THE PATRIOT

The film is supposed to be historical melodrama about the American Revolution. It’s the story of a South Carolina planter who is the veteran of French-Indian war, named Benjamin Martin. He is a widow with seven children who intends to stay aside from the revolution wars. When Colonel William Tavington, from the British army kills his son in front of his eyes, Benjamin attempts to revenge and free his other son who is going to be hanged. Leading a group in his fighting, he becomes famous as “the ghost”.
The film ends with the victory of Americans and gives good tidings for hope of a better society of their own.

The Hollywood criteria seem to override the history. The black issue that is shown as a positive happy life in the southern America seems dramatic rather than reality. The British are shown as the pure evil and the Americans as the good righteous guys who are brutally and cruelly treated. On the other hand the title, “The patriot” seems unsuitable as Benjamin Martin primarily did not take part in the war for his country but to revenge his Thomas’ death and to save Gabriel. However, Gabriel can be called a real patriot. From the beginning he takes parts in the wars, even after he’s injured.
However, too long and a bit boring, the special features, good acting and the historical setting of South America make it worthy to watch. What’s more, there are too much of brutality and violence shown in the movie adding to the unpleasant face depicted of the Britons.

The term “patriot”, best suits the necessities and the situation of the now- America. From the revolution till today, Americans have not developed nationalist feelings but patriotism. As we see at the end of the film, a house is being built in a new land. And people intend to live together in the hope of a better life in a new made structure.

FILM REVIEW: THE GREAT DEBATERS

“THE GREAT DEBATERS” is a film on black issue set in the 1930s at Marshal, Texas where surrendered as the last city after the civil war, as James Farmer Jr. says. (1) It’s the story of a team of four, leading by professor Melvin Tolson in the small Wiley College who try to prove black equality in the time of “Jim Crow laws, lynch mobs and …the great depression” of Texas. (2) A young, black, debate team who finally succeeds to win the Harvard debate. The team is consisted of “Henry lowe, a handsome, clean-cut youth with a lurking bad-boy streak, Hamilton Burgess, a dutiful, eager, beaver…, Samantha Booke, a straight-laced, aspiring –would be-lawyer and a soft-edged proto-feminist, and finally James Farmer jr, a preachers son whose father keeps him on a tight lash”. (3) The leader of the team, professor Tolson, happens to be a recognized African-American poet with political leanings who organizes the National Sharecroppers Union working for both poor whites and blacks whose ‘servitude is the same’.(4)
Although the dominant theme is progress and change, it is highly concerned with racism. The characters face lynching mobs who had killed and were burning the body of a black, Dr. Tolson was under restrictions by the Sheriff for his political activities and many other signs of black segregation and inequality in the liberal democrat society of America. However, the team brings forth issues like Gandhi, World wars, justice and law to make the context more humanitarian. The concepts repeating in different senses several times are “an unjust law is no law at all” (a paraphrase of Augustine of Hippo) (5) and “doing what you ‘have to do’ in order that we ‘can do’ what we ‘want to do’.” (6) According to Denzel Washington, the director and the actor for Dr. Tolson, “It is not a film about ‘racism in Texas in 1935. It’s what these young people did about it … to overcome whatever obstacles were in their way… It’s the story of hope rather than race’.” (7)
Based on a true story, the real character of James Farmer jr, became a civil rights movement leader in 1950s-60s and founded the congress of Racial Equality. Samantha Books also became an aspiring lawyer. (8)

The director of the film, is the Oscar winner Denzel Washington, born in 1954, New York. He has acted in 51 movies starting with Wilma (1977) and the last which is still in production, “Inside Man2” (2010). He also has produced four movies and directed “the great debaters” (2007) and “Antowne Fisher” (2002). (9)

The writer of the film is Rbert Eisele, born in 1948, California. With tow wins and four nominations he has written 15 movies among them “Breach of contract” (1982) and “Hurricane season” (2009), produced 7 including “Last night” (1993) and “Resurrection blvd” (2000) acted in 2. Eisele had taught acting and playwriting at the Rio Hondo College in Whittier. (10)

The producer of the film is Oprah Winfrey who “rose from poverty and a troubled youth to become the most powerful and influential woman in television. She is a recognized talk show hostess, producer and actor”. (11)

The Great Debaters
Theatrical release poster
Directed by
Denzel Washington
Produced by
Oprah WinfreyJoe RothBob WeinsteinHarvey Weinstein
Written by
Jeffrey PorroRobert Eisele
Starring
Denzel Washington

Forest Whitaker

Nate Parker

Denzel Whitaker

Jurnee Smollett
Music by
James Newton Howard
Cinematography
Philippe Rousselot
Editing by
Hughes Winborne
Studio
Harpo Productions
Distributed by
Metro-Goldwyn-MayerThe Weinstein Company
Release date(s)
December 25, 2007
Running time
126 min.
Country
United States
Language
English
Budget
$15 million
Gross revenue
$30,236,407

1)www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309
2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the-great-debaters
3)http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/movies/25deba.html
4)http://rogerebet.suntimes.com
5)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the-great-debaters
6)ibid
7)www.npr.org
8)http://movies.nytimes.com
9)www.imdb.com/name/nmoooo243
10)www.imdb.com/name/nmo2519351
11)http://movie.nytimes.com
Production details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the-great-debaters

CONGRESS VS PRESIDENT

In the history of American governance there has been a competence between the legislative and executive powers. Imperial presidency and imperial congress are coined in his occasion. For example at the end of Vietnam War, congress tried to practice a stronger control and limitation on the White House. Micro-managing the domestic and foreign policies, committees to impose rules and regulations and refusing presidents appointees on ideological grounds were among congress’ attempts. (McKay,CAPS 55).
Constitutionally congress is appointed to maintain all the legislative power, declare wars and ratify treaties and finally, specifically senate is empowered to ratify treatise and approve appointments by the president (McKayAPS 129-130).
In the latter case for example, congress rejected largely the president’s appointees on ideological or partisan reasons. In case of committees in 1950s, the McCarthy committee, famous as the red-baiter, went too far to recognize the communist figures not only in government but in the national scene. In recent years the senate select committee on campaign practices, earning national attention for its inquiries in the Watergate scandal. In 1987, the Reagan administration was investigated for Iran-contra affair. In this case the executive branch had unilaterally entered a process which needed congress’ approval. Again there has been an investigation on President Clinton and his wife’s involvement in Whitewater property Company. In recent years congress has claimed executive privilege to certain information, however on no clear constitutional status.
Congress also uses impeachments on the executive officials. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were the presidents who were impeached but not convicted; however, Nixon resigned before impeachment.
Historically the first congressional investigation took place in 1792, on the disastrous expedition led by General Arthur st. Clair against Shawnee and Miami Indians in which 657 American troops were killed (answeres.com/topic/congressional-investigations).
During 19th cent congressional investigations on Civil War, Ku Klux Klan, purchase of Alaska, some rail road scandals like Credit Mobilier took place. In 1923, investigations on Teapot Dome scandal sent the secretary of interior of President Harding in prison and discredited his administration. As mentioned before, Watergate, Sam Ervin, McCarthy and Wall Street investigations are among the most important congressional attempts to limit the government.

CAPS: controversies in American politics and society by David McKay

APS:American politics and society by David Mckay

ASSIMILATING IMMIGRANTS

Huntington is the latest and highest profile critic of Latino migration. He believes that they will make America to a bifurcated country. This paper tries to reject his idea.
America is a country with mass migration. Each wave of migration during history has changed its culture. Experience shows that all the previous groups were finally assimilated to the new context however entering parts of their own culture to it. So American culture, as Huntington believes, is not a homogenous pure Anglo-protestant culture to be worried about in this new wave of Latino migration.
A historical survey shows this fact. For example, Scotch-Irish fit well into Huntington’s Anglo-Saxon model but the black slaves did not though converting to Protestantism.
Two million Irish immigrated to the United States in the 1840s, making ten percent of the whole population. Up to the 20th century they had remained in their enclaves but had also gained political power. They entered economy through public jobs. And finally JFK became the president. The assimilation process itself had made America partly Irish. Irish cop, Roman Catholic churches and St. Patrick’s Day became norms of the society.
Jews also made a wave of immigration to US after World War II; their Talmudic tradition led to a strong educational ethos helping their fast progress. They retailed trade in clothing and many other commodities, invented Hollywood and largely became teachers. Pop culture, literature, American politics; all were affected largely by Jews. They moved fast to the managerial and ownership positions. After all,the full assimilation for all groups took 80 to 100 years.
The new wave are Hispanics mostly Mexicans. The long border offers many illegal and legal crossing. Though the case this time is a bit different as they go to the service and labor jobs and their cultural and linguistic factors are largely entering the American culture, Americans shouldn’t worry as it is not a new procedure. In the past the same happened with the other waves of immigration but finally they were assimilated in the American culture.
On the other hand France has had little success in assimilating the massive Muslim immigration from Maghrib. Certainly the French did not allow their culture to adapt to these new-comers. France has to allow a major and continuing cultural exception or adapt its own culture. The current scarves-ban in public schools shows that French cannot tolerate other identities harming their secularism. The French policy also didn’t allow Muslims to enter the economic mainstream. It seems that France is moving in the opposite direction for the assimilation.
Finally, America provides the best headstock for assimilation as it is itself open to change. This flexible status has made new definitions and identities. Therefore, migration and immigration not only is not a crisis to America, according to his paper, but is the element of its elasticity, dynamism and continuity. These dual adaptations is necessary for assimilation and if a country likes France claiming to be the most democrat of the Europe does not adopt this rule will certainly lose.
However, still there's a big questionmark in front of the word "IDENTITY". Can this new American identity without any roots firm in the ground of history, culture, religion ... last for too long? Can it answer the essential inner needs of people it is protecting?
considering the case for Iran, as a country in which religion and ancient-deep culture are dominant, can we expect this kind of free adaptation to the other cultures? of course it is not possible in a large scale but we should prepare the ground to adapt the new and necessary elements in our established frameworks.

Assimilating Immigrants by Robert Levine

AMERICA, ISLAM,IDENTITY,EUROPE

IDENTITY AND MIGRATION (an abstract)
BY FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
PROSPECT MAGAZINE

Hobbes and Locke argue that human beings possess natural rights as individuals in the state of nature, rights that can only be secured through a social contract that prevents one individual’s pursuit of self-interest from harming others. Modern liberalism arose in good measure in reaction to the wars of religion that raged in Europe following Reformation. Liberalism’s principle was religious toleration and the modern liberalism’s principle was that state power should not be used to impose religious belief on individuals. The freedom protected is for individual’s cultural or religious or ethnic identities.
Taylor points out that modern identity are inherently political because it demands recognition. Contemporary multiculturalism and identity politics were in many ways born in Canada. It is under stood not just as the tolerances of cultural diversity but as the demand for legal recognition of the rights of racial, religious or cultural groups.
The radical Islamist ideology that has motivated terror attacks over the past decades must be seen in large measures the manifestation of modern identity politics rather than of traditional Muslim culture. Oliver Roy declares that radical Islamism has emerged because Islam has become “deterritorialised” in such a way as to throw open the whole question of Muslim identity. Despite Islam’s doctrinal universality, traditional religiosity is not universalistic. Immigrating to Europe, one’s identity as a Muslim is no longer supported by the outside society. According to Roy a “protestantisation” of Muslim belief occurs, meaning salvation in a subjective state that is at odds with one’s outward behavior.
Interestingly, the second and third generations of European Muslims turn to radical Islamism as a form of identity, because, stuck between tow cultures with which they can not identify they find a strong appeal in the universalist ideology of contemporary jihadism.
The problem of jihadist terrorism will not be solved by bringing democracy and modernism to the Middle East. So many terrorists were radicalized in the democratic European countries. In the Muslim world more contact with democracy increases, not dampen the terror problem in the short run.
Modern liberal European and north American societies have weak identities. American identity was always political In nature with a dominant Anglo protestant culture. However there are some unpleasant aspects in it i.e. consumerism, Hollywood’s emphasis on sex and violence and the underclass gang culture.
Most European countries tend to conceive of multiculturalism as a framework for coexistence of separate cultures rather than a transitional mechanism for integrating new comers into a dominant culture. On the other hand, some contemporary Muslim countries are making demand for group rights that simply can not be squared with liberal principles of individual equality.
Asking Muslims to give up group rights is more difficult in Europe than US. As the former still develop communal rights and fail to separate state and church decisively. In these countries national identity is experienced in a way that makes a barrier for the newcomers with different ethnicity and religion. a
Raziyeh Kharidar

By the way, American life is full of religious ceremonies and rituals helping the process of assimilation.
The rise of relativism has made it harder for postmodern people to assert positive values and therefore the kinds of shared beliefs that they demand of migrants as a condition for citizenship. Postmodern elites, particularly those in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place.
My question is according to the above is Islam a problematic spot in the process of the postmodern liberal world? If Muslims due to strict social laws are hard to assimilate in the western liberal democracy, why Jews having the same condition in their own kind do assimilate? What’s more why it should be compulsory for the world to assimilate in this universal liberal democracy? What if for a religion like Islam whose religion and politics are inseparable otherwise it gets valueless? It seems that even in America the absolute liberalism is not performed, as Anglo Protestantism is obviously the core for assimilation.
The paradox is if in a world, itself tied to the dualities, a group for the sake of freedom can make another group stop practicing its beliefs. Is that absolute liberalism possible at all? Will we face a gradual or sudden decline of liberalism in the near future as the world watched the downfall of communism?

ETHNIC CONFLICT THEORY

From the perspective of conflict theory, competition among ethnic groups increases in the process of societal change, thus creating the conditions for ethnic conflict and exploitation rather than assimilation. Powerful ethnic groups exclude the weak ones from the wealth, power and priviledge that come with societl change.
Ethnic competition is the mutually opposed efforts of ethnic (or racial) groups to secure the same objectives. On the other hand, ethnic conflict is a form of rivalry in which groups try to injure one another in some way. Its reason is ethnic stratification, meaning a form of rivalry in which powerful ethnic groups limit the access of subordinate groups to societal resources, including wealth, power and priviledge. Competition, conflict and stratification are dimentions of ethnic change. As ethnicity is an evolving or emergent phenomenon.
Considering Marxism, ethnic conflict is transformed into economic class conflict in the modern state. Powerful, racial and ethnic groups force weaker ones into compulsory labour, thus changing the character of the conflict into struggle between economic classes. However, the social Darwinism argues by analogy, that social evolution is the struggle for survival between racial and nationality groups, and the course of this struggle the more powerful groups naturally dominate the weaker races(ethnic stratification).
By the 20th century the emerging social psychology prefered to see humankind as a bundle of propensities, triggered bybthe social environment, rather than a fixed product of biology.
Ethnic relations in a society can be either hierarchial or parallel. If parallel, there's little ethnic inequality but with a hierarchy of groups, access to wealth, power and privillage is determined in part by ethnicity. With industrial capitalism a complex division of labor and greater opportunity, ethnic relations became competative and the result is conflict.
By the way, four patterns of minority adjustment have been identified. First, an immigrant group suffer economic hard ship at the bottom of hierarchy but give way to gradual acceptance and mobility.
Second, some go directly to the nations better jobs. Third, the entrapment of immigrant labor at the bottom and last, immigrants who erect an ethnic subeconomy or enclve.
Mastery over force comes ultimately from the monopolization of the means of production or the control over land, labor and capital in the creation of surplus wealth. Minority groups can also turn into the corporate core in their rivalry with the majority.
However, the functional theory of conflict answers in the affirmative and proposes that conflict can unite groups in a society and will not necessarily drive them further apart. This theory applies to realistic conflicts which arise from frustration of specific demands within the relationship and from estimates of gains of the participants and which are directed at the presumed frustrating object.
Ethnic conflict theories are critical of both assimilationism and pluralism, by implication. It sees strife, struggle and the oppression of the weak by the powerful.

American identity papers

Class instructions

One of the thought worthy phenomenon in the American society is voluntary association. "The term voluntary association, ie , a private, member ship –based organization in which membership is non-compulsory". (H K Anheier, Socialogy of volunteer association).
Historically, one of the biggest early examples is "broad postal system in 1830s"(questia.com). The first burst of voluntary work was "before the civil war, 1820s to 1830s", mostly on morality and slavery. The next was after the civil the war, 1870s well into the 20th century as responses to industrialism and economic crisis. (questia.com)What's interesting is that about four fifth of the extensive associations ever found still exist today. (Ibid)
"Classical sociological thought saw voluntary associations as an indicator of social evolution in the development of undifferentiated to differentiated societies"(A K Anheier).
Modern thought on this issue began with De Tocqueville's "democracy in America". In modern democratic societies voluntary associations have tow functions: first, bring diverse back grounds on a common purpose and second, building a sphere between political center of power and the electorate, avoiding the tyranny of the majority(Ibid).
Mellissa Miller in her paper, "How local, translocal and national voluntary organizations promote democracy" indicates that "scholars since Tocqueville had argued that voluntary groups taught American the 'art of association' in ways that benefited democracy". She uses the American citizen participation study (p5) to bring some interesting statistics on the issue. Accordingly women in local scale make higher and in national scale an equal percentage to men in voluntary associations. Whites considerably higher than non-whites as the former 84% in local and national scales and the latter occupy just 16%. Apart from statistics, voluntary works are well-known, familiar and effective in American society. This might be a result of American individualism which makes a culture of non-dependence on government in solving all the problems. Although, whatever the reasons and roots, voluntary work seems a good and admired trend both as a help and critic to the government.
Considering our Islamic teachings and the cultural background in Iran, voluntary works and associations can be extremely effective and helpful. But why these voluntary associations do not exist in Iran. Is it some burucratic system that makes everything hard? Or is it lack of self confidence in overall public who don't feel able to make any change individually?
Studying the pros and cons of these associations, it seems worth to undergo a deep study and let volunteers to do their contributions on public good like religion, culture, environment, education and etc.