Wright's Response to his Mother's Paralysis

When Wright's mother falls ill after a major stroke, he initially begins to take care of the household. Richard begins completing the chores his mother previously did. Instead of sulking, becoming depressed, and somewhat lost like a typical young child would do in Wright's situation he matures through his mother's illness and starts to become more of an adult male figure in the house. Instead of receiving gifts, such as food, with open arms, he realizes that by accepting these charities it makes himself look inadequate and unable to provide for his family, so he refuses the meals, even though he is in desperate need of food and is starving.
Once Granny arrives Wright's behavior shifts. He stops visiting his mother and ultimately avoids the situation. Because he has continuously been "hungry" and declined affection and love he feels as though this is simply another loss. The death of his mother is simply another inevitable in Wright's life.

Wright feels that his behavior toward Jews is justified because of the way they influenced history. Jews are believed to have been the people who crucified Jesus, and because of this, as a culture they have suffered. Wright's cruel comments and discriminating actions are simply a reflection of his peers and the adults in his life. The black community feels as though they can put the Jewish people down because Jews don't believe in Jesus, and Wright is basically following along. This is especially ironic because Wright continues to question the differences between whites and blacks and why skin color can determine the way others treat you. In chapter 1 he becomes puzzled because he doesn't understand why a black boy can't have a white father. Although his mothers explanation doesn't make things clear, he realizes that racial differences are apparent in his society. Previous to this encounter he is basically colorblind and unaware of injustices due to skin color. The way white people are treating blacks in this time is the same way blacks are treating the Jews of this time. I think the mechanism used is trying to lift up the self esteem of the race or religion being cruel to the so called "inferior". Wright is unaware of the consequences of his actions and unaware at the foundation of the beliefs, he is just a young child following the lead of the role models in his life, and most likely won't realize them until he is mature enough to see the relationship between his actions towards Jews and whites actions towards him, and other blacks.

Wright excessively refers to his state of hunger. In some instances yes, he is actually hungry for physical food, but within other more symbolic instances he is searching and longing for some kind of genuine affection. The change from literal meaning to symbolism comes after Wright's father leaves. Before when his dad lived with him there was food, the father would go and work and bring home food for their family. But now, because he has left Wright is not only physically starving he is also being deprived of a father figure. "I had been glad that he was not there to shout his restrictions at me. But it had never occurred to me that his absence would mean that there would be no food." pg. 15 Wright automatically makes the connection of hunger to the absence of his father. So as the chapter continues, Wright's longing for actual food morphs into a longing for his father or for what his father had provided for him in the past.

Against School Response

I was a little confused after reading "Against School" considering the fact that the author is basically bashing every part of institutionalized government funded schooling, when he himself spent 30 years of his adult life as a teacher. I definitely think that our education system has its a downfalls, as he bluntly points out. Public schools especially have become notorious for letting kids "fall through the cracks," and that statement reassures that somewhere along the line we made a mistake or left out a necessity, but it obvious that school is part of this nations foundation and it is a vital part at that. Yes, the majority of the day one could find 17 out of the 20 students unengaged staring off into the colorless walls or mesmerizing floor panels, but if you think about it, there really is no alternative. Boredom is part of everything, whether it be playing a sport, learning a musical instrument, life isn't all about excitement and if you really think about it nothing would be "fun" if there wasn't any boredom or downtime. As much as I would enjoy doing whatever the heck I wanted every single day, I probably wouldn't get too far in our society. School instills qualities that have become critical to survival and success, but that doesn't mean that school is the end all be all. I think in reality Gatto is simply seeking another form of schooling, one which he refers to as an education. Commonly these words are interchangeable but the connotation of them distinctively separates them. I agree with the fact that schooling is only effective to a certain level, and that there comes a time when the passive learning just doesn't work anymore. Active engagement is what occurs outside of the four walls in a class room and those are the kinds of lessons that should be taught between them.
I disagree ultimately with his statement disregarding school in general, but I do believe that adjustments to be made are necessary for public schooling to offer an education rather than just 9 years of one long cram session.

I definitely value my 15,000 dollar a year private education, but I also don't really have any other experience to compare it to. I couldn't imagine walking down the hallway or sitting in a classroom second semester not knowing who I was sitting next to. Not only do the social differences set a school apart but in the classroom it is reassuring to know that your teacher can tell you your name rather than refer to you as #1287. I feel like the institutions I have been privileged enough to attend are trying to accomplish a bigger goal or aim for a broader target. They aren't just trying to teach you about our founding fathers or how to find the length of a 30, 60, 90 triangle they want us to be well rounded citizens with a wide scope of the world and they hope to instill qualities among us to be successful beyond the doors of University High School. I know that when I leave high school I will have the tools to be a contributing and productive person, and I am confident enough to say that not all 18 year olds leaving Pike, Carmel, or Fishers will feel the same way about themselves.

This is the question that I can never really reach a definitive side on. I know that we are supposed to defend an argument and that the whole " I kinda agree with both sides" thing isn't what your looking for but, I feel like this argument is similar to, who came first the chicken or the egg? Obviously the media has to reflect the culture to some degree, but it is also, obviously apparent that society is influenced by what the media chooses to produce. Kendall is in entire support of the claim that the media is shaping us, but I definitely feel like she needs to "chill" as Eryn put it in class today. Who am I or who is Kendall to decide, truly there isn't an ultimate place to distribute the blame. I do agree with her claim entirely about how the media portrays false hope or unachievable success. The majority of television shows are documenting a lifestyle intangible for the common person, but they are most definitely glorifying it and making is seem as though it is right around the corner for the couch potato seeking 30 minutes of escape, where as though the shows that do include some qualities of a "middle class citizen" the attitude of the show is mockery and the point of them to poke fun. Whether or not this racks up credit card bills I'm not so sure that irresponsible spending can be blamed on advertisement and media sources, the person not paying the bill or unable to pay the bill probably knew they couldn't afford it well before they confidentially swiped that magic piece of plastic.

Reaction to Rhetoric Presentations

The "sharing" in class today wasn't as bad as I was expecting. My favorite picture and explanation of the argument being facilitated was probably Erin Borts and Chris Dobbs. I liked Erin's mostly because I think I fall into the trap and play into the rhetoric devices they are using at American Eagle, not so much that I will develop a relationship like the one in the photograph but because I go into the store and look for the articles of clothing in the display. Chris's was interesting because I took a similar photo that was conveying order and a physical appeal that a high authority would like the people to portray, in his example a business like attire for the basketball players, and in my case a picture of my soccer team wearing identical practice uniforms. I basically felt like I saw examples that I expected to see. The idea of wealth, artistic uniqueness, and order were all apparent and the locations where the pictures were taken didn't really surprise me either. Carmel consistently demonstarted affluence, and broadripple represented an edgy artistic side.

When I went on my little "adventure" it was surprisingly easy to find explicit examples of rhetoric. I think the main reason I found so many is because I spent most of my Sunday afternoon in Carmel, and it is obvious to both a resident like me, or a complete and total stranger to the town, that as a community the city of Carmel, and the people living here, enjoy emphasizing their ability to spend money. From the pointless, water fountains that are set to timers, syncing the time of the sun setting and the time of the neon lights illumination, that create a glowing effect as you drive around the 15 round abouts invading 116th street, to the mandatory mailbox regulations in multiple neighborhoods, it is an understatement to say that Carmel is focused on surface appeal. Not only does the city provide needless amenities but, the people engage in similar reverence toward material things. It is almost impossible to drive 1 square mile without seeing a house lavishly decorated in the upcoming holiday's decorations, or to find a street that doesn't have seventeen banners hanging above the garage door broadcasting that their child is a Carmel High School Greyhound football MVP or a Carmel Pups all-star Cheerleader.

Gitlin is arguing that the streams of american culture that pour into other nations are allowing them firsthand insight to things such as Hollywood icon's, Disney related empires, Coke, and American produced music that greatly influence the different countries into almost American replicas. It gives other countries a satisfied feeling of entertainment and allows them into our American easily accessible way of enjoyment. He also talks about how this gives young generation all the same dreams. Kids here in America are aspiring to be the same things that kids in China, for example, want to as well. Yes I agree. I don't know whether or not i feel like this is a good thing or a bad thing but it is obvious that it is happening.

The danger comes while depicting women and men because by depicting them we are valuing them at less than us, or less than human worth. Kilbourne writes that by doing this and allowing people to consider women as objects rather than as people we are able to justify the mistreatment of them. Similar to the times of slavery where white masters considered African American people as animals and treated them appropriate to what they valued their worth at. Im not saying by any means that the objectification of women is comparable to the cruelty of slavery, but the device that the dominant role uses to justify their actions are in some ways similar.
Women in particular are seen as sex symbols and not only are they being over-sexualized in advertising, their role in media, music, and television is primarily to catch the attention of sexually driven men as well. Kilbourne also includes the role being reversed by it is obvious that the majority of this is female oriented, and the harm greatly increases from the female perspective. Whether or not the objectification is focused on the man or the woman in all instances the man is in control and the dominant figure. The girl doesn't exactly physically have the means to stop it immediately when she prefers, and when the media promotes this behavior the male will always feel as though it is expected for him to be in control in sexual behaviors.
Do I agree? Yes to a great extent I do. You never seen girls walking down the hallway grabbing a guy's crotch or smacking his ass, but the reversal is common, and most the time the girls laugh their faces turn red and they act in some ways flattered. This is only a small example but the behavior promoted by the media is trickling down even into middle school hallways. But, I think Kilbourne may go a little too far in analyzing some of her examples, like the one where the little kids are wearing underwear jumping on a bed, I have a 3 year old little brother and he jumps on the bed playing every morning before school in his underwear, if that, and I'm wouldn't be surprised to know that most other toddlers do the same. If the advertisement wasn't trying to sell underwear maybe it could be borderline, but what are you supposed to show when your trying to sell small children's under garments. Obviously Kilbourne's argument is valid and an issue that needs to be exposed, she provides a plethora of disturbing horrifying ads but, I think she begins to reach a little too far making it seem as though she is over doing it looking for those maybe unintended sexual hints.

After watching the commercials airing during the Super Bowl it is apparent that the products being advertised are centrally directed towards a male audience, obviously a well chosen decision considering the majority of football fans are male. The ads continuously involved a male focused mentality, including half naked women, excessive amounts of cash, fast cars, cold beer and the occasional joke surrounding a dude getting hit in the crotch. The commercials also included many situations where the man in the ad contained some sort of inhuman like power, one more opportunity to make a couch potato avid football viewer feel like a "superhero" or an "all star athlete" if they buy what ever that specific ad is promoting.