To what extent is Rambo: First Blood Part 2 typical of Hollywood main stream cinema's treatment of gender in the 1980's?
MAC 120 To what extent is Rambo: First Blood Part 2 typical of Hollywood mainstream cinema's treatment of gender in the 1980's? Action films in the 1980's reflected the changes and insecurity's within American society. There had been a rise in feminism meaning that the masculine form and dominance was being undermined and white working class males did not know where their place was in society. It was also in the immediate time after the Vietnam War and confusion and anger still lingered. The Vietnam War divided the American nation as a whole because, as it has been in recent times with the war in Iraq, people didn't fully understand why America needed to impose their presence in a country where they felt they had nothing to gain. The action film in the 1980's introduced a hero that differentiated masculinity and femininity using the form of the body as a way of ensuring power, dominance and self-respect. Rambo: First Blood Part 2 is a typical film of this era in terms of masculinity and the ways in which men and women are portrayed. In the film Rambo: First Blood Part 2 Sylvester Stallone portrays a typical action hero of the 'war film' genre in the 1980's but also an outcast of society after the Vietnam War. He is a veteran of Vietnam and came home to find that
How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church?
Top of Form How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church? The rise of Puritan ideology in Elizabeth I's Church and Government was potentially an extremely dangerous threat to her power. However in practice, any attempts to promote Puritan ideas were crushed so quickly and effectively by Elizabeth that the movement never got the chance to develop into anything more serious. There was undoubtedly an increase in extreme Protestant views throughout her reign, an area of particular concern to Elizabeth being the Puritan tendencies of some of her most senior advisors. There were also some individuals from within the Church and within Elizabeth's government whose opposition to the Religious Settlement was influential to an extent, particularly during the 1570s, but all received a zero tolerance punishment and so never gained enough support to be a substantial threat to the Monarchy. Historians' views on the extent of the Puritan threat have been extremely varied, from J. E. Neale's argument for the rise of a Puritan parliamentary opposition, known as the 'Puritan Choir', to the less extreme views of those such as Michael Graves who agreed that 'the new generation of Presbyterian-Puritans did make concerted efforts to demolish the Religious Settlement', but that there was no evidence of a 'Puritan Choir'. John Guy agrees with Graves in that Neale based
Explain why Richard III was able to usurp the throne of England in June 1483
Explain why Richard III was able to usurp the throne of England in June 1483? Richard III grew up in the background of the war of the roses this was a turbulent time in which many members of the monarchy had been usurped and for whoever had the crown there was always the threat of usurpation. Monarchy at this time also caused p0roblems when they died and left young heirs of who could not rule so they had to have a regent which proves to be a problem. The attitude of people and especially the monarchy was to trust no one as anyone would try and usurp you for their shot at power, Even the great King Edward IV killed his own brother George Duke of Clarence because he threatened his sons claim to the throne by saying that they were illegitimate. When Edward died he left a young heir and with the history of the wars of the roses Edward V was not guaranteed a place on the throne. Richard III was a loyal brother to Edward IV he fought and won battles for him and in doing so he managed to achieve or be rewarded with a huge power base in the north and was trusted to rule over the north of the country and also to keep the Scottish under control. When Edward IV died, Richard felt that he should be regent for he was the king's brother but the young Edward was under the control of Earl Rivers his maternal uncle this meant that he was a Woodville. Richard did not like the Woodville's and
How successful were the economic and social reforms of the Peel ministry in the period 1841-1846?
HOW SUCCESSFUL WERE THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REFORMS OF THE PEEL MINISTRY IN THE PERIOD 1841-1846? When the Conservatives under Peel attained power in 1841, they inherited a nation filled with unrest and discontent (i.e. due to 'knife and fork' issues, e.g. Chartism) and a huge budget deficit (estimated at £7.5 million). The Peel Ministry (although often Peel with his ministry in tow) therefore carried out major reforms concerning welfare and trade in order to solve the problems left by the preceding Whig administration. One interpretation of these reforms is that they were successful in developing Britain as a welfare state. In terms of economic policy, Peel's boldness was manifested in the 1842 budget, when he re-introduced the income tax for those earning more than £150 a year, arguing that the poor already had to spend a lot of their income on regressive taxes on many articles of consumption (e.g. sugar), and reduced import duties, in order to boost the economy and stabilise a discontented society. His aim was to make Britain a cheaper place to live, thereby silencing the discontent. The success of these measures can be seen in the fact that the aforementioned deficit which Peel inherited was into a £5 million surplus by 1845, and the fact that after Peel was forced to resign, there was a mid-Victorian boom, a golden age of prosperity, which can attributed to these
How Successful Were the Religious Reforms of Somerset and Northumberland?
HOW SUCCESSFUL WERE THE RELIGIOUS REFORMS OF SOMERSET AND NORTHUMBERLAND? In the short period stretching from 1547 to 1553, England saw a time of uncertainty created by the speed of political and religious change during the time of underage monarch Edward VI. The fact that Edward was an underage monarch was only one of the small problems faced during his reign which was worsened by the problems left by his father Henry VIII. Religious developments and reforms during Edward's reign have often been seen as cautious and moderate reform under the Duke of Somerset and more radical changes under the Duke of Northumberland. There is some truth in this notion, though it is something of an over-simplification. Needless to say, there could be little doubt that in 1547 there would be some moves toward reforms, the question being how successful they actually were. From 1547 to 1549 the country was officially under the control of Edward Seymour (Edward VI's uncle, later known as the Duke of Somerset). Seymour was declared Protector and governor of the King's person by the Privy Council set up by Henry VIII in preparation for his death. Seymour quickly overcame many enemies on the council and assumed control of both council and control. He titled himself 'Lord Protector' during his two years in power, and rarely put the council into good use. During his time in power Somerset proved he
The New Deal USA
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE NEW DEAL (1933 - 1937) A SUCCESS? The New Deal was an economic policy issued by F.D Roosevelt in response to the to the crash of the U.S stock market in the early 20th century and subsequent rising number of unemployed American's due. Despite its good intentions, the New Deal received numerous criticisms from writers and politicians after the first 100 days. However, it also gained much praise and was thought to be one of Roosevelt's finest policies by the forgotten man of America. In order to determine whether the New Deal was a success, both contemporary and modern sources need to be analyzed. The New Deal can be considered a success due to Roosevelt's ability to restore confidence in the American people. O'Callaghan states Roosevelt was seen by many as "God in this country"1 which is supported by Zinn who affirms that "Roosevelt [was] a hero to millions" in Source G. Source D shows the forgotten man receiving government attention and help which inevitably presented the everyday man of America with a sense of hope and unity. People trusted Roosevelt and therefore put their faith in the New Deal as it was offering jobs - although generally minor work - which allowed American families to continue with the idea established by their Founding Fathers of rugged individualism. It was this that resulted in Roosevelt's re-election, an election where he
Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve in the period from 1855 to 1964.
Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve in the period from 1855 to 1964. When assessing the view that the lives of the peasants did not improve throughout the 1855-1964 period, several key factors must be taken into consideration. These include their living and working conditions, policy towards them, the educational opportunities available to them and the political representation they had under Tsarist and Communist Governments. Once all of these factors have been taken into consideration, it becomes clear that the peasantry did not enjoy a prominent time under Tsarist or Communist Governments, and their lives did not improve in the period. For the majority of the period, living conditions for the average peasant remained uniformly bleak. Prior to 1917, accommodation was often of a low standard as demand outstripped supply following an influx to the cities, such poor living conditions had a detrimental effect on their quality of life which was also evident under the communists, where living conditions remained in an equally bad, if not worse state compared to the Tsars. Despite Khrushchev continuing Stalin's efforts to build more social housing and improve the situation, these were often of poor quality and hastily built. This meant that the peasantry did not see any real increase in living conditions between 1855-1964. In contrast to the
To what extent were Malcolm X and the subsequent Black Power Movement the 'Evil Twin' of the Civil Rights Movement in the late twentieth century in the United States of America?
To what extent were Malcolm X and the subsequent Black Power Movement the 'Evil Twin'1 of the Civil Rights Movement in the late twentieth century in the United States of America? Malcolm X2 and the subsequent Black Power3 Movement (BPM) stemmed from the nationalist African American population and so took a different stance in their fight for Civil Rights than other leaders such as Martin Luther King4 (King). With this distinction, has come a historical debate into whether Malcolm X and the BPM aided or hindered the Civil Rights Movement (CRM); something that has been debated between historians such as Sitkoff and Cook. The purpose of this study is to decide whether Malcolm X and the BPM are indeed the 'evil twin' of the CRM or whether this title is unjust. Malcolm X was a black nationalist5 and a member of the Nation of Islam6. Malcolm X, through his father, garnered the beliefs of Marcus Garvey7 and his 'Back to Africa' campaign. He also believed in militancy as a method to attain black independence through the notion; 'fight violence with violence'. He believed that rather than allowing the continual persecution of African Americans by whites, it was rational for African Americans to defend themselves with as much force as was necessary as advocated in his 'by any means necessary'8 speech. This caused much tension between the two distinct civil rights movements because it
How far do you agree with the view that Hoover simply extended the agonies of the Depression?
How far do you agree with the view that 'Hoover simply extended the agonies of the Depression'? Explain your answer, using your own knowledge of the issues related to this controversy. On the one hand, Hoover's interventions mitigated the depression. Hoover has historically said to have "stepped up federal construction, urged state and local governments to accelerate spending", this indicates that he did try and ease the depression and that he did not lead America into a further and dire situation. Hoover even cut his own/state officials' pay by 20% to provide revenue for recovery measures. This shows that Hoover was sympathetic towards the American's suffering in the Depression, hence by reducing his own wages showed his willingness to help America during a time of economic difficulty. In support of this, the USA supreme court have been quoted to say that Hoover "started more public works schemes than had been done by the previous 40 presidents". The emphasis on "more public works schemes" suggests that Hoover was not reluctant to help, and he wanted to ease America during times of hardship. Furthermore, Hoover secures an additional $500 million from Congress in 1931, to help agencies around the USA to provide relief. In hindsight, it is clear that Hoover did much to try and ease America through the depression, but whether his aid was in time or consistent is arguable.
Why was Progress for Racial Equality so slow in the years 1945-1955?
Why was Progress for Racial Equality so slow in the years 1945-1955? Any progress for racial equality during the period of 1945-1955 faced a series of problems, both through the Government and legal means and the American public, slowing down and limiting its affect overall during this time period. Any effect of measures for racial equality were also limited for the same reasons, making the development of racial equality on the whole incredibly slow. Presidents of America during this time period played their own part in slowing down progress. Truman (1945-53) in principle may not have been racist man that does not mean however that his stance on civil rights was in favour of racial equality. His attitude towards their plight was seemingly ignorant and his own awareness for his need for the southern vote made him wary to bring about change. His committee on civil rights in 1946 outlined only basic requirements for all Americans but even that failed to pass congress. Eisenhower (1953-61) contributed to the progress of racial equality during this period even less. His intervention in the state of Arkansas on the issue of Little Rock can be seen as progress as Federal Government interfered with states on the issue of racial equality but it was clearly not enough for the cause and attitudes like this of top politicians slowed down any progress in the development overall. Any
