America 's Violent History : The United States

In the 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine, American political activist and filmmaker Michael Moore sets out to explore the primary causes of the 1999 Columbine Highschool massacre, as well as the roots of gun violence in the United States in his trademark provocative yet satirical manner. Bowling for Columbine takes a deep and often disconcerting investigation into the motives of two Colorado student shooters, responsible for the deaths of over 12 people at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, and examines other gun-related issues as well. From obtaining free guns at a bank, to reviewing America’s violent history, and interviewing a variety of people, Moore demonstrates that the conventional answers of violent national history and entertainment, as well as poverty are inadequate of causing this violence, for other nations share the same factors without the same levels of carnage. In order to arrive at a possible explanation, Moore takes on a deeper inspection of America’s culture of fear, and violence in a nation with widespread gun ownership. Ultimately, the documentary implies that the high incidence of gun deaths in America is caused by the deadly combination of cultural paranoia and easy accessible firearms that is, to some extent, effectively established through rhetorical techniques of ethos, logos, and pathos.

Prior to the Gilded Age, the Northern and Southern areas of America were different; however, they were not as disparate as they would be after the Industrialization period that occurred during the late 1800's. The Gilded Age brought about common things known today, such as: railroads, steel production, telephones, etc. During the time, these grand improvements seemed to only happen in the Northen regions of the United States, whereas the South was still farming and such things. This was because of the huge immigration boom, resulting in foreigners looking for jobs in factories and whatnot in, typically, the North. The North stepped up their game in becoming more industrialized, leaving the South to still be focused on the agrarian sides of

Ronald D. Eller and James Tice Moore have different views of the change in the south after reconstruction. Eller believe that the south changed due to the change of in southern economics. The south was able to take advantage of industries in Appalachian, that produced coal, iron, and lumber. The railroad system allowed the south to interact with the industries in Appalachian, which brought a growth to the south economic system. According to Eller, the change transformed the south into a “new south”.

The years immediately following the Civil War was met with very little industrial progress in the South. Between the years of 1875 and 1879, the South was in poor shape and most of the population was living in poverty. According to Woodward, the national average per capita was $870 and no Southern state came within $300 of the national average nor with the $550 of the average per capita outside of the South. (Woodward, 112) By 1879, there was a change in the South that was called by some the beginning of the Industrial Revolution of the South. After the Civil War, proponents of the “New South” did not want to rely strictly on Cotton production for economic growth. They wanted to diversify the south by adding new crops and turning toward a more industrialized South by following the example of the North. The North also saw some opportunities to make money in the South. According to Woodward, as a great depression came to an end in 1879, and released Northern and English capital that sought a Southern outlet for investment (Woodward, 113). Throughout the 1880’ and 1890’s Northern and Foreign capital were attracted by potential developments in the South.

After the Civil War, the dynamics of the South’s Economy were changing. Finally, they were moving away from agrarianism and towards the long-detested industrialism. This was in part a result of the destruction wrought economically and literally by the war. In fact, land had been

This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year” (Hollon 32). In contrast, during the southern Reconstruction, “there were counties in Louisiana where you had 200 people per 100,000 residents killed. You’d have counties in Texas with 10,000 people and 500 people killed” (Roth). Additionally, many of these South Eastern homicides were directed towards innocents, rather than angry men looking for a fight. Comparing these statistics, it is evident that there was a greater effort in the West to curb violence between

After the Civil War, the advanced industrial civilization in the north gradually intruded into the southern civilization. And the social structure and economic structure of the southern society have undergone profound changes. The economy of slavery and plantation gradually collapsed, and the old South is losing its economic base that people need to live by. Many people almost lost all they have overnight. A large number of manors closed and the nobles lost their means of production. Labor forces were liberated from the land and flocked to cities, accelerating the development of industrial capitalism and the process of urbanization. Socio-economic changes directly led to cultural changes in the mind. Except those who died in the Civil War,

ugard offers an admiring, blow-by-blow account of one of the most shameful wars of aggression in American history. The tight-knit West Point “brotherhood” who served during the Mexican War—which included the illustrious names Grant, Lee, Jackson, Davis, Bragg, Beauregard, Sherman, Pickett, Burnside, Longstreet and Hooker—would meet again in more dire, momentous circumstances during the Civil War. Dugard works backward from Appomattox, 1865—when generals Lee and Grant recognized each other from their stint in Mexico some 18 years before—and follows their dissimilar early military careers from West Point. Lee, an exemplary student who graduated second in his class of 1829, was the gentleman son of the famous Revolutionary War hero. Grant, who

The process of colonization in the Americas was a complex and complicated series of events, each driven by the varied interests of an array of European empires. For some, the Americas were a world of untold riches, while for others, this discovery allowed for missionary efforts to convert Native Americans to their faith. Regardless of the reason, violence against the many Native Americans who inhabited this “new land” was a common colonization tool to achieve these means. Direct violence is the most well-known approach, one that Spain wielded so effectively that the Black Legend was created to attest to their cruelty. Yet, the violence used was not all direct in nature. Cultural violence, which England employed itself, was used just as often. Overall, though the Black Legend has led to Spain being viewed as the most violent colonizer in the Americas, England’s use of indirect violence through engagement in the fur trade and missionary efforts was just as destructive to Native Americans.

In history we have seen many events, many changes. From slavery being introduced to the Americas in 1619 as a viable source of free labor in a growing territory with its newly founded cash crop, tobacco. To the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freeing these slaves of their labor obligations allowing for a chance at pursuit of happiness. This is a great example, in my opinion, of positive growth in liberties and humankind. Yet not all occurrences lead to an adapting or mechanical change in our means of evolving. This nation was not developed and founded on a ¨handshake with a smile¨. In numerous points in history you will find the costs for the ground that has been laid before you. Much blood has shed over these lands in order to gain the title U.S.A. From the first settlers to the Civil War. Time may change and alter many ideas and perspectives, yet war will always stay the same, with bloodshed.

Structural violence is a big factor in American History. I would even go as far as saying the country that I live in was built on, and is ran by structural violence. In terms of race, politics, our justice system, and even our schools are all structured one way or another by some type of systematic violence. I do not believe that violence neccesarily has to be physical harm. It can be psycological, emotional, and even systematic harm. By systematic harm, I mean specifically in our justice and economic systems. The phrase "The poor just get poorer while the rich get richer" is a great example of systematic violence in my opinion. As a nation we tend to turn our shoulder to the visual and physical evidence that the police are targeting African

The United States has been a world leader in homicide for centuries. Indeed, “since the early 19th century ...[America has been] the most homicidal country in the Western world” and holds that title today (Kelley, 2009). In a 2007-2008 list of 31 nations, only two nations, Mexico and Chile, had higher homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Nations with higher populations, such as India and China have fewer homicides (Comparison, 2010). Further, a nation such as Japan, which has a lower population but a higher population density then the United States, has one of the world’s lowest homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Population size and density, therefore, cannot be the chief reasons for this nation’s higher homicide rates.

The level of crime is based on their theoretical importance and previous use in the gun control literature. The overall crimes are linked to the increase violence (Lott & Mustard, 1997; Mustard, 2001). The study uses the same measure and operational crime levels in term of violent crimes per 100,000 habitants. South Carolina has the most violent crimes with 804.9 per 100,000 habitants and North Dakota has the fewest with 81.4 per 100,000 habitants. The mean for this variable is 411.87. The percentage of African American is population in a state. Studies linked between ethnic groups membership and criminal violence; although, certainly linked to other socioeconomic and cultural issues (Garr, 1981; Lenton, 1989; Monkonnen, 1989; Williams, 1984). The state with the highest percentage of African Americans is Louisiana (32.9%) with the lowest percentage in Montana (0.5%). The mean is 11%. Both level of crime and race—African American showed a positive relationship between the number of violent crimes in the state and the number of firearm deaths in the state & the percentage of African Americans in the population of a state and the number of firearms deaths in the state.

Wolfgang and Ferracuti furthered the subculture of violence theory from the insights of cultural deviance theorists before them. Basing their theorizations entirely upon inferences from available statistics on homicide at that time, which illustrated a concentration of violent crime in primarily poor, racialized neighborhoods in Philadelphia. Through these statistics, the authors deduce that subcultural violence is a uniquely marginalized male phenomenon. Wolfgang and Ferracuti argue that violence is a

The main goal of this paper is to analyze the effect of various social statistics on murder rates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It will also attempt to predict future changes in these rates based on the collected data utilized in the project and its findings. The question which this analysis will seek to answer is how murder rate in the United States is affected by changes in population, unemployment, robbery rate, income and education. This will allow for a better understanding of some of the root causes for deadly violent crimes in America, as well as the implementation of preventive measures aimed at fighting the problem in the future.