WIKIPEDIA REFLECTION

When I first read about the assignment to write a Wikipedia post, I thought I an amazing idea. I was actually looking forward to this project, and pleased to have an assignment that would actually be useful and available to other people.

 

I am a Bachelor in Fine Arts student major, with a concentration in Photography; therefore I wanted to write about a topic that was related to my degree. After taking a class on the history of photography, I was fascinated by the controversy that existed regarding the potential of the medium as an art-form in its beginning. I decided to write an article on this because I believed it was useful, as well as insightful for other people in the field to learn about the challenges the medium faced at in its initial stages, and how it became what it is today.

 

I own ample bibliography on the subject, and since it is an issue I am highly interested in, I actually enjoyed writing the article on it. I was quite surprised by the response and reactions I got on it though.

 

My two main downfalls reside on my lack of knowledge in both the formal aspects on writing an article, both in terms of historic approach and technical methods. Having attended high school in Uruguay and focusing mostly on art classes in college in the US, I was poorly informed on the technical aspects in writing, such as footnotes and sources.  This I believe was my biggest failure in terms of how the article was perceived. I based my article on a strong bibliography, recommended by good professors in school, and believed that would suffice in terms of evidence, but I was ignorant about how to accurately document my sources.

 

After publishing the article on Wikipedia and feeling satisfied with the final result, since I did put a lot of effort into it and was confident with how it had turned out, I was completely taken aback and surprised when a day later the article was suggested to be deleted. Even more disheartening was a comment from another Wikipedia user saying it read like a high school essay.

 

In terms of working within Wikipedia, I didn’t find it as straightforward as I wish it were. I was unsure on how to answer and discuss my points on why I believed my article was valid. I posted that, as suggested, I thought it would be ok to merge my article into the article on fine art photography, but I didn’t get a response for this, and my article was ultimately eliminated, after which I didn’t find a place were to defend my case or discuss my points. Used to working with blogs, were comments are easy to make and discuss, I found Wikipedia wasn’t as straightforward in terms of communication with editor users. I guess it would require much more time to delve into it and find out how to proceed correctly and which exact changes I should make in order to have my article up again.

 

I was also surprised with the outcome of my article because I read many Wikipedia articles that were short and lacking of consistent or particularly useful information, and I felt my article did have valid and interesting points.

 

In conclusion, my experience with Wikipedia was a bit frustrating and disconcerting. I wish I had had more time to research more deeply into to how the system works. I believe the system in itself is amazing, and I have used Wikipedia extensively for multiple reasons and projects, and even facts I was personally interested in, and found it incredibly useful. It was frustrating not to be able to contribute appropriately to something I have found so helpful and practical for myself. 

POST #4: 20th CENTURY MEDIA

 

What Women Want | Oldsmobile vs Nike –  advertising sales pitch

Its not so much the role of women per-say, but the dynamics of how women are treated and portrayed that has changed the most from the 1950s till now. The most notable difference in the role of women between then and now is the switch between ‘household-women’ and ‘workforce-women’. However, just as there were full time working women in the 50s, there are today, maybe in more numbers, but fulfilling the same role. Also, similarly as in today’s society some women choose to stay home and take care of their household, many did so in the 50s. The numbers have certainly switched; while in the 50s it was more common for a woman to stay at home and take care of her family, nowadays, fewer women choose that role and many are a striving part of the working force. These changes in numbers towards the women’s roles have been in part due to the rising feminist movements in the late 50s and 60s, and partly due to a necessity in terms of economy. In today’s society, it is increasingly hard for a household to subsist on one income only, and this has impulsed women to dive into the workforce with the emphasis we see today. Women have certainly become more independent due to this fact, but I believe it is after experiencing this sense of independence the reason they seek it today, and not for a need of this independence that they introduced themselves into the workforce. This has induced the need to gain and control their own independence in today’s society. This change in women’s attitude in terms of their needs and expectations is what generated the largest difference in terms of the characterization of women between the 50s and nowadays. We see these differences clearly determined in the comparison of two clips; one on how to sell and Oldsmobile to women in the 50s and the other on how to brand Nike to women in the 21st Century. Media and advertising have the ability to focus on what will appeal to their target audience. By observing an comparing the aspects of what is seen as desirable for women in each ad, we can draw conclusions on how women’s roles and the way they are characterized has changed over time, and what has remained the same. 

 

The immediate notable difference between the two ads is the radically opposed targeting points. 

While the Oldsmobile ad appeals to the need for luxury in a woman in the 1950s; the Nike ad’s key selling point is to appeal to a woman’s desire to be herself, free of accessories. In this regards, the Oldsmobile ad portrays a woman’s interest as being mostly focused on elegance and lavishness, while the Nike ad shows a completely different need in the 21st century woman. It shows the woman’s desire to be natural, to succeed by the sole effort of her being, not by being elegant or sophisticated. This becomes obvious in phrases such as: “Here is a car that will fit a woman’s desire for unique styling and elegant feeling.” in comparison with the Nike ad that says: “It would not be easier to run if you dressed sexier. The road doesn’t notice if you are not wearing lipstick.” This contradiction in a woman’s need is at the same time opposite and paradoxically the same. The difference lies not in the women’s desire or not for and elegance, but in what is characterized as a woman’s main concern. While in the 50s, a woman pursued this qualities, in today’s society, a women understands that they are still a part of a woman’s characterization but desires to escape the expectation and demand for it. The role of women as canons and icons of elegance has remained constant, the woman’s awareness and need to move away from that image and be appreciated for her own nature is what has changed. 

 

Another interesting element being contrasted in each ad is women’s role in society. In the Oldsmobile ad they refer to the importance of mentioning, for example: “How many other women in your Bridge club own a car like this?” It implies that women have luxurious lives where one of the most important activities is the bridge club. In the Nike ad, in contrast, they mention how: “You do not feel uncomfortable because you make more money than the road.” It emphasizes the working role of women, and the how it is not only a competing aspect with men in society, but also a concern. 

 

In the dress code references we also see a big difference between the ads and in how women are characterized. It is obvious by the reference in the Nike ad: “You don’t stand in front of a mirror before a run and wonder what the road will think of your outfit.” that woman in the 21st century still feel the stipulation to be dressed elegantly, much like the woman in the 50s dressed, but need to break away from it. However, in the 50s it was something to aspire to, it was almost taken for granted that a woman was dressed elegantly, and we see it in the reference mentioned in the Oldsmobile ad were: “Plus, we aren’t as likely to hook a dress or coat under the handle and tear it.” It implies that women wear mostly dresses and it is something that appeals to them. 

 

Finally, there is also a reference to relationships and their dynamics work in each ad. In the Nike ad, it refers to women having to both refrain their need for company, as well as, be free to choose the time they dedicate to their relationships. We notice this in the phrase: “You can call on the rode whenever you feel like it, whether its been a day, or even a couple of hours since your last date. The only thing that the rode cares about is that you pay it a visit every once in a while.” In the Oldsmobile ad, on the contrary, it refers to men being jealous and possessive of their women, and we see this when they mention: “Sure if she is with her husband you wouldn’t be able to give her quite as much attention as if she were alone.” These two references show a completely different approach in terms of how women were viewed in terms of their relationships. In one they seem as almost a man’s possession, in the other, you notice the openness and freedom, as well as detachment in terms of relationships. 

 

In conclusion, the most notable characteristic about comparing these two ads is that the role of women, they way they are characterized in society is actually portrayed quite similarly. The Oldsmobile ad from the 50s uses these characteristics as the key element of what a women wants. The Nike ad shows how the 21st woman’s need is to break away from these stereotypes. By appealing to this needs the Nike ad shows how the old image of women is still present in today’s society but women are trying to break away from these roles that have been imposed on them since even before the 50s.

 

 

CLASS REFLECTION #5

Unfortunately, I haven’t written a class comment in a bit because I couldn’t make it to class the past couple weeks. It is unfortunate because I actually enjoy the class, it is refreshing after all my other classes. There is a certain cheerful, relaxed mood which is exactly what I need after 7 hrs straight of classes, and the topics we discuss are interesting. Since I work at a restaurant, making my money working night shifts,  and with taxes having to be paid and my mother loosing her job in Uruguay, I have been forced to pick up unplanned Monday night shifts. I know my financial situation has deeply affected my school situation, and I regret it, but we do live in a capitalistic society, and unfortunately, I don’t have much of a choice. 

 

During class, we started talking about the Wikipedia article experience, and the second part of the assignment we need to write. I was very bummed after I wrote my article because they are threatening to delete it. I felt so bad about it, I don’t understand really what the problem is, but I’ll analyze this in the post about it. Prof. Boggs mentioned another student whose article was deleted, so at least I didn’t feel so alone in my own article outcome… 

 

The main topic of the class was the Cold War. 

We started by analyzing the following terms, which I’m including the dictionary definitions below each:

 

appeasment: giving in, compromise, concessions.

Pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands

 

just war: legitimate, good vs evil, moral war

A war that is deemed to be morally or theologically justifiable.

 

containment: stop spread of something

The action of keeping something harmful under control or within limits.

 

morality: common values

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

 

proportionality: distribution is equal

Corresponding in size or amount to something else.

 

rationality: using logic

Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

 

unilateral: one-sided

(of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others.

 

empathy: feel what someone else is feeling.

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

 

 

How do these terms apply to the Cold War?

After watching the first part of the documental The Fog of War, an Errol Morris film, we concluded that:

 

- ‘Appeasment’ was the initial issue in terms of who would accede to who’s demands. As was mentioned in the film, the Russians were demanding that the US should reduce the pressure on them if they expected them to reduce the pressure on the US. It was a very delicate war and we clearly saw this in the film; particularly in regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis, were acceding to the demands of each country, achieving mutual appeasment, was the key issue in avoiding massive nuclear destruction. It was eye-opening to see how close it actually was for this to happen. 

 

- ‘Just war’ we agreed is not really possible. In terms of the dictionary definition, was the cold war morally justifiable? I believe the only justification for it was that a military war would have ended human existance on Earth, due to the power of nuclear destruction each country possessed. It can be argued that the conditions in which the Cold War was ‘fought,’ avoiding direct confrontation, was certainly justifiable. The reasons for it to develop are morally debatable. 

 

- ‘Containment’ was the main purpose of the US during the Cold War. They feared the “Domino Effect” of other nations adopting communism, and therefore this containment strategy was deployed not only in military situations, but throughout a social and cultural campaign. We saw several advertisements that promoted the role of women as center of households, and the ideal american family, communicating the notion that the traditional values were learned in each American home, and the way of containing communist ideas was ingraining in the American population these ideas of solid American values that were the essence of every American. 

 

- ‘Morality’ was quite overlooked. As surprisingly acknowledged in the film, what the Americans did in Japan at the end of the Second World War was certainly immoral, and had they lost the war they would surely have been prosecuted as war criminals. The movie poses a very interesting question: What makes it immoral if you loose but not if you win? It is quite true  that morality doesn’t depend on victory; it is only because the victorious are the ones who write the history. 

 

- ‘Proportionality’, as mentioned in the movie, should be a guideline in war; “Nuclear bombing Japan is not proportional to the objectives we were trying to achieve.” Can a war ever be proportional? It doesn’t seem like it, ultimately, nothing is more worthy than human lives, soldiers who fight for causes they don’t even understand sometimes, and civilians who suffer the consequences too.  So how can any ideology be proportional to the human loss a war costs?

 

- ‘Rationality’ was important during the cold war to avoid a nuclear confrontation.

The second lesson in the film was: Rationality will not save us. In regards to the Cuba Missile Crisis: “At the end, we lucked out. Rational individuals came very close to destroying their societies, and that danger exists today. Thousands of nuclear missiles are ready to be launched by the decision of ONE human being.” That is indeed an extremely scary notion, which we rarely dwell on, but a nuclear war could be on the brick of exploding any time. 

 

- ‘Unilateral’  is usually any country participating in a war. Its interests and therefore actions are focused only in terms of themselves, which makes the last term, empathy, quite non-existant in any war. Nobody who really understood the other party’s feelings would engage in such violent and destructive confrontation. 

 

In conclusion, the class was extremely interesting, not only in terms of the subjects covered, but because we engaged in a good discussion regarding war, its morality, justness, proportionality, rationality, etc. It was interesting to debate, and so was the role of women in Post-war US, in the 1950s, and their mission as communicators of the American values and traditions. The documentary film was also engaging. It was an interesting perspective, spoken from a military person’s views, who was candid enough to admit there was no morality in the war and if they had lost they would have been prosecuted as war criminals. But he related the facts with such a mix of obnoxiousness with candidness and cockiness, it was hard to interpret his ultimate goal for what he was saying. Regardless, it was related in an entertaining as well as clear and straightforward way, which made it an excellent documentary. 

 

P.S. On a separate note, I must mention Prof. Boggs made a comment at the end of the class which I think was quite impressive and insightful:

“I don’t have any ego, I’ve been in college too, I don’t expect everyone to be paying attention all the time. “

This degree of understanding is impressive. I’ve sometimes felt many professors forget they were students one time too, and sometimes forget students have a life outside their classroom. If a student has to miss a class, or is not paying much attention while in class, its not an affront against the professor’s ego, and it usually doesn’t have much to do with how good or bad the professor is; its probably just because every person has a lot going on in their lives. I always found that professors with important egos or low self-image in terms of their teaching skills and capacity to keep a class interested are the ones who most grade-penalize students for absences or lack of participation in class. While more understanding professors, confident in their teaching skills, don’t ‘ego-grade’  students and while they don’t enforce assistance or participation, their classes are always full. I must commend Prof. Boggs on this, because his attitude in class is always understanding, open, engaging and honest towards students. 

Stereotypes Have Become Obsolete – Post #3

In which country do you think this woman was born?:

- Korea

- Japan

- United States

- Brazil

- France

 

 

 

 

 

 

The woman in the photo is, surprisingly enough, from Brazil. She is Lisa Ono; born in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1962 to a japanese family. She moved to Tokyo at the age of ten, but has spent half of each year in Japan and half in Brazil ever since. Lisa Ono is a native portuguese speaker and a popular Japanese bossa nova singer. The contradiction between the terms ‘Japanese’ and ‘bossa nova’ is the first in many of what could be one of the most stereotypically opposite cultural mixes. 

 

stereotype |ˈsterēəˌtīp; ˈsti(ə)r-|

noun

1 a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

 

The fact that stereotypes still exist in todays globalized world is quite amazing. The advance of technology, globalization, internet, travel accessibility, and the large population migrations around the world in the last century has turned today’s global society in a mix-match of different cultures that make traditional stereotypes obsolete. Nowadays, we live in a world were one denomination is not enough to define the ethnicity of a group, and it is more politically correct to speak in terms of, for example,  African-Americans, Irish-Americans or Mexican-Americans. Stereotypes in this sense become outdated, since a new culture is born from two culture which have had,  individually, very different stereotypes. The social evolution and migration we have experienced in recent history is the beginning  of a global, universal culture, were single ethnicities are no longer applicable, and neither are the traditional stereotypes we hold. From this perspective, I chose to analyze the mix of two cultures which appear to be completely opposite in terms of the stereotypes they carry; the Japanese culture and the Brazilian culture. Through the analysis of these extremely different cultural stereotypes, Japanese and Brazilian, and the emergence of a Japanese-Brazilian culture, we can conclude that in the globalized world we live in it is incorrect to let outdated stereotypes guide our perception of anyone. 

 

I was fascinated and surprised to find out that Brazil has the largest Japanese population outside of Japan, with an estimate of more than 1.5 million. Japanese-Brazilians are immigrants from Japan, or Japanese descendants, living in Brazil. The first immigrants arrived in 1908, searching for better living conditions, most of whom became workers on coffee farms. During the 1980s, Brazil had political and economical problems while the Japanese economy improved and stabilized; therefore many of the Japanese-Brazilians migrated to Japan. Nowadays, the influx of Japanese-Brazilians from Brazil to Japan continues to increase. Over 275,000 Japanese-Brazilians live in Japan today; they constitute the largest number of Portuguese speakers in Asia. Nevertheless, the Japanese community in Brazil is large and deeply rooted. In terms of religion, most Japanese-Brazilians are Christians, notably Roman Catholic. The most recent phenomenon in Brazil are  intermarriages between Japanese Brazilians and non-Japanese.

 

This cultural mix seems almost incongruent with the traditional stereotypes of each and shows how holding any kind of stereotype over someone these days can be completely incorrect. In order to study the existing stereotypes on the Brazilian and Japanese cultures I took two different approaches. First, through the analysis of two episodes from The Simpsons; one episode in which they fly to Tokyo and another when they visit Brazil. Secondly, by asking a group of people to describe with the first thoughts that came to their mind, each culture and their perception of it, this seems the best way to collect an existing stereotype, and I was surprised by the similarities I got from each. 

 

The Simpsons’ episodes are quite hilarious but also extremely stereotypical in how they portray each culture. I chose to use The Simpsons as a good example of these stereotypes because they are a humorous reflection of popular american culture.  Just as we usually do in class, using alternative sources and methods to learn different aspects of society, history and the world in general; The Simpsons’ episodes are a funny but at the same time quite insightful way of observing the existing stereotypes on these two cultures. It is actually the representation and exaggeration of the stereotypes themselves that make this type of shows so funny for many people. Just as cartoons were used in the past to express ideas and stereotypes in a funny way, the same is being done through family shows such as The Simpsons. Therefore, using them for this study or observation on stereotypes is quite accurate and appropriate, giving it at the same time an element of fun. 

 

For a snapshot of the Simpsons’ episode in Brazil, visit:

http://www.bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=1738277946

For the complete episode, go to:

http://watchthesimpsonsonline.com/movie/63-The_Simpsons_1315_Blame_it_On_Lisa.html

 

For the episode ‘Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo’, go to:

http://watchthesimpsonsonline.com/movie/107-The_Simpsons_1023_Thirty_Minutes_Over_Tokyo.html

A good description of this episode can also be found at: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Minutes_over_Tokyo

 

Quite a few stereotypes arise from each of the Simpsons’ episodes.  Even if it is portrayed in a comical way, it is interesting to know that the Japanese episode was never shown in Japan, nor the Brazilian in Brazil. The whole logic behind the comic of each show is to exaggerate stereotypical aspects that people identify and therefore find funny. Even if it is simple way of comedy, it is a clear way of identifying general stereotypes. 

From the episode in Brazil, we conclude:

- “Boys from Brazil are little Hitlers” – Quote by Homer Simpson

- Monkeys roam the poor neighborhoods, attacking an orphanage door. 

- “Don’t get into an unlicensed taxi” Homer ends up being kidnapped by getting on one. 

- As announced by the pilot, the temperature is hot hot hot and there is “100% chance of passion” – Portrayed as a hot climate, passionate place, where people are constantly dancing and listening to music. The Carnival is the main aspect people relate to Brazil and is, of course, incorporated in the episode. 

- Soccer playing exaggerated as the country’s main interest. 

- Sexually oriented kid tv shows, ‘Teleboobies’ is  brazil’s favorite kids show with an almost naked sensual woman hosting it. 

-The Brazilian government paints houses in the slums in bright colors so tourists won’t be offended.

Full of rats

- Mandatory to wear speedos, Homer and Bart can’t get into the beach unless they wear one. 

- Kids rob tourists constantly

- Drunkenness and ambiguous sexuality

 

 

On the contrary, when the Simpsons visit Tokyo, we notice streotypes such as:

- Every door is made of paper, which Homer constantly walks through. 

- Everything is robotic and computerized, even toilettes

- Hello Kitty factory

- Kid cartoon shows cause seizures

- A japanese club sandwich, March assumes it will be smaller and more efficient than the american version.

japanese as a product of american educational system, build poor quality cars and inferior style electronics

- They sell square-shaped watermelons

- sumo stadium

- Everything is expensive and over-priced

- Homer and Bart drink tea and wear kimonos in a prison which is full of geishas

- They are forced to learn origami, flower arranging and meditation

- In game tv shows they punish ignorance and are about cruelty, which is what the japanese audience considers funny.

 

It was quite interesting to realize that many of the stereotypes reflected in The Sympsons’ episodes have a lot in common with the general perception on each culture obtained through the poll I conducted. 

 

Gathering a general perception regarding Japanese and Brazilian cultures by asking a lot of random people was interesting. It is amazing how stereotyped people are, sometimes without even realizing it. The results showed an amazing amount of common perceptions, and that a general stereotype still exists, and it is a coherent image that most people share. I asked the opinion of people from different cultures, ages and sex. The following is a list of the results obtained for each culture:

Japanese culture stereotype vs Brazilian culture stereotype

Organized Disorganized

Hard working Lazy

Obedient Unreliable

Disciplined Untidy

Boring A lot of fun

Respectful Exuberant

Reserved Open-minded

Restrained Expressive 

Repressed Free spirited

Strict Vibrant

Serious Joyful

Elegant Seductive

Intelligent Sensual

Educated Liberals

Modest Strong Personality

Honor and pride Liberals

Humble Egocentric

Cold Warm hearted

Efficient Enthusiastic

Tenacious Improvisation

Chauvinistic Sexually open and promiscuous

Formal Informal

Secretive Open

Structured Spontaneous

Clean Colorful

Mysterious Fiery

Delicate Strong

Smiling Happy

Healthy diet Eat a lot of fruit

High tech Original and creative

Economically prosperous A lot of poorness 

Little cultural diversity Mixture of various cultures

Overcrowded Friendly

Love Karaoke Love music and great dancers

Light skin Predominantly dark skinned

Small eyes Big eyes

Short height Tall height

Small penis and breasts Sexy, curvy and well developed

Kimonos Thongs

Religious, predominantly Buddhist and Zen Very religious, predominantly Christian, Roman Catholic

Business savvy Criminals who take tourists hostage and car-jack anyone who stops at a red light

Reliable in business Unreliable in business

Strong traditions Festive Spirit

Old customs and culture Flamboyant lifestyles

 

In conclusion, we can clearly observe the differences are quite obvious and almost opposite. Where do these perceptions leave the mix between them? Can stereotypes really be taken into account when Brazil has the worlds biggest population of what could be considered the stereotypically opposite culture? What kind of stereotype would a Japanese-Brazilian have, since there is barely anything in common between the stereotypes of each culture? This study shows how in todays world, where cultures are so inter-related and the migration in the last century has generated so many cross-cultural groups, to take stereotypes seriously, or even worst, as if they were accurate, is just ridiculous. The past century’s population migrations, added to the technological and communication advances, show us that we can’t judge other cultures in terms of stereotypes anymore. We need to leave all stereotypes and preconceived ideas behind and adapt to the new times we live in, where none of the past stereotypes of individual groups or cultures apply anymore. 

 

References:

On the Japanese-Brazilian immigration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilian

 

On Lisa Ono:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Ono

http://www.onolisa.com/main/bio_e.html

 

On The Simpsons’ episodes:

http://www.bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=1738277946

http://watchthesimpsonsonline.com/movie/63-The_Simpsons_1315_Blame_it_On_Lisa.html

http://watchthesimpsonsonline.com/movie/107-The_Simpsons_1023_Thirty_Minutes_Over_Tokyo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Minutes_Over_Tokyo

 

CLASS COMMENT #4

This has been the first regular, ordinary, lecture, PowerPoint based class since the beginning of the semester. The lack of class participation dulls the moment. Its the first time I felt sorta lost or uninterested, it was hard to follow a story or a concept. I felt like we were just going through the slides instead of interpreting and drawing conclusions out of various sources of information, maps, movies, documents…
Prof Boggs still gives an interesting lecture, he does it in narrative way which makes it more interesting and captivating, accompanied by a good mood and sense of humor which make it enjoyable. However, I feel more involved when I’m challenged to interpret something, arrive to some conclusions as a class, than when just listening to a lecture.
Monday’s are a long day for me, its my fourth class of the day with only 15 minute breaks between each, and I still feel sick… I understand that my lack of motivation to participate in class doesn’t help stimulate the lecture. A class is a two-way process, the motivation is fed from one to another, from the professor to the class and vice-versa. It is an interesting dance, but it needs two motivated partners. I accept my lack of motivation today and therefore understand why the lecture wasn’t motivating to me either. I still paid attention and learned, but more in an automated way than in a challenging, participatory way…
Here is what we talked about, nevertheless:

POST CIVIL WAR

Lost Cause interpretation
Southern apologist, saw Southern cause as honorable, its office chivalrous. Influences history, literature, culture, memory. The southern cause was lost. The south was actually good.
Example: Gone with the Wind

Economic issues
The roaring twenties. Wealth everywhere, economic prosperity, therefore different ways of looking back at the civil war. The look back at it as an economic splint.

Post WWII / Cold War – influenced by Civil Rights movement. Equality, bring democracy to more people.
History is just a study of change over time. What changes over time and why. Not just events in the past but how historians have interpreted in the past.
Historiography, study on how historians have interpreted the past.
Things going on now affect how people see the past.

Reconstruction Process: Lincoln
Argued that the rebel states had never seceded.
Focused on preservation of union instead of slavery

Radical Republican Congress: Wade-Davis bill (1864)
Interpreting Civil War as judgement by God, on the South over slavery.
Wanted total abolition of slavery
Wanted “iron-clad” oath
50% of voters must take oath

Lincoln assassinated in April 1865
Andrew Johnson, Vice president takes over
Both sides, north and south, saw Johnson as a traitor.

Reconstruction process: Johnson
Begins reconstruction on his own
tensions with Congress leads to impeachment.

Freedmen’s Bureau
Provided resources to ex-slaves: schools, housing, jobs. Power to arrest people violating blacks’ rights
“Forty Acres and a Mule” – The government was promising this to any slave that was freed.

Civil Rights Act of 1866
all people born in US (except American Indians not taxed) are citizens. Overrules Dred Scott case, who couldn’t sue because he wasn’t a citizens and had no rights.

“Civil War” Amendments
13th: Abolishes slavery
14th: Citizenship cannot be denied because of race, class, servitude, or creed. No state can get rid of citizenship
15th: Right to vote cannot be denied because of race.

SEGREGATION
“Jim Crow South”
All public areas where required to have separate areas for white and non-white.
De Facto – by practice, by custom
De Jure – by law
Segregation was completely different from what it was before the civil war in the South. There was a lot of interaction before, the separation comes only after the civil war. It is a way to re-establish power and authority that they thought they had lost after the civil war. They wanted to re-establish the status above black people through segregation.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)
Supreme Court ruled Congress lacked constitutional authority to outlaw racial discrimination by individual and organizations.
Ruled civil Rights act of 1875 unconstitutional.
Slaughterhouse Cases: States can pass laws that are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Plessy vs. Ferguson (1806)
Homer Plessy was a plaintiff, was 1/8 black (Had a great-grandparent that was black) He wanted to sit in the black train, to challenge the separation rule.
U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 against Plessy.
Establishes “separate but equal” rule.
Justice John Harlan: “Our Constitution is color blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Segregated Places and Relationships
Schools, Trains, Steamboats, Streecars, Theaters, Bathrooms, Water Fountains, Marriage.

Example: Richmond Residential Segregation
A white person cannot occupy a residence on a street that was designated for black people. It was very interesting seeing maps of Richmond with marked areas where black people lived.

Wikipedia Article Bibliography

Wikipedia Article Topic:  History of Photography as Fine Art

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

 

Published Books:

- A World History of Photography by Noami Rosenblum

- The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography; Michale R, Peres Editor in chief

- Truth and Photography by Jerry L. Thompson

 

Wikipedia Articles:

- History of Photography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography

 

- Photography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography 

 

- Art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

 

- Fine Arts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_arts

 

 

External websites

- Library of Congress – A Brief History of Photography

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/learn/lessons/97/world/history.html

 

- Encarta: The Impact of Photography on Painting

http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_781536544/Guest_Essay_The_Impact_of_Photography_on_Painting.html

 

 

UTOPIAN COMMUNITY – Post #2

After reading about several utopian societies during the Jacksonian Period, I found their lifestyles and structures quite fascinating. The most common characteristic in all of the ones I researched in Wikipedia (Harmony Society, Shakers, Amana colonies, Oneida Community, The Icarians) was that they all rise from some kind of religious leader, and they are extremely religiously based. Also, these communities, with their own particular traditions and values, seem to share a type of communal economical and social structure. It is quite interesting the fact that they existed for a considerable amount of time, and even more interesting that in time they all became obsolete.

 

The following is what would have been the Wikipedia article equivalent to my own utopian society as I would have created it.

 

The Simplifiers

“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

 

The Simplifiers were a utopian movement, founded by Lu Cavestany, in the early 19th Century, in America. This community was created as a result of the decline of many of the existing utopian communities spread throughout the nation.

For an aerial view of the community, visit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23337999@N08/2318022322/

 

Contents [hide]

 

1. Origins

2. Religious views

3. Community Structure

            3.1 Social

            3.2 Political

            3.3 Economical

4. Culture and Education

5. References

 

Origins

In 1916, a group of dissatisfied people belonging to different utopian communities, with different values and structures, abandoned these communities in search of a different answer and a new lifestyle and organization, since where they came from was not as ideal as they had expected. They settled in a small region around the middle of the United States, in a small town in Nebraska, called Scottsbluff. Under the leadership of Lu Cavestany, this community was formed as a rejection to the extreme philosophies and religious views and structures of various existing utopian societies, such as the Harmony Society, The Shakers, the Amana colonies, the Oneida Community, and The Icarians, among others. As a result, the community they formed contained some of the aspects of these societies that had worked for all, but mostly rejected the main elements that made them extreme and ultimately, unsustainable.

 

 

Religious Views

In response to the religious fervor of most utopian communities, the Simplifiers didn’t believe in organized religion. They were a highly spiritual group, which believed in a deep respect for all living things. Some practiced meditation, even in groups, as a spiritual outlet, but there existed no form of community practice or any type of church or temple. They believed in a universal energy, which generated ‘life’, but they had no religious leader or supernatural story, or even a God they ritualized. Every person had a moral set of values they followed as individuals, not because they were imposed by the community, but because it defined who they were as individuals, it was a personal commitment to their own being. There was no written book, nothing “sacred,” which contained these shared values, this moral code of sorts. They were ingrained in each human being, and transmitted from one another and through family ties. It was a set of beliefs, which held the community together, and a commitment to live by these beliefs. These values included love, respect, honesty, simplicity, straight-forwardness, understanding, commitment, and spiritual growth. The desire to follow these values was not imposed but ingrained in the nature of each individual.

 

 

Community Structure

Social

The community embraced the freedom of the individual, based on a respect for every living thing, including oneself. Under this structure, individuals where free to chose what most satisfied their personal interest. They could marry if they chose to, or chose a partner and live together, or have a partner and live apart, or have more than one partner if every ‘partner’ agreed to this. The same freedom applied to their choice of having children. Children were the responsibility of the parents, but the parents chose the structure under which they would grow. No choice was judged or believed better or worse than any other, everyone respected everyone else’s choices and accepted the freedom of this option. In the same lines of this freedom of choice, people could live in community houses with various families if that is what they preferred, or in separate individual homes.

 

Political

The society was organized by a group of five leaders, which were democratically voted by the whole community, and anyone above the age of 21 had an equal right to vote as well as be elected as one of the leaders. The political body also consisted of ministries of five representatives each, specialized in agriculture, commerce, industry, culture and education, and health. This government owned no business oriented source income. Their role was to control and supervise, analyze from an objective standpoint and create opportunities and growth for the community in general.

 

 

Economical

The economy was based on agriculture, mainly the production of sugar beets and dry beans; livestock industry; and packing houses due to the demand for fresh meat created by the livestock industry.

A taxation system was applied, for the government to subside and create opportunities for entrepreneurs.

The government, possessing no economical enterprises, had the sole role of organization and control over the different industries and enterprise owners. This control was based on a strong sense of justice for the individual, as well as an encouragement to grow the industry.

The law stated a maximum six-hour workday. People were encouraged to use the extra free time productively, engaging in other activities such as sports or arts, which were extremely popular in the community.

 

 

Culture and Education

Education was free for everyone. There was a common education system for children under the age of 16, at which time they had to decide what area interested them most and specialize in it. There were different areas to choose from based on the needs of the society and the industries that predominated. Older people dominant in certain subjects or skills would teach the younger population in schools.

 

Culture was a high motivation, people were encouraged to participate in arts and events coordinated by the Ministry of Culture and Education. The teaching of art crafts by senior members of the community, as well as the participation in plays and dance for the theatre, which had a show every week in the center of town, was a highly encouraged activity and extremely popular among all community members.

 

 

References:

 

Wikipedia articles:

- On Utopian Societies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States#Utopian_communities

 

-On the Harmony Society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony_Society

 

- On the Shakers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

 

- On the Amana colonies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amana_Colonies

 

- On the Oneida Community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community

 

- On the Icarians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarians

 

 

Information on Scottsbluff:

Twin Cities Development Association

http://www.tcdne.org/history.htm#Scb

 

Class REFLECTION #3

Prof. Boggs’ approach to teaching continues to amaze me with each class. 

Learning about history, specifically the civil war, through movies, proves, yet again, an innovative and amazing way of actually getting not just facts about the past but feelings about how it might have been. 

It is easy to read about, and easier to forget about, dates, facts, names of events in the past. When you watch a reenactment of a moment in history in a movie, you get a totally different perspective, a broader emotional and understanding about it. You suddenly realize it was real people who participated in our past, who populate our history books. 

To me, more than learning about the cold facts about the civil war, and the particular perspective of whoever is narrating the historical part of it, it was seeing the way they fought back then. It was such a personal type of fighting; one line of soldiers in front of the opposite, both shooting at the same time, the chances of survival so minimal, yet it feels somewhat a more honorable and brave way of fighting than we see nowadays. 

 

In Cold Mountain we observe a different side or perspective of the same war though. The story is now told from the regular soldier’s point of view, instead of the General’s perspective that we see in Gods and Generals. In terms of perspectives, when narrating history, however, I don’t think you can judge any perspective as more truthful than another, just as being different from one another, lived by different people in different ways. In Cold Mountain we experience it through the life of one single character, it is more emotional, more personal, you see the suffering of a single soldier, the pain, the loss, the love. In Gods and Generals however, we general aspects of a battle, how they fought, it is more general, you don’t relate to a single person, yet you get a global image of what took place back then, and it is just as useful, as informative.

 

In the second scene we watched in Cold Mountain, we see another totally different perspective about war. Not in the battlefield, but different side of the soldiers’ life, the hunger, the inhumanity provoked by the conditions they were living in. 

 

In the third movie, Glory, we were supposed to see a third perspective, from the African American’s point of view. Technology prevented us from the experience though. 

 

Interesting point on prof. Boggs’ presentation: The Civil War did not solve the legal and constitution issues the nation faced regarding the relation between the states and the federal. 

Post #1

Personal Profile of George

 

George, property of John Mayo of Richmond County, was a stout mulatto born sometime between 1772 and 1776. His most identifying features were two scars on his face; one on the middle of his forehead due to a childhood accident; the other under his left jaw proceeding from a defected tooth. Another key characteristic was his tendency to stutter when about to speak.

George traveled extensively to the northern states with his master John Mayo. His mother and other companions lived in Kentucky in possession of Mr. William Holland. He was the former husband of a tall straight, black, negro woman named Polly, of approximately his same age, who ran away from John Williamson on August 23, 1800, supposedly taken off by George.

Physically, George was close to five feet nine inches high with bushy hair and “rather small legs from the constant use of boots” (as described by Mr. Mayo) His skills were limited to some knowledge of the shoemaker trade and an apprenticeship to the barber’s trade. George had sulky looks and temper -“except when he chose to force a deceitful smile”- but was known to be a very complete domestic servant when it pleased him.

Between 1790 and 1795 he was injured from the cut of a knife, which marked him with a large scar on the back of his hand.

We must assume Mr. John Mayo recaptured George at some point between May 1795 and the 25^th of July 1799, when he ran away again and was referred in subsequent ads with the heading: ‘STOP THE VILLAIN!’ By October 1799 he still hadn’t been recaptured, and the rewards offered went from ten dollars on an ad posted on July 30,1799 to 150 dollars rewarded for his capture on ads in October 28 and November 15, 1799.

George’s subsequent fate remains unknown after August 23, 1800 at which time he still hadn’t been recovered.

In regards to John Mayo, we know he owned a plantation in Cumberland County and land in Richmond. He traveled frequently to the North, accompanied by slaves such as Charles who ran away in June 1784 and the above described, George. Many of his negros ran away about the time of the invasions of Richmond State by Phillips and Arnold.

John Mayo appears as a burgess from 1768 to 1771; was a member of the Virginia Convention from 1775 to 1776, and a member of the Cumberland County Committee in 1775^[1]. He built his first toll bridge in 1788 to connect Richmond and Manchester, and it has remained a crossing of the river ever since^[2].

 

 

 

REFERENCES

All the information on George was taken from seven newspaper ads from The Geography of Slavery website, dating from August 25, 1790 to September 2, 1800.

The advertisements can be obtained by searching under Name: GEORGE and Subscriber: JOHN MAYO at

http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/gos/search/search.php

 

 [1] Baltimore: Its History and Its People By Clayton Colman Hall, Lewis Historical Publishing Co. Page 185

 

[2] Richmond Times-Dispatch – News article: Richmond slave trail, Chronicling Virginia’s slave trade

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:wsDK5Xkd2nkJ:www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/ 

CLASS REFLECTION #2

 

I learned more about slavery and history through a map and some newspaper ads, than by reading 35 pages from Wikipedia on the subject.

 

I read the articles and learned about facts, facts I’ll probably forget in a few weeks. I learned about the definition of slavery, the different types of it, the numbers, the history, the economics, the countries involved, the routes, the amount who died in the trafficking of it… Important facts, no doubt; interesting facts, sure enough, forgettable facts, unfortunately. I learned about numbers, not human beings, I learned about facts, not visual perceptions.

 

Afterwards, I sat in class and learned the importance of perspectives, the depth contained in an article, or any piece of information, not because of the information itself, but by questioning who gathered the information, from where, from what point of view. The analysis of the type of story the writer is trying to tell us, gave me a completely different dimension into the study of history. Studying the different perspectives, what is included, what has been excluded, how the facts are presented is just as, or more so, important in the study of history, than the facts themselves. 

 

Who would have thought a drawing of an old map could provide so many stories? Analyzing the Virginia map by John Smith gave me more information than reading 30 pages of an article, and did so in a much more captivating way. The map contains much more information on how John Smith perceived the land, of what he was trying to communicate, and to what audience, than about the geographical area itself. The Powhatan tribe would have probably drawn a totally different map of the same area. This is where the true historical facts emerge, not from  the information itself, but, from what we can tell about John Smith because of the map he drew and the information he chose to portray. 

 

The newspaper ad on Virginia runaway slaves were even more fascinating. Instead of learning about numbers, they give us a chance to learn about the people themselves. We can finally use our imagination and visualize the world at that time. We learn from these articles the type of clothes slaves wore, what occupations and skills they possessed, how their owner perceived them, how much money they would pay to get them back. These ads gave me a glimpse into the past far more colorful and clear than any written article could have. 

 

We read about the ‘New World’ being ‘discovered’, and I used to accept this information as a fact. In class, I learned that questioning each term brings a deeper meaning into the study. It tells us a lot about the person writing the story, presenting the facts, than about what really happened. What if the story had been written by the natives of this ‘New World?’ They must have considered their world as the ‘Old World’ and what some have called ‘discovery’ they might have called ‘invasion.’ This type of perspective analysis brings a deeper meaning into history. Neglecting to analyze the point of view from which the story is being told is missing the whole point. Maybe that’s why its called history… because its ‘his’-’story’, nothing more than the story of the person telling it. It is by researching the different stories from everyone involved that will give us a better perspective of what actually happened and why.