One major advantage McCain has over his opposition is the fact that the Republican party have an established modern ideology.
Despite McCain's continued disassociation attempt with the Bush administration, the neo-conservative elements of his campaign are without doubt.
The suspicion of international organisations became evident with the Russia-Georgia affair upon which little emphasis was placed on Georgia becoming a NATO member, but instead the McCain campaign focused upon the fact that the US should publicly show their alliance and affection for Georgia. The neo-conservative element of Country over International Organisation becomes apparent.
The continuation of military action in the Middle East is only a continuation of the Iraq War. which has a foundation, not to mention a prosecution, based entirely within neo-conservatism.
Understandably, the affection for Israel, which has often been described as neo-conservative, has now become mainstream, not only for ideological worldly ambitions, but also because of the domestic Jewish vote, which has been significant in recent presedential campaigns. As such Obama has also displayed the willingness to defend Israel in the event of an attack; a similar approach produced by his opponent.
So my main point is McCain can always stand behind these evident and existing principles while Obama is forced to adopt a new and very different approach.
Thus the nature of Obama's administration must be revolutionary, perhaps a neo-liberal ideology could emerge, otherwise I cannot forsee Obama managing to succeed in acquiring his goal.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
British Liberalism
In the end of the 19th century, Liberalism was dominated by one man’s ideals and ambitions: William Gladstone.
The very identity and purpose of the Victorian Liberal party has been in debate, with some arguing that there wasn’t really a consensus at all and others arguing quite on the contrary.
The affiliation with the working class gave the Liberals a certain socialist characteristic. Religion presented
Also, as well as the Irish Home Rule being promoted by the Liberal party so was basic decentralisation of the national government. The moral implication of religion provided
Gladstonian Liberalism was dominated by democratic intentions that placed importance on religion, decentralisation, finance and peace.
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
The Effects of Film
Films about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust can extend our knowledge considerably. Firstly, experiences can become more personal and therefore have more emotional impact.
Emotionally attaching the audience to a certain character can sometimes lead to generating sympathy for the particular group of people that the character represents.
In Schindler's List, for example. the girl with the red coat symbolises Schindler's awareness of the difficulties that those persecuted had to endure. In Polanski's, Pianist, the audience witnesses the destruction of a town, a family and a man, which seems to imply that these hardships were universal to the Jewish Poles of the period.
In the Downfall, one could argue that the film attempts to generate sympathy for the German people as on multiple occasions members of the Third Reich are presented as uncaring towards the people of Germany.
Emotional involvement can lead to more interest in a particular subject and possibly even provoke further research.
Film can also change our perceptions of either Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. Again in the Downfall, the audience is witness to a side of Adolf Hitler which has never been portrayed on the screen. A side of sentimentality and kindness to close ones and also his pet dog, Blondi.
Also, in Triumph of the Will, the audience can witness the visual aspect of Nazi propaganda and understand that presentation was one of the most important aspects of persuading the German people that the National Socialist party was the correct path.
In The Grey Zone, the film portrays Jews who had decidedly helped the Germans organise the death camps and move Jews through to the gassing chambers. They also helped in other areas such as moving dead bodies and keeping order in the camp.
Some would be quick to condemn these men as traitors and evil for what they did. This film attempts to understand the state of mind of these men and gives them a chance to allow them to be seen as good deep down. They succeeded in bombing of the gas chamber late in the film and again portrayed them in a general positive light, one quite distinct from the 'evil' Nazis.
The actual visualisation of the destruction of life, especially in Night and Fog, can sometimes be far more powerful and profound than reading the statistics in a textbook and consequently change our perception of events.
Emotionally attaching the audience to a certain character can sometimes lead to generating sympathy for the particular group of people that the character represents.
In Schindler's List, for example. the girl with the red coat symbolises Schindler's awareness of the difficulties that those persecuted had to endure. In Polanski's, Pianist, the audience witnesses the destruction of a town, a family and a man, which seems to imply that these hardships were universal to the Jewish Poles of the period.
In the Downfall, one could argue that the film attempts to generate sympathy for the German people as on multiple occasions members of the Third Reich are presented as uncaring towards the people of Germany.
Emotional involvement can lead to more interest in a particular subject and possibly even provoke further research.
Film can also change our perceptions of either Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. Again in the Downfall, the audience is witness to a side of Adolf Hitler which has never been portrayed on the screen. A side of sentimentality and kindness to close ones and also his pet dog, Blondi.
Also, in Triumph of the Will, the audience can witness the visual aspect of Nazi propaganda and understand that presentation was one of the most important aspects of persuading the German people that the National Socialist party was the correct path.
In The Grey Zone, the film portrays Jews who had decidedly helped the Germans organise the death camps and move Jews through to the gassing chambers. They also helped in other areas such as moving dead bodies and keeping order in the camp.
Some would be quick to condemn these men as traitors and evil for what they did. This film attempts to understand the state of mind of these men and gives them a chance to allow them to be seen as good deep down. They succeeded in bombing of the gas chamber late in the film and again portrayed them in a general positive light, one quite distinct from the 'evil' Nazis.
The actual visualisation of the destruction of life, especially in Night and Fog, can sometimes be far more powerful and profound than reading the statistics in a textbook and consequently change our perception of events.
Film-maker and Historian
The first problem between these two, specifically in regard of the representation of the Holocaust, is the controversy of representing the events.
Some people, such as the maker of Shoah, believe that the Holocaust is unrepresentable due to the extent of the horror. As a consequence, Shoah lacks any recreation or even real video or images from the 40s, instead its nine hours of Jewish survivors being interviewed and sharing their experiences.
Shoah was a response to feature films that were attempting to recreate the Holocaust and represented the dissatisfaction with the Holocaust represented on the screen. Schindler's List does appear in black and white almost as if to pretend that its actual footage from the 1940s in attempt to authenticate and legitimise the ongoings.
Another problem between the two is the fact that most feature films follow a single narrative and only have one or two perspectives which are sufficiently represented. Historians prefer multiple perspectives as their goal is to provide a neutral explanation of the past.
As a consequence, the two collide when the film maker attempts to personalise a story while an Historian attempts to generalise several.
Some people, such as the maker of Shoah, believe that the Holocaust is unrepresentable due to the extent of the horror. As a consequence, Shoah lacks any recreation or even real video or images from the 40s, instead its nine hours of Jewish survivors being interviewed and sharing their experiences.
Shoah was a response to feature films that were attempting to recreate the Holocaust and represented the dissatisfaction with the Holocaust represented on the screen. Schindler's List does appear in black and white almost as if to pretend that its actual footage from the 1940s in attempt to authenticate and legitimise the ongoings.
Another problem between the two is the fact that most feature films follow a single narrative and only have one or two perspectives which are sufficiently represented. Historians prefer multiple perspectives as their goal is to provide a neutral explanation of the past.
As a consequence, the two collide when the film maker attempts to personalise a story while an Historian attempts to generalise several.
Monday, 26 May 2008
Representation of the Holocaust
Triumph of the Will has significant footage of Adolf Hitler and also the positive and public perception of the Nazi party. Perhaps understanding their glorious representation can provide clues which one can understand how such a man could rise to power. Perhaps it provides a certain sympathy for the German people because we see the National Socialist party through their eyes.
In contrast, Der Untergang represents Hitler in a film with actors devoid of any actual footage, and confronted much controversy on the topic of humanising Hitler (discussed in an earlier entry in the blog.)
Documentaries such as Night and Fog, Shoah and The World at War, strengthen the sympathy for those who were persecuted and exterminated by the Nazis by displaying real images of the camps, real video footage, and generally making the nightmare a reality.
The Pianist and Schindler's List also attempts to portray the horrors of the Holocaust but in a different way. They use personal narratives to capture the audience, instead of real footage. Either way they accomplish the same result.
An argument could arise here which would suggest that perhaps the represented is not actually representable. In other words, the Holocaust cannot be represented on the screen because the unimaginable horror people suffered cannot even be imagined let alone written or depicted.
It is this argument which raises the question of whether or not any of these films can in fact truly teach us what it was like and thus avoid anything like it in the future. But what other options do we have? Assuming that you and I are not Holocaust victims, simply put, we cannot experience what they did.
These films will be as close as we will get and as a consequence we must utilise and understand them to the fullest extent. Novels and history books confront the same limitations that films based on a single perspectives and documentaries confront which is the failure to represent the experience of the Holocaust.
In contrast, Der Untergang represents Hitler in a film with actors devoid of any actual footage, and confronted much controversy on the topic of humanising Hitler (discussed in an earlier entry in the blog.)
Documentaries such as Night and Fog, Shoah and The World at War, strengthen the sympathy for those who were persecuted and exterminated by the Nazis by displaying real images of the camps, real video footage, and generally making the nightmare a reality.
The Pianist and Schindler's List also attempts to portray the horrors of the Holocaust but in a different way. They use personal narratives to capture the audience, instead of real footage. Either way they accomplish the same result.
An argument could arise here which would suggest that perhaps the represented is not actually representable. In other words, the Holocaust cannot be represented on the screen because the unimaginable horror people suffered cannot even be imagined let alone written or depicted.
It is this argument which raises the question of whether or not any of these films can in fact truly teach us what it was like and thus avoid anything like it in the future. But what other options do we have? Assuming that you and I are not Holocaust victims, simply put, we cannot experience what they did.
These films will be as close as we will get and as a consequence we must utilise and understand them to the fullest extent. Novels and history books confront the same limitations that films based on a single perspectives and documentaries confront which is the failure to represent the experience of the Holocaust.
Historical Cinema
I was reading an interesting article by R.C. Raack called Historiography as Cinematography, which writes that since film is such a powerful tool to provoke emotion, the history in these films must go through a more rigorous analysis by qualified historians.
Theres an upside and a downside to this perspective. Firstly, if you watch the Patriot with Mel Gibson, theres a reference to the burning of a church which the innocent Americans are inside and die.
In reality, the church was actually full of the British families of the soldiers and was started by an American rebel. The reversal of facts, which would be readily inhaled by the public, does indeed provide more basis to the theme of the film however completely skews the historical perspective with incorrect facts.
This lost any historical credit that the film claimed, however a majority of viewers are unaware of this error to this day as they would not look up and question the legitimacy of such an assumption (and understandably so).
Another film, 10,000 B.C., has countless historical errors. There are people on horses and have some type of metal swords which both didn't happen until thousands of years later. However, by the end the film there was magic involved and I asked myself, if I'm ready to accept such a notion perhaps I can abide the historical inaccuracy.
My personal experience was my history professor always used to say that he never watches Hollywood films involving history because of their inaccuracies, however Raack argues that more historians such watch as perhaps their attention may provoke questions surrounding the realism of the film and consequently undermining the whole basis of the plot (and hopefully harming the popularity of the film.)
So basically Raack blames the evils of Hollywood and film-makers, and subsequently the whole tradition of making films, for the supposed deliberate lack of professional historical analysis.
Rosenstone argues quite a different perspective in an article called History in Images, in which he/she says that the reason there is no room for real history in films is due to nature of the film.
History is boundless with countless perspectives and multiple narratives which could never be represented in a single film, and as such the inability to present this truly realistic environment leads to the simplification of a story and encompassing limited perspective.
Theres an upside and a downside to this perspective. Firstly, if you watch the Patriot with Mel Gibson, theres a reference to the burning of a church which the innocent Americans are inside and die.
In reality, the church was actually full of the British families of the soldiers and was started by an American rebel. The reversal of facts, which would be readily inhaled by the public, does indeed provide more basis to the theme of the film however completely skews the historical perspective with incorrect facts.
This lost any historical credit that the film claimed, however a majority of viewers are unaware of this error to this day as they would not look up and question the legitimacy of such an assumption (and understandably so).
Another film, 10,000 B.C., has countless historical errors. There are people on horses and have some type of metal swords which both didn't happen until thousands of years later. However, by the end the film there was magic involved and I asked myself, if I'm ready to accept such a notion perhaps I can abide the historical inaccuracy.
My personal experience was my history professor always used to say that he never watches Hollywood films involving history because of their inaccuracies, however Raack argues that more historians such watch as perhaps their attention may provoke questions surrounding the realism of the film and consequently undermining the whole basis of the plot (and hopefully harming the popularity of the film.)
So basically Raack blames the evils of Hollywood and film-makers, and subsequently the whole tradition of making films, for the supposed deliberate lack of professional historical analysis.
Rosenstone argues quite a different perspective in an article called History in Images, in which he/she says that the reason there is no room for real history in films is due to nature of the film.
History is boundless with countless perspectives and multiple narratives which could never be represented in a single film, and as such the inability to present this truly realistic environment leads to the simplification of a story and encompassing limited perspective.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Anti-War Protests
Gustainis suggests that while many Vietnam scholars come to the conclusion that the strong, anti-war movement helped end the Vietnam War sooner, it actually did not help the overall goal of withdrawing troops from Vietnam.
Firstly, he shows evidence which suggests the anti-war protests had no correlation with public polls on whether or not Americans approved of the war.
Secondly, the anti-war protesters gave the call for peace a bad name and thus kept away support from the middle class. Although Gustainis writes that the anti-war protests, at least the existence of any, did help demonstrate a dovish perspective, the extent of such protests went beyond what they needed to be.
One emergence of the protests was the 'counter-culture' movement which possibly was the founding basis of the 'hippie.' They went against the American culture of well-dressed, job-keeping citizens who loved their country and grew long hair, did drugs, and had lots of sex.
The association between opposition to the war and this counter-culture movement discouraged the average American to join such a cause.
Firstly, he shows evidence which suggests the anti-war protests had no correlation with public polls on whether or not Americans approved of the war.
Secondly, the anti-war protesters gave the call for peace a bad name and thus kept away support from the middle class. Although Gustainis writes that the anti-war protests, at least the existence of any, did help demonstrate a dovish perspective, the extent of such protests went beyond what they needed to be.
One emergence of the protests was the 'counter-culture' movement which possibly was the founding basis of the 'hippie.' They went against the American culture of well-dressed, job-keeping citizens who loved their country and grew long hair, did drugs, and had lots of sex.
The association between opposition to the war and this counter-culture movement discouraged the average American to join such a cause.
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Domino Theory
The 'Domino Theory,' which was first publicly suggested by Dwight Eisenhower, predicted that if Vietnam fell to Communist forces then the rest of Southeast Asia would follow suit.
J.Justin Gustainis suggests in his book, American Rhetoric and the Vietnam War that the 'domino theory' is based upon a chauvinistic belief in American superiority.
He suggests that the theory assumes that all Third World countries are the same. Void of recognising any individuality in these nations, American foreign policy makers view these smaller countries in black and white.
Alternatively, once the North Vietnamese were victorious in establishing a single Communist state, Laos and Cambodia quickly followed. To a certain extent this would prove the domino theory.
However, Eisenhower suggested that it would spread even further into Japan, Indonesia, and even Australia and New Zealand. These assumptions were obviously proved wrong.
J.Justin Gustainis suggests in his book, American Rhetoric and the Vietnam War that the 'domino theory' is based upon a chauvinistic belief in American superiority.
He suggests that the theory assumes that all Third World countries are the same. Void of recognising any individuality in these nations, American foreign policy makers view these smaller countries in black and white.
Alternatively, once the North Vietnamese were victorious in establishing a single Communist state, Laos and Cambodia quickly followed. To a certain extent this would prove the domino theory.
However, Eisenhower suggested that it would spread even further into Japan, Indonesia, and even Australia and New Zealand. These assumptions were obviously proved wrong.
Monday, 19 May 2008
Effects of the Vietnam War
Well, arguably the United States did 'unofficially' lose the War of 1812. The rules of war indicate that a country has lost a war if it's capital city has been captured.
The White House was captured by the British in 1812, in fact the British generals even had supper in the dining room before they burnt the original building down.
The Americans then decided to establish Philadelphia as their temporary capital and thus avoiding the loss. As a consequence, the United States had not ever 'officially' lost a war.
That was before the Vietnam War. They invaded and helped the South to achieve its aim of stopping it from becoming Communist. They were not able to do so, and lost countless American lives in the attempt.
American dominance in the world became questioned. Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power significantly questioned American conduct in world affairs. Understandably so, a reexamination of foreign policy was conducted beginning with Richard Nixon.
I've discussed in a prior blog one result of the loss of the war, and the ensuing disillusionment with American power, was the Neoconservative principle. A foreign policy strongly based upon Powell's Doctrine that public support is important, overwhelming and decisive military action must be utilised as quickly as possible, clear objectives and purely US interests must all be involved when considering invading a nation.
Ronald Reagan united the Republican party and attempted to restore the confidence which had dwindled since the loss. The fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident also provoked feelings of government deception.
The significant loss on the Home Front for the United States forced it to reconsider its relations with the media particularly the television. As war scenes streamed in from the TV stations and truly alerted the people to what was happening during the war for the first time. Fox News seems to be a prominent Republican attempt to conceal that which would provoke much anti-war protest with respect to Iraq.
To sum up, we have the approach of the media towards war perhaps more government controlled and the war provoked controversy around the fact that the US had drifted from its isolationist position. Also, the Gulf of Tonkin incident gave Lyndon Johnson a 'blank check' to deal with Vietnam. This was almost substitute for a declaration of war.
Without the declaration, public support was perhaps not as intense and consistent as it would have been.
The White House was captured by the British in 1812, in fact the British generals even had supper in the dining room before they burnt the original building down.
The Americans then decided to establish Philadelphia as their temporary capital and thus avoiding the loss. As a consequence, the United States had not ever 'officially' lost a war.
That was before the Vietnam War. They invaded and helped the South to achieve its aim of stopping it from becoming Communist. They were not able to do so, and lost countless American lives in the attempt.
American dominance in the world became questioned. Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power significantly questioned American conduct in world affairs. Understandably so, a reexamination of foreign policy was conducted beginning with Richard Nixon.
I've discussed in a prior blog one result of the loss of the war, and the ensuing disillusionment with American power, was the Neoconservative principle. A foreign policy strongly based upon Powell's Doctrine that public support is important, overwhelming and decisive military action must be utilised as quickly as possible, clear objectives and purely US interests must all be involved when considering invading a nation.
Ronald Reagan united the Republican party and attempted to restore the confidence which had dwindled since the loss. The fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident also provoked feelings of government deception.
The significant loss on the Home Front for the United States forced it to reconsider its relations with the media particularly the television. As war scenes streamed in from the TV stations and truly alerted the people to what was happening during the war for the first time. Fox News seems to be a prominent Republican attempt to conceal that which would provoke much anti-war protest with respect to Iraq.
To sum up, we have the approach of the media towards war perhaps more government controlled and the war provoked controversy around the fact that the US had drifted from its isolationist position. Also, the Gulf of Tonkin incident gave Lyndon Johnson a 'blank check' to deal with Vietnam. This was almost substitute for a declaration of war.
Without the declaration, public support was perhaps not as intense and consistent as it would have been.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Eisenhower
Eisenhower became President of the United States in 1953. The French would continue to fight the Vietnamese forces however were beginning to show signs of fatigue due to the length of the war.
A Geneva Conference was held in 1954 which effectively split Vietnam right down the middle (the 17th Parallel to be exact) creating a North and South. These were the beginnings of a civil war. The North assumed a Communist ruler under Ho Chi Minh and eventually the South came under power of a leader called Diem.
Diem was a corrupt and oppressive ruler who won a fixed election to become leader and then assigned close relatives to positions of power. Diem was the fellow who the United States decided to endorse.
While some historians argue that perhaps the US chose the wrong side in a civil war, what other options did they have? They couldn't have chosen the North and backed a Communist leader, despite his supposed 'close relationship' with the US.
Assuming that involvement in Vietnam was absolutely necessary (which in itself is still heavily debated, and rightfully so) the US had no option but to find a leader for the South and to their misfortune Diem appeared to be the best choice.
Eventually, Diem's suppressive ruling technique resulted in a coup where Diem was assassinated. Supposedly, some US intelligence existed which suggested that the US government was aware of this assassination but seemingly ignored it.
Nevertheless, much before Diem's assassination, which was in 63, the French pulled out of Southeast Asia entirely. The United States supported Diem and hoped that he would win the civil war and once again unite Vietnam. Though Diem was authoritarian, more importantly he was anti-communist and consequently important to the new Vietnam.
A Geneva Conference was held in 1954 which effectively split Vietnam right down the middle (the 17th Parallel to be exact) creating a North and South. These were the beginnings of a civil war. The North assumed a Communist ruler under Ho Chi Minh and eventually the South came under power of a leader called Diem.
Diem was a corrupt and oppressive ruler who won a fixed election to become leader and then assigned close relatives to positions of power. Diem was the fellow who the United States decided to endorse.
While some historians argue that perhaps the US chose the wrong side in a civil war, what other options did they have? They couldn't have chosen the North and backed a Communist leader, despite his supposed 'close relationship' with the US.
Assuming that involvement in Vietnam was absolutely necessary (which in itself is still heavily debated, and rightfully so) the US had no option but to find a leader for the South and to their misfortune Diem appeared to be the best choice.
Eventually, Diem's suppressive ruling technique resulted in a coup where Diem was assassinated. Supposedly, some US intelligence existed which suggested that the US government was aware of this assassination but seemingly ignored it.
Nevertheless, much before Diem's assassination, which was in 63, the French pulled out of Southeast Asia entirely. The United States supported Diem and hoped that he would win the civil war and once again unite Vietnam. Though Diem was authoritarian, more importantly he was anti-communist and consequently important to the new Vietnam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
