Wright's Reaction to his Uncle Tom

Wright reacts extremely angrily to his Uncle Tom for a number of reasons. For one thing, he cannot even begin to fathom the reason that his Uncle Tom is so angry after he asks Wright the time. Wright cannot understand what solicits the reaction he receives from his Uncle, but he does consider his Uncle's reaction completely unjustified. He is angered by the fact that his uncle has just emerged in his life - he has lived in the house a mere two days or so, and then he has taken it upon himself to begin disciplining Wright for minor infractions. Wright accepted his mother's beatings because he by and large respected his mother and recognized that for most of his beatings, he deserved it. He was angered by his Aunt Aggie's beating feeling that his behavior did not warrant such treatment. However his aunt had lived with him for at least some amount of time before she started attacking him. His Uncle however had barely lived with him before he began punishing him for perceived wrongs. This did not sit well with Wright's sense of right and wrong.

Wright's First Written Piece

Wright feels gratification at showing the piece he wrote to a female neighbor simply because he is reveling in the thrill of having produced something. He says that he feels as though this was the first time in his life he had actually created something that was entirely his. Even though it was - in his opinion - not particularly well written, the thrill of having written it at all was enough to excite him. Wright acknowledges that his neighbor was most likely bewildered at hearing him read it - his story was lacking in all but atmosphere and tragic occurrences. This small portion of the story is an important piece of foreshadowing. We can be fairly certain that Wright will take up writing again in the future as he does write Black Boy, among many others. Wright's ability to create something all his own is an important milestone for him. He feels stifled living in his Grandmother's house, with his zealot of an Aunt. Reading and writing helps to provide Wright with an outlet with which he can healthily let out his pent up frustrations.

Wright's Mother's Paralysis

When Wright's mother suffers from a stroke, Wright's entire outlook is changed. For one thing, he begins to feel less and less like a child. He no longer wishes to play with the other children and do childlike things that he wished to do only a short time before. In many ways it makes Wright more cynical. He becomes much less likely to accept charity from others, even when he needs it. He accepts food from his neighbors only grudgingly, feeling bad imposing upon their hospitality. He describes how his mother's paralysis would color his outlook substantially later on when it came to the decisions he made, especially when it came to matters of race. How exactly this will come into play is something we have yet to discover, although I am fairly certain Wright's own judgement on the subject is accurate as the entire book is a retrospective. 

Wright's Dislike of Jews

Wright and other black children at this time disliked Jews due to the fact that they were the recipients of an extreme amount of hatred and prejudice from white people. Taunting and mocking Jews was an easy way for the children to release their frustration for the way they were treated by white people. They could not easily repay the white people in kind for their prejudice due to the fact that white's were the power group. Wright and others in his situation live in a state of perpetual fear of white people and thus they cannot treat the whites as they themselves are treated. Instead they mock Jews, whom they do not fear will lynch them. This affords Wright and the other children a feeling of power they do not usually enjoy. Several of Wright's experiences predispose him to such action. For instance, his mother remained frustratingly opaque in her descriptions about race relations, in an attempt to protect Wright from the harsh realities of race conflicts. While this is something Wright has taken for granted, he begins to question the motives of white people who perpetuate violence and he wonders about his own place in the grand scheme of things. Wright is woefully ignorant about race relations, and thus he could not be expected to understand that what he was doing was wrong.

Why is Wright Hungry?

Wright is hungry because he doesn't have any food. But aside from that, Wright is emotionally hungry for several reasons. For one thing, he lacks a father figure, and this causes him to be "hungry" as it were. He ends up seeking out the companionship of people in the saloon due to the fact that he lacks adult companionship in the form of a father figure. The people in the saloon are hardly good role models, but Wright latches on to them due to the fact that his mother is gone most of the time, and his father is notably absent from his life. In addition to this, Wright is hungry for knowledge. He is originally apprehensive about going to school, and once there he is intimidated by the knowledge possessed by his peers. In spite of this, or maybe even because of it, Wright ends up going home excited at the end of the day, relishing the prospect of gaining so much new knowledge. An example of Wright's thirst for knowledge can be found when the man comes to replenish the family's coal supplies. The man ends up teaching Wright to count, and Wright is ecstatic with his new knowledge. He revels in his knew ability to count things, and it serves to broaden Wright's outlook about the world in which he lives.

The Futility of School

Gatto argues that school is an exercise in futility due to its repetitiveness and tendency to breed complacency in students rather than free-thought. I agree with many of the points Gatto raises, however in the interest of playing devils advocate, I shall endeavor to present a varying point of view on this topic: is it necessarily a bad thing that the majority of our population is not thinking for themselves? The obvious is answer is, "yes, of course it's a bad thing" but if we are to look at this more closely, we come to the realization that things are never so black and white. The majority of people never engage in free thought, relying on institutions such as school to direct them in the right direction. This may not be the most desirable outcome, but it may be necessary. Take for example, the French Revolution. Arguably the majority of people engaged in free-thinking, and what ensued was an extremely bloody conflict. This is quite likely due to the fact that with the majority of the populace thinking and acting, no one could come to a consensus when it came to what form the country should take. Ideally, everyone would be able to think as they wished, but we have seen that the results of this can often be disastrous. I see no immediate solution to this problem, but it is obviously not as simple as "we need to teach everyone to think for themselves". Another point to mention is related to consumerism. It is important to note that consumerism is needed in order to maintain an industrial nation. Consumerism is not wholly black and white, and we must bear that for all it's evils when taken in extreme circumstances, it is still necessary.

Report of the Massachusetts Board of Education Reaction

I value my non-Academic education at University because - due to the fact that there is a fairly strong focus on non-academic matters - I tend to learn more in academic areas as well. This statement may seem paradoxical at first glance, but it truly is not. Coming from almost 10 years of public school education, I have seen first hand the various approaches to education, and can vouch for the fact that this system works the best, at least for me. The linear academic focus one finds at public school is ultimately detrimental to a students academic growth. I never felt any kind of connection to the classes I was in, even in the subjects I liked. As such, I never applied myself in any manner, a decision which has had repercussions for me to this day - although in retrospect I do not see how I could have done anything any differently. The focus at UHS is much different, there is a much greater emphasis placed on non-academic functions. I feel I have gotten to know teachers here far better in my two and a half years than I did in 6 years at the Westfield school system. As such, I am much more inclined to apply myself in classes, and I have pushed myself in other areas as well, some of which include joining a school sport, auditioning for plays, and pursueing community service. All of these are things that I never felt comfortable attempting in my old environment, simply because the focus was so narrow, that any deviation was seen as incorrect. But not allowing any variation from the norm, we are ultimately hurting students, and limiting their academic and personal growth.

Rhetoric Presentations

First of all, a big hand for all of us: we identified some kickass rhetoric.

Now that we've savored that moment, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. I enjoyed all of the presentations. They were all quite thoughtful, and there were interesting things brought to the table that I had never even considered. I particularly enjoyed how cdobbs went for something different and demonstrated how people themselves can be conduits for rhetoric, something I myself was not even considering while pursueing this project. I must admit that I was looking at mostly architectural examples. This was a breach from the norm and it was refreshing. It led us down an entirely new avenue of thought. Are not each and every one of us walking examples of rhetoric in some form or another? Are we ourselves moving advertisements for various companies and sets of beliefs? A rather cold and calculated viewpoint I grant you, but not a totally inacurate one.

Framing Class

Kendall argues that the media fuels an existent problem in our society. It is my belief that this problem is one that has existed for a long time, certainly in American society, and perhaps other cultures as well, although I can't speak to that. Unfortunately however, the problem has gotten worse in recent years as the outpouring of new media outlets has provided us with a particular image of the upper class. They make us believe that wealth is something to be aspired to at the exclusion of all else. I do believe that having this goal as one of many is not in and of itself bad. However, I can still vividly recall numerous career days at my old schools where when asked what they wanted to do when they grow older, many a child would reply "I want to become wealthy". The idea has become so ingrained in the American psyche that people often associate this trait with Americans, something which has been positive and derogatory effects upon us as a nation and a people. On the one hand, it inspires people to aspire to a circumstance better than their own. On the negative side, it causes the media to portray the lower class as "lazy" or "incompetent" for their failure to climb the social ladder - despite the fact that such a climb is quite often just one wrung out of reach for the less fortunate.

Rhetoric on the Town

I took several pictures this weekend which I believe evidenced rhetoric. The first two pictures I shot were of similar but juxtaposing images of signs. The first was a welcome sign for the city of Carmel. The sign imitated gold filament with flowery designs and long oval-like lines. To counterpoint this is a welcome sign from the city of Westfield. This sign is much simpler, feauturing only a green diamond with writing on the inside. There is nothing 3D, as with the Carmel sign. It is made of metal, instead of wood. These signs subtley convey to you meaning as to what each city is about, and ironically, they are located a mere twenty feet from one another on the same north-south road. The Carmel sign conveys the image of high-class affluence, stating in bold gold lettering "WELCOME TO CARMEL". You can gage imediately the caliber of the city you are entering, or at least you can gage what they intend you to believe is the caliber of the city. The Westfield sign features more details in writing, and is aesthetically simpler. It informs you that the town was founded in 1834 and features the slogan "Old Town Charm, New City Style". This is meant to convey that Westfield is a city with a history. When you choose Westfield, you are choosing a place that has proven itself over time, and has, in many ways, more personality than Carmel. Or so we are lead to believe. Whether the truth lies along these lines for either city is hard for us to say, but each sign conveys a message as the stationary welcome beacon to their respective stations, and each would like us to believe in the messages they put across.

Under the Sign of Mickey Mouse & Co.

Gitlin makes the argument that the majority of the worlds media and entertainment can be loosely defined as "American". I think this is a valid point overall. American culture has become something of a standard around the world. This was no more evident to me than when I went on tour with the Indianapolis Children's Choir to China and we stopped in to a McDonald's one day (I refrained from partaking, I found the idea of visiting a foreign country and stopping in to an American chain as rather distasteful). Stores and products like McDonald's enjoy exposure the world over, which supports Gitlin's claim. One point he brought up, and something I had never really considered before, was the fact that the United States serves as something of a giant market survey when it comes to new products. The cultural make-up of America is so highly varied, that if a product is able to succeed in the United States, and if it resonates with various ethnic groups, that tends to be a strong indicator of how the product will do worldwide. Virtually nowhere else in the world does such a culture of variance exist in one nation, and this provides entrepreneurs with the ultimate test in terms of whether or not a product could succeed outside America. Another interesting point Gitlin brought up was the fact that so many people emulate American entertainment and American products is due to the fact that they sell. Stephen Spielberg's directing techniques bear fruit - he is able to convince droves of people to see a movie he has directed simply by having directed it. McDonald's will be able to sell food almost anywhere it goes, it has a versatility in its offerings that appeals to a cross section of people. Given the fact that entrepreneurs are presented with comparable American products which succeed and are popular, why would one chose not to emulate them in an attempt to recreate their success? The world of business is a cut-throat one; starting a business for many is hard enough in its own right. When people are presented with a model that works and is profitable, they would be fiscally remiss to not incorporate at least some portion of the American equivalent in their own model. The problem is that this deters people from being truly innovative, and breeds something akin to complacency when it comes to thinking of new products and ideas. One point of contention I will raise with the article was with Gitlin's description of English as "grammatically simple". English is anything but grammatically simple. It has a far higher number of irregular verbs than most of it's Latinate and Germanic counterparts, to name just one criteria it fails in terms of being "grammatically simple". Perhaps Gitlin meant that English was grammatically simple in comparison to languages like Chinese, which feature their own pictographic symbols for individuals words, resulting in hundreds of thousands of different symbols that must be learned. In these terms, I suppose English is much less complex. However, Gitlin does not elaborate on this point whatsoever, expecting us to take it at face value. Other than this, I thought many of the points that he made were interesting, and worth further thought.

Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt

Kilbourne argues that it is dangerous to depict men and women as sex objects due to the fact that it dehumanizes them, and when you view someone as less than human, it is much easier to victimize them. We would be extremely unlikely to injure someone who we saw as an equal, someone we respected and felt empathy for. A prominent historical example can be found with Nazi Germany. The Nazi regime portrayed the Jews as subhuman; this was the only way they could justify the slaughter of millions of Jews to themselves. To admit that Jews were equal to them in their humanity would have introduced doubt into the scenario, and made it impossible for the Nazis to do what they did. Kilbourne views the objectification of women as more troubling than that of men due to the fact that our culture is already highly stilted towards mysoginism even without the latest trends towards objectifying women. I agree with Kilbourne's assertion. Trends in advertising to objectify women tend to be more troubling than the male equivilant in advertising - however, in a sense these ads can be as damaging for men as they are for women. They try and convince men that they need to be dominant at all times, and that to "score" with a woman, they should treat her poorly. In this sense, men are victimized by these advertisements as well. Obviously this is not the same circumstance as it is with women - the objectification of women is much more immediately concering. However, in the end, such mentalities are unhealthy for everyone; men and women alike.

Superbowl Ads

Each year, there has been a perceptible dip in the quality of super bowl advertisements, and this year was no exception. Most of the advertisements I saw were non sequiter, and virtually impossible to gain any sense of. Budweiser built an entire ad campaign based off of their ad tagline "Drinkability" as well as the antics of a horse that manages to get up to all sorts of hi jinx, which relates to beer somehow? In a revelation on par with when we discovered Darth Vader was Luke's father, we finally discover what this "Drinkability" business is all about. "Budweiser has drinkability" a bro chirps in the ad, "it's easy to drink!". Well that was certainly... expected. Regardless, enough about alcohol. There were plenty of other non-beer related ads that caught my eye. Such as a pepsi advertisement that was really quite smashing. It featured Bob Dylan's "Forever Young" being performed by him, as well as a more contemporary artist. The song was dubbed over images of 60s nostalgia: hippies, flower power and the like. These are contrasted with more modern images of youth today doing what they do best - being youthful. The ad ends with the tagline "Each generation refreshes the world". Well isn't that profound. Unfortunately for pepsi, I don't see how this relates to pepsi at all. Am I required to drink a soft drink to refresh the world? If my changing the world is contingent on drinking a pepsi, I think I'll prefer to let the world be. I've never really cared for pepsi. At half time we were treated to a delight, three dimensional advertising! What struck me about these ads was the fact that the ads themselves had virtually no substance whatsoever, aside from the fact that they were in 3D. One featured lizards dancing and trippy visual effects. Aside from the obvious fact that they were in 3D, these ads were even worse than the worst of the other superbowl ads. It was a sad commentary on where advertisements in general are heading if this becomes the norm.