Thursday, November 25, 2010

Gun control/lack of gun control in the USA

Firstly the website I chose to discuss is clearly pro-guns as it lists some of the states as examples saying that when restrictions are placed on guns then the problems start. Clearly we cannot tell if this is true as websites are not 100% reliable, but it states that New Jersey passed what was considered to be "the most stringent gun laws in the USA" and how as a result of this two years later the murder rate went up by 46% and how the robbery rate doubled. The website then goes on to say why should the government have control of somebodys gun and how what a citizen should do if the police aren't there. Quite clearly the main message of this website is pro-guns, it is message to President Obama aswell saying there shouldn't be control on guns as the crime rate increases.

Secondly the website I chose to portray the other side of the argument is from the violence policy center website. Firstly you can tell this website is very anti-guns as the subheading of the website is "Unsafe in any heads" clearly stating that anyone can cause harm/kill if they are in possesion of a gun. The main message of this website is that the main problem is hand guns - how they are easy to obtain, can be concealed with ease and they are also relatively inexpensive. This is a quote from the website: "More than two out of three of the one million Americans who died in firearm-related homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings since 1962 were killed with handguns—i.e., 667,000" The use of putting a significantly large number within the website would make people side on the anti-gun side of the argument. Futhermore within the website many 'facts and figures' are used to show how many people have died from a firearm.

To sum it up there are good points on both sides of the argument, and whether you are anti/pro gun control is a matter of personal opinion.

Gun Control in USA

Is a website which is dedicated to "Bringing Gun Owners Together", and is obviously a pro-gun viewed Website/show as the webiste said's name being called, Guns 4 Good. The webiste has a few goals, mainly ones of bringing stories and expierances of firearm interactions together to help the public aware and learn from these apprant 'Experts'. However these stories are very repetive and almost exactly the same, Bad guy comes in house, threatens with gun, Good guy pulls his gun... Its the basic understanding of self-defence that says. If i have a gun, I can protect my family. Which is fair enough.,9171,996903,00.html

The Times website has an artical called 'Mothers Against Guns'. The article starts with a hardhitting realisation that the youngest victoms of accdental shootings are involoved with a child playing with loaded guns. These concerd morthers also unite and bring their stories and experiences together. Which is also fair enough, as they have a right as mothers to be worried about protecting their familys just as much as having a gun can do that job, or it can distory that family. Either way its a hard arguement.

I personally think that they both have a fair point. I believe it is important to to have faith in the that fact that if your family is every threatend or under attack, you have the ablity to project. Yes, there are other ways or weapons. However for example, people who carrys knifes in defense tend to get shoot at. although i do wonder if no one had an sort of guns it would make life a lot safer, but i reality that turnout does not seem very likely.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Pro/Anti gun websites in America

The above address is a link to a website that is Anti-gun control. It contains on the homepage a piece on president Obama's veiws on guns and states that he hides behind carefully chosen words and never really has a view on the subject nor does he express future changes to gun control. This to many Americans has become a huge issue as they see it as a given right to bear arms as it is stated in the second Amendment this does not make Obama popular with with gun enthusiasts or even the majority of normal every day Americans who value the 2nd amendment as it holds a strong part in the constitution of America and how it was founded.

The above link, shows a fact sheet taken from the Gun Owners of America website. It was taken in 2004 and tells us that many Americans are pro gun control.
Within the fact sheet there are case studies that have proven anti gun control wrong, mentioning the Brady Law as well as others. It shows many statistics of guns being used in self defense. For example'
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

It also uses others countries as an example as to why gun control is a positive thing. Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

Half way down the list you will find Firearms Statistics which shows you % of general deaths.

CSGV stands for
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence they were formed in 1975 to ban handguns. In 1989 they expanded their efforts to include restrictions on all firearms, the group adopted its new name, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
CSGV's membership is made up of 48 national organizationswhich include religious organisations, child welfare advocates and public health professionals.

The website has many issues and campaigns for viewers and readers to look at and also include a way to involved with and donate to the foundation.

After looking at both websites I feel that the Pro control is more stronger and has more information on why and how people have guns. I personally would not want to carry a gun around with me however I would feel safer in my home knowing that I would be able to reach one if needed.

Pro/Anti Gun Website Comparison

One Anti-Gun website that I came across was . Mark Borinsky, who had been robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, founded the organization in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns . The Brady Center believe that it is too easy for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons in America. They want to make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get guns in the first place. They believe that they can accomplish this by exposing corrupt gun dealers who feed the illegal gun market, and they work to strengthen law enforcement's efforts to stop illegal gun market. They also educate the public on gun violence through grassroots mobilisation and outreach to affected communities. Their mission statement is "We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities". The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing regulations to reduce gun violence. They also represent victims of gun violence in court. The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence. The homepage of the website also shows celebrities that support The Brady Campaign beliefs. This is a good way to attract attention from the general public so that the association to gain a bigger fan base and make their changes more likely to occur. There "Take Action" hyperlink also gives ways that the public can get involved in The Brady Center.

The Pro-Gun website that I looked at was . The Gun Owners of America is a non-profit organisation formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Ammendment rights of gun owners and they see firearms ownership as a freedom issue. GOA says that they are not happy with the "status quo" and believe that Americans have lost some of their precious gun rights and they quote "WE WANT THEM BACK". Another quote that particually stands out is "GOA has never wavered from its mission to defend the Second Amendment -- liberty's freedom teeth, as George Washington called it" Over the last 30 years, GOA has built a nationwide network of attorneys to help fight court battles in almost every state in the nation to protect gun owner rights. GOA staff and attorneys have also worked with members of Congress, state legislators and local citizens to protect gun ranges and local gun clubs from closure by overzealous government anti-gun bureaucrats. There is also a "Take Action" hyperlink on this website so the general public can get involved and help increase Gun Owners of America's influence on gun rights.

After looking through these websites, I find that the Pro-Gun website is a more convincing narrowly. America is a nation in which propaganda is essential in making peoples minds up for them. When reading through the Pro-Gun website's aims and background, they use phrases as "WE WANT THEM BACK" and " Strength comes with numbers, and the more concerned Americans join GOA, the more we can do to protect the Second Ammendment and OUR freedom. We need you!". This gives me the opinion that Americans have been 'robbed' of their guns and their rights, and makes me feel as if we should get them back. The words chosen by GOA makes the adrenaline pump, and makes people feel like action is needed. The Anti-Gun website on the other hand choose to convince the general public via sympathy, and by posting unfortunate events that have occured due to gun violence, but i feel that it is not enough to tear Americans away from their fabric of gun loving.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Pro tea party video

This video is a pro-tea party video which I chose to talk about it as it is very biased towards the tea party movement and has a key political figure talking throughout - Sarah Palin. Firstly this video is very pro tea party as the first image which is shown is thousands of people listening in to a talk, therefore trying to show there is alot of support for the party and that anyone who joins them will make a change. Secondly one of the key criticisms of the tea party is that they are racist, mainly because the majority of the party is made up of white people. This video directly targets this as it has people from different ethnic backgrounds being shown in the video.

Futhermore Sarah Palin describes the tea party movemnt as being a 'call to change' and how 'the sole of the party is the people' therefore making people think that they can make a difference, that Sarah Palin herself and other supporters for the tea party are just thinking about the american people, that they have no other agenda. Thus gaining more supporters for them. Another criticism of the tea party is that it is mainly for middle class people and above, in the video this stereotype is targeted by making mention of a wide variety of jobs, many of them typically described as being for the working class.

Lastly the main focus of this cideo is pro people and anti government.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Anti-Tea Party Video

Here is a video of some of the negative comments one of the Tea Party's organisation 'Freedom Works' recieved. As you can hear in the video, very harsh words are used which tells us that there our people in America that completely despise the Tea Party and everything it stands for. Most rivalries and hate emerges because of a difference between the people, and the hate against the tea party is no different. One of the main causes of this tension is government bailouts. The tea party is completely against pumping tax payers money into American companies (such as reforming healthcare), but the anti tea party activists see it as a way of stabilising American jobs and economy in the long term. Another cause of this hatred is through discrimination. The Tea Party thinks that gay marriage should not be allowed, and are also against current President Obama's policies of working with Muslim countries, portraying an image that they discriminate minorities. The Tea Party are also anti-Obama, claiming he is a tyrant and was not born in America so should not be President, raising race issues within the Party. Anti Tea Party activists believe in the complete opposite, and that by going back to the same policies of the founding fathers will only rewind everything America has accomplished to become a super power in the world today.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

This video is about giving voice to the Tea Party. Gathering images of signs and pictures to relate to the lyrics and making a music video.
The video shows what the tea party stands for and what could happen if they didn't win. The song was for the 9-12 march in Washington DC.

The video starts by referring back to 1773 and asking the question "What would the founding fathers do?" and begins by singing about the Boston Tea Party. It then moves into the 21st century with the younger generation and the older generation holding up sign expressing their feelings.
Some of the lyrics include "It's time to ring the bell, wave the flag, raise some hell..... If we're not free then you tell me what are we?" I think this means that they mean business and it's time to listen up.

In the video above, Bill Maher on his show talks about how The Tea Party as a group need to stop being called a 'movement' and how in reailty its futher from that. Maher believes they should be called a Cult. Basically Bill is saying that the tea party have no conclusive goal that they're are aiming for that could be legislated. He also contuines to talk about how this party is about reducing taxing and how the Obama Administration is not doing that at all, but the fact of the matter is that under Obama tax reduction has actually happend, and that 98% of the party are compeletly wrong.

Friday, November 12, 2010

The tea party

I have chosen this video of "Tea Party" enthusiasts for my blog because I find it interesting as it both gives voice to but also critisies the Tea Party movement, it may not openly critise but it definetly is inferred. The clip is from a news report the reporter interviews members and asks them various questions on politcs and laws and what their oppinions on the matter are. Most if not all are portrayed negatively as they seem unsure of facts and their views are far fetched and extreme. In the video the members are dressed up as patriots, their holding banners and posters, their waving te American flag - this displays to the rest of the America how patriotic they are. It's a very flamboyant way of protesting and shows how passionate they are.

The clip opens with a young boy holding a poster which reads "4 years old and I'm already in debt to China" - This goes to show how passionate members are that they allowand use their own children to display their beliefs. The Tea party are conservative/libertarian which is considered to be very right wing in matters. Tehy for example are very much about doing business within America. They believe strongly on clamping down on Immigration laws. The majority do not agree with Obama's engaging with muslim countries and they do not approve of gay and lesbians having the right to legally be married. These are but some of their beliefs they are extrmeme and do not paint a postive image of the Tea Party, andit is hard to consider them as a serious politcal party when theirviews are so warped and backwards.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Ron Paul, 2008

Ron Paul is an American Republican Congressman. He has run for being President of America twise, Once in 1988 and also in 2008. Paul is a member of the liberty caucus which basicly means that he want to limit the size of federal govermeant and also the size of its scope. Paul is mainly known for being quite a liberal Republican, who doesn't believe in the Bush administration. Paul to have quite a large backing for his 2008 Presidential campaine, however attention from traditional media was ignored. For example, Fox news did not invite him to a GOP debate featuring all other Presidential candidates of that moment. Below is a video of Ron Paul's Apperance on an American morning talk show called, "The View" talking about a controversial issue, Abortion.

However on June 12, 2008, Paul withdrew is bid for the rebuplican nominations saying that his time working on this was better spent on improving the condition of America.
Resantly, Ron Paul's son, Rand Paulwas elected senator for Kentucky on November 2, 2010.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Mike Oliverio is a conservative democrat from West Virginia.

In the campaign video Oliverio is Introducing himself as a man from west virginia he already has made an attempt to reach to a particular audience in stating were he is from. He then addresses the issue of unemployment in the steel works industry and uses scapegoats such as illegal workers and China as the result of them being run out of business. To workers who have lost their jobs this would be a postive campaign for them to vote for as they would see Oliverio as someone they can relate to as he has picked up on the loss of jobs as an issue and provided them with someone to blame. He makes the point of being isolated from other countries and doing business within America. This will be appreciated and repected by Americans who are very patriotic. He ends his campaign with the promise to "stand up and fight for American jobs" This will speak to alot of americans as unemployment is high.

Mike Oliverio lost the general election to GOP chairman David McKinley.

This is the video of Joe DioGaurdi who ran for US Senate 2010. The announced at Grand Central Station in New York City that he was seeking the Republican nomination. His campaign was not just about winning the Republican senatorial nomination in New York or unseat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. DioGaudi says he is running to save America from bankruptcy and to keep the American Dream.
DioGuardi pledged to raise over $10 million in his campaign.

Unfortunately DioGaurdi didn't win the election which brought people to think the New Yorkers want quality and substance and then just vote for a pretty face. The quote below is from his statement after the vote was counted. However he was pleased that what he believed in had shined a light on the issues in New York.

"We cannot continue to bankrupt taxpayers, overburden job creators or jeopardize the American dream. We cannot continue to enact legislation that pushes our economy towards the brink, puts our children into debt, or limits our potential and that of America."

Bill White For Texas Governor 2010

This is a video on education by Democrat and former Houston mayor Bill White during his 2010 campaign for the governor of Texas In this video, White shortens his name and has a very relaxed demeanour throughout this video to be seen as a more relatable figure to his audience. He also throws in statistics and other key information so that he can clearly get his point across and show the audience he has realised the problems Texas are facing in education and speaks about how they can be solved, one of these solutions being better technology. His quote "we cant afford to stay still" tells the audience that their education policies and ratings are something to be worried about, and something needs to be done, and he believes he is the bets man for the job as he has a very respectable political background. Close up's are also used in this video so you can see the sincerity in White's face, to show his audience that he is commited and determined to make Texas a better place for everyone.

Although winning the Democratic nomination in March 2010, White was defeated by incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry by a significant margin during the 2010 Texas gubernatorial election on November 2nd.

This is the campaign video for Senator Carl Levin. He has been Michigans senator since 1995, he was re-elected in 2008 for his sixth term which will end in 2015, he has served longer than any other senator in Michigan. In his campaign video the main focus point is about jobs, mainly saving them, not only is that his main message but the way he gets it accross is very important. He uses a wide variety of people, both of mixed genders and mixed races therefore more people can relate to the campaign video, and therefore in turn winning him more votes.

Futhermore the use of him being called simply Carl makes it less formal, and therefore making ordinary citizens feel they can relate to him more and that he is just an ordinary guy who is trying to help them out. I do find it interesting that Carl Levin himself is only in the campagin video right at the end, and for a very short amount of time. This could be for a variety of reasons, maybe he isn't a good public speaker or maybe he feels that he will gain more votes if ordinary people are 'proving' what he has done to help boost the economy and their jobs.

Clearly though this campaign is working as he is Michigans longest serving senate.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Please note that because we have had to juggle the weeks in the module schedule, week 7's task is as follows:

Find, post and comment on any recent US campaign video made by a candidate in the 2008 or 2010 elections. Your first choice should not be Obama or McCain - try to find a campaign video in support of a Senator or a Congressman. They do not have to be the winner, but make sure you know what the result was. Also make sure you comment both on its content and on its style.

If you don't know how to embed Youtube videos, now is the time to learn. If you look under any video you will see a bar which includes the word "Embed". Click on it and it will highlight a code which you can then copy and paste into your blog post. The video should then appear directly in your post - no link required. Try it.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Women As The Other!

Throughout most of history women generally have had fewer legal rights and career opportunities than men. Becoming a wife and a mother were seen as a woman's major role in life.
In the 20th century, however, women in most nations won the right to vote and increased their educati
onal and job opportunities. They also fought to change the traditional views of their role in society.

Women for a long time were considered weaker than men. We were seen as squeamish, and unable to perform work which required strength or intelligence. In most societies, domestic chores were left for women to do, while heavier labor such as hunting and farming were left to men. But tests now suggest that women have a greater tolerance for pain, and statistics reveal that women live longer and are more resistant to many diseases. Traditionally a middle-class girl in Western culture tended to learn from her mother's example that cooking, cleaning, and caring for children was the behavior expected of her when she grew up.

Maternity has traditionally been regarded as their major role as well. Resulting in the stereotype that "a woman's place is in the home". However if we look at women today they have the opportunity to go on to further education and finding a stable job before getting married and having children.
By 1985 women were earning 49 percent of all degrees and about 33 percent went on to achieve higher degrees. In 1989 about 53 percent of all college students were women, more than one quarter of whom were above age 29.

Furthermore in role of women changed because we got the right to vote, and wear trousers and dress like men, and become more popular in a male lead world e.g. Politics or Law Enforcement. It is thanks to people such as Annie Oakley, Eleanor Roosevelt and Katherine Hepburn that we have had the chance to grow and change our society as women.
Although in the 21st Century women are still fighting to become more like and behave like the male role for example some ask the question, " Is Sarah Palin the 21st Century symbol of American women in politics?"

There are a variety of American television shows that we can compare and watch to see how women have changed and become more powerful over the last 50 or so years.
For Example: I love Lucy 1951 and Desperate Housewives 2005.

Homosexual Americans

This website represents the views if homosexuals over time, as not only does it explain key terms associated with homosexuality, it futhermore gives a brief history of homosexuality in the US;
  • In 1990, three states Texas, Kentucky, and Michigan repealed their laws outlawing homosexual practices.
  • By 2000 28 states, homosexual practices are legal, six outlawed certain "deviate" practices - (sodomy).
  • June 2003: 4 states still criminalized homosexual sodomy
  • June 2003: Lawrence v. Texas- Supreme Court overturns 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick: States cannot criminalize homosexual sodomy, specifically
  • At the present time 87 cities or countries have passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
  • Nine states also extend legal civil rights protection to gays.
  • 2003: Canadian Parliment "endorses" gay marriage. USA--evenly split?
  • But, some jurisdictions (Cincinnati) specifically prohibit laws from being passed that protect homosexuals from discrimination.
  • Nationally, a majority of Americans favor the passage of equal-rights laws protecting homosexuals against job discrimination, by a margin of almost two to one - 62% favor, 32% oppose.
  • However, two-thirds (65%) also believe that "too much attention is being paid" to the issue of homosexual rights and less than half say that they would vote for homosexual candidate (48%), allow their child to watch a TV program with a homosexual character in it (46%), attend religious services presided over by gay clergy (42%), allow there child to attend a preschool that had homosexual staff members (42%) and see a homosexual doctor (39%).

SO: Most Americans are against discrimination against gays, but admit they would practice it themselves.

I find the bit at the end of this extract particularly interesing as it shows that even today most americans would show prejudice towards gay. This going against the typical liberal american ideas of freedom, liberty ect as a homosexual person wouldn't feel comfortable admitting they were gay incase they recieved discrimination. Therefore showing equality is still an issue in modern day America.

Throughout the website the issue of homosexuality in different aspects of life is explored such as gay marriage, gays in the military, they even discuss the cause of homosexuality. Therefore this represent the views and deepens our understanding of a minority group - homosexuals

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Outisde minority in America

The Hispanics population are now the largest minority in America even surpassing Afircan American. According to

Hispanics compined neraly 13 persent of the american population, which "Grew to 284.8 million in july 2001. Thats up from 35.3 million, or 12.5 percent of the counrty's 281.4 residents in April 2000. However this artical is dated Jan, 21, 2003. therefore the persent of Hispanics have grown by a far greater meaning.

For example in the entertainment indrusty, there are far more Hispanic indviduals that are addmirded throuht main stream tv/films, Such as Ugly Bette, played by America Ferrera, whos is an Hispanic American. more examples are Eva longoria Parker, Eva Mendes and even Avatar's Michelle Rodriguez. Who have all struggled throught stero-typed casting.

An example of Hispanics struggle is seen in the new realsed film 'Machete' driceted by Robert Rodriguez (also Hispanic) which deals with the Hispanic community trying to fit in with the american socitey however being rejected my head polotions trying to get rid of them, which is one of the fundemental themes of this movie. However many American were disgraced with the Race row portayed throught the movie, even though it is clearly and exploytation movie. The Hispanic community are still an minority. Outside of America in european media, i can only think of one example where a Hispanic character is in power, in the show, 'Glee' where every single type of American is protrayed. The Hispanic Head Cheerleader, Santana performed by Naya Rivera, is protrayed as the 'hottist Mean girl' which i personaly have never seen any one from that background with that sort of power before.

Hispanics and latinos as minorities in America.

I have decided to choose hispanics and latinos as minorities in America to discuss. I feel like a lot of television and media give them a bad press and portray them in a negative light as if they are a burden to society. A major issue raised in America concerning hispanics is the huge increasing number of illegal imigrants fleeing into the country and the birth rates they have. Not only does this create problems with border control and imigration office but it also divides the hispanic commutiy of America. When asked in a survey what should be done with illegal imigrants caught the views differed quite substantionally with a suprising 53% of hispanics exspressing the view that if caught illegally in the country they should be made to pay a fine in order to stay in contrast to that 13% thought that they should be deported.

In America the hispanic community is the fastest growing. 15.5% of the overall population is hispanic making it the largest minority community. Hispanics in America contribute hugely to the work force as they are the most used people used to work labour as they find it harder to get work they agree to do it for less money this has a positive effect on the economy of America but has a negative effect on other Americans.

Taken from the website are the figures of how the hispanics have been voted over the past ten years in presidential lections. "By now, it is well understood among political leaders that the Hispanic population is emerging as a crucial swing constituency. In 2008, Hispanic voters represented about 9 percent of all voters, a substantial increase over previous years, yet still well below the influence those voters could have if they registered and voted at comparable rates to non-Hispanics. But the trend lines are clear. Hispanic voter registration efforts are getting more and more voters to the polls and natural growth ensures that in all future elections Hispanics will represent an ever larger voting bloc. As importantly, Hispanics don’t vote monolithically for one party. President Bush carried nearly half of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and it made all the difference in close states like Florida and New Mexico. In 2008, President Obama carried over 70 percent of the Hispanic vote and again it proved decisive in states like Colorado that swung from the Republican to the Democratic column for the first time in years."

This shows a significant change in ethnic minorites and politics. Politcal parties now see the hispanic vote as a neccessary gain and the difference between winnig and loosing.

Homosexuals As "Others"

Homosexual's have been continually frowned upon over the years all other the world. So it is legitimate to class homosexuals as "others" as they have not always been treated with the same respect as the majorities.

The history of homosexuality is a short history. It was during the 1860's and 70's when European administrators began noticing that some people were organising their lives not around family, household and reproduction but around various forms of sexual pleasure. Capitalism can be seen as the stimulus of this change, as capitalism tended to draw people off the land into cities away from families and parishes. Officials began to study this, and homosexuals quickly became the target of medical, legal and psychiatric intervention. During the Nazi's reign, hundreds of thousands of homosexuals were killed in concentration camps. In the US, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco were the best-known communities as most migrated for jobs (often army based) and once there they were forced to live outside traditional family structures for long periods of time. After World War Two, thousands of homosexuals were dishonorably discharged from the armed services, showing that there is segregation in the army. The first known homosexual political organisation in the U.S was Mattachine Society founded in 1950 in L.A. Police constantly brutalised gay people, and public disclosure of homosexuality was enough to get most people fired from their jobs. Once again this shows complete segregation in America. Homosexuality was one of many minority groups that treated in this way. It wasn't until 1973 that homosexuality was taken off the medical illness list, showing that some Americans were too naive to accept it as a way of life.

The websites that I used were very helpful. Both of them gave me a great insight of the history and the struggle that homosexuals had to go through in order to be seen as "equal" in the USA. Lists of specific dates are given, and this helps show just how must progress was made during different events and situations. The fact that gay-marriage was only recently made legal tells me that Americans are still quite unsure about homosexuality, and for many decades, saw homosexuality as a disadvantage to people.,9171,835069,00.html