood from Iraq last year when he used his gun to kill her, and then took his own life, the authorities say. In July, two members of the First Cavalry Division, also just back from the war with decorations for their service, were at a party when one killed the other. That same month, Staff Sgt. Justin Lee Garza, 28, under stress from two deployments, killed himself in a friend’s apartment outside Fort Hood.” Now the case of Hassan has turned into a means to attack Muslims. I don’t think these actions have got anything to do with religion especially Islam. Gun is a part of American culture. If you have no Gun, you are not an American. You are in the army, you have gun and you want to protect yourself. What do you do?

Saturday, November 7, 2009

One Year Since ‘CHANGE’




November 4th was the first anniversary of president Obama’s election. Obama came to change and change was his slogan throughout his campaign for presidential election. The idea of change has always existed in the American mind unlike the British one and Obama touched a good point. United States needed a change. I remember Dr. Merrill saying that things had gone crazy under Bush administration and people wanted many things to change. At this crucial moment, Obama came with a new narrative which was a sharp contrast to that of Bush’s. The idea of change, had he used the idea of change just to win the election as what most politicians do before the time of election? They all seem to come with nice, eye-catching slogans but things do not work the same way once they are elected. With this question in mind, I was reading one of Obama’s books, the dreams from my father. I came across an interesting paragraph in the seventh chapter where he wants to become a community organizer. When asked by classmates about what exactly a community organizer does, he can’t give a proper answer. Instead he pronounces “on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed.[1]” He believed that “change won’t come from the top. Change will come from mobilized grass roots. [2]” It was interesting for me to see the idea of change in the thoughts of a 23 year old college student. Did he have any idea that he would become the president of the United States one day? Has the notion of change been with him since that time? It seems so. But how far has he been successful in fulfilling his promise? Some critics “have questioned Obama’s ability as the so-called agent of change, saying things are moving slowly under his administration. The economy, healthcare reform, two wars, immigration reform and a more energized opposition seems to be dragging his political agenda down.[3]” However, his supports including 400 progressives who gathered in downtown Chicago to celebrate the first anniversary of president Obama’s election, disagree. “He ended torture, he funded stem cell research, he passed the progressive budget that sets aside money for education, health care and human needs, instead of tax cuts for the rich,” said progressive leader William McNary [4]. I remember Dr. Merrill saying that at the beginning of Obama’s administration people had so much hope in him but now the situation is fifty fifty. I myself think he has not made many changes as he was proposing. As far as his foreign policy concerned, I don’t think he is much different from George Bush. We have seen this in the way he deals we Iran and issues related to Iran. He was saying that he wanted to change the mentality of the U.S government but I think this is something which cannot be changed and it’s not in his hands to change it. He may have wanted to make drastic changes in the U.S. But is the American society really ready for great changes to happen?

1.Obama. B, Dreams from My Father, 1995, New York, Three Rivers Press.
2.Ibid
3.http://www.abs-cbnnews.com retrieved on 07.11.09
4.Ibid