Tags: Anti Abortion EssayCause-Effect EssayHome Health Care Services Business PlanEssay Writing Editing SPhd Thesis In Financial AccountingEssay On Transive LearningEconomy Research Paper TopicsLocke Essay Book 2Solving Problems With Quadratic Functions Calculator
Is this a compelling explanation of the cause of fear? Moore contrasts the high level of fear that Americans have with the low level of fear that Canadians do. Moore states, Night after night the Canadians werent being pumped full of fear.In a speech he gave after the release of Bowling for Columbine, he tells his audience to turn off the TV.Moore and two of the victims approach K-Mart executives requesting that the stop selling ammunition. We as Canadians see it more as when we lock the doors we imprison ourselves inside.
In his award ceremony speech, Moore attacked George Bush for launching war against Iraq. Are militia groups such as this more damaging to the American way than this militia member suggests? James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols, stated the following: If the people find out how theyve been ripped off and enslaved by the government, the powers that be, they will revolt with anger, with merciless anger. When the government turns tyrannical, it is your duty to overthrow it. We may have differences, yes, and we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. Moore discusses the impact that the Columbine shootings have had regarding increased school security throughout the country. Moore notes that many social influences were blamed for the Columbine incident, such as angry heavy metal subculture; absent parents; violent movies; South Park; video games; television; entertainment; Satan; cartoons; doom; society; toy guns; drugs.
Moore interviewed members of the Michigan Militia the organization to which the Oklahoma City bombers formerly belonged. Nicholss argument parallels the social contract defense of revolution that we find in the Declaration of Independence. He didnt have any guns and he beat the British Empire. Why would someone like Nichols not adopt Gandhis approach? Moore asks Nichols if he should have the right to have weapons grade plutonium. Moore counters Oh, so you do believe in some restrictions. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight, and forever more, let it always set on we the people, secure in our land of the free and the home of the brave. Hestons point is that, although Columbine was a tragedy, the potential loss of our freedom (specifically freedom to carry guns) is a greater tragedy. One school superintendent stated, Its almost like guerilla warfare; you dont know from which direction the enemy will be coming. Although Moore rejects all of these explanations, are any more compelling than others? Moore notes that other countries are also exposed to the above influences, yet have only a fraction of the gun killings that occur in the United States. Crime rate has been dropping, but fear of crime has been increasing.
While perhaps some of this enthusiasm can be attributed to the institution's eagerness to recognize a film that sharply criticizes U. foreign policy and gun-crazy culture, some American critics and audiences have been hailing the film as a landmark event that, in the words of the I would argue, however, that if the connections the film makes between US history, the media, and race indeed appear to get to the core of US society, then a critique of its own rhetorical strategy reveals the racism endemic to the United States, and to white liberalism more particularly.
Said describes the rhetoric of “Orientalism” as “a kind of intellectual While Moore does not reproduce a colonial logic in his film and thus cannot be said to have created an Orientalist text, his film does enact a strategy of authority over issues of race and over people of color that can be profitably read through Said's critique of Orientalism in his seminal 1979 text of the same name.
Moore's medium, film, and his agenda to understand the culture and people of the United States all but require him to grant subjectivity to US residents of color within his film, but he constructs himself and other white men as the subjects who can best interpret, understand, and describe the country, and the function of racism, to his viewers.
Moore's thesis, which seeks to diagnose the reasons why gun violence is so prominent in the United States by culling anecdotal evidence from a wide variety of almost strictly white people, effectively interpellates (or “hails,” meaning creating through naming) a nation made up of white citizens.Are the two really symptoms of the same American problem, as Moore suggests? Ten days after Columbine, Charlton Heston held an NRA pro-gun rally in Denver. Manson in turn stated that the atmosphere surrounding Columbine was grounded in fear and consumption: keep everyone afraid, and theyll consume.During the rally he stated, I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Mansons point, which Moore agrees with, is that businesses encourage fear since it sells products.In the course of the documentary he interviews survivors of the Columbine shooting, members of the Michigan Militia, Marilyn Manson, Dick Clark, officials at K-mart (which sold Harris and Klebold the bullets), and finally Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association. Most people will call the police because they have guns. What response would a gun control advocate make to this argument? One member of the Michigan Militia stated the following: Were not racists, were not extremists, were not fundamentalists, were not terrorists or militants or other such nonsense.In a Denver lecture after the films release, he sums up the message of the film: Its all part of the same American mentality that says its OK to use violence as a means to an end, whether its in the home or whether its in Iraq. The film won the Academy Award for best documentary. Were concerned citizens, we have a desire to fulfill our responsibility and duties as Americans, and an armed citizenry is part of that. Later in the speech Heston stated, We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite.It is certainly a gross understatement to contend that he is the only cultural critic today who could produce and release a film connecting the damning dealings of the Bush family with the bin Ladens two months before the 2004 election, however uncertain its distribution status is at the time this article goes to press.Moore's renegade interviews directly confront political and corporate abuses and criminals in a manner altogether absent from the current proliferation of celebrity news journalism, and his generally clever deployment of humor guarantees that his pranks create and politicize a TV, film, and reading audience that is not otherwise being addressed.The first consists of the ironic humorist who finds images demonstrating the perpetuation of racism entertainingly stupid.The second consists of the paternal authority who both comforts and speaks for people of color.However, it is Moore's status as a self-positioned liberal working class hero who says the things nobody else does that makes the hegemonic narrative in so depressing.Said's attention to the role of each writer's authority in the discourse of Orientalism as an operative construct allows the critic to see how, to quote: everyone who writes about the Orient must locate himself vis-à-vis the Orient; translated into his text, this location includes the kind of narrative voice he adopts, the type of structure he builds, the kinds of images, themes, motifs that circulate in his text—all of which add up to deliberate ways of addressing the reader, containing the Orient, and finally, representing it or speaking in its behalf.