In this piece, I will be comparing and contrasting the ideologies of Mark Aray in the Highlands of Humbolok and James Rowl in the California Dream.
On the other hand, James Rowl gives a lot of reports in his California Dream found in the California, a people, a place, a dream. Just like Mark, he also gives out an in-depth analysis of the prevailing scenario in California. He also reports of the happenings in this state. However, he looks at it from the historical perspective. He criticizes the happenings right from the past. This makes the readers be able to understand what has been happening in this place over the years.
These two books are similar in that they both report on what has been happening in California. This helps the readers to be able to make out and be able to be acquainted with this place. They both portray California positively hence making it comes out as an inspired state that is able to attract many people to go there and enjoy themselves. That is why Mark says that many people view it as the Promised Land. Hence, there has been an influx of immigrants.
Besides, the two books are similar in that they both give a clear report on the problems that the people of California have been going through. As they both claim, these challenges have resulted from both the internal and external forces. These problems include the environmental degradation and land exploitation. For instance, Mark writes that they began right from the time of the gold rush, a destructive capitalist tendency that has tremendously resulted into the destruction of agricultural, mining and settlement land. This coupled with population explosion has been posing a great threat to the lives of the Californians.
Finally, both Mark and James aspire to instill some hopes to the readers. I think they do this not to appear as great critics, pessimists who are out to cause fear and make people be so disillusioned on this great land. They strongly come out to condemn this habit and go ahead to appeal to the people to come up and save their lost glory. Mark says, that California’s like a badly used whore. The even if it is celebrating its 150th birth day, it is still chemically dependent and seriously abused (page 175). Therefore, because of this, they tell the whole society to help liberate their country from such people who are out to cause problems to their land. However, Mark directly incites people to gang against the Europeans and the Americans whom he asserts are the ones solely responsible for the hurdles that this state has been going through over the years.
On the other hand, these two articles are different. Even if they both give a clear picture of what is happening in California, they do this so differently. This applies both to the content, context, and timing and in styles.
Meanwhile, Mark takes a different line. Instead of blaming the common man for causing these problems, he directly throws the blame to the powerful individuals who take advantage of the general community and exploit them. (Page 217). He says that these pople use their influence to cause havoc to the general society. In his opinion, he sees nothing wrong with the stretched population. This is what James is advocating for. Instead, he says that the enlarged population can take advantage of their number to bring significant changes to the society.
Besides, the two writers differ in that, whereas seems to be so much concentrated on the problems facing California, James tries to go ahead and give a lot of hopes to the readers(Kevin,S. 2003). I think Mark appears as if he is trying to market this place. in his words, he says that even if California has been going through such turbulent times, many immigrants have been seeing it as a haven of a good life, a belief that has lured many of them to go and enjoy for themselves (page 88).unlike James, Mark appeals to the civil society to wake up and confront the social and ecological aftermaths of the Euro-American presence that he claims, has greatly dragged behind the development of the Californians. He says he is not out to restore the lost dream, but to rebuke the people who have manipulated it for the sake of making huge profit to enrich themselves.
Finally, the two writers differ in that they choose to use different styles to present their message. Whereas James puts a lot of focus on the present problems facing the people of California, Mark goes an extra mile to the historical aspect of it. He uses a lot of pictorial representations to help him make the information sink deeper into the readers (Tim. 2003). He gives a lot of hopes to the Californians through a repeated use of the stories from the ordinary people who have made a lot of tremendous efforts to save their land. In page 86, Mark says that these people have collectively come together and united their efforts to act as one force. Hence, they have been able to mitigate the disasters that have been posing a great threat o their livelihoods. He therefore, challenges the ordinary majority Californians to unite and stand together in order to salvage their country from both the natural and human disaters.This will surelyhelp them heal a lot of wounds in their society (page 91).
In conclusion, I would like to say that even if these writers have been accused of portraying a tiny California as a country, I would like to say that nobody should
REFERENCE
Grey B, Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin. Los Angeles: University Of California Press, 1999.
Kevin S. Americans and the California dream, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Tim P. (end) California’s Threatened Environment: Restoring the Dream: Washington Dc, Island Press, 2003
