Crash Crash

I have not seen Crash until the lecture, I know this is an excellent film and it's won many awards including the Best Picture of Oscar. I always want to watch this but I'm afraid I could not understand the complex relationship between everyone.

After watching the film, I have lots of thoughts, but I cannot express them very clearly. For example, the blake police officer, he seems really care about his mother, but he doesn't even know what his mother really wants. His motehr only wants her sons are safe and be with them. But he has never looked for his brother, until he's died. There are two police officer partners, one of them lookes very rude, but he saves others live in the end. And another one seems to be a hero, but killed a black youn man and ran away in the end. There are also many others like the locksmith and his family, the Iranian shopkeeper and his family, the reputation couple... There are a lot of people seem no relation between them, but actually they have been linked together.

The name of the film is Crash I think that means the crash between races, cultures and personality etc. I have many things want to say, but I don't know how can I explain them clearly. We are all the children of the God, and we, everyone is so small...

Crash

Firstly, I really enjoyed watching Crash, and thought that it was a very good film.

While I think that the film was succesful in raising many of the issues related to racism in todays world, I do feel that the directors made too much out of this aspect. I know that this is the main point of the film, but it must be remembered that like Foundas suggests, not every person in America is like one or another of those characters, and they are extremes at the different ends of the spectrum.

I related most to Ebert's review of this film, because as well as simply being a good film to watch, it also raised a lot of questions to keep you thinking for hours after you've watched it.

Not only is Crash an enjoyable film, but it also carries a strong message to today's world about progress, and the fact that while people may hold some beliefs initially, they can change, and become better people. I believe that it deserves all the awards it won, and many people dislike it simply because it beat Brokeback Mountain at the Oscars when it was not expect to.

Crash

I thoroughly enjoyed 'Crash' on monday morning I had not seen it before I'd heard of it, but did not know the topics the film dealt with as the title doesn't really give away what the film is truely about. I felt that the film did have a big impact on me and that it isn't just L.A that deals with these issues as I myself have seen people behave this way around different race, and feel that if these people saw this film maybe they would rethink their behavour.



Ebert praises the film when discussing it, he claims that he was fascinated by the film and felt that it pulls the audience in. I completely agree with him as I was glued to the screen in mondays lecture and gasping at every shocking scene. Everything Ebert had to say about the film was positive and he seemed to enjoy every aspect of it, he enjoyed that the characters were able to say what they wanted with being politically correct. This may be a shock to some but I too felt that it made the film and was brave of the director and cast to be involved in making this film. His overall summary of the film was that it was made to make the audience rething their way of life and consider changing the way they treat people of different genders and race.

Foundas on the other hand feels the complete opposite and feels that it doesn't accurately portray L.A as a city. He believes that there are no racists in L.A other than neo nazis and thinks that the plot of meeting people by crashing into them is ridiculous and very unrealistic as it has never happened to him in the whole time he has lived there. I feel that Foundas is very negative on the film but has a positive outlook on life and believes that he lives in a pleasant place where people have learnt their ways and are no longer racist, but this isn't the case. Foundas mentions that the screen writing is sloppy and the film is just here to remind us that white people suffer too. Again this clearly isn't the case as the film make the white people look bad and no where in the film are they forgiven for what they have done, they just learn the errors of their ways.

I definately favour Eberts outlook on the film and agree with his feelings towards the film. I feel that America needs more films like this to open up hidden problems the country is having, I believe that by using famous actors like Sandra Bullock and Hip Hop stars like ludacris has helped the film to be noticed and gained a larger audience because of them. If films that deal with touchy subjects like rascism did this the world may become a better place because of it.

Review of Crash

Crash is a film that has provoked controversy in Hollywood because of the nature of the topic. It is widely debated by critics, the most famous of which is the debate between Robert Ebert and Scott Foundas. Robert Ebert is of the mind that the film was the best of 2005 and deserved the Oscar that it won over 'Brokeback Mountain'. "It is a movie of raw confrontation about the complexity of our motives, about how racism works not only top down but sideways, and how in different situations, we are all capable of behaving shamefully." This opinion is attacked by Scott Foundas who believes that Crash is "one of those self-congratulatory liberal jerk-off movies that roll around every once in a while to remind us of how white people suffer too.." he then goes on to state that the characters are not three dimensional and live a life that is not of planet Earth.
Two very different reviews, the one to which I relate to the most is that of Robert Ebert. I found that he managed to capture the meaning of the film in his article. The story may be that of fiction, but within it is the essence of what every person holds inside them. A prejudice to that which you are not. As Ebert so eloquently phrased it "these people say exactly what they are thinking, without the filters of political correctness." This is especially true of the Free World nowadays. Everything that happens is judged, from that even more prejudice seeps in to you through your pores. The films that are shown portray lives that are not the same as the one you lead, and so become a stereotype that circulates through your brain everytime you see someone who may fit that description. The perfect example is that of Sandra Bullocks character who judges on a first glance. We are not told the previous experiences of the characters, but the likelihood is that Bullocks character does not have a history of interacting with Latinos.
Another aspect that I find to be extremely compelling is the hidden prejudice that bubbles under the surface without your knowledge and then erupts in a spray of sudden emotion, leading you to do deeds that no-one would have guessed would have been in your nature to do, such as that of Ryan Phillipes character. All the characters combined portray the major prejudices that people feel and show. Haggis puts forward the prejudice in the human psychology.
Away from the characters, the film is constantly placing the viewer on edge. The characters are unpredictable. It is more of what a real life is like, and not the generic, girl meets disadvantaged boy, hates him, falls in love and all is happy. It is a story of understanding what kind of person you truly are and who you have been.
The intermingling of the characters adds to both the suspense, for you can see the chain of events that would occur if one small act was to happen, such as that of the hispanic Michael Pena giving his daughter his protective cloak and then staring his own death and that of his daughter in the eye. For that split second that the viewer thinks that that small girl is dead, you see the shopkeeper who sold the gun to the Iraqi man, followed by the wrecked shop and lack of insurance. Then if the Iraqi had killed the small girl, would it have been shown in the newspapers to be an Iraqi Murderer or would it be a more mundane title?
That is what the film has running through it, endless questions of what if this happened? What if he hadn't stopped the car? What if Don Cheadle had tried to find his brother?
The film is not meant to be a light hearted film of love and oppurtunity, but the underlying nature of human society. To me it shows the answers to the human soul and it may be controversial but it is a reminder that prejudice is always there and every little act reverberates through society and affects everyone in small and different ways. Because of this every muscle in your body is tense with anticipation and worry for what a character will do next.

American Immigration & economic fortunes.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kaye23-2010mar23,0,5809816.story

Did you pick up this article on immigration from the LA Times?
Published today it has some useful background facts and views on the multi-cultural scene on the west coast and ties in closely with some os the issues raised by 'Crash'.
Look forward to more thoughts on Wednesday - good wishes,
John

My Crash Review-Controversy

I had not seen Crash before monday despite it being released in UK cinemas' in 2005. The film stunned me and I rarely felt like I knew what was coming next, it wasnt that predictable for me which i feel is a one of the biggest dangers facing these type of scenario films. I think Crash shows a worst case scenario built on racial prejudice, stereo types where general reputation precedes itself, extrodinary co-incidence that shows a story that comes full cirlce. However it is none the less a haunting reality of everyday life where situations occurr by chance and the storys of individuals told are intertwined.

With the world we live in today, given contemporary global issues, touchy subjects, insecurities etc... The film Crash is a bould move by Paul Haggis given the former concerns. I think the casting was unbelievablely good in choice, many of them I think are underated in the past and present, I agree with Ebert on the "strong performances". The level in popularity of the film I believe is largely based on Crash's confrontation with the contemporary issues addressed in the film; such as racism, ethnicity, image/identity and prejudice. Also it is dependant on the audiences and critics views on the delicate issues and their comfort to this exposure.

I didnt get a sense of being minipulated by the scenarios' or the characters' therefore I dont recognise too much controversy myself. I thought the film was farely seemless but still able and did leave questions in my mind. Furthermore the film did make me think, but I disagree that the film is so that you can only watch it once, afterall that theory can apply to many films, however I believe that argument is beyond the point. I think the construction of the narrative is also well done but im not saying that I think the film is untouchable.

Im mainly agree with Ebert rather than Foundas, the film does make me watch with the feeling of "Intense Facination". I am attracted by the way the character behaviour depends so much on "accident". I like the way in which the characters' assumptions of each other are shown. Crash attracts me and I agree with Ebert that the film shows characters saying ".... exactly what they are thinking, without the filters of political correctness" I further agree that the film serves a deeper meaning than "manipulative storytelling", more a parable on morals and behaviour. On the otherhand I have to disagree with Ebert where he states that the characters become "better people because of what has happend to them".The state in which the film leaves some of the characters is far from ideal in comparison to others. Even though Foundas disagrees with the way the film was made or the message it percieved, I have to agree with him in saying that Crash is not wholly representitive of the people their views or behaviour and the social problems in contemporary L.A. However Like Ebert I believe that Crash is a film about progress I would add that perhaps this can be seen as a subtle message that Haggis wants to see implimented with the films contentious issues in todays wider society?

Overall I would agree it could be one of the best films of 2005, personably Crash is an enjoyable yet thought provoking film.

Crash- A Thought Provoking Celluloid Masterpiece

So Crash received praised from Roger Ebert (the American Barry Norman, if you will) and was deemed the worst movie of 2005 by 'new kid on the block' Scott Foundas. Personally, I'm inclined to side with Ebert because I loved it. As a recently former film student, I've learnt to appreciate the power of the cinema a little more and I felt this was a perfect example of one of those films that has you talking about it for days after and really thinking about the content. I understand the arguments in both Ebert and Foundas' reviews, but I can't help but wonder what Foundas was expecting from the film. The way he talks about how racial inaccurate the film was, you would think that he was watching it as though it was a documentary about downtown L.A. Clearly the concept of artistic licence is lost on him. I wouldn't ever believe that director Paul Haggis set out to change the world with this film. The simple fact is that people had a bee in their bonnet because Crash won the Oscar for best motion picture over Brokeback Mountain, which obviously means that the Academy is full of homophobes because they decided not to vote for a film about gay cowboys! Ok well it's Friday night and I'm given a choice at Blockbuster. Do I want to rent Crash or do I want to rent Brokeback Mountain? I pick Crash, so does this mean I'm a homophobe? Umm, no! So why all the controversy? I've never been to L.A so I can't say what it's like in real life. I can tell you how it's represented in movies. I can tell about the reputation of the LAPD, but can I say for sure that everyone is a racist in L.A? No, of course not. How could anybody possibly know that? But what Haggis has done is taken some of the underlying tensions of modern day L.A and put them up there on the big screen. And I think that has made a good many people uncomfortable. It's like the elephant in the room, and it was just put up on a 20ft screen.

Maybe it was a wake-up call. It's not exactly unknown that the bigger studios prefer not to touch subjects such as racism. I can't ever imagine MGM producing a musical about the KKK in glorious technicolour. Is there such a difference between Foundas and Ebert's reviews because they are from two different generations? I think so. Ebert obviously comes from a generation that remembers first hand the civil rights movements of the 60's, but Foundas is of the generation that has read about it in books and has been taught about it. Obviously Crash is about modern day racial tension, but it is the underlying history that is the cause. The LAPD are infamous for being a violent and racially motivated police force. Evident in not only this movie but also in another Oscar winning film, L.A Confidential (1997). Although set in the 50's, the same racial tension is apparent and the violence of the LAPD is a large part of the storyline.

As far as being termed 'racially insensitive', you cannot deny the conclusions that people jump to when looking at skin colour. This happens all over the world. What this film teaches you is that appearances can be deceptive. The Latino 'homie' who turns out to be a family man, the racist cop who is the sole carer of his sick father, the TV-director who isn't considered 'black' by his colleagues, the two black guys who look like college students but are actually car-jackers...they all have their stories. Granted, portraying the Persian shop-keeper as a raving lunatic may not have been the best way to go but think about it in terms of his frustration. If you lived in a foreign country where you struggled with the language and were targeted because of your race, your heritage, wouldn't you be angry? And the fact that the American gun shop owner incorrectly calls the Persian an Arab is telling of the ignorance that is all too common.

I don't believe that Crash would have worked as well if it had been set in New York. It's too European and it's too crowded. As Don Cheadle's character talks about at the beginning of the film, in any real city you brush past people and you bump into them, but in L.A nobody touches you. You could interpret that in so many ways. Is it fear? Is it trying to avoid a further clash of cultures? Is it the basic fact that you need a car to get to anywhere in L.A? It's not something you really think about in a city as racially diverse as New York. NYC could almost be seen as 'immigrant central', there's a different kind of feeling being produced from L.A. Almost as if it is 'true' America because that's where the 'new Americans' were headed after they colonised the East.

I think this film really made people sit up and think. Hollywood so rarely does that nowadays. Big budgets and special effects over take everything. Crash had a budget of $6 million and was filmed in 36 days, yet has a cast that is enviable by any standards and was therefore able to bring in the audiences. Although Crash is six years old, it's still relevant today. The ever growing wave of Mexican immigrants is becoming a bigger issue, tensions over the new President and his skin colour are still cause for concern, the Western World seems to have a continuing hate for people from the Middle-East....so the film world was divided over this movie. Like it or not, it won awards and rightly so. It may manipulate the audience but I think the mark of a good film is that it has the ability to draw you in and put you in that kind of situation in the first place. These Hollywood film reviewers might have the legions of fans and accolades but I know when I enjoy a film, and I know that I agree with Mr Ebert.

WEEK 6: Tutorial

Dear Maria, Sarah, Vicci, Lucia, Gaff & Michael,

Thanks to everyone for an interesting range of posts. The nature & content of the websites themselves confirm some of the issues that face all tribal groups; there is a simple belief that they can preserve and mantain an Indian identity and that their values about "mother earth" and heritage etc. will ensure their survival as separate "nations". But is it feasible? If their language dies - and thus their oral history - can they have a future? Can tribal membership be "proved" and thus sustained? Are casinos really a secure source of tribal identity?
Many questions and, perhaps, only one negavite answer for all. It is hard to predict what the future holds for this small (c.1%) but important minority. That's why characters such as Sherman Alexie, Ward Churchill, Winona Laduke amd Russell Means are significant voices. So, is it acculturation or assimilation as a future?
Here is the website we saw briefly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfsNM1igcYk&feature=related

Have a good week.
Good wishes,
John

Native Indians in America

http://www.seminoletribe.com/


I have chosen the seminole poeple as my first example, because ive been to a reservation and it was really quite something. The Big Cypress Seminole Reservation

http://www.swampsafari.net/


"Today Gaming is by far the number one economic enterprise in all indian country"

The tribal HeadQuarters is based in Hollywood, Florida, where they have a hotel and cassino complex. It seems much of the income for the seminoles like many indians is from gambling and tourism.

Looking at the website it seems the Seminoles are very proud of their history, where they came from is even part of a title on one page. But the webpage has links of timeline, geneology and future which suggests to me that the value of their roots and who they are matters just as much today if not more so.
The seminole believe they are an unconquered nation, and the fight is not against soldiers but against the courts, to maintian a sense of self and not to be conquered by obscurity and uncertainty of the present and future. The situation today is the issue of preserving their culture and preventing it from being lost within todays wider society and away from the "economic mainstream", stating that self-relience is a todays priority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mohican.com/index.htm

What with Last of the Mohicans being a favourite film of mine I've chosen the Mohicans as the 2nd example. Not quite as impressed as the previous website but just as interesting though.

I want to know how they live having been put under the microscope of Hollywood and its reputation for producing glorified in-accurate interpritations now and then. Going of the Website it seems that these Mohicans are a little bit more flexible in their attempt to be ecconomically stable, in the sense that they dont seem to be a tribe that relies on the gambling economy or tourism either.

So a difference to the Seminole, the website shows their is a Mohican LP Gas company, they have convience stores, golfcourse owners and RV parks. That not to say there isnt a cassino, there is, but there are other things. Which i find impressive given that it seems to based on this small Munsee-comunity of Stockbridge.

However in the history side link there is information about a great migration that Mohicans endured to Wisconsin via Indianna, as opposed to the Hollywood story of a dying breed much later than their supposed date of extinction. The Mohican history is actually one of great financial focus besides a huge migration that is so common amongst Native Indians.

Native American Tribes

The first website I found was for the Chickasaw Tribe in Oklahoma. On their page you can learn about their history and about the Chickasaw Tribe in today’s world.

They do not go into much detail about the history of their tribe they say little more about their early encounters with white people other than that they “conducted a successful trade business with... the French and English” and that they sided with the English in the French and Indian War. It then briefly mentions how they were relocated during the Great Removal to where they are now.

Like their history, they don’t mention much about the present day situation of the tribe. However, they do encourage people to come and “try your luck” at one of their multiple casinos, showing that they are taking advantage of their situation in the modern world. However, they also express a desire to “preserve our heritage of history, language and culture”, and so keeping their traditions alive.

The second website I found was for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.

They say even less on their website about their history than the Chickasaw Tribe did, simply stating that they once lived a nomadic lifestyle before settling around the Lake Tahoe area which was “directly in the path of explorers, immigrants, and gold-seekers.”

Again, like the Chickasaw Tribe, little is mentioned about their situation today. However, we can see that they too have built a successful new lifestyle based on the tourist trade and on the gaming industry.

With both Tribes’ websites, it is difficult to find any mention of the struggles that they have been through in the past, and which they are still going through today. On both of these websites, they talk mainly about the politics of the modern day, and of elections for new Tribal leaders and the like.

The Cheyenne Sioux Tribe and the Nez Perce Tribe

The United States of America used to be a land that was inhabited by the different sovereignties and nations of the Native Americans. They have since been exterminated or more recently pushed into Reservations but are still recognised as having a sovereign power. These Reservations are spread around America many of which incorporate more than one tribe. For instance the Cheyenne Sioux Tribe is the combined Cheyenne tribe and the Sioux tribe.
The Cheyenne Sioux Tribe in South Dakota has a website that seems to lean towards the more traditional ideas of the Native Americans. http://www.sioux.org/land_flash.php . When you first enter the website traditional music is played and the background is a stereotype of what many think of as a Native American way of life. The website holds many aspects of the Cheyenne Sioux tribe. the information on their history is not very detailed with explanations of the buffalo and then the conflict with the 'white man'. In the explanation of the battles with the 'white man' the writer seems very detatched from their own history. It seems to be more a series of events that could have happened to anyone, than an event that shaped the way they currently lived their lives. The only time I really felt any emotion eminating from the author was when they questioned the right of the 'white man' to escape religious persecution in Europe, only to persecute a new type of religion in the New World.
The tribe also includes some a more contemporary aspect in the form of their Tribal Government, Cultural Preservation Programs and their Education. In the tribal Government no internal information is freely given, instead names and titles are told with the districts mapped out. Some secrets are left as secrets for a kind that had lost much.
The Cultural Preservation Programs is much more forthcoming. The information given is the paperwork for the cultural ordinances, outlining the language and education of the people within that tribe.
The lack of information about their internal politics and the openness of the ordinances suggests that the Cheyenne Sioux Tribe is an independent people that are trying to allow others to understand them and yet they will not let all parts of their ideology and philosophy or politics be aired to anybody.
The Nez Perce Tribes website seems to be more 'hip'. http://www.nezperce.org/
Information about the events of the tribe are freely told on the home page of the website, including their census information and their election process. Pointing to a more democratic view of the Native Americans than stereotypes suggested, or an incorporation of the United States government into their internal political spectrum.
The website seems to be more of what one would expect a state website to appear. The members of the committee have pictures on the site along with the date that their title expires; All the different departments have their own page and when it comes to history, the factual parts such as the repression of these people is not told. Only tales of how the flag came to be are shown within the site.
The layout of the Nez Perce tribe in comparison to the Cheyenne Sioux tribe is that the Nez Perce tribe seem to be trying to incorporate themselves into the American society and social norm. They do not bring up the touchy parts of history when they were almost wiped out, instead they embrace the democracy that was introduced to them from across the seas. The tribe even has primaries for its elective process. Whereas the Cheyenne Sioux tribe is trying to hold on to the tradition and values that it once had, and remember the time when they were an indangered people, although with the way the author writes, that is a time that is either draining from a collective memory or simply ceasing to be a concern in a land that doesn't care about another the natives of the land.

Native Americans

For my blog this week, I decided to look for tribes whose names I am familiar with: The Cherokee Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

http://www.cherokee.org/

The Cherokee Tribe has several different divisions but for the purpose of this blog I will be concentrating on the particular division who run the website and they are located near Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Unfortunately for the the Cherokee Tribe, they were involved in a particularly dark period of US history, specifically the infamous Trail of Tears. Originally the Cherokees were located in the Southeast (Georgia, Northern Florida and the Carolina's) but in the 1830, President Andrew Jackson authorized the Indian Removal Act and in 1838 more that 3,000 Cherokees were forced out of their homes and off their land and carted off to reservations where many were were held in the prison camps that awaited them. Many thousands died from starvation and disease among other ailments. This is the tragic history that the Cherokees have to live with and many Americans feel guilt over.

Cherokee Nation is very much a modern site and obviously tries to focus more on the positive things. The news feed on the home page talks about how well the tribe is doing and all the success they are having at the moment and it is a very clear cut and well managed site. The Cherokee Tribe are the largest tribe in the US today with an estimated population of 300,000 members, and were known in the 19th century as one of the 'Five Civilized Tribes' meaning that they were one of the few tribes that somewhat assimilated and accepted the European culture that had influenced America. Clearly this is still the case today as they seem to a more 'modern' outlook compared to my other website.

The history section is extensive and encourages those who are not in the know to look through the articles. Even going so far as to list all the Treaties that were made, history is obviously an important point, no matter how broken or tragic it is. I believe that a lot of the website may be aimed at the children of the tribe members and possibly those wanting to become a member. I enjoyed looking through the site and I believe that they are one of the 'success stories' of the Native American Peoples.

My second website focuses on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. On their website they explain that their 'Lakota Nation is comprised of over three million acres with three major waterways including the Missouri River, the Cheyenne River and the Moreau River. The Cheyenne River Reservation is home to the four bands (Tiospaye) of the “Titunwan” People of the Plains: The “Mnikoju” Planters By The Water, “Owohe Nupa” Two Kettle, “Itazipa Cola” Without Bows, and “Siha Sapa” Black Foot.'

http://www.sioux.org/land_flash.php

After the defeat of the Lakota people in the 19th Century, the Great Sioux Reservation was broken up as a result and thus the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe was created. The population of this tribe according to the 2000 Census was an estimated 8,470. Unfortunately, they do not live as well as the Cherokee Tribe as due to the US Government confiscating their land and then damming the Missouri River for electrical power and flood control, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe have restricted access to water making living conditions unbearable in some places.

An interesting side note I'd just like to mention here is that a recent weather related disaster that deeply effected the tribe echoes Hurricane Katrina in that the US Government was extremely slow to respond, despite the fact that a state of emergency was declared. It wasn't until it was specifically highlighted on a television programme that the rest of the US were made aware of it and within two days donations were made. Although no deaths were recorded, the people of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe were without water, heat or power for at least two weeks.

Looking at their website, the Tribe chooses a traditional look rather than a modern one that perhaps reflects their feelings towards modern America and the 'outside' world. The background is a landscape view of what is presumably one of the rivers that runs through their land and tradional Native American music is played along with pictures old and new of who I assume were tribe members. Under 'Our Story' they are keen to point out that it is one that cannot be described in just a few pages on a website. I find it interesting that in their history section, instead of writing their own history, they prefer to give a small blurb and then refer you to other websites (including the God of information, all hail Wikipedia!!) which suggests that maybe they do not have the man power to maintain the website and include all their own information. It's obviously a very small website that tries to keep up in the current market, but compared to the Cherokee, it fails in trying to provide awareness and information on their tribe. Perhaps it is because they are one of the smaller tribes and do not live as well as the Cherokee, but at least they have made the effort and even if they cannot provide their own story, guaranteed that someone else will.

Native American Tribes

www.klamathtribes.org/culture/

The first site I found was for the Klamath tribes, Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin in Oregon. The site has a page for their history which contains information about them from the 19Th century. It mentions their first interactions with the white people, these were explorers, missionaries, settlers and ranchers. It discusses how they left their marks but does not go into detail with the only bad mention of them being 'After decades of hostilities with the invaders, the Klamath Tribes ceded more than 23 million acres of land in 1864 and we entered the reservation era.'. It then goes on to discuss their eagerness to turn new economic opportunities to their advantage and had much success in the cattle industry.

The information on the present on the site talks about how they are still serious about achieving economic self- sufficiency as they feel this is a way to control their own destinies. I found that there is not much information on the present and how their tribe is surviving today, it mainly focuses on what their missions are "The mission of the Klamath Tribes is to protect, preserve, and enhance the spiritual, cultural, and physical values and resources of the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Peoples, by maintaining the customs and heritage of our ancestors."




www.snowwowl.com/peopleinuit1.html

The second site I found was not for a specific tribe but for the 'Inuit' people living in the Arctic. The site is very focused on the success of a place called Pond Inlet (Mittimatalik), Baffin Island, Canada and the business' based on the island, it is also very proud of its national park. It also mentions the changes that have been made to their way of living and how they've had to modernise themselves to survive. It then goes on to talk about how the change of economy on the island has led to some Inuits being unemployed, or becoming suicidal and gaining addictions which has been a big problem for the island. This is not mentioned in the first tribes website I found and shows the difference in success and failure between tribes. I then looked at the history of the Inuits and it seemed strange to me that they only mention the positive side to their history, there is no mention of the struggles they went through considering how it has led them to many problems today.

I feel that these sites should go into detail about their struggles as many Americans are not knowledgeable about the subject and should be informed of some Native Americans situations.

Native American

The Native American have lived in there for a long time. Long before those settlers arrived. They have always lived insular life, until the arrival of the invaders destroyed their peaceful life. Most of them have no place to live and they have no work to do. However, the society has continued to develop, and they---the Native Americans also need to change, need to take advance with times.

For example, I found a tribe on a website called Native American Nations, there is a tribe called Abenaki, and there is brief history of it. And then I found another website of it, the same tribe, but they have produced products in present day.

Here is the link of Natice American Nations: http://www.nativeculturelinks.com/nations.html there are many tribes on this website, I chose the first one. And this is the link of Abenaki: http://intertribal.net/NAT/NATribes.htm http://207.234.249.26/index.html

And also I found a vedio clip that's about President Obama to Meet with Native American Tribal Leaders. He has invited leaders of the more than 500 Native American tribes in the United States to a White House Tribal Nations Conference on November 5. Mr. Obama says he wants to hear directly from the leaders about how his administration can help them meet their needs. Those people's wished are very simple, they just want to live a little bit better, but those aggressors have never stopped destroying, no matter hundreds years before or now. If the Native American lived in tipis, just like they did before, they can easily live like they used to---hunting, farming, and they wouldn't need money they wouldn't need jobs, everything would be fine.

Here is the vedio clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duSwtNhlaYc

Here's the voice of political reason...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abrIQ_v2w8



Are all the answers here? Or is this the more reasonable reflection of the issue?....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKMgPN_ZR




Or this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLCJohGfFno

PRO & ANTI Latino America Immigration

At last Wednesday, 3rd March, there is an article posted on Center for Immigration Studies, it called Calderon's Latin American Initiative: A Few Concerns. Calderon is the President of Mexico. He and Jorge Bustamante (Mexican immigration scholar), they made speech. Bustamante states, "I'm not against seeking a Latin American brotherhood, but I am against confusing facts with sentiments." He notes that "millions of Mexican citizens live in the United States in conditions that require our attention and active solidarity. From them we receive our second largest source of foreign currency, which sustains the national economy." Bustamante goes on to say that Mexicans "can't afford to exclude from regional alliances the country with which we have our largest border" and a major economic relationship. He says that to make such observations is to be "neither pro-gringo nor anti-Latin American. These are simply facts of our reality, which the president of Mexico does not seem to be recognizing." Bustamante and the President of Mexico seem not happy with immigrants move into the United States. For the reason as I understand is if there are more and more people go to America, then there will be less and less people living and working in their native country. However, I think they should not complain that much, they should consider how to change the national policies, make their own country is better and more people stay.
Here is the link of the website: http://www.cis.org/kammer/new-calderon-initiative
There is another article also talk about PRO Latin American Immigration. http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/uslatin_american_relations_and_migration

For the ANTI Latin American Immigration could be both side. It could be one side of Hispanic and the other side could be the United States. For example, Mexico has a policy called "Southern Plan". “Plan Sur” (Southern Plan), announced by the Mexican government [on June 19], may already be underway. Over a period of 15 days, starting on June 4, the southern border of Mexico was the stage for a large-scale police action that resulted in more than 6,000 deportations of illegal aliens to Guatemala from Mexico and 3,000 Central Americans located in Guatemala back to the borders of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and neighboring countries. This is only the example. The other Spanish-speaking countries may also have the policies like this---encouraged people go to other Hispanic countries but not the United States.
Here is the link of the website: http://www.worldpress.org/0901feature22.htm

Immigration Issues

My first website is anti-immigration but deals with the more problematic issue of illegal immigration and the continuing security threats along the 2,000 mile long border.

http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol1301.htm

The website deals with illegal immigration more than legal, but I chose to focus on this as I believe that it is due to the illegal population rather than the legal, that American-Latinos or 'Hispanics' have become the majority minority and are expected to make up 50% of the US population in the next 40 years.

This websites interest focuses solely on one of the biggest problems facing America today. The Mexican-US border is one that is constantly under attack from illegal aliens trying to get into the US, drug smugglers attempting to export drugs to the States and the Agents protecting the border are constantly under attack. Very aware of this fact, usbordercontrol.com want to make it absolutely clear of the problems they face from Mexico and the lack of security on the border.

"The flood of Mexican illegal aliens across the United States southern border is wanton, violent, continuous, and unchecked. That is the truth. There is no "alternate" truth."



The website has a variety of different tabs and some lengthy explanations as to what effects illegal immigration has and how underfunded and understaffed the US Border Patrol really is. One point that I picked up on was that any border security (including barriers) is funded entirely by US tax-payers and with no input from the Mexican Government which, needless to say, I found shocking. The website highlights the problems that illegal aliens are causing along the border, and should they break through, in the US. Employment among US Citizen's (particularly those who are white) is dropping due to the cheap labour that is offered by illegal immigrants, particularly in southern states such as Texas and Arizona. The entire website makes for interesting reading, but it is abundantly clear that this is anti-immigration.


My pro-immigration website is http://www.latinospro.org/ which is a website dedicated to making a better life for those wanting to emigrate and those who have already done so, but feel that they are restricted because they are a minority. Clearly a pro-group, Latinos Progresando is based in "Chicago's Pilsen and Little Village neighbourhoods which together is the second largest Mexican population in the country". Aiming to boost the profile of Latino immigrants and present them in a positive light, the website promotes how education is the way forward for the younger generation and although it does not say it so bluntly, I think the main aim is to put forward the school of thought that assimilation is the key, which ironically is what the Latino community of infamous for not doing.

The service they provide is also of that of a legal nature. possibly encouraging those who want to immigrate, to do it through the right channels and not to do it illegally as so many others in the Latino community have done before. Again. it is all to put Latino immigrants in a positive light.

Although the website seems to be aimed at younger people, I think the point the group are trying to get across is one that we hear quite often which is " Children are our future" and I believe that as the future seems to be looking distinctly Latino in the US, action needs to be taken now in order to build safe communities.

Latino Immigration

This link is to the website of a pro Immigration in the sense that it is not anti immigration.

http://www.cjd.org/

CJD or Cassa Juan Diego is an organisation based in Houston that publishes the Houston Catholic Worker. CJD is modeled on the Catholic Workers movement, set up in 1980 by Mark and Louise Zwick CJD "...shares the values of the Catholic worker movement..." and also "...shares stories of the immigrants and refugees uprooted by the reality of the global economy."
The organisation is funded by charitable donation, it has various branches such as Homless centres and medical Clinics. CJD cares for, educates and socializes immigrants legal or illegal.

CJD like the Catholic Workers Movement is a Catholic and pacifist to its roots. This website opposes the traditional conservative notion of survival of the fittest. It opposes Sam Huntington's essay on the protection of WASP- White Anglo Saxon Protestant and the traditional culture.

The Website publicises its liberal beliefs and lives by and provides "Hospitality for the Homeless, exiled hungry and forsaken.


WHAT ABOUT CEYOTES?


http://www.aicfoundation.com/

The AICF website is anti Immigration but by way of procedure, thats to say they are in the fight to campaign against illeagal immigration. Victory to reform current laws would mean that all immigrants are legal and that the quota would fill up quickly as a result reaching a legal limit.

Howvever the initial thought i got when i entered the website is that it seems very aggressive, not racist but very Nationalist and Patriotic. E.g. American Eagle, Star Spangled Banner, Revolutionary militia figure on the page. The website isnt directing anger into anti Latino sentiments but at immigration in general, however Mexican immigration is the highest contribution of migration to the America and with the reform of Immigration laws in debate soon, the focus will most likley be Latino immigration.

Also the AICF is a "foundation" created in 1983 three years after CJD. They both share similarities. Both are non profit groups that are donation relient (although AICF openly admits to accepting Gov funding),
both publish articles or books on there issues of concern.

I think this website is disguising itself somewhat as a group for public concern whilst underneath being more extreamist to a certain degree.

Pro and Anti Latino immigration

http://www.noinvaders.org/



The first website I looked at is called NoInvaders and is against illegal immigrants from Mexico to the U.S. the site basically is a place for people to report employers who employ illegal immigrants, to report broken fences, to report dwellers (people residing in the U.S. illegally) and to report crime. It also allows you post articles on the matter and to write to immigration or congress. The site even has a 'bad employer' directory giving details and photos of store or company owners that employ illegal immigrants. From further investigation to the site I found that the site has a store where you can purchase T-shirts with the NoInvaders logo on...



The site was founded by a man named Jim Wood who was one of the original minutemen and weekly visitor to the Mexican border.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/immigration/2006/05/10_immigration_is_a_good_thing.html

The second website I found is a list of reason why illegal immigration is a good thing called 'Neil Steinberg's Top 10 Reasons Latino Immigration is a Good Thing' that had been posted in a blog but I couldn't find the original source. The number one reason is that they need the people, Neil Steinberg is from Chicago and he states that the city of Chicago has half a million fewer residents than it did in 1940. The list mentions other reasons such as, needing tax payers, workers and culture. Reason number 10 discusses the protests people have for letting in the immigrants and that America is a free society, not just laws, but of reason and justice. He mentions the 'New', new experiences and not the old way of thinking.

Latino Immigration to the USA

The issue of Latino Immigration has a mixed opinion. On one hand some love the mixing of cultures. On the other hand, many want the Latinos to stay South of the border.

I began my search for the views on Immigration by first looking for an anti-immigration website. I found what I thought would be the perfect site, unfortunately it had been suspended with no reason as to why; although it is not hard to speculate. The website was called 'sendtheborderjumpershome' a fairly interesting website name, and I'm sure when it was still in use the information it provided would have been... enlightening. However, since I could not use this particular website my search went on and I came across the controversial VDARE website and eventually an article written on http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MWFhYjhiODFiOGZmNTc1ZTQxMzlkNjNkNjIzNDg2YWU.
It was written by Alex Alexiev, a writer of extreme tastes and topics. He tackles subjects such as 'The Making of an American Terrorist' and 'A Marriage of Convenience: Obama, the Left and Radical Islam'. The Article written by Alexiev on the topic of Hispanic Immigration is called 'Catching Up to Mexico' written in August 2009, it blames the failing finance of California, not on immigration as a whole, but the poor Hispanic immigrants who make up the vast majority of California. He includes the statistics of the Los Angeles school District with over 300,000 of the 700,000 students being Hispanic 'English Learners', Many of whom will become High School Dropouts who will not benefit the Californian Economy. The Article also states that California is now nearing the bottom of all the 50 States in Maths, Science, Reading and Writing according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Alex Alexiev puts forward the argument that America cannot ride through this wave of immigration like it has with previous waves, as the immigration population is almost double the previous statistics and so America will eventually crumble under the pressure of Hispanic immigrants on the economy and educational systems.
Whilst looking for the Pro Latino Immigration website, I did not expect to find a website that held a story of Heroism and Hope. http://www.immigrationhereandthere.org/2008/03/nuevo_new_orleans_latino_immig.php It tells of the influx of Latin Americans into New Orleans after Katrina to save the city. They did the jobs that were classed as 'dangerous' and many had suffering health because of it. The information put forward by the writer Peter Holderness is that of acceptance. The non-Hispanics of New Orleans accepted the Hispanics and even made an effort to help them in the community. They clearly do not feel that the Hispanics a degrading their society and their economy, instead the Hispanics helped them to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes. There is clearly a difference between the two articles. Both are written in an intellectual style, with the anti-Hispanic immigration article having alot more decorum than I am sure any VDARE article would have. What sets these articles apart are the areas they were written about and the topics within immigration that they decided to argue on. Where the Alex Alexiev argued about the Latinos degrading the system in California, Peter Holderness argues for their sacrifices to help a city that was decidedly un-Hispanic before Katrina.
If what Alex Alexiev says is true of the Latinos and the Californian society, then in the future New Orleans may be in for the same road as Los Angeles. But for the moment, New Orleans is a Pro Latino Immigration City, for whilst others ignored the call for relief, a 'minority' heard it and answered in force.

Hurricane Katrina & African Americans

I found an interesting website, it called 'BlackNews'. Everyting on this website is about black people. There is an article about African-Americans suffer from the Hurricane Katrina. The title of the article is pretty tough Hurricane Katrina Leaves Thousands of African-Americans Without Shelter, Food or Water.

Across Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, more than 1 million residents remained without electricity, some without clean drinking water. An untold number who heeded evacuation orders were displaced and 40,000 were in Red Cross shelters, with officials saying it could be weeks, if not months, before most will be able to return.
Emergency medical teams from across the country were sent into the region and President Bush cut short his Texas vacation Tuesday to return to Washington to focus on the storm damage.
Federal Emergency Management Agency director Mike Brown warned that structural damage to homes, diseases from animal carcasses and chemicals in floodwaters made it unsafe for residents to come home anytime soon. And a mass return also was discouraged to keep from interfering with rescue and recovery efforts.

Probably they said this because they were very angry, and probably they were little bit extreme. But they reproted almost the truth. The former President Bush (have to say this right now) were still in his vacation in Texas. And Bush didn't make the correct decision on time. Here is the link of the website: http://www.blacknews.com/pr/katrina101.html.

Here is an another article on FOXNews. 'Katrina Rallies African-Americans'. This article demonstrated to African-Americans, Hurricane Katrina has become a generation-defining catastrophe — a disaster with a predominantly black toll, tinged with racism. They've rallied to the cause with an unprecedented outpouring of activism and generosity.
Blacks who have been touched by the disaster are not only donating money but gathering supplies, taking in friends and relatives, even heading south to help shoulder the burden of their people. However, everyone every life is equale in front of disaster. No one want to lose families, friends. But the disaster had occurred indeed, those people who dead could not be revived. We can only hope something like this will not happen again.
Here is the link of the website: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168861,00.html.

Katrina- Who's left behind?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/us/29trailer.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
Article 1st

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/12/29/us/1229TRAILER_9.html
Pictures 2nd

This is an article by the New York Times, It focuses on the people are left behind after Katrina and who has been left behind by the government. At the bottom of the first page it notes the date of the print as Dec 29th 2009, so only 2-3 months old. So contemporary, 4-5 years of "aftermath" and still people struggle to survive.

The article explains that although Katrina hit the New Orleans area in 2005, many are still battling to survive. It takes a look at numerous victims in a process of recovery aided by local non-profitable organisation such as 'Neighbours Keeper' in Baton Rouge. The article tells us how the victims have been effected not only by the storm and the aftermath but by the lack of government help too. Their transition from temporary Trailer Park RENAISSANCE VILLAGE to a new home with support. After learning a little bit about who these people are they end each little story by telling us how they are currently surviving.

The key issue in this article quite clearly felt by the evaluation of victims from katrina is the Government, its response attitude and the system. The lack of action taken by the Government and its lackadaisical approach when it does act. A contemporary issue for African Americans with themes of failure and disregard by the Government, also anger and distrust from the people of New Orleans. The contemporary African Americans in the article are elderly widowes, fatherless son's and single mothers.

People who have and do struggle socially and financially under more pressure. The article explains how government do help through the set up of the Federal Emergancy Management Agency (FEMA) but are criticised for their lethargic and inflexible nature.

Thankfully this article although does focus on the struggle of African Americans in the aftermath, it does include a story and image of white male Americans too.

Hurricane Katrina

http://www.hurricanekatrinarelief.com/index.html

In 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and was known as one of America's largest natural disasters with at least 1,836 deaths. The website I have chosen is a website dedicated to the victims of the disaster giving information on the hurricane and what you can do to help the survivors of Katrina. Almost 5 years later and New Orleans is still suffering, the city has become a ghost town and is left with the remainders of families homes. The city is at a standstill and many citizens are still living in trailers waiting for their homes to be rebuilt, these citizens have lost everything, all their personal belongings, years of memories. So why did it take the government so long to do something about this and why are the citizens of New Orleans still suffering?



Some people believe that George Bush the president at the time is to blame, and that he couldn't care less about the city of New Orleans, and apparently waited 3 days before leaving his vacation to come back and resolve the situation. Whether this is because of the fact that the city is a African American part of the state we do not know, but many of the citizens believe this to be true.

The survivors of the hurricane who lost their homes were put into FEMA trailers whilst waiting for a new home or their old home to be rebuilt. They fit families of 4or more into these tiny, cramped trailers giving the families poor living conditions. The families began complaining of illness and we soon found out the the FEMA trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde a cancer causing gas. FEMA finally tested their trailers to find that they had formaldehyde levels at 75 times the US recommended workplace safety threshold.

If it wasn't for charity websites like Hurricane Katrina Relief these families would not be able to move on and live a normal life again.

Racial Reality in Hurricane Katrina

I found an article written by journalist Steven Sailer for VDARE.com, Steve Sailer is best known for his writings on IQ, Race issues and Politics. All of which he tackles in this rather controversial article about the racial reality from Hurricane Katrina.
http://vdare.com/sailer/050903_new_orleans.htm
The article is a bit controversial as it states that the probable mean IQ of an African American in New Orleans is more than likely to only be in the high 70's. This statement in itself is startling as it is painting many people with the same, aparently mentaly challenged, brush. As I carried on reading the article I was to be surprised again by another statement about the superdome organisation that Sailer put forward; 'poor Black people seldom cooperate well with eachother because they don't trust other Blacks much, for the perfectly rational reason that they commit large numbers of crimes against eachother.' There are other such statements in the article which both shock and astound for they seem to be hugely racist and a major generalisation of a people. The way he describes African Americans seems to be along the same lines that the slave masters thought of their slaves, Three Fifths human.
In a way I am not surprised by this article as through research I have discovered that VDARE has been branded as a 'hate group' although they say that they are just airing the views of anti-immigration.
A slightly amusing fact about this anti-immigration magazine is that the founder is actually British and emigrated to America. Slightly warped really.

The Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

http://www.hurricanekatrina.com/

I remember when Hurricane Katrina hit. The summer of 2005, the month of my 16th birthday and I knew already that I was most definitely anti-Bush. And even more so after this. The devastating consequences of this category 5 hurricane highlighted (in the worst possible way) how unprepared the US Government was for such a disaster and it resulted in thousands of lives being lost. Today, survivors of the of the disaster in predominately African-American New Orleans, as well as friends and loved ones who were effected, are still bitter about the lack of response they got when the hurricane first hit.

The storm effected many areas in the south, but worse hit was the city of New Orleans in the state of Louisiana. 80% of the city was under water due to the replacement levees that had broken letting the water flood in. A relief effort was eventually put in to action and a telethon was held in which Kanye West infamously said 'George Bush hates black people'. Not an accurate statement, but it was one that was felt by many as it had taken such a long time for the government to provide aid to the victims of the hurricane in New Orleans and the surrounding areas and additionally trying to recover what was left of the city. Many questioned that if it had been a predominately white area, would George Bush have acted faster?

The website I have chosen, Hurricane Katrina.com, is a site that provides information about the hurricane, but more so about how you can help. There are tabs that provides pictures, and stories and thanks to the servicemen and women who helped in the relief effort. It doesn't focus so much on the hate and anger that was felt afterwards, but more on how it's devastating effects are still felt 4 and 1/2 years later. Unfortunately, what you do notice is the majority, if not all the people who are in the Katrina pictures are African American, the minority who suffered such a dark past in the South, which leads one to sympathise with those who believed George Bush had failed them- a Republican from an unforgiving and very conservative state. It certainly gives me something to think about.