American Studies in Iran

American Studies in Iran
American Studies in Iran is full of contradictions and paradoxes. So my impression from America as an Iranian inevitably contains all these paradoxes. My first impression and image from America is not Walt Disney, Mickey Mouse or other sweet and delightful images that would be the answer if you ask other children around the world. The first thing that I remember as a five year old child in 1988 was IR655, a civilian airliner shot down by U.S. missile, and the films and pictures of dead bodies of the victims floating in the water, and my eyes wide open half with fear half with curiosity at the scenes and the TV channel was changed soon because the pictures were too frightful for a baby to watch! I knew that this was done by an American navy in the Gulf and latter when I was fully grown I found that the men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons for what was considered a heroic action: 66 children and a pregnant woman were among the 290 passengers. Thirteen years later two airplanes were crashed into the world trade center, near 3000 were killed, again civilians, the whole world lamented for the lost lives and sympathized with the Americans, two wars were followed in Afghanistan and Iraq, thousands were killed and most of them were civilians.
The first impression was not romantic and delightful but the first impression is not always the last one; I became familiar with American literature, with Gone with the Wind as a teenager (though the beauty of the book was shattered and was gone later when I understood the racial tone behind the beautiful story, but I still love it) and with T.S. Eliot's Waste Land which I never understood fully as a teenager but I loved it anyhow.
When I wanted to decide about my MA in American Studies I was very tentative about the decision, some told me that this major is fully political, on the other hand English literature( I got by BA in English literature) did not satisfy me and I was looking for some thing new. American Studies is an interdisciplinary field of study which contains the study of economics, history, literature, art, media, film and woman studies and combines the methodologies of the literary criticism and historical research; the nature of the major like other interdisciplinary fields is colorful and any one can find a subject of his or her interest. As American studies was developed outside of America other aspects were also added and made connection with cultural studies and post colonial studies.
American Studies outside of America I think has its own limitations and even its own advantages. Iranians can not look to America like Americans, this is the case with Japanese, Chinese or the Arabs.

TheUnited States Presidential Election, 2004

The United States Presidential Election, 2004

The United States presidential election in 2004 was held between two presidential candidates John Kerry and George Walker Bush. George Bush gain both popular and electoral vote, though Bush's popular vote had a slim margin compared to that Kerry's. The election was also different from the election of 2000 in which George Bush became the president of the United States with gaining the vote of electoral collage but failed in gaining the popular vote. So what had happened to public opinion that made them to vote for Bush, the same candidate who had failed to gain the popular vote in previous presidential election? Had Bush proved to be a better President during his first term of presidency? Or was it due to his 2003 invasion of Iraq and the importance of foreign policy that led to his victory? Or by comparing the slim difference between the popular votes of the two candidates can we say that the war on terrorism was not that much important or influential in Bush's election?
Before answering to these questions we should know why do people vote they way they do? Some believe that people vote based on party affiliation e.g. they vote to democrats or republicans because they feel a psychological attachment toward one of these parties. Others believe that party affiliation model is out of fashion in recent years and Americans are becoming more sophisticated. By the emergence of new issues, new generation of Americans decide about their future president based on the important issues of the time. Statistics shows that in 1992 presidential election only about 29 per cent of the voters strongly identified with Republicans or Democrats, which is rather a significant decrease compared to 1960s. So, most voters in recent years are said to be independent.
This paper will focus on issue voting theory: that people decide about their future president based on the important issues of the time, though the writer admits issue theory, while being important is not completely responsible in election of a president.
American public usually prefer to focus on domestic issues rather than foreign policy. But in 2004 presidential election foreign policy was the dominant theme in presidential campaigns. The reason for that was U.S. invasion on Iraq which had started in 2003 and had changed Bush to a wartime president; but there were still some controversies around the issue: Bush, the republican candidate and the president of war focused his campaign on national security and presented him as a decisive leader for war against terrorism while Kerry the democrat candidate believed in "stronger at home, respected in world" policy which suggested more attention to domestic affaires. Another important factor was that the election was held only one year after the invasion on Iraq and considering the swift victory of American military forces and relatively few causalities of American troops, Bush had gained more approval rating (which did not last long with failure in finding weapons of mass destruction which was the logic for the war, and long occupation of Iraq which led to mass protests in future years). Bush's approval rate in the month of May rode at 66% to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. Another interesting point is that when American troops are sent out for a war, the commander-in- chief gains more approval and fame inside the country; though this trend is not long lasting and by the time people are becoming aware of heavy casualties or are becoming dissatisfied due to tax increase, the protests are going to start; this was the case in Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. But with respect to the 2004 presidential election, as it was mentioned Americans were still in high sprit with their apparent victory in Iraq and Bush was gaining more fame and popularity for his heroic actions. So, perhaps it can be said that Americans were looking for a president who would continue these heroic actions and glorious victories for a while.

But it is oversimplification to say that the only reason for George Bush's victory in presidential election of 2004 was his foreign policy attitudes. This becomes more problematic when popular votes of the two candidates are compared: Bush gained 62,040,610 popular vote and his rival Kerry gained 59,028,111. As it is clear the difference between the two candidates is not that much significant and so other factors should be taken in to consideration for a more comprehensive conclusion.

References:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/elec2004
if (window.runOnloadHook) runOnloadHook();
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
Controversies in American Politics& society. Mckey, Houghton&Wroe. Blackwell, 2002.

Social Stratification in America

Social Stratification in America
Social stratification in American Society is not clearly defined or determined; nevertheless social scientist has developed a socio -economic stratification of the American society. Americans believe in a three class society: rich, poor and middle class and most Americans consider themselves as middle class. In reality the American society is more diverse and incongruent and there is an extensive difference among people. The basic determinants that make social class are wealth, education, income and occupation. Some sociologists have divided the American society in six distinct categories including: rich or the upper class, upper middle class, lower middle class, lower class and poor and under class.
It is believed that the people who belong to the same social class share the similar social positions, similar ways of thinking and life styles; others oppose this idea and believe that we cannot generalize characteristic of the people to one another. Social class creates a hierarchy and identity for the people of each class.
One of the indications of the social class in America is income in terms of either individual or household and is one of the most important indicators of social class. Those families who have two income earners are in a better position. Per capita income which means the amount of money allocated to each individual member is also anther important determinant in social stratification. It can be said the families who have fewer members are in a better position.
Another indication in social stratification is education which has a relation with the occupation and income. Higher education itself needs money and paying tuition, so it is clear that most of the time the families who are better off can afford a better education for their children: they can pay for better schools and private schools, colleges and universities. As the result there is an interrelation between money and education.
One of the most prominent features of social class is culture: people of the same social class tend to have similar ways of behavior; though this behavior and culture is not some thing fix and changes with social mobility: people who move upward or downward in their social stratification will acquire the behavior of that social group. But there is diversity inside the same social group as well. One of the important terms in American culture and literature is the concept of "Class Ascendancy": based on this concept each successive generation will have a higher standard of living than its predecessors. Another important characteristic of American social class is achieved status rather than described statues; it means that regardless of his or her original statues, one can become rich and successful and climb the social ladder. But in reality this idealistic view can not be completely true: many people of color are still suffering the racial prejudices and as a result they can not have the proper education and a good occupation which is perhaps the most important class component. These people have lower income and the cycle will continue to the later generations. Despite the existing injustice and inequalities, America is considered land of opportunity, the land which its streets are paved with gold. Thought this belief is exaggerated, Americans have improved their economic situation with their hard working and persistence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States

The White House

"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this House, and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof". John Adams, the first American president inhabited in the White house

The White House was built between 1792 and 1800 based on Pierre Charles L'Enfant's plan for a federal city; the plan was chosen in a competition among nine other proposals. It is said that George Washington was not pleased with the primary plan and found it was too small and simple and not suitable for the nation's president, so the White House was enlarged by thirty percent. James Hoban, an Irish architecture, influenced by a palace in Dublin in designed the White House. The construction began in October 13, 1792 by black slaves as well as free workers most of them were Irish and Italian immigrants. The initial construction took eight years and the White House was ready to use in 1800 and was occupied by John Adams. The building was referred to as the "President's Palace" or "Presidential Mansion", but around 1811 it was called the white House by public because the building was painted in white. In 1814 during the war between American and British the White house was burned by British Troops; only the exterior walls remained and they needed reconstruction. British troops also looted the precious objects of the White House which were never returned or recovered except for a painting of George Washington and a jewelry box which was given back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939. By the time of the Civil War, the white House was fully established and over crowded. Later it was enlarged and extended which included a National Wing on the east and a west wing which itself included the Oval Office.
In 1948 the house was in a bad condition due to poor maintenance and construction and it was declared that there is an imminent danger of collapse. So the reconstruction and modification was carried out by the command of President Truman which led to adding more new places for workrooms, storage and a bomb shelter. Later Jacqueline Kennedy directed a very extensive redecoration of the house and collected new artifacts for the home including antiques and paintings; other luxuries of the house were added by wealthy donors. Different periods of the republic and world history were selected as theme for each room such as Green Room, Blue Room, yellow oval Room, Treaty Room…. .Since President Kennedy, every presidential family had changed the house according to their taste. But every change has to be approved by the Committee for the preservation of the White House in order to keep the unity and integrity of the house.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-White-House&id=913079

Pox Americana: Exposing the American Empire

Pox Americana: Exposing the American Empire
About the Authors: John Bellamy Foster is an American journalist, sociologist, essayist and eco-sociologist. He is also editor of Monthly Review, which is a prominent Marxist magazine. He is also a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon.
Robert W.McChesney is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois. He has written and edited sixteen books and some journal articles and book reviews. Mc Chesney is also the president and co-founder of Free-Press, which is a national media reform organization.

Synopsis:
U.S. current wars makes the observer to wonder whether there exist any similarity and link between new imperialism and the old one in19 century in the U.S. history. In 1898, with Spanish-American war and seizure of Spanish colonies in Caribbean, America emerged as a world power. By refusing to accept the existence of the new Philippine Republic, United - States publicly announced its intention to annex it entirely, and declare it a holy mission.
This part, the "Imperial Ambition" opens with an interview with Noam Chomsky and his opinion about American use of military force which is declared as "The national Security Strategy of the United Sates of America, which permits the use of force in the world. In this way U.S. would rule the world by force, and if there is a challenge against it U.S. will have the right to destroy the challenge before it becomes a treat; Chomsky calls this doctrine preventive war and not preemptive war and makes distinction between thee two: preventive war begins with no grounds in international law. The challenge, the treat can be invented or imagined and is not proven or evident. The point is that America calls it a new norm; to do this America has to select a defenseless target e.g. Afghanistan and Latter Iraq; and to prepare the stage for such wars they had to frighten American people that Bin laden or Saddam Hussein are a treat to their existence.
American imperialism has deep roots in its history and has close relationship with perception of white supremacy and racism. This ideology can be traced back to Christian Crusades, latter colonization of African countries and Latin America. The Declaration of Independence and latter the American constitution confirms this supremacy. Regarding U.S. -Indian treaties, white supremacy was the rationalization and ideology behind theft of Native American lands. So, the very origins of the United States are imperialistic.
Imperialism is an integral part of the capitalist world economy. In 1945 U.S. nation state became so strong and hegemonic and had military force which was unparalleled; as a result of the hegemonic power America also became culturally the center of the world. But around 1968 with the rise of economic rivals, U.S. defeat in Vietnam and world revolution, America's power and hegemony over the world began to decline. So, in order to keep their hegemony over the world, American leaders had two approaches: to persuade Western Europe, Japan and others they can have an alliance of semi- equal with the U.S. though America is the leader of them all; the second approach was called Washington Consensus: to substituted developmenalism with globalization and set out to impose this on the world. America at that period had three objectives: 1. The Counteroffensive of neoliberalism, 2. to deal with military treats and 3. To stop the European Union. After 9/11, which showed that U.S. was vulnerable the hawks entered the scene and diplomatic, multicultural approach was put aside. The war on Iraq was not for overthrowing a dictator or even for oil but to show that American could do it and intimidate both the people of the third world countries not to engage in nuclear proliferation and Europeans.
The imperialism practiced by few rich capitalist had dividend the world into rich and poor nations. The rich countries become richer by using poor counties resources. At the same time the imperialist nations of the world are competing with each other to extend their power over these resources; this completion is called geopolitics. These imperialist nations are not homogenous in their power and their completion some times leads to war. Out of this an imperial power will arise that will dictate and impose its own rule over other nations. America has been the hegemonic power since the Second World War. America's supremacy is partly due to possessing the world's primary currency. United States is willing to use its military force to keep its global hegemony whenever it is needed. But a global left, most of whom are socialist, are opposing American global program.
European countries and their Japanese counter parts are tiring to find ways to catch up with United States. The assumption is that U.S. economy more energetic and successful for its free enterprise nature and Europe's and Japan's old ways can not survive in the new order. But this assumption is not true. They fail to see that U.S. growth in 1990s was financed by borrowing from overseas (as America is the world's largest multicultural conglomerates). Despite this foreigners continue lend money to Americans because it is so productive. Anyhow Americans have a relative dominance over world's economy due to this flow of capital from Europe itself and the rest of the world. The reason why European nations were against the war in Iraq is that in this America will expand its domination over oil fields and intends to grant gigantic tax cuts to the richest of fellow Americans and at the same time boost governmental spending through defense budget.
But there is always struggle and resistance against imperialism in the history. The most significant movement against imperialism has taken place in the poor countries and the third world. The resistant groups are also active in America: a broad antiwar movement led to ending war in Vietnam. Though the term "war on terrorism" has persuaded many people that the war in Iraq is for defending American's right, nevertheless justice movement are still active and alive; these movements are a sort of mass social phenomenon which can lay the foundation for an anti-imperialist movement. But there must be an organized left presence to tie different movements and strands together.
For organizing an anti-war movement there is a need to gather all the help from contradictory objectives. So the movement needs to mobilize and combine the organizational resources and strategic potential of the labor movement, particularly the new generation of global justice activist; but the paradox here is that this goal is universal and internationalist while class power is reproduced nationally. To solve the problem a left movement should locate itself within both labor movement and other movements in the first world and to understand the old issue of state power in a new internationalist way in order to help to third world struggle.
*****
This book contains 15 essays on different aspects of American Imperialism which contains the leading left-wing and leading Marxist annalist of imperialism to examine the nature and prospects of U.S policy. Each essay is written by important figures that are critical toward Bush administration. In part one, US imperialism has long History: Noam Chomsky, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, John Bellamy Foster, Harry Magdoff, Robert McChesney and Immanuel Wallerstien have contributed to the part. Part two, Geopolitics and Political Economy of US Imperialism is written by William K Tabb, Klare and others. Part three, Resistance are written by samir Amin, Barbara Epstien, Bernardine Dohhen and... Although the book is written by many writers and contributors, yet the editors were able to gather all essays together without losing the coherence. The essays are organized in a way that gives the reader an understandable view about the history of imperialism in U.S. The book tries to be comprehensive but it has its own shortcomings: the solutions given by writers for confronting imperialism are superficial and simplistic and it has its roots in Marxist ideology of the essayists; Pox Americana puts so much emphasize on the role of labor movement and working class.
Pox Americana: Exposing the American Empire
Reviewed by Zeinab Ghasemi
By John Bellamy Foster & Robert W MachesneyYear of publication: 2004City of publication: United Kingdom Paper cover, 192pageLanguage: EnglishISBN: 0-7453-2357-X
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Zeinab_Ghasemi_Tari

Human Rights in the United States

Human Rights in the United States

The United States is considered one of the most liberal and the freest states of the world. The U.S. constitution and treaties ratified by the senate and congress is the base of human rights of the Americans and is praised by many people around the world as a model of democracy and freedom. Freedom of speech, Freedom of press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment including torture and the right to a fair trial are bases of Americans bill of right. American governments also try to impose human rights in other countries by interfering in their affairs. But what is this American version of human rights?
The United States has refused to seat in the United Nation Human Rights Council since 2006 by claiming that it has lost its credibility with repeated attacks toward Israel's policy and failure to confront other right abusers. U.S. has violated the so called human rights both inside and outside of its country whenever and wherever it served their interest or was against their benefit. This trend is seen in U.S. policy and has been intensified since September eleven and the war on terrorism both inside and outside of America and their excuse for such an attitude is national security.
United States government has suspended various rights on national security ground in different situations and the most significant example is the current War against Terror and after 9/11 attacks. In some cases the suspension has gone too far that has led to the same terror and tyranny which Americans claim to fight with. Here are just a few examples to illuminate the American violation of human rights and its double standard policies:
The United Nation Human Right Council released a report in 2006 that revealed U.S. citizens and foreign national are occasionally captured and transferred to secret places and prisons; these people are tortured, abused and humiliated. Guantanamo Bay camp and Abu Ghraib are symbols of American human right violation:
"In the almost six years since Guantanamo opened, only one person has been convicted of any crime and that was by plea agreement." said a senior counsel on counterterrorism. Of the 305 detainees held in Guantanamo, only three are subject to military commission charges. In 2004, the photos revealed from Abu Ghraib showing humiliation and abuse of the prisoners which led to a political scandal. On the other while International and U.S. law prohibits torture and ill-treatment of any person in custody, U.S. governments claim that this law is not applied to what they call "unlawful combatants" and U.S. personnel acting outside the Unite States. Based on this claim the privileges of prison of war are not applicable to detainees in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The detainees of these prisons are kept for an infinite time and generally do not receive any trials. The point is that United Nation Human Rights Council has no legal authority or power to stop the United States and as it was mentioned before U.S. has refused to seat on United Nation Human Rights council.
America is responsible for many crimes and wars around the world and has engaged in other countries affairs accusing them for violation of human rights; America claims that all its actions and practices are for expansion of democracy and freedom and for respecting human dignity; America is considered by many people as a leader and model for freedom. But U.S. claim of human right is biased and is dependent on the benefit and interest of American government.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_and_the_United_States http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Zeinab_Ghasemi_Tari

Capital punishment in America and Controversies

Capital punishment in America and Controversies




Capital punishment is one of the controversial issues in America and other countries. While capital punishment is obsolete in most of the developed countries of the world, U.S. still practices death penalty in most of its states and has the support of public opinion; there are organizations and groups who are for or against it and each of them have its own justifications based on moral, religious and emotional grounds.
Death penalty was reinstated in 1976 and continues to its existence in 21st century. 67% of capital conviction is overturned, seven percent of those whose sentences were overturned have been acquitted, and ten percent were re-sentenced to death. The reminder ends up with lesser sentences.

Historical Back ground
Capital punishment has been a lawful punishment since the colonial period in America and was considered a normal part of judicial process. Death penalty was prescribed for major crimes; but from the beginning death penalty was only used and practiced when there was no other way for punishing the criminal. The reform movement toward death penalty began in 1750's in Europe by academics such as Cesare Beccaria and Voltaire. This movement was influential in Europe and ended capital punishment in 1767. In America some intellectual were also affected by the movement. They argued that death penalty should be abolished as a cruel act and they defended life imprisonment as a more rational way. As a result of these efforts, in 19th century Michigan was the first state that abolished death penalty; however most states still practiced death penalty for certain crimes.
Capital punishment has gone through different stages in 20 century: during the progressive era before the First World War, six more states banned capital punishment. During 1920s through 1940s a number of states reinstated death penalty which led to an increase in number of execution. In 1930 up to 1945 this increase was even greater. From 1950s to mid-1970s the approach toward capital punishment changed again which was as a result of advancement of liberal ideas. In this period the trend was toward judicial challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty. In 1976 Gregg v. Georgia reinstated the use of capital punishment in American states.


Legal Process
The legal process for the death penalty in the Unites States is complicated and includes four stages: 1. Sentencing, 2. Direct review, 3. State collateral Review and 4. Federal Habeas Corpus. Recently a fifth stage has been included and is becoming an important process: 5. Section 1983 Challenge which is a clemency or pardon in which the governor or president of jurisdiction can unilaterally reduce a death sentence.
Each of these stages is going to be explained briefly:

Direct Review:
If a defendant is sentenced to death at the trial level, the case goes to direct review. In this process an appellate court examines the evidence presented in the trial court and decides whether the decision was legally right or not: if the appellate court finds no significant legal errors in capital punishment sentence, the judgment will be affirmed; if significant legal errors are discovered then the judgment will reverse; and if the appellate court finds that no reasonable could find defiant eligible for death penalty, which is very rare, then the defendant will be acquitted.

State Collateral review:
When a death sentence is affirmed on direct review, supplemental methods e.g. collateral review remain to attack and change final judgment. When the defendant receives his death sentence in the state level trial, the first stage is State Collateral Review. This process varies from state to state. The purpose of these proceedings is to create a chance for the prisoner to change the final judgment.

Federal habeas corpus
After a death sentence is affirmed in State Collateral Review, the prisoner may apply for Federal Habeas Corpus, which is a kind of lawsuit that can be brought in federal courts; here the prisoner can attack a death sentence in federal court. The purpose of federal habeas corpus is to ensure that state courts have done a reasonable job in protecting defendant's constitutional right.
Section 1983 contested
If the federal courts refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus, the Governor may set an execution date. In recent years the prisoner can postpone the execution through a final round of federal litigation using the Civil Right Act of 1871. The United States Supreme Court approved the use of Section 1983 as a way for challenging a states method of execution a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eight Amendment.

Controversies over the Use of Capital Punishment
Different groups and parties support or oppose the use of death penalty and each of them has its own moral and religious justification. In America the majority of public opinion supports death penalty. Religious groups have different opinions about it: more conservative groups tend to support capital punishment while those who are more liberal are inclined to oppose it. The debate and controversies are around several issues; those who oppose it claim that: is it morally correct to kill another human being even if he is a criminal? Can death penalty be used as a deterrent to avoid more crimes? Is capital punishment used fairly across racial, social and economic classes? And what if an innocent person is found guilty and executed and new evidence in future reveals the improper judgment?
Until 1960s it was assumed that capital punishment was permitted by Fifth Amendment, eight Amendment and fourteen Amendment. However some Activists and movements tired to reform the process and its shortcomings: they believed that the rules which were applied to criminals differed wildly from state to state; they also argued that gas chambers and electrocution violated the eight Amendment as a cruel and unusual way of execution. In 1972 the Supreme Court concluded that capital punishment is a cruel and unusual punishment and in Furman v. Georgia the court struck down the capital punishment as a violation of the Eight Amendment. The Furman decision stopped all execution in the United States at least temporarily but did not abolish it completely. In 1976 the court clarified the decision. In Gregg v. Georgia the court argued that Gregg, convicted of robbery and murder, could be executed only if the jury considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This decision established the constitutionality of Capital punishment. This decision argued that if the juries consider all circumstances of every individual and investigate it properly then ultimate death penalty is acceptable.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Capital-Punishment-In-America-and-Controversies&id=911661