Aunt Adeline

Aunt Adeline was born into slavery in 1848. She and her mother were sold to a slave owner in Arkansas when she was one year old. In her description of her time as a slave she talks about being scared only once. The incident she talks about where she was scared is when she was very young and worked in a stage coach stop. She was playing church with her friend and they were singing ‘Jesus my all to heaven is gone’ when they realised some stagecoach passengers were listening to them sing. When they discovered they were being watched they both ran because they were terrified of the consequences but were coaxed back by the passengers with a dime.

In her narrative she also talks about how she had been told that she was of African descent and that if the whites had never taken her people from Africa they would be much better off. I find it interesting that she describes her owners as treating her well even though she was whipped. She says that the white children were also whipped aswell though.

After the end of the Civil War she recounts that she did not want to leave ‘the only house she had ever known’. This was even after soldiers came to the house telling her old owner to let her go. This led to her becoming an outcast and threatened for not leaving.

The owners of Aunt Adeline were not as evil as some slave owners and made sure all their slaves ate well and wore good clothing. When she was young her uncle was the coach driver for the owner’s family and after the war the owners gave the coach to her uncle and bought himself a new one.

Aunt Adeline says towards the end that she can ‘remember the days of slavery as happy ones’ which seems quite odd, but being born into it it’s all she knew. The interviewer writes at the end that she is still working as a caretaker even though she is nearing ninety and that she ‘rarely associates with the colored people of the town’. I’m not really sure why she isolated herself from other African Americans but it could go back to when she refused to leave her old owners house after the Civil War was over as maybe she was still an outcast from the community.

This account was interesting as it did not really show slavery as being an evil thing which all slaves wanted to be free of as she did not really want to change anything and was happy with the life she lived as a slave. This is most probably down to the fact that her owners were not treating her awfully and she was only 15 when the Civil War happened and Slavery ended.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.021/?sp=16

A Slave Story: Martha Adeline Hinton

Federal Writers' Project: Slave Narrative Project, Vol.11, North Carolina, Part 1, Adams-Hunter

A Slave Story: Martha Adeline Hinton, Raleigh, North Carolina 

Martha Adeline Hinton was born 3rd May 1861 at Willis Thompson's plantation in North Carolina. Her mother and father Minerva and Jack Emery were both slaves owned by Willis and Muriel Thompson who owned a plantation in Wake County 15 miles from Raleigh. Her master Willis Thompson had three children Margaret, Caroline and Nancy. Minerva Emery was a slave in the house whilst Jack worked on the plantation with other slaves. In Martha's account of her mothers life in slavery Willis treated his slaves fairly whilst his wife was very rough to them. She had a reasonable place to sleep and enough to eat but was very young during the time of her mothers slavery. 

Martha recalls how slaves wore homemade wooden shoes in the winter and how her dad had made her first shoes which she was so pleased with. In the summer the slave children would run around barefooted wearing homemade shoes. 

Martha also recalls how she remembers the Yankees came and stole things whilst searching for money and how they said to her mother that they were free. During slavery Jack Emery, Martha's father was tried to be sold as he was cutting wood when the Yankees arrived. They tried to get him to the corn crib and tie him down but when he got there he just kept working. The reason why they wanted to sell him was to "buy a oman so dey could have a lot of slave chilluns cause de oman could multiply". In the end they hired men out by the year to contractors to cut cord wood so that they could build a railway. 

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.111/?sp=439 

Louis Cain

Louis Cain

Louis Cain was supposedly born in 1849, in North Carolina. 'Supposedly', because the only reason he knew his birth year was because it was written on his "bill of sale". It is unclear how accurate this would have been, as it would have been written by a white man, who would not have prioritised the accuracy of the birth of a slave. Louis' parents were both slaves from different slave owners. What was interesting about Louis Cain is the number of contradictions and statements that were surprising coming from a former slave.

Louis' father was Samuel Cain and his mother was Josie Jones. This suggests that by 1849, new generations of children were being born into slavery, meaning they would be considered today as American. Louis addresses this when he states that his father was from "Africy" (Africa), and describes how relaxed his father's lifestyle was before being captured and shipped to America. This is surprising, as it is common knowledge that there was a lack of ancestral knowledge among slaves. But Louis seems to have been informed about his father's past life. This is contrary to the life of most slaves, as slave owners tended to keep education and information on the slaves' heritage away from them, to prevent any revolutions or uprisings.

In addition, Louis says his master, Massa Cain, was "purty good to his slaves", but was mean when they misbehaved, suggesting he thought his master was a fair owner. Again this creates a contradiction to what is often thought about slaves and slavery. People assume that the slaves were constantly oppressed and unhappy, but the fact that slavery is all that Louis knew at the time, suggests that he offered an alternative view. He seems to feel like he was fairly lucky with how he lived. He says he had "plenty to eat" and although his living quarters don't sound particularly enticing to a 21st Century 20 year old, he doesn't seem too downhearted about it, stating that "sleep wam all night long".

The nature of Louis' labour is more familiar to a 'typical' slave in America. He had to work as "long as we could see", meaning he would have to be working as soon as there was light in the day, which could be as early as "four o'clock in the mornin'". In addition, if a slave didn't work in a satisfactory manner, Massa would tie "they hands to they feet and tied them to a tree" and then they would be whipped. It is intriguing how Louis can transition from describing Massa as being "good to his slaves", to this detailed image of torture towards his slaves. This suggests that Louis has a deep sense of loyalty and respect towards Massa even after the long period of time that had passed since Louis' enslavement.

After being freed from slavery, Louis got married and got a job on the railway earning "fifty cents a day". However this only lasted a year, so he moved onto farming. He goes on to mention Massa's land again, which suggests he had to go back to his former owner to get work. In addition, he states that "sometimes they wouldn't pay us", which suggests he had inadvertently become a 'sharecropper', often former slaves who remained on their former owners' land because they had no education or money to move elsewhere, so they basically became unofficial slaves once more.

References:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.161/?sp=191

A slave account: Fanny Smith Hodges

A slave account: Fanny Smith Hodges.

Federal Writer's Project, United States Work Projects Administration (USWPA) Vol 9. Mississippi, Allen-Young.

Fanny Smith was a slave who lived in north Berglundtown, Mississippi, in the ‘Negro Settlement’. As an overview, it suggests that she was born into slavery as her mother was already a slave in the Amite County, Mississippi. The text suggests that there were more than fifty slaves on the plantation labouring for Marse Cassedy and his family, and that Fanny was one of those who worked inside the house. In addition, it briefly looks at the civil war and describes the aftermath with the emancipation of the slaves, as well as touching on the Christian religious culture at the time.

What was interesting about Fanny’s account was difference between the lives of slaves, and that of the rich white plantation owners at the time. It presented the contrast in the lavish lifestyle that her masters were accustomed to, with the basic and circumstances of the slaves. Fanny talks of the ‘Quarters’ she shared with the other slaves as well as the routine of a horn sounding when they wake, work and eat. In comparison, according to Fanny, she continuously refers to her master’s house as the ‘big house’, where her master Cassedy was a successful judge, owned a ‘fine carriage’ and hosted ‘big dances’.

Perhaps what one of the most striking comparisons was the quality of a wedding ceremony, which highlights the big difference between the classes. Fanny talks of the white wedding, where there were multiple cooks preparing the wedding food, consisting of expensive food and cakes for the occasion. Although she was not permitted to see the ceremony in the garden, the event was suggested to be a large public occasion. In comparison, Fanny was married after the civil war, it suggests that they were at the time free slaves working for money on the plantation instead of free labour. She stayed in the employment of Cassedy for ten years until she married Jake in a quick ceremony at the Courthouse. There was no further description of any celebrations or even other attendees at the event.

Historically, the text was insightful into the quality of life the slaves had on Cassedy’s plantation. In comparison to other slave accounts, it was suggested that Cassedy was more merciful to his slaves. It was not an idealistic plantation, however Fanny conveys that the slaves were fed and mostly enjoyed experiencing the culture that came with working for a rich white family. However, there were instances of the discipline of those who did attempt to run away, as well as the harsh whipping treatment many of the slaves faced with the overseer when the master was not home.

Sources:

https://www.loc.gov/item/mesn090/

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/19272487/fanny-smith-hodges

12 Years a Slave (picture)

The Bill of Rights or slave rights?

Slave Narratives from Virginia

Context

I choose to research the narratives from Virginia as this state seemed to feature significantly when researching the political and social aspects of slavery in the south. The wealth generated from the stable crops of the south supported a white elite who additionally had the leisure and appetite for civic duties. Four of the first five presidents came from Virginia (Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe). Virginia was the richest southern state, and arguably the richest of all the first thirteen colonies, made wealthy by strong transatlantic trade links and the demand for tobacco. Virginia was also the most populous state in the eighteenth century which entitled its representatives to have considerable sway over the shape and institutions of the new national state with Jefferson in particular a powerful broker of the constitutional amendments in the Bill of Rights – the charter for freedom, liberty and equality. We learn from his writings that Jefferson was troubled by the interestingly termed ‘American paradox’ – saying in 1820 “ we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self- preservation in the other.” I have to admit to a fairly strong personal reaction to this statement. I was therefore particularly interested to read about the realities of the slave experience in Virginia. To help put this in further context, here is a picture of  Monticello.

Monticello was the primary plantation of Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, who began designing and building Monticello at age 26 after inheriting land from his father.

Slave Narrative Project, Volume 17, Virginia

From a survey of 60 items in the Virginia archive, there were numerous examples where slave experiences were the complete opposite of the principles in the Bill of Rights. The numbers below refer to actual quotes from the archive.

The Principle of Equality

 About two thirds of the narratives had references to incidents of extreme violence. This applied to men, women and children.

10. Cotton masters down south were so mean to slaves they would let them work the fields till they drop down dead with hoes in their hands.

11 Scenes at the auction house of young children beaten for refusing to be sold and any form of rebellion could incur the use of the ‘strop.’

14 Woman with 15 children was stripped naked and beaten because she refused to provide sex to an overseer and was too scared of further beatings to inform her own Master.

55. Women beaten naked and soaked in brine. Run into woods till forced out and beaten some more.

55 White woman beat slave with a broom or leather strap or anything else around.

The Principles of Liberty and Freedom

The narratives revealed lives of complete subjugation to plantation owners.

56 Ask permission of whites to get married. Ceremony was to jump across the broomstick

15 Slaves beaten if discovered holding religious gatherings – you don’t have time to serve God, we bought you to serve us.

46 Beaten if found with a book or paper or heard praising God.

The working and living conditions were extremely hard and showed no consideration for human dignity or rights. The slaves lived under constant surveillance from the overseer.

16 Made to work in the sun baked fields from break of day till dark. Beaten if asked for food to sustain work load. Children started work from young age. Too tired to crawl home, fell asleep on the ground. From pulling grass by hand a child graduated to field work with sharp tools. Following an accident, the child’s arm was dressed with soot and the subsequent neglect left the arm deformed. He was sent back to work with his free hand and his teeth. If he disobeyed he would be whipped or sent further south.

25 Lived in shanty and survived on food given out by master until he decided to give out another supply.

47 Child’s job was to pick worms off tobacco plants, and if he missed any would be forced to eat worms or be beaten.

55 Slave woman forced to knit all day till dark, then knit standing up and beaten if she fell asleep.

57 Washer women worked till midnight.

57 Runaway slaves caught and beaten near to death.

12 Gangs of white men patrolled the country catching and whipping slaves they found without a remit to be out.

After reading this archive, it becomes even more difficult to accept the term 'Jefferson's paradox' when viewed against what we would now call crimes against humanity. There were such  consistent themes of horror, cruelty and violence. This seems to have been the culture of the South. As Jefferson said - " the nature of our self preservation." 

9. Vol. 12, Ohio - Susan Bledsoe

Account of Susan Bledsoe - Giles County, Tennessee

Susan was born on a Tennessee plantation in 1845 into a family with 6 brothers and 6 sisters, segregated according to owner who, in Susan's case, was Silas Jenkins.

She begins her account explaining how she "worked in the field with the men" unless "called to the house to do work there.", showing how the work for slaves did not revolve around gender and duties were shared accordingly. Susan then introduces the surprisingly central theme to her narrative: the kindness of her masters and the happiness and perceived liberty that accompanied her time as a slave. She explains how "we were not allowed to work on Sunday, but we could go to church if we wanted" with her word choice suggesting that they would rather be working and that this day of rest was somehow an infringement on her liberty, although countered with the offer of church, suggesting that this is a kindness on the part of her owners. She continues to state how "There wasn't any colored church but we would go to the white folks church if we went with our overseer [...] he was good to all of us.". This provides us with an early insight into the kind of segregation and Jim crow law whose notoriety peaked in the 20th century, showing the racism that was inherent to American society, yet could be overcome through the power of a white man, the companionship of which was sufficient to overcome segregation (although this is not a solution). The observation that the overseer was "good" to the slaves is clearly subjective and as modern readers, we are unable to understand to what extent this observation is relative. For example, was he genuinely kind to the slaves (his existence as an overseer of slaves in itself suggests otherwise) or was he kind in comparison with the experiences of other slaves with different overseers, leading Susan to state he is "good". Evidently, the answers will remain unknown but it is interesting nonetheless to note how this positive perception of her captors remains a staple feature of her narrative.

This extends to her recall of her diet as a slave where she states how "we had good food and plenty of it", even going on to say how "I got better food when I was a slave than I have ever had since". Shocking here is Susan's tone of lament as she reflects on her time as a slave, making her good treatment and high quality of life explicitly clear for the reader. However she does note that "they had to feed us well so we would be strong.", showing that she was not naive and there was perhaps an economical motive for the good care provided by her white owners.

Reflecting on slave punishment, Susan gives a brief overview explaining how "yes they had to whip a slave sometimes, but only the bad ones, and they deserved it.". This too is interesting as it shows Susan trying to condone the behaviour of the plantation owners, showing that she has aligned her own morality with that of her captors. This perhaps shows that, as someone born into slavery, Susan is so habituated to this behaviour and ignorant of what constitutes normal civil codes of behaviour outside of a master-slave relationship on an American plantation that she sees slave punishment as an act of moral necessity. In creating this distinction between herself and the 'bad' slaves deserving of punishment, Susan reinforces the idea that she is happy with her own status and sees any act of rebellion as immoral.

When reflecting at the end of her account, Susan discusses her life in the 20th century and her belief that the children of this era are not "as good as they used to be, they are just not raised like we were and do too much as they please.". In this belief, Susan seems to advocate the merits of an upbringing in slavery, clearly referencing her own childhood as a suitable example. This is particularly interesting as by this stage, she had experienced life both in slavery, and as a free woman. Consequently, her beliefs around children of the 20th century are not limited to her experience as a slave (in contrast with her descriptions of her captors) so even with the gift of hindsight, Susan continues to support her lifestyle as a slave, demonstrating that her positive views of her time as a slave were not a mere product of having only known that lifestyle, but still stand in her opinions as a free woman.

In conclusion, Susan's account challenges our (as modern readers) preconceived ideas of slavery to some extent and forces us to reconsider the way in which we might analyse the experience of slaves in America. Although Susan's account may be influenced by untold factors (the editing process, her particular plantation, lack of memory etc.), her positive tone remains unmistakable and makes it incredibly difficult to form a modern conclusion of her contemporary account.

Sources

Pg 1. - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.120/?sp=11
Pg 2. - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.120/?sp=12
Pg 3. - https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.120/?sp=13

Guns

Personally, I am anti-gun, because owning guns only leads to death and I can’t really see any positive aspects of the population being able to own a weapon which is designed to kill people.

Pro-Gun:

https://gunowners.org/

This is the website of the pro-gun group ‘Gun Owners of America’. The group has around 1.5 million members and has criticized the larger NRA on several occasions for giving in to ant gun campaigners on some issues. The website has news stories on the front page about guns, including one which stresses the importance of concealed carrying of guns in America as a concealed carrier saved a Deputy’s life who was being assaulted by shooting the man who was attacking him. The front page also has a ‘Bill of Rights Gun Giveaway’ which is a competition to win a gun.

The website is very obviously right-wing, the first thing you see when opening it is a picture of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump saying that the election of Trump averted a crisis as they believe that Clinton would have taken away the guns in America. The Gun Owners of America group is also anti-CNN as they believe that they are puppets of the democrats. This Pressure group is far less credible than the larger NRA whose membership is at 5 million.

This group is pro-gun because they believe it is their constitutional right as an American to be able to own a gun in order to protect themselves, hunt and a variety of other reasons. It is understandable why in America you would need a gun as everyone has them, so you need to protect yourself.

Anti-Gun:

http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/

This website is from the non-partisan group ‘Parents against Gun Violence’. The group was founded after the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 and believes that there are many ‘common sense policies’ which could be put in place to limit gun violence and protect the children of America. Their goal is to protect children from gun violence and they have a policy list on their website of how they will do this. They ‘urge lawmakers and the President’ to consider the policies which include protection of schools with ‘guards’ and regulations on the manufacture of firearms. The website also includes research on gun violence and the correlation between stricter gun control laws and less shootings.

This point of view is understandable as a British person as we don't have guns here. Nowhere on the website do they call for a total ban on guns though, just stricter regulations on the in order to protect children from gun violence.

Guns in the USA

I am very much a 'limited gun' supporter. I understand they have their place in American society, i.e, the police, military and farmers. However, I am against the ownership of guns by anyone in the USA, as I believe they cause more bad than good and they leave a permanent impact on those involved in guns violence.

Pro Guns

The first article on the homepage of 'gunowners.org' is regarding an owner of a concealed weapon who allegedly saved the life of police officer. Beneath this article, there is a headline about Donald Trump and his position on gun control. This shows that this pro gun website wants to focus more on the positive use of guns, rather than the relevant issue of whether people should have guns or not. The article about Trump, discusses whether the fact that people voted for Trump means that the issue of gun control will no longer be a leading topic of debate among politicians. In addition, the website has an article which suggests that it would have been a 'crisis' if Clinton had been elected. The website tries its best to use the election results to place Trump in a positive light. Moreover, it is obviously targeted at gun supporters, as it implies that a world without guns would be a 'crisis'.


Anti Guns

This website immediately informs the reader with statistics that display guns in a negative manner. It also has links where people can go to 'join the cause', implying they feel people have a duty to help them with what they are trying to do. The slogan of the website is 'imagine a future free from gun violence'. This creates the ideas of liberty, which is supposed to be a key ideology of the United States. However, pro gun people would also argue that they are expressing their liberty by being permitted to own guns. Both websites express different ideas of liberty which are contradictory, but also in a way both legitimate things to request.

References:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-h-harwood/those-who-say-guns-dont-k_b_8254334.html
https://gunowners.org/
http://csgv.org/

Pro-Gun Control vs Anti-Gun Control

Pro-Gun Control

http://www.2acheck.com/the-boycott-list/nras-list-of-antis/

This website shows the list of organisations and celebrities who are pro-gun control. The information was released by National Rifle Association.
This website lists 141 organisations who have supported pro-gun organisations either by donating money or showing other type of support. The majority of these organisations have been listed as "Campaign Partners" for there support to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" bans. The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act 1993 was enforced in order to ensure that a background check is done before every firearm purchase. Similarly the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 expired after 10 years so these organisations are working to reinstate the prohibition on the manufacture of civilian use of semi-automatic firearms which were defined as assault weapons, but have not been successful so far. Some of these organisations include the American Civil Liberties Union, Consumer Federation of America and National Safe Kids Campaign.
This website also lists Anti-Gun Corporations and Corporation Heads. The list includes well know corporations such as Ben and Jerry's Ice-cream, Hallmark cards, Levi Strauss & Co. and Time Warner Inc.
There is also a lot of media coverage for pro-gun control such as publications in Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone Magazine, The New York Times, and the Washington Post. The large amount of pro-gun control media coverage is used to persuade the public against guns and gun violence.
Similarly many celebrities and national figures have spent time in providing a voice for pro-gun control organisations and legislation. Celebrities such as Jennifer Aniston, Ellen Degeneres, Bruce Springsteen, Maya Angelou and Danny DeVito are just a few to name who have helped promote pro-gun control campaigns. The use of celebrities in order to promote pro-gun control can be influential to people to try and change their views on gun control from anti-gun control to pro-gun control and help make The United States a safer country to live.

Anti-Gun Control

http://time.com/4100408/a-criminologists-case-against-gun-control/

This article is a criminologist case against gun control written in Time magazine. Throughout the article he explains why he believes attempting to have stricter control or ban on guns won't work mainly due to the second amendment. Jacob Davidson notes that there has been a remarkable decrease in gun crime in th U.S since the early 1990s, despite the fact that the number of firearms has increased by 10 million each year. This goes to show that there is no correlation between the number of firearms in private hands and the amount of gun crime. Surprisingly most gun related deaths are suicide rather than murders. In fact there are twice as many suicides than murders in the U.S.

Davidson emphasis on the fact that there is no simple and effercitve policy which will reduce gun crime, as it is hard to find an initiative that is implementable and enforceable that would make any impact on gun crime. Many citizens want to ban "assault weapons" as they make claims that they are very dangerous, despite the fact that they are no more dangerous than other weapons. Davidson refers to Obama's speech on how the UK has banned the ownership of handguns due to the 1996 school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland. However Davidson believes that the ban will not work in the U.S due to the Consitution and the Supreme Court decision which guarantees the right for Americans to keep and bear arms in their homes for lawful purposes.

Anti-Gun Control and Pro-Gun Control in America.

Comparing a Anti-Gun Control Website with a Pro-Gun Control.

Anti-Gun Control- Gun Owners of America

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) dates from 1975, as an organisation to protect the Second Amendment and gun rights in America. Labelling itself as the ‘no compromise’ gun organisation, its values are enshrined in the freedoms created by the Founding fathers.

From the appearance of the website, their headline promoting the Amazon Black Friday Sales with the statement 'protect your family this Christmas', really gives a strong first impression to this website and their beliefs. In addition, the reoccurring theme of the colour red, can hold connotations of American patriotism and liberty. It also presents gun freedom as something which is under attack and needs to be protected. This is shown from their 'take action' page, where it encourages the reader to become involved against anti-gun advertisements and laws.

Politically, the web page seeks to appeal to Republicans and draws conclusions from the results of the Presidential Election 2016. The webpage shares videos claiming Clinton ‘lying’ to the American people, and that Obama has the power to take away their guns. Recently, it highlighted how Republican gun owners united to defeat Clinton in the elections, and that the Republican win is a milestone for gun owners. It suggests that by Trump winning the election, the potential ban on semi-automatic rifles has been avoided, and that the Second Amendment will not be destroyed after all.

What is significant about this website, is that it has usually fails to acknowledge the added safety with some with these extra measures.  GOA director John Valleco suggests that many legislations regarding gun control should be appealed. For instance, the supposed safety net of having gun-free zones around schools and campuses, supposedly increases the attraction for terrorists and criminals. Whilst looking to preserve America’s Second Amendment is plausible, there is a tendency for this website to overlook the safety benefits of gun-control and instead draw drastic assumptions.

Pro-Gun Control- The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

On the other side, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) takes a different approach to the issue. Rather than publicising how your rights could be taken away; the website looks to empower the viewer and offers what some might consider a utopia. For some Americans, the CSGV’s ‘imagine a future free from gun violence’ offers possibilities rather than negativities.

Their policies are not radical, but instead seek more safety and caution with guns. They highlight the logical importance of universal background checks; as almost 40% of firearm sales are without one, and how assault weapons and military-style weapons are unnecessary and do no place in civilian life.

In comparison to the other webpage, this website emphasises the problem of gun violence to reason their pro-gun control approach. Their usage of statistics, such as ‘87 Americans are killed every day by gun violence’ are particularly emotive for the reader. It appears to be a more interactive online source, shown from its links to different social medias, its videos, online petitions and continuous news updates on gun violence and victims.

Pro Guns and Pro Control

Alasdair Spark’s lecture and personal further research has highlighted the complexity and pervasiveness of the US gun culture. 

This culture is widely celebrated in every kind of popular entertainment media, products and accessories are widely and easily available, and it is embedded in political discourse, history and myths. Furthermore, and this aspect is a key factor of the pro-gun lobby, there is the legal foundation of the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution as the Second Amendment. This link to civil rights and freedom and liberty – and in particular, the notion of negative freedom: to be free from Government interference, was found to be a headline statement within so many Pro-gun websites.

 In fact, ‘The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance exists to fight for the 2^nd Amendment rights of all Idaho citizens.’

https://www.idahosaa.org/about/

Making comparisons with the arguments, beliefs and attitudes of the pro-control lobby, it can be seen how intensely polarised the two groups are.[i] The pro-control group makes frequent use of the emotional and psychological aspects of gun culture -often based on the criminal and bodily damage perpetuated on individuals and the community.

A further factor noted from the research was the reality of the overwhelming political power of the pro-gun lobby, particularly as demonstrated by the National Rifle Association (NRA), with 3.5million members, sponsorship from fire arms manufacturers and close involvement with election campaigns at every level.

I was interested to find out how pro control groups could combat such a behemoth and choose to research a consortium: The Violence Policy Center

http://www.vpc.org/

“The Violence Policy Center (VPC) works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration. Founded in 1988, the VPC informs the public about the impact of gun violence on their daily lives, exposes the profit-driven marketing and lobbying activities of the firearms industry and gun lobby, offers unique technical expertise to policymakers, organizations, and advocates on the federal, state, and local levels, and works for policy changes that save lives.”

This mission statement illustrates their binary position in opposition to the pro gun groups, emphasising violence, fear, the impact on every day life and the links to the fire arms industry. The drop down menus contain an encylopedia of research and information on gun violence, the gun industry and extensive investigation into the lobbying power of the NRA. The information is comprehensive and appears well researched. The site relies heavily on written text with limited other imagery. It has positioned itself as a resource and is a mine of information.

By complete contrast and using an entirely different approach, the NRA is using the full resources of its TV facilities to attract, educate and support its latest targeted new market segment – affluent, upwardly mobile, professional and stylish young women.

The studio has created a mini bio-pic series where we follow the narratives  of 3 women -‘Love at First Shot.’

https://www.nratv.com/series/love-at-first-shot

  Each story is carefully framed around notions of positive gun ownership: independence, skills, power (through respect in the work place) and the right to be safe. It emphasises the great outdoors, hunting skills and competition – usually masculine conceits- wrapped around with warm, feminine friendships, hugs and interspersed with intimate chats over coffee. The locations are a similar mix of the masculine and feminine- out on the range with a smiling, encouraging female coach. It makes for engaging viewing with the ‘soap opera episodes’ being interspersed with adoration of the gun and rifle and the hallowed cardboard target.

The tone is positive and colourful throughout with articulate and energetic actors and direction. There are virtually no negative images except for the ‘stalker’ who is depicted as the motive for Jasmine turning to guns. There is no reference to many of the messages and concerns explored by  the pro control lobby. The production values  do help to make the series  feel very 'main-stream' - the high ground which is claimed by both pro gun and pro control groups.

---

[i] Glen Utter and James True, “The Evolving Gun Culture in America” Journal of American and Comparative Culture.

8. 'JPFO' and 'Ceasefire Oregon'

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - http://jpfo.org/

"Founded by Jews in 1989, JPFO initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed. JPFO has always welcomed people of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim-disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all. It was the brainchild of Aaron Zelman (1946 - 2010), a leading national civil-rights activist."

This organisation markets itself as 'America's most aggressive civil rights organisation'. This is interesting as it clearly considers this a selling point, perhaps providing insight into their target audience. Furthermore, the fact that the organisation considers protection of the 2nd amendment as a civil rights issue puts it in the same league as issues such as racism and voting rights, demonstrating the perceived importance of this right to groups such as these. 

The website states that "Matters in our country are getting worse daily. We're surrounded by police-state "security" measures that do little to make us safe but a lot to make us feel humiliated, bullied, and spied upon. Virtually all our freedoms are being curtailed – from the right to travel or speak freely to the right to have our homes secure against violent invasion by military-style police.

We have -- as Ben Franklin warned us we should never do -- traded away our freedom to get a little security. The result is exactly as Franklin predicted: We are increasingly less free and less secure.

What's the solution? Re-establishing a Bill of Rights Culture as the Founding Fathers intended."

This too is intriguing as they play on emotions and fears of insecurity and violence as opposed to facts (e.g. 'violent invasion by military-style police' is surely a rarity). Perhaps this shows that the argument is an emotive one that uses the fears of the modern world to its advantage. The link with the founding fathers also ties in to this sense of patriotism by forcing the reader to reflect upon their country's past, with an inevitable sense of pride that naturally evolves to an advocacy of the views held by the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. Seeing as the morality and national status of the founding fathers is not in question, using their quotes and views to advocate gun rights is a simple yet powerful tool, and one that is hard to dispute.

Finally, the premise of this organisation revolves around the religious affiliation of its members. The significance of this is open to interpretation, although on a superficial level, the jewish aspect of the group describes its origins within that community. Alternatively, we may suggest that by appealing to a large religious group, the JPFO finds it easier to generate a 'movement' by grouping people who are already culturally similar, this adds strength to their focus on gun rights. Furthermore, the links with Judaism enable the group to develop arguments based on the racist aspects of gun control laws and the historical injustices towards disarmed Jews. This gives this group some exclusive arguments which, when combined with the standard arguments for gun rights, gives this group perhaps an added sense of appeal to prospective members. 

Ceasefire Oregon - https://www.ceasefireoregon.org/

In contrast with the website for 'JPFO', the website for 'Ceasefire Oregon' is significantly calmer in language, colour and layout and is far less crowded in terms of information.The opening message of this website is "Together, we can work toward a more peaceful future for our communities, schools and families", marking a stark departure from the fearful rhetoric of the JPFO.

A huge part of this website is focused on acting on gun control, through providing the viewer with countless links to petitions and areas to donate money to the cause. This is perhaps because Oregon is notable for its particularly relaxed gun laws. For example; no state permit is required to purchase long guns or hand guns, open carry laws apply to long/hand guns, no owner licenses required, no regulation or classification of assault weapons. On average, 456 people have died per year in oregon due to firearm-related injuries since 2010. Of these, 83% are suicides and 13% are murders.

These statistics link in with the website which features a section on suicide. Similarly to the JPFO website, 'Ceasefire Oregon' is based largely upon emotive arguments, as is evidenced by the family-oriented rhetoric and images of children and depression. This is interesting as both sides of the argument use similar tactics in order to generate support for their cause, yet they apply these in a slightly different way to produce the desired outcome.

Finally, the website's mission statement opens with "Ceasefire Oregon works to prevent gun violence by advocating reasonable, effective gun laws.". This is interesting as they seem to acknowledge the obstacles they face in introducing gun legislation, hence their use of the word 'reasonable'. They understand that they would have very little support if they sought to completely eradicate gun rights in Oregon so they instead aim to appeal to the 'reasonable' portion of our minds and encourage their readers to reflect for themselves upon the shortcomings of the current legislation.

Freedom of Religion

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The video above is from the YouTube channel ‘CrashCourse’ which makes brief lessons on different subjects. This video explains the First amendments ‘free exercise’ of religion clause and its effect on how people are allowed to practice their faith. The Freedom to practice your own faith was one of the ideas central to why many people immigrated to America in the first place.

The clause not only protects people’s right to practice whichever religion they please, but also actions which are made on behalf of religious beliefs. Although the clause does not allow for extreme violation of laws, e.g. a religious fundamentalist will still go to prison if involved with terrorism, the clause does seem to allow some minor violation of the law if the person does it because of their religious beliefs.

The other thing which is mentioned about religion in the first amendment is that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’. This is important because it stops the USA having a state church, like the Church of England. Although the First Amendment basically prohibits a national religion, many Americans believe that the USA is a Christian country as somewhere between 60-70% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. The view of America being Christian is also backed up by the pledge of allegiance which says ‘one Nation under God’. This goes against the first amendment, although in the Massachusetts court case ‘Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School Dist.’ It was decided that the pledge of allegiance was not in violation of the constitution.

An Aspect of American Liberty- Freedom of Speech

An expression of American Liberty and how it relates to the founding principles.

The first amendment grants Americans freedom of speech. It states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’. It allows American citizens the liberty of being able to express criticism of the government, whilst protecting them to an extent. Within this broad term, it includes the freedom not to speak, to use offensive language for a political message, contributing money to political campaigns and symbolic speech to name but a few.

Whilst it does prevent government intervention on your speech to an extent, it does not protect you from others acting against you. A historic case in regards to the first amendment includes the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case went to the Supreme Court as some students believed their school breached their first amendment rights, by not allowing them to wear armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.

Here, this video depicts a variety of ways people were using their freedom of speech against the announcement of 2016 President Elect, Donald J Trump. What is interesting about the source is that it is taken from the ‘CBS This Morning’ news. With the broadcasting of real footage, it emphasises the huge impact a group of ordinary American citizens can have when they believe their rights are at risk. The widespread protesting was suggested to be in at least 38 different cities in America. Their bold signs of ‘Not my President’, ‘What have we done?’ and ‘Love Trump hate’ particularly stand out during the video and convey their political message. The video also shows Americans using their rights by burning effigies of Trump, marching in protest and chanting.

While the escalation of these actions can be a negative expression of liberty, it does present very clearly how Americans can exercise their rights when they feel they are at risk. This can also relate to the foundations of American Liberty, when the colonists had just won the revolution against what they saw as a tyrannical sovereign government. Therefore, the protection of these rights remains vital to Americans to this day.

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpYHtLTNnc

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/tinker_des_moines.html

A Tourist's Impression on American Liberties

 (Play up to 2 minutes)

The video I have chosen is by a small Youtuber called Adrian Bliss. He is known for his month-long series, 'Vlogvember' and 'Vlune', during which he, along with his friend Greg, pokes fun at mainstream Youtubers by pretending to be a Youtuber and highlighting the floors and issues involved. In 'Vlune', Adrian and Greg embark on a trip to the United States of America with the aim of reaching Vidcon (a large Youtube event in Southern California) by the end of the month. In this video, 'Vlune 5 - MEETING THE PRESIDENT', Adrian and Greg visit Washington DC and film their experiences and reactions at popular landmarks in the city. While Adrian's focus up until this point had been to create purposely terrible content, making fun of the stereotypes of the Youtube community, 'Vlune 5.' concentrates on the ignorance displayed by some people towards American history and ideology. 

Firstly, Adrian, a British citizen, could travel to and enter the USA. This was most likely done by purchasing an ESTA, which is an advanced security check now required before any international travellers from countries under the Visa Waiver Program (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) can enter the USA. The advanced security checks have only come into place since the 2007 '9/11 Commission Act', which tightened the whole country's security, hindering the freedom of entry to the USA of tourists.    
The fact that Adrian could film and publish a video in a foreign country, indicates there is more leniency in the USA towards the media. Obviously, Adrian is not an official member of the press. But it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had decided to do the same in somewhere like North Korea. However, he later (1 minute 2 seconds) eludes to the hysteria surrounding the filming of children and its immediate association with paedophilia. This suggests there are limitations to what's acceptable to film in the USA, but in a more 'de facto' manner, rather than by law.
33 seconds through the video, Adrian points out the Capitol Building. It is at this point where he rather crudely states that the "blue ones like gays and the red ones like guns". This is in reference to the Democrats and Republicans and their views on two very relevant topics of debate within the USA. The right to bear arms is written in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which stretches back to the 'Founding Fathers' of the USA. This liberty is highly contested and due to the number of shootings within the USA, is unlikely to dissipate. In addition, the topic of the rights of homosexuals to marry, only became 'resolved' in 2015, with the Supreme Court ruling bans on equality unconstitutional. This is a far more recent liberty, with homosexuality being outlawed for much of the 20th Century and only legalised nationwide in 2003.
At 1 minutes 12 seconds through the video, Adrian announces that "we don't have freedom in England, we're not used to it". Although intended as a joke, due to the nature of America and its obsession with being the 'land of the free', this ideology is true for some people. Immigrants who enter the USA (legally or otherwise) are often from countries that don't offer the same liberties and opportunities as the United States, so it is likely that they would be in awe of American society, similarly to the way in which Greg celebrates his 'newfound freedom' in the video.  
Later in the video, Adrian films himself at the grave of Abraham Lincoln. This represents the emancipation of the slaves that Lincoln oversaw in 1863. It is at this location where the March on Washington in 1963 took place. It signified 100 years since the abolition of slavery and how African Americans were still be oppressed, despite the amount of time they had been supposedly free. This is still a relevant topic today, as there have been protests this year in America against the treatment of African Americans by the police. There still seems to be a hindrance to their liberty, despite the vast amount of legislation passed and the high number of protests that have occurred. 
The final point is displayed 1 minute 40 seconds, where Adrian and Greg go to the White House, because they have been 'invited' by the President. This is a jibe at how Youtubers are often given incredible opportunities that most people would never be able to do. But it also poses the question of democracy and whether the country is truly ruled by the people as a democracy should truly be. Adrian finds himself (unsurprisingly) unable to go and meet the President of the USA. This introduces ideas concerning whether the US government are truly fulfilling the wish of the American people behind those barricaded doors and why there is such a notion of almost nobility among some of the elite within the White House.

Sources:
https://www.esta-registration.co.uk/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEzDlL1EDZY
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/emancipation-proclamation

The Bald Eagle as Symbol of American Liberty

The Bald Eagle as Symbol of American Liberty

This video expresses an aspect of American liberty as the American bald eagle is the national emblem of the United States. This was chosen 20th June 1782 due to its long life, great strength and majestic strength. It was also believed back in 1782 that the bald eagle only existed in America, however they can be found in northern Mexico and Canada. The reason to why the eagle is used as the national emblem is that one of the first battles of the Revolution the noise awoke the sleeping eagles in which they flew from their nests and circled over the fighting men whilst raucously calling. "They are shrieking for Freedom" said the Patriots. 

After gaining independence the seal of the United States was designed and issued in Pennsylvania in 1782. The bald eagle was chosen to represent the values of this new nation as it embodies the themes of liberty and freedom.

However Benjamin Franklin was against the bald eagle being the national bird as he described it as "a bird of bad moral character" in that it is very lazy. He wanted the turkey to be the symbol of America as he saw it more as a respectable bird. 

  

http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle9.html 

Two Concepts of Liberty and Connections with Founding Principles

Positive and Negative Liberty - based on an essay by Isaiah Berlin 1958

The video examines the two concepts of liberty, positive and negative  and the essential differences between them. Negative liberty is described as 'freedom from' mainly in terms of outside interference.  Positive freedom is signified as 'freedom to' mainly in terms of following one's own will. Further differences are explored as seeing negative freedom as natural right and positive freedom as entitlement. But these two aspects of freedom are nuanced terms: negative asserts a zone of non-interference from outside whilst positive freedom asserts the right to achieve one's goals regardless. 

Negative freedom and the Declaration of Independence.
The term negative freedom is embedded in the philosophy and wording of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson argued for the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - to be achieved without interference.  John Stuart Mills writing in  On Liberty develops these maxims to state that you can do what you want as long as you are not hurting anyone else.

Negative freedom and the First Amendment
The wording of the First Amendment is written in the language of negative freedom and was dsigned to protect people from the interference of government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


Positive Freedom and Achievement of Own Goals
This concept came under the spotlight particularly in the time of slave emancipation. People were free but free to do what? Positive freedom is closely aligned with resources such as money, land, health and education.

Roosevelt and the Four Freedoms Speech 1941
Roosevelt looked back to the founding principles to develop what could be viewed as the most important aspects within society. He outlined in greater detail what 'freedom' should mean for the American people. The first two items, freedom of speech and freedom of worship relate to negative freedom. Freedom from want and freedom from fear are positive terms but are entitlements rather than rights.

In real time and since the time of the founding principles, liberty has remained a complex ideology.

7. Hunter S. Thompson - "An evening at Owl Farm"

"An Evening at Owl Farm"

This short video shows American journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson at his home or 'fortified compound' as he referred to it known as Owl farm in Woody Creek, CO. 

The clip shows Thompson, most likely under the influence of cocaine and alcohol engaged in a gun fight with a neighbour for an evening's entertainment. Although ludicrous, Hunter and the unnamed neighbour are essentially exercising their second amendment rights, although doing so in a way that is clearly not the law's intention. Hunter explains over the top of the video that "the people who did this, uh, declaration of independence and the constitution were, uh, good people.". Here, Hunter's meaning is perhaps unclear as we are unsure whether his gratitude to the founding fathers is based purely upon his 20th century right to fire a gun for amusement, or whether he holds a deeper respect for the legislation and ideologies which they created for the new American nation. Overall, it is interesting how these constitutional rights and their original meanings ("a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") may become obscured as society develops, taking on new meanings that question the nature or integrity of American liberty. On one hand, we might criticise Hunter for appropriating the 2nd amendment for a vain purpose, but on the other we may suggest that as an American, Hunter is within his right to exercise his rights how he sees fit. 

Hunter clearly sees the latter of the two options, justifying his wild behaviour by stating that "It's our country, it's not theirs, it's not a bunch of used car dealers from Southern California.". This is particularly interesting as it highlights the individualism that remains a key American identity - the idea that the country belongs to people like Hunter who are free from the capitalist trappings and are able to live the way they want with the law on their side. However, Hunter was also a frequent user of illegal substances and had broken the law on many other occasions showing that, although he holds respect for the framers of the declaration of independence and the constitution, overall, his priority is his own life experience. He respects the rights he has been given that allow him his freedom to live the way he wants, but equally, he has no hesitation in crossing legal boundaries when his rights don't extend as far as he would like. The "used car dealers" comment is also interesting, as it perhaps represents  a stereotype of capitalism and the working class American who is too preoccupied with being a part of the capitalist system to realise what the true America is (in Hunter's view). This is also represented in landscape and region as Hunter states "it's a good place. Here we are in the middle of it, up on the mountain", referring to his town of Woody Creek, a tiny village near Aspen, very much a rugged mountainous area of Colorado. Although not explicitly declared, there is a definite link here between the idea of Hunter's home being representative of a true America or the American dream compared to Southern California being a commercialised parody of these, perhaps having lost touch with the "good people" who signed the declaration of independence and constitution. 

The video closes when Hunter states that "In democracy, you have to be a player" again, with unclear meaning. A literal meaning might suggest that in order to consider yourself a part of the democracy and therefore a subscriber to American liberty, it is necessary to exercise those rights, as evidenced in the video. Otherwise, we might infer that this is a criticism of the system, as although American ideologies revolve around individual freedom, you are actually forced to "be a player" in order to fully connect with these freedoms. Given the nature of his literary work and his status as an anti-establishment icon, Hunter's meaning in this statement is surely open to interpretation and it is likely that he would be able to expand on the subject indefinitely. It seems that he is simultaneously both critical and respectful of the system; thankful for its freedoms, but wary of its trappings as he seems to consider himself above all else, an independent American. 

Mirrors- Hillary Clinton

This Hillary Clinton campaign video came out on September the 23^rd 2016. Although it is short at only 30 seconds long, I believe that it is one of her strongest campaign videos and seeing as half of eligible voters are women, the question of do they want Donald Trump to be their president when he says disgusting things about women could win her the election.

The video shows young American girls looking at themselves in mirrors whilst in the background a selection of Donald Trump’s misogynistic comments. At the beginning of the video Hillary Clinton is shown hugging a young girl, implying that she stands with women against discrimination and bigotry. The video ends with a message saying ‘Is this the president we want for our daughters?’. The fact that throughout the whole video, the only audio played is from Trump himself is extremely powerful as Clinton does not even have to say anything about herself for the viewer to realise that they should not be voting for Trump.

This campaign video relies on the fact that young women and parents of daughters in America would obviously not want women to be treated in the way that Trump treats them. It is a powerful message because it speaks to a huge group of voters.

The fact that Clinton has more or less a good track record when it comes to advocacy of women's rights also helps her, especially as she is running against Trump who acts in such an appalling way. The recent leaked video of Trump making sexist comments also improves Hillary Clinton's chances in the election because, I would assume, any rational person who had heard his 'locker room talk' would not vote for him.

It is rumored however that in the past, Hillary has silenced women who Bill Clinton has harassed and had affairs with so that it does not look bad for her. If true then the whole basis of this video that she stands with women could be questionable.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement

Hillary Clinton's Campaign Video

This video came out on the 12th April 2015 where Hillary announces she is going to be running for president in 2016. 

The campaign video starts of with lots of different Americans featuring personal stories of how they are getting ready to start something new, what they believe will be a positive change and will benefit them hugely. Family diversity is very prominent as it shows white working class people, a black couple, Asian African Americans as well as two men saying they're getting married. This is important as part of her campaign is to help overcome income inequality. 

However Clinton does not appear in the video until 1 minute 30 seconds in so for the first half of the video it can be unclear as to what the video is promoting and who's video it is. She says: "I'm getting ready to do something too. I'm running for president". This campaign video sends a powerful message in that you can make any change you want if you put your mind to it. Clinton uses personal stories to get announce her story and change. This video is only 2 minutes 30 seconds long and mainly focuses on the public as opposed to Hillary Clinton and her campaign. She doesn't really state what her policies are, although this is her first video which she is using to announce her running for presidency. 

This video is aimed very much at the middle class Americans by stating "Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion". She uses the idea of the American Dream by how these people are working hard to make this change happen, so she puts across her message that if you vote for her she will help ensure that families work hard and are strong which will make America strong. 

Hillary Clinton's 'Role Models' Campaign Advert

Hillary Clinton's 'Role Models' Campaign Advert

The Campaign video sets a scene of children watching television within different American neighbourhoods, reflecting differing classes and ethnic backgrounds of the “next generation”. Playing over the scenes is the voice of Donald J Trump, Republican Candidate, with the camera focussing on the supposed reactions of the children listening to their “Commander in Chief”.  

The video seeks to play on parent’s natural instincts of wanting to protect their child. It replays examples of Trump’s reoccurring aggressive and somewhat abusive language such as “I could stand on 5^th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters…it’s incredible!”.  It emphasises the impact of who Trump’s extreme words are reaching and how he is potentially influencing what children may then believe is morally right - even leading children to believe that making fun of the disabled, sexualising women or shooting someone is ok because Donald Trump said there would be no repercussions.

The choice of ethnicity of the children is intentional as they reflect communities which have been somewhat directly identified within Trump’s extreme views of that group. The irony that the news is meant to provide information, sends the message to children that this offensive stereotype is accurate. The absence of adults or a parental figure is both a fearful and emotive tool that the children are alone and vulnerable to these harsh views, without someone to tell them that what Trump is stating is morally wrong, or at least questionable.

When reflecting on the usage of a common household television, it raises the underlying debate of if you would not let your child watch a rated film with swearing and offensive language, how can you allow this man who does the same to be your President? Do you want this man in the highest office in America? Is this the role model you want your children to look up to when it comes to their school career day?

Clinton’s emotive language towards the end closes the advert with her poignant views. The inclusive language of wanting ‘our’ children to be proud of ‘us’ is hitting home for American parents. It reminds us that comments or views outside of a heated political rally or informal interview can have lasting impacts on American society and children, and that voting for Clinton is the solution.

Sources:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/14/hillary_clinton_s_role_models_ad_is_extremely_effective.html