The backdrop is dramatic enough. Tony aggressively seeks any means to get he money for his dance floor, wood isn't enough especially in the poor place he has decide on, to dance like his American idol. Manero would frequent a Chilean movie house and mouth the words that would come out of his screened friends but in the end it seemed to be a struggle to get ahead of his peers, to be different from the rest. This was part of the subtext lying underneath the fulfillment of his aspiration to be like those Hollywood favourites but he had to escape the malicious environment he set himself in.

The movie has a hint of being a historical commentary on the period, is graphic n some parts and could use better editing in others especially during the violent moments where one wants to know how the hero came across a dead near a railway yard. One realizes he has been involved in drug dealing but wants to know at what level. In other words the editing should have been smoother and one really has to know how to use a jump cut to make it effective, otherwise the viewer things he is missing some necessary detail, when he is not.

Oddly enough the environment he pitted himself against would be subliminally stronger always baiting him to work harder to reach his goal through elicit means and that meant killing the obstacles along the way. This is a movie of desperation, of killing the hero figures of the past and those who stood between Tony and celluloid success. Being red in Pinochet's did not mean having the means to get where he wanted to and one can see the aversion to socialism through the way Tony's dancing troupe handed their material needs. How does one become a hero by peddling glass bricks for a make shift dance floor in a disordered social system? Certainly not by showing any emotion to the women you desire according to the hero here. They were all looking for a way out of the turmoil, so maybe it helped to dream and believe that Tony would be their passport to a better future.

The issues Loewen raised in this book are truly controversial. Take for instance, issues surrounding Helen Keller. American history has always depicted Helen Keller as the blind and deaf girl who overcame physical disabilities to attain success. In truth, according to Loewen, Helen Keller is not all sweet and peace-loving, conformist.

Loewen stated that, far from the amiable image we were led to believe, Helen Keller was a radical socialist, a member of the Socialist party of Massachusetts in 1909. Helen even hung a read flag in a desk in her study to show her support. When Keller expressed her socialist views, she was then one of the most famous women on the world. Newspapers who praised her for her courage and intelligence now believed that her handicap has affected her perception of the world, hence, the socialist stance.

Keller persisted in this belief all throughout her life which is, the radical change brought about socialization would be good for the society. She supported Eugene V. Debs, a known socialist advocate, for the presidency. This radical side of Helen Keller is a fact hidden to most Americans by the media and the school teachings.

Another controversial issue tackled by Loewen in Chapter 1 is about President Woodrow Wilson. Textbooks often depicted him as a hero when, in fact, he was a racist who encouraged racial violence among black people and even Russians.

President Woodrow Wilson financially supported the “White” side of Russian civil war. He sent naval forces to help overthrow the Russian Revolution. American forces went to war with Czech and White Russian forces that put up their own anticommunist government at Omsk. The White Russian forces were defeated and the American troops had to leave Russian soils, Vladisvostok.

This part of history was effectively left out by historians. As a matter of fact, only a few Americans know about this “unknown war with Russia” according to Robert Maddox. Not one of the American history textbooks mentions it. Which is the exact opposite in Russian history textbooks, where the fiasco was given due coverage.

Another cover-up although to a much lesser extent is Wilson's invasions of Latin America. Some textbooks do include this episode in the past but they try to give justifications for Wilson's acts in order to depict the US or Wilson in the favorable way.

Another less known fact is that US troops also invaded Haiti in 1915. US overlooked a pseudo-referendum for a new and less democratic Haitian constitution. US also changed land ownership by establishing plantations instead of the traditional practice of owning small tracts of land. Haitians started armed protests which killed 3,000 civilians.

Wilson's racism was not only evident outside the US. It was more so at home. He was very outspoken about his white supremacist views. His administration passed legislative policies that limited civil rights of the African Americans. He appointed whites to positions intended for blacks. He made sure that his Democratic Party was closed to African Americans, a situation which dragged on for twenty years. Wilson's racist stance had somehow helped revive the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK dominated the Democratic Party in southern states causing untold burdens to black people all over the US.

Loewen believed that David W. Griffith's film “The Clansman” is a perfect example of Wilson's racist stand. After he viewed the movie, Wilson commented that he regretted that it depicted true history. This movie is an important part of American cinema because it was considered the best in technical production. And, more than that, it was a film considered by many as the most racist movie of all time. Thomas Dixon, a classmate of Wilson, wrote it. He intended to make the book an instrument to transform the readers to empathizers of the Democrats cause. This awakened white supremacists movement particularly the re-establishment of the Ku Klux Klan.

Wilson established the Espionage Act of June 1917 to allow him more censorship powers. His censorship powers enabled his postmaster general to control all mail that might get in the way of his war efforts. Textbooks write that Wilson's suppression of civil liberties was brought about by war but even though World War 1 was over in 1920, Wilson disapproved a bill that would eliminate the Espionage and Sedition acts. Textbooks surreptitiously hid or forgot to mention these facts. All these serve as cover-up to Wilson's shortcomings to make him appear a hero, valiant and admirable.

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle exposes the rotted and frankly disgusting underbelly of the meat packing industry. His jarring and shocking presentation of the corruption and ignorance in the industry gives good reason for the public to take notice and for politicians to make a difference. His exposé of the industry made the nation safer and healthier by making the public more aware; however, his ideas on the solution to this went farther than simple regulation or reprimand. In his mindset, a complete social and political overhaul was required. Sinclair's viewpoint was this: the corruption and waste found in the industry was not just the result of incompetence, it was the result of competition in itself. Due to the constant need to make more profit and oust competitors simply to get by, industry as a whole was corrupt. Quantity was valued over quality, and profits were considered, rather than the working conditions. Sinclair also claimed that the system of competition which created these problems also developed vices in the participators; alcoholism was rampant in business men due to competitive stress. Similarly, Sinclair declared that capitalism creates the shiftless masses that are the illnesses of most societies: the citizens that contribute nothing to the community. Most of these views differed from the common conceptions held by the majority of America. For example, Roosevelt felt that while there were indeed problems within the industry, the only thing to be done was a correction of the flaws and a close eye on potential problems. Conversely, Sinclair's answer would have been to destroy the independence of the industry and make it a simple non-profit organization.

The difference was Roosevelt wished to keep everyone reasonably happy and make America a power in the world, whereas Sinclair wanted to stage a revolution and equalize America, without regard to outer influences and with only ideals in mind. In Sinclair's goal, not everyone would be satisfied nor would power truly be in balance. There are three reasons why Roosevelt's goals won out over Sinclair's. The first is that the public is usually reticent to do anything against the norm. The second reason would be simply that the nation was not quite ready for such a change because the nation was not completely in contact with all of it's parts; the playing field was not level. The third is that such a revolution would have such dire socioeconomic implications that those who headed it would surely be destroyed by the cause they wished to extol.

Sinclair's ideology was largely either disregarded or ridiculed by the public. However, his decisive criticism of the meat packing industry had an effect, though not the one he intended. This is greatly exampled by the quote by Sinclair that he had “aimed for the nation's heart, but hit it in the stomach.” Sinclair had indeed caused the public to rally behind social reform, but not the kind he intended; the incensed and critical public eye had turned to industry. The citizens of America were disgusted by the wanton ignorance towards public health in my high places, but rather than take these ignorant figures from their pedestals, the public wished to simply change the way they stood. Only a minority of the populace saw deeper into the troubles of America and agreed with Sinclair's viewpoint.

Popular thought came along the lines of Roosevelt's thinking: muckrakers like Sinclair were useful when the muck was there to be raked, but should ever such talented journalists let their skills stagnate in the pond of muck through which they find solace and commerce, their credibility would be shattered and they would themselves become the root of the evil. If the muckraking journalists ever began to make muck (or rake muck that did not even exist), Roosevelt would have withdrawn his support. This shows Roosevelt's devotion to keeping life going for the common man of America, and love for the truth, no matter the good intentions of the lies. Roosevelt's viewpoint on this matter was an example of why Roosevelt was popular in America and yet could lead justly and well. Some might criticize the president's reticence towards eliminating the social problems in the nation with impunity, as it was not keeping with his normal brusque manner of problem solving. However, at the time America was unstable enough as it was; agitating the matter would merely have cause turmoil and chaos.

During the same year as The Jungle was published, Roosevelt instituted a consumer-protection legislation intended to halt the corruption in the meat packing industry. Upon reading excerpts of The Jungle and examples of Roosevelt's reaction to muckrakers, one could establish a distinct connection between the two events. Similarly, the political cartoon titled “The Beef Trust Exploits the Public” made four years earlier shows that there was indeed unrest to be found for the meat packing industry. One could take this connection a step further and easily see that the consumer-protection legislation put in action by Roosevelt was a culmination of public dissatisfaction with the business. It can also be inferred from the other political events during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that the laborers felt similarly to the feelings expressed in The Jungle and “The Beef Trust Exploit's the Public.” Sinclair's obvious sympathy for the public and political views might also be influenced or even caused by personal experience or connection to oppressed workers in America.

Immigrants in America would easily be affected and display unrest because of the oppression brought on by competition and the bigger businesses, as they were generally the more destitute individuals. The Jungle holds many elements that would ring true with the feeling of immigrants in America, and many of Sinclair's supporters were drawn from the ranks of the impoverished immigration population. Due to general prejudice in most American cities, immigrants were often on the lower class side. Should Sinclair's view have come through and had a popular affect, his solution would have equalized the job market and brought them to a much higher standing in society.

Sadly, Sinclair's socialist view of a new America, while raising the living standards of many of the poor, would greatly reduce the privileges of the higher class and would have broken class boundaries in a dangerous way. The poor would have less experience with their new found power and might become overzealous, creating a new capitalist society, and the rich would constantly long for their former privileges in the new equalized atmosphere. Roosevelt's support of an equilibrium (now termed a social-democracy) established a future platform for both revolt and tradition, and gave the public what they needed without giving the majority quite what they wanted. As a president, this gave him great prestige with both the working man and the middle class. Despite present and future social difficulties with the capitalist system in place (such as decay of quality when in need of capital and the oppression of the less powerful), for Roosevelt (and for the rest of America), the solution was definitely not a complete destruction of social norms.