Rescuers got a visit from Bush
and World got a ‘Declaration of War’

The photograph shows George W. Bush, beside a firefighter at the ruined site of the World Trade Center on September 11. 2001. Bush has a loudspeaker in one hand and his other hand is on the shoulder of the firefighter. This situation had been captured by several photographers throughout various angles. The other famous photos of this situation that seems to be taken some minutes later show him while having a small flag in his hand and shaking it. These photos have been circulated by some magazines and papers on their covers like Newsday and Daily News with the headlines like “You’ve made us proud” that points out to the self-sacrificing of the fire fighters.

The very emergence of Bush as president of U.S. in the attacked location has reflected widely by Medias. Bush by this intentional action wanted to make it clearer that the president of the Nation would be always beside the people, especially during the disastrous incidents.
September11 attacks could be called the most horrible military operation and the most hostile act that had been taken place against the U.S. in their land. This action changed American Dream to a terrible Nightmare. In such an awful condition, appearance of the leader of the nation among them in an insecure environment, could make up a heroic image of the president and Bush had grasped that opportunity excellently. In a society with lack of historical myth, American president makes a myth of power and nationalism.
By looking at this photograph throughout Roland Barthes’ eyes with a semiotics approach, two or three levels of signification would be explored. Barthes explored three levels of meanings in a photograph. First level is informational level, which involved what it directly communicates. The symbolic level of meaning involves the reader or viewer in the more complicated social symbolisms involved in a still. These symbolic levels, of meaning are obviously the connotative meanings of the still in question. The symbolic of such a still involves a complex array of symbolic codes operating within society (Allen, 2003).
Dealing with this photo, the denotative meaning at the informational level is so clear and everyone could find it out. As it was mentioned above, the president of a country, wearing informal clothes, appeared among the rescuers, stood on a hill of devastated and collapsed Towers, and is speaking with the firefighters and workers who are trying to save the survivors and appreciate their devotion. It produced a great sympathy among the fellow citizens who had lost their relatives or friends and provided a national confidence for the firefighters and rescuers. In this level, the audiences of Bush’s words are the people who had been in the location.

By the symbolic level, the man who is talking through a loudspeaker is the symbol of power of the most powerful country of the world. He had been talking after a savage attack against his holly land. In this sense, the audiences of Bush’s speech in this photo could have been all the American’s opponents, specifically well known terrorists like Bin Laden and Taliban who would have been the Bush’s scope for revengefully operations.
Therefore, connotative meaning of this photo is the start point of a series of speeches that led to attack to Afghanistan and occupation of Iraq and removing its government that was more crucial. It could be interpreted as breaking down the myth of Saddam Hussein and replacing it by the myth of American leadership in war on terror.
President Bush in his speeches after a short time of this incident, equaled the America with the Freedom and Democracy clearly; “Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other” (Bush, 2001).
Bush rhetorically threatened the organizers of these attacks where they hide and promised to “hunt down and punish the responsible for these cowardly act” and it was the turning point for American foreign policy and also the rest of the world. He assumed the right for US to judge and bring the terrorists to justice; “We are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done” (Bush, 2001).
In addition, he declared the September 11 starting a war between the global terror network and Freedom. According to President Bush, this is a ‘world’s fight’, “This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and Freedom” (Bush, 2001).
In this way the connotative of this photo and president Bush’s figure, is that he is in the scene of the most tragic play of contemporary American history, and by his loudspeaker is declaring the starting of the new scene of this play. He is calling the world to be next to his Godly army in war on terror as a different war and new war, one side is freedom and the other side is fear and US is its leader:
“Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail” (Bush, 2001).
President Bush throughout his loudspeaker announced the starting of a new era, which in war was the best way to expand Freedom and Democracy. This was the time that history called Americans.
References:
Allen, G. (2003), ‘Roland Barthes’, New York & London, Routledge.

Bush, George.W, ‘Remarks by the President upon Arrival at Barksdale Air Force Base’ (September 11, 2001) Washington, D.C. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html

Bush, George.W ‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People’ (September 20, 2001) Washington DC, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030920-3.html
Bush, George.W ‘Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation’ (September 2001) Washington DC, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010929.html

"Iranian Immigrants' Identity in a Opponent Country"

Identity is a very important issue in the culture sphere of every societies and communities. it is so crucial for the immigrants who are living in a Diaspora. Creating a new identity in a diasporan community or preserving the original identity has been to a large extent problematic for the immigrants. By the way the cause of immigration has a great role in the identification by different pathern. On the other hand and with more importance, the constructed images of the immigrants’ homeland in their new host society’s public opinion is very determinant dealing with the acceptance or denial of them host nation. Respecting to Iranian immigrant in U.S. suffer of both of these factors in making up their identity and to some extent has led to an identity crisis among Iranian communities in exile. the biggest surge of immigration to U.S. had begun by victory of Islamic Revolution in iran and after that went on generation by generation. The point is that the increasingly political challenge between iran and U.S. had started by this turning point. As a result of the political opponency and some incidents like hostage crisis, representation of Iranian and also muslims changed completely in American medias, so public opinion in American society got dramatically opponent to Iranians. Such stereotyping system throw Iranians in trouble to identify themselves. Some members of the community identify themselves as Iranian, whereas others call themselves Persians. Still many others alternate between Iranian, Persian, Persian American, Iranian American, and American Iranian, depending on the situation and the audience.
Through a new survey that was done by Mohsen Mobasher and published in American Behavioral Scientist with title of ‘Cultural Trauma and Ethnic Identity Formation Among Iranian Immigrants in the United States’ , the roots of ethnic identity formation among Iranian immigrants in U.S. has been studied. He has studied self-identification of Iranian immigrants and their religiosity and show its result in the below table.

According to this table , majority of the responders has identified themselves as merely Iranians and just 8% of them identified themselves as Persian American, Iranian American, and American Iranian. It clarifies that for vast majority of Iranians who are living in U.S. it is privileged to preserve their original identity and culture and form a new ethnic identity among the various types of identities and ethnicities, not to assimilate with the major identity. Just 8% found themselves in American melting pot to change them to Iranian-Americans or American-Iranians. Religiosity as the other aspect of identity beside to nationality, was studied in this research. According to its result(almost half of the responders did not believe in religion), escaping of a forcefully religion society and living in a free country could be seen as cause of half of their immigration. looking throughput the other point of view, it maybe more comfortable in a Christian society to be known as non-religious individual rather than a Muslim person. On the other hand, for 54% , religion, could provide a common sense and an integrating factor and better situation for shaping community.
The other table shows the Iranians demographic characteristics in terms of educational degrees, socio-economic classes before immigration and type of immigration.

It is wonderful that just 3% of the responders have been less than high school diploma and 58% of them were bachelor’s and master’s degree . it shows that Iranians in American society occupy good situations.
In the conclusion of his article he mentioned that “Iranian immigrant ethnic identity is a contested one and is far more complex than something rooted simply in national origin. The question of identity is a politicized issue for Iranian immigrants in exile. For many Iranians, particularly the pro-monarchy opposition group, ethnic identity is linked to and shaped by not only culture but perhaps more important, political orientation toward the current and the prerevolu­tionary government in Iran. The 1978/1979 Iranian Revolution has been the most important historical event in shaping Iranians’ collective memory and ethnic identity in exile. Although not all Iranian immigrants suffered from the postrevolutionary changes and experienced anti-Iranian actions in the United States, there is a notion that every Iranian living abroad is a political or economic refugee who has been a victim of political relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.”


Reference:
Mobasher,M. (2006), ‘Cultural Trauma and Ethnic Identity Formation Among Iranian Immigrants in the United States’, in American Behavioral Scientist; Vol.50; pp100 -118.

ROLE OF RACE IN RACE FOR PRESIDENCY

Election is a situation for redistributing power among the different part of the society. Within them, those parts who had suffered of the powerlessness during the history could try to gain more power. Another feature of the election is its clarification role in political and social positions. In U.S., election and specifically presidential election is very crucial. According to American ideology of WASP, up to now all of the American presidents have been White Male from European descendants. Nevertheless, the 2008 presidential election seems to be in absolutely different way, in terms of role of the minorities and social powerless groups such as women.


Up to now, three nominees of the Democratic Party have started their primaries in campaign for presidency and set up the presidential exploratory committee, which allows them to raise money and hire staff. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's, Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.[1] The constant feature of these nominees is that they are from historically subordinated sections of a white patriarchal society. Hilary Clinton as a woman, but white woman could be the first female president of the U.S. and beside the case of Angela Merkel the second female leader of an industrial country and global.
Barack Obama’s nomination for Democratic Party as an African American, in an optimistic perspective could be a sign of empowering of the Blacks in America to that extent that after almost 35 years of Civil Rights Movement, they are such qualified to be the president of U.S. . Obama speaks in part to Americans' desire to believe, whether true or not, that this country has come to a point when it can rise above its ugly history of racism; and in part to the desire to believe that, if it could just overcome the divisions that foul modern politics, the nation could get unstuck on many fronts.[2]The other Democrat nominee is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. A Hispanic man who has told “I wouldn’t run as a Hispanic candidate. I would run as an American proud to be Hispanic”. [3]

Nomination of a woman, African American and Hispanic implied that decision makers and politicians in Democratic Party believe that role of the minorities and women would be so determinant in the next presidential election. Because of the more liberal positions among the Democrats during the history of U.S., racial minorities like Blacks and Latinos and social minorities like women mostly voted for the democrats in the last elections. However, this time, it seems that democrats want to gain all of their votes. Each of three candidates who would be chosen for final campaign, could be able to absorb the women’s, Blacks’ or Hispanics’ votes. The other point is that because of dissatisfaction among Whites of the American elite’s decisions that would led to their less and less participation in elections, American politicians and decision makers have to invest more and more on the other races like Blacks and Latinos.

Reference:

1)http://www.nytimes.com/

2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/

3)http://www.gulf-times.com/

Racial Hate; Transferring from

White-Black to Latino-Black

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 16 — The Latino gang members were looking for a black person, any black person, to shoot, the police said, and they found one. Cheryl Green, perched near her scooter chatting with friends, was shot dead in a spray of bullets that left several other young people injured.

In a multicultural and multiracial society, which is open to numerous legal and much more illegal immigrant from different part of the world, the racial and ethnics tension is expected. In the past, as Martin Scorsese has shown excellently in the ‘New York Gangs’ movie, these tensions were mostly between Europeans themselves from different ancestors like German, Irish, French, and other nationalities and races. During this period, Blacks who had already emancipated from slavery were oppressed by any white European people and the scope of the racial hate was towards the blacks and Indians. After the victory of Civil Rights Movements which activists were more African American, blacks increasingly have attained more and more equal opportunities for providing better socioeconomic condition. However, because of the huge immigration from Latino America, nowadays the area of racial hate has been transferred to the afro Americans and Latinos. Latinos, which are mostly illegal immigrants, occupy the Blacks jobs and cause some problems for them and it could be start point for the racial and violent challenges among them. As Earl Ofari Hutchinson, an African-American syndicated columnist who plays host to the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, a weekly gathering in the Leimert Park neighborhood of South Los Angeles, said blacks complained that illegal Latin American immigrants were stealing jobs. Latinos, particularly newcomers unaccustomed to living among large numbers of African-Americans, in turn accuse blacks of criminal activity and harassing them.
The other reason of these kinds of violence is that both of the Blacks and Latinos are living in lower economic classes who suffer of the lack qualified education, unemployment, bad social environment and etc. as a result they had potential for deviant behavior and violent reaction to each other and to bigger society. One day Latinos kill of the innocent Black individuals and the other day, vice versa. It depends on the situation and neighborhoods.
But these racial tensions are a sign of bigger problems in whole of the country; “I think L.A. is a microcosm of what could happen in big cities in the future,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “When we have the kind of tension you see in L.A. in the schools, the workplace and now hate-crime violence, my great concern is this is a horrific view of what could happen in other cities.”
As the number of Hispanics in USA is increasing, number of these crimes and racial conflicts could be increased and cause a serious problem for American social security.

Reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/us/19gang.html

Race and Death Penalty

Death penalty or capital punishment has been and still is a controversial issue during the U.S. history. During the colonial era, it had been the necessary part of the judicial system and the crimes, which were punished by death, were so wide. By looking at the subject, regionally and racially, the role of race would be so meaningful dealing with the number of cases who were condemned to death and the number of executions in American society.

As the figures show, regionally, Southern states had used execution much more than the Western and Northern states. It could be interpreted because of their religiosity and conservative perspective that justify execution according to biblical principle of Eye for Eye.

By considering the race, we can see that rate of executions within the blacks during the period of 1608-1976, is higher than whites and even other ethnic groups. Most of this period was passed by slavery as a result most of the afro-Americans had little choice to commit a crime just escaping that was punished mostly by death. The other point is that after abolition of slavery, still number of execution among blacks was more than the others. It could be justified in two ways. Firstly, it could be assumed that the American judicial system had worked exactly according to justice and all the blacks who were executed were guilty. It could be explained through the poor socio-economic condition that blacks were involved with and it would show itself thorough increasing the criminal cases among the blacks. Lack of education, work opportunities, and discrimination against blacks which are the biggest ethnicity in U.S., provide fertile ground for growing criminals. On the other way, that had occurred in several cases, the injustice judicial system, condemned more innocent blacks to death, because of lots of causes.
The second and contemporary period that has started from 1976, the civil rights movement’s effects provided not absolutely, but rather better conditions for blacks. This better condition was in both judicial system and society. As a result of eliminating and at least declining the causes of the crimes, criminality among blacks started to decrease and became less than whites become become. Thus, the individuals who had condemned to death among Afro-Americans decreased. Again, the reform in the judicial system and eliminating the prejudice and discrimination among the prosecutors, led to decrease in the number of innocent blacks who had been condemned to death.

References:

McKay,David et al(2002),'Controversies in American Politics and Society',Blackwell Publishing, USA.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

KWANZAA CELEBRATION

Cultural identity is necessary part of the collective identity of a community. It is very important to establish a national identity for a nation. For the people who because of any causes had been separated from their homeland and are living in a Diaspora community, going back to their cultural roots, is very critical issue to differentiate themselves from the host nation.
One of the strongest Diasporas across the world belongs to the African-Americans who had been separated from their homeland forcefully near 400 years ago. After the Civil Right movement, they got the opportunity to erect their specific cultural identity and one of the ways was coming back to their African cultural roots and customs and evaluates them within themselves. Within several customs that they have, Kwanzaa is one of the most important because of being coincide with the Christmas celebration.
Kwanzaa was created in 1966 by African- American studies professor Maulana Karenga. The holiday was created to honor African- American traditions and is rooted in African harvest festivals.(1)
Ten years later, in 1977, Karenga said Kwanzaa "was chosen to give a black alternative to the existing holiday and give blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society."
Twenty years later, he altered his view to suggest that Kwanzaa can be celebrated by people of any race, just as "other people participate in Cinco de Mayo besides Mexicans; Chinese New Year besides Chinese; Native American pow wows besides Native Americans." (2)
Kwanzaa, derived from the Swahili phrase “Matunda ya kwanza,” meaning “first fruits,” was modeled after Karenga’s work with poor African-American children whose parents and caretakers could not afford presents, according to Evans.The holiday rejects the commercialism associated with Christmas, he said, but it was not meant to replace it: “Kwanzaa was made to bring significance to the holidays for the poor kids that Karenga worked with,” Evans said. “The kids helped develop the holiday. The kids were the target.”Each day of the holiday represents one of seven principles with a daily lighting of a candle. The candles are placed in a holder called a Kinara that serves as a common symbol of Kwanzaa.
The seven principles of Kwanzaa are:

Tuesday: Umoja (Unity)

Wednesday: Kujichagulia (self-determination)

Thursday: Ujima (collective work and responsibility) Friday: Ujamaa (cooperative economics) Saturday: Nia (purpose)

Sunday: Kuumba (creativity)

Monday: Imani (faith) (3)

Contrary to popular belief, Kwanzaa is not a religious holiday. It's guided by seven principles to keep in mind as you live your life,... ...marked by seven candles, one for each day of Kwanzaa. It is a celebration of achievements. (4)
Celebrating Kwanza by the afro-Americans is a sign of their collectivity and preserve their African heritage against the dominant Whites or in better word American national values which are publicized everywhere and always through their medias. It is a sign for glorifying the Africanness instead of being ashamed of it.

One of the afro American citizens who are getting ready for seven days Kwanza celebration believes that: Kwanzaa is a non-religious holiday that he enjoys spending with his loved ones because it is not intrusive on any religion or belief.
“Many people think it was made to compete or replace Christmas, but it’s not,” he said. “It’s just a way to combine African tradition with American custom.” (5)

References:

1-http://wjz.com/local

2-http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/16318006.htm

3-http://www.chroniclet.com/Daily%20Pages/122706local1.html

4-http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/nashville-africanamerican-community-celebrates-kwanzaa/67921.htm

5-http://www.thedailyitemoflynn.com/news/view.bg?articleid=13991

Film Review for:

DRUMS ALONG THE

MOHAWK

1) Information

Genre: western
Directed by: John Ford

Written by: Lamar Trotti, Sonya Levien, based on the novel by Walter D. Edmonds

Starring: Henry Fonda, Claudette Colbert, Edna May Oliver, Eddie Collins, John Carradine, Dorris Bowdon, Jessie Ralph, Arthur Shields, Robert Lowery, Roger ImhofMPAA Rating: NRRunning Time: 104 minutes
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Release date: January 1, 1939

2) Plot summary

Historical context
‘Drums along the Mohawk’ is a movie which is made by John Ford based on a novel with the same name written by Walter D.Edmonds. The novel is about the historical events which were happened during the American War of Independence against Britain . the geographically, the story had happened in the Mohawk River Valley, which was subjected to numerous raids by the British, American Tories, and their Iroquois allies.
The film was nominated for twoAcademy Awards including Best Supporting Actress (Edna May Oliver) and Best Cinematography (Ray Rennahan and Bert Glennon).

Genre of Western
The Western is an American genre in literature and film. Westerns are art works – films, literature, television and radio shows, sculpture, and paintings – devoted to telling stories set in the 19th Century American West (and sometimes Mexico, Canada or the AustralianOutlook, during the same time period), with the setting occasionally portrayed in a romanticized light. While the Western has been popular throughout the history of movies, it has decreased in prominence since the late 1970s.The western film genre often portrays the conquest of the wilderness and the subordination of nature, in the name of civilization or the confiscation of the territorial rights of the original inhabitants of the frontier. The Western depicts a society organized around codes of honor, rather than the law, in which persons have no social order larger than their immediate peers, family, or perhaps themselves alone.

Synopsis
Gilbert and Lana got married and traveled to the Mohawk Valley in New York state to start their life. By working hard they built their new house and make a farm but at the same time the War of Independence against the Britain was began and one British person in an eye-patch somehow convinced a bunch of Indians to do his fighting for him. The Indian invaders attacked them and burned their crops and the young couple found themselves in misery and decided to go to the village. In the village, an old woman who needed workers for her large farm hired Gilbert to work as a field hand and gives them a place to stay. At this time Lana, give birth to their first son. Gilbert joins the militia, who must do battle both with the local Indian tribes and the British soldiers who are provoking them to battle. Gilbert returns wounded. The village was under widespread attacks by the Indians but at last, the Americans got victory over them and raise the USA flag at the end of the film.

Characters
According to most of the classical Hollywood movies, the main character is a white man who lives with his wife. The second character is the man’s wife who is dependent on him and even during the time that he was involved with the war; she was still faithful and worried about her husband. The other important characters are Indian invaders who are pictured mostly in savagery without any other characteristics. There is another character that is a hostile British white man who performed as a leader of the Indians in their attacks in favor of Britain interests during the war of Independence. Character of priest within their community has an effective position who worked as not only religious adviser but also social and political leader for gathering people around a unit purpose.

3) Film analysis

As Stuart Hall mentioned “questions of identity are always questions about representation. They almost always involve the silencing of something in order to something else to speak.” (Hall, 1995). In this sense, constructing a national identity needs to make some differences between us and others. Following the formula of Othering, some defined American identity as “not British”, but even more quickly and repeatedly, American national identity was conceived of as “not Indian.” So the images of Native Americans were traced as the Other to European Americans. This representations were done through the books, plays, books, paintings, games, and songs all contributed to white attitudes regarding Native Americans, and cinema would inherit many of those conventions, including basic stereotypes and the dramatic narrative of American settlers needing to battle Indians in order to form a great country.(Benshoff,2004;98)
There were two kinds of stereotyping Native Americans: the Indian as either a marauding, bloodthirsty savage or a more benign and helpful noble savage.
The bloodthirsty savage view constructed Native Americans as violent, aggressive, and demonic, bent on destroying innocent white settlers, including women and children. Lurid stories and paintings of Indian raiders kidnapping and raping white women were consistently popular during this period.
In other stories, Native Americans were regulated as noble savages, primitive and childlike rather than threatening and violent. According to this stereotype, Native Americans, lacking in European customs, supposedly maintained purer instincts about nature and the world around them.
Through this movie (Drums along the Mohawk), the director and screenwriters used both of these stereotypes.
The first time that an Indian was shown, the audiences saw an old Indian man who was mentally as a child. It was clear through his behavior in the film that director had represented intentionally Indians in the noble savages stereotype, a primitive and childlike rather than threatening and violent. This kind of Indians was tolerable because they could be alienated and assimilated with the white Americans lifestyle, beliefs and religions. Nevertheless, most of the Indians were performed in the other stereotype, which was bloodthirsty savage. These Native Americans’ characterization was simply as blood-mad, half-naked lunatics, violent, aggressive, and demonic, bent on destroying innocent white settlers, including women and children. Indians were only pictured when they were attacking to the whites’ community but nothing traced whites savagery against the Indians. For making perfect the Indian bloodthirsty savagery, directors showed the white surrendered man whom Indians burned while he was still alive and make horrible noises. The other scene which expressed Indian savagery obviously, was the sequence that two Indians attacked to an old alone woman and were going to kill her and burn her house. A battle between an old woman who was not able to defend of her and two savage men who are far from humanity and treat as animals could be very meaningful within a social and ideological context that everyday was reinforcing hostility against the people who were not from European origins.
The interesting point was that if the Indians wanted to get the victory over the whites, they had to use the European guns and a British or white leadership of their attacks. It is completely meaningful because Indians were always represented as foolish and childlike who are not able to make a logical design. Therefore, they had to come to whites for thoughtful issues.
The film gave a narrative of the history that was completely different with the reality. Those who had suffered of savagery and massacre in real world were Indians who had been conquered by the white Europeans. It was extremely exaggerated as far as most of the audiences were to feel sympathy with whites who were suffering of the misery. The narrative of the film was extremely misguiding about the first nation and inhabitant of the west hemisphere or New World. Battle between civilization(that was represented by white Americans) and wilderness (that was represented by the Native Americans) was implied through the physical battle between whites and Indians.
Throughout a sociological approach, emphasis on family as units that would make the society was a indicator of importance of the family values in the traditional (and to some extent contemporary) American society. A newly married white couple, as the main characters of the movie, traveled to Mohawks Valley to begin their new life. Why did they travel to the frontiers? That is the point that could be answered and justified by the American expansionism, which is justified through the Manifest Destiny notion.
The other point that was obvious in the film was religious factor in American communities as a means for social integration in early of their history and even now. All the time for discussing about a special issue, they collected in the church and after praying they started to talk about the new challenges. Therefore, religious leadership had special power to justify battle against savage Indians and faceless Redcoats. It was emphasized on the Christianity within the film repeatedly and the local priest was ideologizing the war against Indians as war against devil and in this way provoked people to being involved in the war.
Alliance among the people and especially between men and women against a foreign enemy was considered in the movie. At the disastrous moments, there was no difference among male and female but at the other times what was clear was an internally subordinated women by men. In this sense, women are always dependent on men that referred to the white patriarchal ideology among the Americans.
At the last scene of the film, the American flag was raised as a symbol of victory and turning point for making American national identity. Since then everyone who believed on this flag could be part of the American nation.
Making a conclusion for the discussion about the Drums along the Mohawk is not too difficult because the director of the movie make it clearly a propaganda for white supremacy and others inferiority. It is obviously according the Hollywood ideology of white patriarchal capitalism and American expansionism. ‘White patriarchal capitalism’ is an ideology that permeates the ways most Americans think about themselves and the world around them. It also permeates most American films. This ideology traced that men of Western and North European descent are somehow better than the others and the most important members of the American society. The movie is not a complicated one and director did not encoding anything and everything was presented in the surface. This movie is just a means to internalizing the dominant ideology of the founding fathers of the USA.

4)Conclusion

Making a conclusion for the discussion about the Drums along the Mohawk is not too difficult because the director of the movie make it clearly a propaganda for white supremacy and others inferiority. It is obviously according the Hollywood ideology of white patriarchal capitalism and American expansionism. ‘White patriarchal capitalism’ is an ideology that permeates the ways most Americans think about themselves and the world around them. It also permeates most American films. This ideology traced that men of Western and North European descent are somehow better than the others and the most important members of the American society. The movie is not a complicated one and director did not encoding anything and everything was presented in the surface. This movie is just a means to internalizing the dominant ideology of the founding fathers of the USA.

About the director

1939 was a stellar year for John Ford; along with this highly successful adventure tale, which was nominated for three Academy Awards, Ford also released the ground-breaking western Stagecoach. Mark Deming
John Ford famously made three films in 1939, and among Stagecoach, Young Mr. Lincoln and this, no one would argue that Drums Along the Mohawk is the least of the three. It lacks a center, or the emotional drive that Ford's best films (The Quiet Man, The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) usually have. Yet it was Ford's first film in color and contains at least a handful of his most beautifully composed moments.
Ford clearly enjoys his All-American Myth Building, as farmers and frontiersmen toughen up into a firm militia to do battle against savage Indians and faceless Redcoats. His Yankees show a can-do resilience against all odds and epitomize the pluck and strong work ethic of Americana combined with a love of God and country that borders on obscene zealotry.

References:
M.Benshoff Harry, Griffin, Sean (2004) “American on Film”, Blackwell publishing.
Neal, Steve (2000), “Genre and Hollywood”, (Routledge Press) pp 205-259
Hall,s. (1995) ‘Fantasy, Identity, and Politics’ in E.Carter, J.Donald and J.Squires(eds), Cultural Remix: theories of Politics and the Popular. London : Lawrence & Wishart .

www.en.wikipedia.com
www.film.com
www.slantsagazine.com