Satire: Dave Chappelle's "Black Bush"

Justin Purvis
11/17/09

When we were asked to evaluate a satire I knew exactly what kind I wanted to do. Growing up me and my friends always have watched Chappelle’s show and thought it was hilarious. So I thought for my satire evaluation I’d look at Dave Chappelle’s skit called “Black Bush”.

Even though most of the skits on the show are highly comical, stereotypical, and even sometimes strait immoral there are some that have some political connection. The skit “Black Bush” shows Dave Chappelle and other members of the cast acting as they were President Bush and other members of the president’s party. Obviously there were some scenes from the skit that were irrelevant and just made fun of black and white stereotypes there were some that made some since in contributing to the satire.

The idea that the United States main goal of the war of Iraq was for oil was brought up a lot on the satire. Dave Chappelle’s acting as president Bush showed many times (in a comical way) that it was a hush truth that the real reason behind the war with Iraq lies in its oil benefits. This is acted out in a way where “Black Bush” really wanted oil for his country but just didn’t want people to know that was the reason why we were in Iraq.

Another comical idea used in the satire was the belief that Suddam Hussein was holding onto weapons of mass destruction. This if you watch the show you will find out is derived from some very unrealistic ideas; for example Chappelle references how Suddam has purchased aluminum tubes and “yellow cake” as means for housing nuclear bombs. Again these ideas are extreme but still if you understand the satire they have some justifiable meaning.

Next is my favorite political idea of the show. The “Black Bush” satire throughout the skits takes shots at the United Nations. They heckle the United Nations for means of being more less powerless and having little back up for their mistaken authority. For example in the show there is a scene in the show where the U.N. is trying to tell President Bush to withdrawal from Iraq when Bush then strait questions their power in a highly comedic way. The idea then is the U.N. doesn’t have an army therefore why should the United States have to listen to them? Now to look at this idea in a literal sense, what pull does the United Nations have? Do they have a standing army that’s able to enforce immediate authority?

Finally at the end of the satire there is a scene of President Bush having trouble answering questions being asked at a news conference. This scene makes the president look almost dumb to the point where he knows there are things he has no answers for. Is this not true in real life? Is there some questions that politicians just shy away from? Anyway the scene goes on and changes to the subject of gay marriage. This idea comes out to be that President Bush is highly against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Now to think about it isn’t pro-same-sex marriage a moral fiber to the Republican Party? Maybe this satire shows this in a way that just blatantly comes out and says it.

Now to be honest this skit is an extreme situation satire much unlike the one we watched in class. But again if you deeply think about it this satire makes some comical meaning and connection to the political world. While this show also shows the stereotype of what a black president would act like it still shows multiple common flaws and confusions of the ruling party up to that point…..

Extra Credit Zombieland Review

Extra Credit

Movie Review: Zombieland

Justin Purvis

I didn’t know if I was or wasn’t looking forward to viewing this film mostly because of the tons of zombie movies I feel have came out in the past couple years. But I must admit it’s probably one of the better ones I’ve seen. It was gory and chaotic just like most of your zombie movies but still managed to bring a specific feel to the table. I’m not going to say this was this year’s blockbuster, but overall wasn’t a waste of time.

First off going Woody Harrelson’s character was great especially for Harrelson to play. His character was gritty and unique and almost quirky at times but still made a great lead character of the four main characters. The main character though I felt was boring at times, and I think made the film a little more laid back then it should be. Also I’m tired of seeing movies where the lead characters are college or high school kids that are more less the “losers” of their school. I felt like recent movies like “Adventureland” or “Superbad” have worn out that trend. I guess I was wrong.

One of the things I thought made the movie better was the way the director made the scenes “jumpy”. In other words he didn’t make the movie one strait storyline. During the movie there were flashbacks and “rule scenes” that made the movie feel a bit different from your standard flick. On the other hand I hated all the basic scenes of people just running around with almost military guns and vehicles and just wiping out zombies. I feel like movies based around killing zombies have been done before and it’s time to move on.

I will admit probably tying Bill Murray into the film was probably my favorite aspect of the film. To be honest I don’t know why that is. I guess because it was unexpected, random and admit who saw that coming? Also the scene where Columbus the main character shoots Bill Murray was priceless even though I thought the dying sequence was a bit weird as far as his acting goes. Also the slow motion zombie harassment screen shots made for a nice lead to the opening of the film.

I always have liked Woody Harrelson ever since I’ve seen Kingpin but his scene at the end of this movie tops any scene from Kingpin. At first I thought he was making himself the sacrificial lamb so the main character could save the girls but I was way wrong. I guess no zombie was any match for Woody. The girl in the movie I recognized from Superbad but I don’t know if I would have picked her for this role. She’s cute but I probably would of casted a bit fiery actress for her role. That’s just me though.

So overall this movie wasn’t bad, I’m not saying it’s great either. I just saw it as being another mid level zombie movie. The cast was decent and the editing was different but not exactly unique. So if your into zombie movies they sure this movies worth a watch, if you’re not then I would save your money. I don’t know I feel like when you have trouble differentiating the movies apart; it’s time to stop making a certain subgenre of movies. So no more zombie movies! Please! If you want to see a good movie with zombie-like creatures in it then rent Bruce Campbell’s Evil Dead series. They are old school, unique, and not to mention scary as hell. I think these new day zombie movies don’t hold a candle to the old ones, but again that’s just me.

5 Songs Post

Old Crow Medicine Show- Wagon Wheel


I think everyone who listens music has a few songs they can listen to all their life as much as they can and the song never gets old. For me this is one of those songs. I first ran into this song in high school through friends and I've been listening to it ever since. Really this song reminds me of high school because whenever a group of us friends were together there was usually a guitar around and we usually ended up playing this song. All in all it was a crowd favorite at social events. Ive grown up loving southern music so this song couldn't be more perfect to fit into that genre. Wagon Wheel is twangy, southern, and easy to remember so it really always makes for a good time.

Frank Sinatra- My Way


This song is so special to me to the point where I want it played at my own funeral. I first heard this song as a kid through my grandfather who was always into classical singers from the forties and fifties such as Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, and Johnny Mathis. This song just stuck it with me even to this day, its a great powerful, legendary song. Even this day I have a giant picture of Sinatra hanging in my room at my house. The man was simply an amazing performer in means of acting and playing music.

Corey Smith- 21


Another southern song "21" by Corey Smith I can identify with because when I first played the song for my dad he said that it reminded him of his upbringing. The songs about being a highschool kid living a life thats a bit too old for your age. The name and chorus goes with the storyline by stating "wishing I was twenty-one". Its a great song to listen to live also. I've seen Corey Smith six times now and this song always gets a good response from the crowd. Its overall a good wholesome song that so many people can relate to.

Lynyrd Skynyrd- Gimme Back My Bullets


I've worked at the same horsefarm and had the same boss for about three years now and through working I have developed a pretty good relationship with my boss. He is in a Lexington local band named Ten Cent Love and tours around Lexington playing shows at places such as the Dame, Squier's Tavern, and O'Neils. Ive been to many of his shows and I must admit "Gimme Back My Bullets" is probably my favorite song they cover. Also Lynyrd Skynyrd has always been one of my favorite bands growing up.

Shinedown- 45


The first big concert I ever went to was 3 Doors Down, Tantric, and Shinedown at Rupp Arena when I was in seventh grade. We showed up late into the first bands performance (Shinedown) and only got to see one songs fully played. The song was 45 and to this day I can still remember everything about what was going on when I first heard this song. Even the smell of the arena I remember perfectly. Still today I like Shinedown and the music they are putting out but I still like their first album that they mostly played at the concert the most.

To exist or seem to exist? Red or Blue?

So everybody what’s it going to be red or blue, conformity or nonconformity, the easy road or the hard but real path? After reading different texts on this debate between taking either the red or blue pill I’ve learned that it goes much further than most notice. What does choosing the red or blue pill really mean? Does it judge the character of a person, or does it show if a person real or just living?

It wouldn’t surprise me if seventy five percent of the world’s population either chooses the blue pill or just has it shoved down their throat. Most people in today’s world almost act as machines caught in a ongoing cycle of living, doing what they think they are supposed to do in life, then dying. Like what is a person supposed to do in life? Most people would say grow up, go to college, get a good job, start a family, and die. So many people live to this standard that they are caged inside to where they are programmed to be a “model” citizen. What is a model citizen you might ask? A model citizen to me is a person that grows up in a controlled environment making every typical decision a good person should make. These people obey the law even if they might think some laws are unfair or they are being treated unfair. These people their whole lives are benefiting the economy, even though business tactics and ethics of today aren’t always moral or even looking out for the model citizen. Someone who takes the blue pill gets stuck in society afraid to branch out or discover their internal desires. These people are totally opposed to radical ideas even though some of these radical ideas might sound valid to them. It’s the fact that the idea is radical that automatically makes it automatically irrelevant to the person. These blue pill takers are blue collared, comfortable where they are, and trapped.

What about the red pill? Are these people the extremists? Are they the intellectual? Are they the people that hold their own beliefs and desires higher than the beliefs and desires of modern day society? To me these people are the people that might not live in a suburban home with a concrete schedule and always know their next move. These people are the people that live lives that are true to them and they know it’s what they want to do no matter what it is. These people go through life proposing the question how can I leave my mark on society without letting it leave its mark on me. These people are the risk takers, the ones that think outside of the box and really don’t care about others feelings on how they are living their lives. The red pill in a way is unconformity, its choosing the path that is unknown but real and unstructured. Maybe the choice of the red pill could be disastrous for some but life saving for others.

Through reading the texts I’ve learned that deciding between the blue and red pill goes much deeper than a simple judgment of character. A decision between right and wrong judges character. This decision shows whether a person want to live a real true to themselves life, or just get thrown into a systematical controlled society. So how many people look back on life after choosing the blue pill and wish they had chosen the blue one? Probably many, how many people have you heard look back on their life saying I would of done something different or I wish I had done what I love to do? Even the people that take the red pill might live a life that’s well different than normal, but all in all its their own life that they chose unaffected by the world surrounding them.

America the Undermining Society

Response to “The Conquest of Cool” By Justin Purvis

This response is going to focus on one idea from this excerpt that caught my interest. What really was the business ideology concerning the sixties, and is that ideology still present today? Its odd how the sixties played a huge role in so many areas of society. The sixties had direct effects in areas of life such as politics, popular culture, and ethics of the American mind. But the sixties pivotal role was in American business to the point where crucial trends are still undermining us today.

One of the main things I thought was interesting from the excerpt was the way it said that big commercial companies of the sixties used the “hippie era” to not only alter its way of marketing, but do this in a way to undermine this counterculture of the time. The idea of taking a mainstream product and use marketing to make it appeal to a certain sect of society is pure genius. A coke is a coke no matter what ethnicity, religion, or social culture a person is in. It’s the idea of using advertisement and marketing to exploit your product to an counter culture(that eventually became mainstream culture) and make it seem as a part to this growing culture that directly initiates success.

During the sixties commercial companies began applying peace signs and easygoing slogans to the commercial display of their product and the outcome was a complete success. That business device in my mind is still around and ever successful. Like for instance what the difference of using a peace sign to engage hippies into identifying themselves with coke, than sprite using Grant Hill during the nineties to engage a sports admiring society with Sprite. It’s the exact same tactic. A tactic that undermines a consumer mentally by making them believe that they are one with the product.

My next idea I want to evaluate in the response is pulled from both the video we watched in class as well of aspects of this excerpt. Is there such thing as a undying counterculture or sub society? Basically is it possible for a known (and growing) counterculture to stay a counterculture and not get sucked into being mainstream? For example take the “emo” explosion of the early twenty-first century to mind. At this time the world knew classic, southern, hard, alternative, even punk and heavy metal rock was basically mainstream or becoming mainstream to fans of the music industry. Then out of nowhere came these kids with tight pants, sex confused attire, and a swagger that made it seem cool to be feminine and highly symbolic. The music was basic with forms of both punk and heavy metal rock tying in. But for this sub genre it was all about the unique style of loading these musically mediocre songs with vocals and lyrics that were again highly symbolic and true to a certain type of person. In a weird way I identify the “emo” culture as being similar to the hippie movement of the sixties.

Why you might ask? Both of these cultures gave a person a sense of success and acceptance just because they dress and apart of the culture. It’s the idea that “you might not be cool or dress cool, but if you identify yourself with us, all of your “uncool” characteristics then become cool”. Like for the hippies of the sixties there was no dress code or team color, it was simply about people being a part of a people that is standing up for something engaging in a common goal. So back to my question of is there such thing as a counterculture staying a counterculture? NO! Have you ever heard of Panic of the Disco, Taking Back Sunday, or Fall Out Boy? Most people who listen to a variety of music or watch television have. All these bands started out part of the “emo” subculture and found themselves on TRL far from their starting affiliation with society.

So overall a counterculture stays a counterculture until it gets too big where mainstream society decides to engage in it and make it mainstream and beneficiary to them. It’s unfortunate but in the long run unavoidable, sorry guys.

Brainwashing: A way of American life?

Through both of these readings multiple questions now come to mind. “Why do we listen to what they say” is a great one coming from the Rushkoff reading. I feel like people today hold people with obvious media direct control to be almighty and unquestionable. It’s funny that these people giving us this information are simply passing on to the masses the altered and restructured stories that might be similar to the truth but far from the actual truth. Even if these people do give raw true information the way the story is represented in a visual sense could lead viewers to a wrong view on the subject at hand. After reading both articles it’s obvious that people are being manipulated and according to Rushkoff this trend is an undying one.

For instance an example from my life I can connect to is ESPN’s take on professional sporting teams. The facts could be on the table that a team isn’t going to fair well against their upcoming opponent maybe due to games in the past or current injuries of the team. What amazes me is that if ESPN gives a glorified analyst or sports legend ten minutes of airtime to share a exotic idea on how this team will magically do better in their next game because of this persons inside information then it’s likely that people that whole week will be talking about this team as if it’s obvious that they will emerge victorious. This motion is not because of the person watching ESPN really feels inside that the team will win but the idea that an educated sports analyst told him so. Its radical, its unavoidable and overall its brainwashing.

Now connecting Rushkoff to the online article, what connection do Liberal Arts really have to people’s ability to ask why they perceive the world in the way they do instead of how they will perceive the world? Maybe if Liberal Arts were injected more to the curriculum than America would give birth to more liberal independent thinkers. These people might be able to refuse the almighty public authority (mostly distributed to the public by ways of television and radio).

Also secondly is it not a bit scary to you that government is trying to of all things limit the amount of liberal arts classes available in the school system? What are they trying to do exactly? Are they trying to dumb down America’s people to being susceptible to their economical plans of controlling the mind to do their economical bidding? Are they trying to fill up young peoples’ minds with black and white knowledge of facts and ways of evaluating to induce the public to act in one simple manner? While this view might be exotic it’s debatable and almost scary.

While we view business officials and politicians to be role models of American society is that anywhere close to the truth? What are they really doing within their job responsibilities? To me it seems they are putting out information that is fake or spun. They put out stories and media that will engage the viewer by portraying a certain mood or false conclusion of successfulness and not even come close to the true characteristics of the subject at hand. These people are manipulators working in a manner not because they feel it is right, but because they know it will work. For example gum companies even though all gum is similar use ads and commercials to sell a product conveying mood or energy far from the true characteristics of the product.

Overall a piece of gum is a piece of gum. No gum or body was will give a man multiple female admirers or a brand new Mercedes no matter what media displays. The whole gig is tricking the American mind, even though how unfair it might be.

Tarantino: Ingenious Bastard

A review of Inglorious Bastards by Justin Purvis

Watching the previews for Bastards I was anxious and totally ready to view Quentin Tarantino’s next work of art. Considering I’m not a huge Brad Pitt fan (and was caught a little off guard when he landed this lead role) I still had huge expectations for Tarantino’s latest blockbuster. Everyone I had talked to before viewing the film said it was intense and worth the wait. Afterward I was pleased but still had a lot of quirky thoughts on the film.
At the first scene I was ready for something heavy and loud but I got the exact opposite. Even though I like the ending of the first scene I still thought it was slow. The dialogue was quiet at times and I could see where some people could get bored with the introductory scene. Then obviously all hell breaks loose and I was reassured I was watching a Tarantino film.
The story I thought was good because it was unique. I enjoyed the weird spin on WW2 different perspectives mastered in this film by the director. I guarantee if you will not see any other WW2 movies similar to this one. Bastards was serious but not serious, laid back then intense, totally formal then extremely sarcastic, again personally I know I enjoyed the film but afterward don’t know what to make of it.
My favorite characteristic of the film was the evident, key, jaw dropping scenes. Also you knew when these hit scenes were going on because the theatre filled with these loud theatrical sounds that only Tarantino would think to put in his movie. I really think that’s the loudest I’ve ever heard it get in a theatre, maybe I was just caught up in the moment. Overall by far the best scene was the ending scene where the place goes up in flames, pure genius, pure madness, pure Tarantino.
The structure of this film in a lot of ways reminded me off Resevoir Dogs. The unique style of having chapters and voice overs during the film almost resemble the way he introduced the “Mr.’s” in Resevoir Dogs. The notion was odd and irregular to your mainstream movie viewer but to those like me who appreciate the out of the box tactics made for a great film.
Now thinking of the intent of the film I find myself almost puzzled. What was the director trying to get across in this film? I didn’t really think this movie was a “serious” historical film like say Pearl Harbor or Schindler’s List, but it had some factual parts, right….. Maybe the director was trying to give a quirky representation of WW2 through this film.
Basically this movie can be enjoyed by just about anybody, especially those who enjoy those not so everyday movies. Bastards has encouraged me to go back and watch some of Quentin Tarantino’s older stuff just because I enjoyed this film so much. To tell you the truth I intend on seeing this film again because I enjoyed it so much the first time. Also I see how you might have to watch this film two or three times to get its full impact.
Even after watching this film I now don’t mind Brad Pitt as much as I did before. I think he did one hell of a job in the film staying true to his characters role of a hardnosed southern gentleman from Tennessee. His accent and all round swagger was perfect. I can’t say when I picture the character In the film the first movie star to come to mind would be Brad Pitt but all in all he pulled it off and made for a great character.

Bernay the Dangerous....

The Century of the Self (Part 1) Response

To be honest a minute into this video I thought for the next thirty minutes I would be watching another boring informational video that would leave most students struggling to stay awake. Thirty minutes into the video I was engaged and almost blown away by the content of this short video. In a broad sense the idea’s Bernay put forth during that time period were genius, powerful and overall dangerous. His tactics he used to achieve his goals were in my mind one of a kind and I believe Bernay’s psychological ideas were crucial to society during World War 2.
A student and colleague of Sigmund Freud it was obvious that this man had the potential to produce both knowledge and power to whoever ends up getting him to work for them. Obviously during the twenties Bernay’s ideas shined not only to the government by getting America to go from a “needs to a desire” country, but also his ideas within politics proved to be a outright difference maker. To me his work with transforming America’s society was amazing; but I think almost put people in a position where they were being brainwashed. Although his ideas were used to obtain a national good, did people stand a chance against this ethical mastermind? For instance the situation where he spun the idea of how smoking to men symbolized power, therefore women to gain power in a symbolical sense should start smoking. Pure Genius! These women were simply conforming to their sect of society and the cigarette companies were gaining grounds in business all because of Bernay’s ideas.

Bernay to venture into politics proved to be only another success. The idea of using popular culture icons such as movie stars to fling politicians images upward is again rather abstract thinking but extremely effective. He made mass society associate popular culture with politicians (who in a whole sense had few things in common) and therefore gain support just through recognition. In my mind I think that at this point Bernay could use his profession in just about anything. His work in psychoanalysis could be connected and used with just about any area that consisted of shaping society to act or behave a certain way. What if Bernay dabbled his ideas into other things such as music or athletic events during this time? Would we now be recognizing different sport stars or musicians for their work during that time?
Now you may ask why I regarded Bernay’s ideas as being “dangerous”. It’s not because his motives of that time were dangerous but what if his motives had been different. The ability to alter and control peoples’ minds is outright scary. Now is when World War 2 and the connection between Bernay’s ideas and Germany’s propaganda usage become relevant. I think there is a direct correlation between the way Joseph Goebbels used propaganda to make most Germans during WW2 let loose of their moral and ethical conscience. He simply “manipulated the masses” and led German society to believe that their motives behind engaging in the war were right and anyone that challenged their beliefs were incorrect. Again it’s scary how this idea and ability to use anything from magazines, movies, commercials, etc to control a mass group of people can conduct such immoral activities. The progress in itself is a powerful one that could produce a wide variety of outcomes such as advancements, successes, and even huge mistakes.
Personally after watching the video there was a lot of questions that first came to mind. Questions like; what if Bernay’s ideas connected to different parts of society? Also what if Bernay used his ideas to induce “bad things”, such as revolts or out lashes against certain accepted societal tendencies of the time? Could he of led people of America to believe anything, for any reason?

Key Words #1 (from first reading)

Justin Purvis

8/19/09

Hum-120

Keywords

(From Handout)
Mnemonic Socialization- A process that usually takes place when a person enters a new social environment that teaches a person how to remember events in history. This process can make a person acquire views on events or subjects that could be irrational or incorrect in a moral sense, but because of that persons social environment their view on the subject seems to be correct. For example when a person enters a new church their views of that church seem to transfer and show in the views of that person, even if a person had different views before entering that church. Overall mnemonic socialization is unavoidable and human nature in a sense that it shapes a person into adapting to their environment.

(From Reading)
Culture- Culture is a group of characteristics one gathers after living in a physical social environment and interacting with the people of that environment. It goes deeper than just traditions a person gains due to the area there from. It’s the type of personality they have due to socializing with other people of that culture and having their ideas and beliefs reflect on them. A culture shapes not only a person’s views on subjects but how they analyze and judge any subject or event that they have to think about. A persons culture overall determines the way a person acts, thinks, looks, and lives to the point where it turns into a natural way of life.

Key Words

Justin Purvis
Hum-120
8/23/09
KeyWords

Informing popular culture- The act of how multi mass medias inform people of other types of lifestyles and popular culture going on within society. These mass media’s communicate forms of alternative culture and hybrid lifestyles to its viewer.

National Popular- This term was derived from the writings of Marxist, Antonio Gramski. National Popular refers to the connection of economical structure of a nation to its superstructure consisting of its values and beliefs in terms of politics, culture, education, and religion. Overall the National Popular raised many questions as to how culture operates within a society.

3rd Paper Proposal (Correct One)

For my next paper I know exactly what idea I want to explore. Music has always caught and held my interest from a young age. But since that young age when I started fir admiring music, it has changed indefinitely. The music world simply isn’t the same as it was thirty years ago. Over the years I have grown to admire all types of music from all genre and era's, but it seems that the present in my eyes has the least to offer in being musically rich and appealing. I want to argue that music is dying! In today’s world originality and uniqueness is growing harder and harder to find. Everything is shaped in a way that makes it generic and socially acceptable, therefore no new types of original music are being spawned. I don’t want to sound like a critic that just favors classic legendary artists with no openness to the present or future but I want to basically overview that the music industry is changing drastically and in my opinion it’s for the worse.

The music industry itself will be my main focus of my paper. Things commercially have changed from the past in a harsh way. The idea of buying albums is almost comical in today’s world. Today it’s all about illegal downloading and buying music individually track by track off the Internet. Now that not what music is about. Instead of today’s society gaining knowledge in music, albums, and history of music of their generation they are simply downloading an ongoing mix tape of individual songs that appeal to them. Maybe this idea might seem economically correct to the person but ethically I think any music enthusiast will have his/her criticism.

What is going to happen to the music industry? According to numerous sites album sales are declining by 20% a year, a year! What is going to happen to that trend when it hits bottom? Is music going to go out of fashion because it’s so hard for artists can’t make money? In my eyes it would be sad but justified seeing extremely talented musicians 30 years from now selling albums out of the trunk of their cars and at shows in fear of engaging in the past commercial way of doing things.

Finally what will the music industry be fifty years from now? To me that questions answer is almost scary to think about. Will the music industry of tomorrow be anything like todays? Is music going to lose its focus of existing out of personal expression and enjoyment to existing to stimulate income? Will artists start replicating music that they think society approves of and wants to hear? There are so many different ideas to engage in when talking about the future of the music industry to people like me it’s an ongoing rant about how this ship is sinking and sinking fast.

I know my ideas might seem scatterbrain and opinionated at times but this argument is just so out there and interesting to discuss. I think I could do a great job of exploring the tomorrow of the music industry and what we can do to affect its revival or demise.......
As for my sources go, my first source I plan to use is a book called Nuthin But A G Thing by Eithne Quinn. This book is very informational historically and it shares ideas about the music of rap and hip hop through the years. My next source is a book by William Mckeen called Rock And Roll Is Here to Stay. This book has a cluster of things concerning the music industry from interviews with musicians to statements from the music industry’s top leaders commercially. Right now I have two legitimate internet sources both concerning the music industry’s future on an economical standpoint. The first article is called simply What is going to happen to the music industry by Melissa Chang. This article questions things like music sales and the process of selling music while trying to determine what will happen in the future. My next source and probably favorite article I have found is out of the New York Times called What’s The Future of the Music Industry. This article is a perfect representation of what I want to write about in my paper. It includes everything from economics to questioning the fate of musical artist of tomorrow’s society….

3rd Paper Proposal "Music is like a old pair of chucks, theres just no sole"

For my next paper I know exactly what idea I want to explore. Music has always caught and held my interest from a young age. But since that young age when I started fir admiring music, it has changed indefinitely. The music world simply isn’t the same as it was thirty years ago. Over the years I have grown to admire all types of music from all genre and era's, but it seems that the present in my eyes has the least to offer in being musically rich and appealing. I want to argue that music is dying! In today’s world originality and uniqueness is growing harder and harder to find. Everything is shaped in a way that makes it generic and socially acceptable, therefore no new types of original music are being spawned. I don’t want to sound like a critic that just favors classic legendary artists with no openness to the present or future but I want to basically overview that the music industry is changing drastically and in my opinion its for the worse.

The music industry itself will be my main focus of my paper. Things commercially have changed from the past in a harsh way. The idea of buying albums is almost comical in today’s world. Today it’s all about illegal downloading and buying music individually track by track off the Internet. Now that not what music is about. Instead of today’s society gaining knowledge in music, albums, and history of music of their generation they are simply downloading a ongoing mix tape of individual songs that appeal to them. Maybe this idea might seem economically correct to the person but ethically I think any music enthusiast will have his/her criticism.

What is going to happen to the music industry? According to numerous sites album sales are declining by 20% a year, a year! What is going to happen to that trend when it hits bottom? Is music going to go out of fashion because it’s so hard for artists can’t make money? In my eyes it would be sad but justified seeing extremely talented musicians 30 years from now selling albums out of the trunk of their cars and at shows in fear of engaging in the past commercial way of doing things.

Finally what will the music industry be fifty years from now? To me that questions answer is almost scary to think about. Will the music industry of tomorrow be anything like today’s? Is music going to lose its focus of existing out of personal expression and enjoyment to existing to stimulate income? Will artists start replicating music that they think society approves of and wants to hear? There is so many different ideas to engage in when talking about the future of the music industry to people like me its a ongoing rant about how this ship is sinking and sinking fast.

I know my ideas might seem scatterbrain and opinionated at times but this argument is just so out there and interesting to discuss. I think I could do a great job of exploring the tomorrow of the music industry and what we can do to affect its revival or demise.......

Sources
Source 1
1)McKeen, William. Rock and Roll Is Here To Stay. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000.
2) This book shows edgy ideas about the history and future of rock in roll all over the world.
3) It connects in ways to my topic by showing ideas of other music enthusiasts on how music is always changing and gives examples of that.
4) The authors in this book are all critics, enthusiasts or actual musicians I don’t know how information could’t be relevant. This book was published by Norton & Company in both London & New York. William Mckeen studied music at the university of Florida, then eventually later in life published this anthology. His sources are from everywhere, places like interviews and publications from actual artists are everywhere in this book. His ideology is in the title, he thinks that rock & roll will be altered and played with in the future but the roots and history will always be valued. This book is mor contemporary in ways of expressing other music critics ideas about the music world and past. This book was written to exhibit the point that Rock and Roll will not diminish in the eyes of any social standard. The intended audience is i guess anyone interested in music.

Source 2
1)Quinn, Eithne. Nuthin But A "G" Thang. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
2) From this source I will use ideas in the text to compare past and present ideas of hip hop culture to what tomorrows hip hop could be.
3) This is just a example of music culture of the past that I can compare to my ideas of the present.
4) This author simply gives an overview of hip hop culture through its birth and up to present day. This author is just a writer writing about a subject she connects with and knows much about. The author gathered sources from other Hip hop enthusiasts as well as personal experience. The ideology behind this book is just this author showing her appreciation for this genre of music. This source is very contemporary with some historical recall. This item was made to educate anyone wanting to learn about hip/hop about the genre in its entirety.


Source 3
1) Dubner, Steven. "What’s The Future Of The Music Industry?". The New York Times. September 20Th 2007 .
2)This article directly connects my topic. It basically questions the music industries future and gives ideas on what it will be years from now. The idea that the music industry is on a downfall is most prominent.
3) This article basically addresses the same question I am addressing in my paper.
4) This author is extremely credible in ways that he is an experienced music idealist writing for the New York Times. This article consists of personal opinions and he cites other writers ideas about the music industry. Also he uses statistics from music companies and musicians. His perspective in this article is his concern about our falling music industry. This piece is way more contemporary than historical. This article was written to question the future of the music industry. It basically says this is what happening and we are doing nothing to stop it. The intended audience again is anyone who is interested in music.

Source 4
1)Chang, Melissa. "What's going to happen to the Music Industry?". 16th Letter. September 1st 2006 .
2) The main point of this source is that the music industry is on a economic downfall.
3)I mean the future of the music industry economically ties into everything I want to get across in my paper.
4) This author is the President of an Internet source that deals with issues like this one. She is the author of "Publish" an online idea website as well as a Internet entrepreneur. Most of her sources where statistics from companies affiliated with the music industry. Her ideology just shows that economically music publication is losing its relativity to society. Times of expressing and sharing music are changing. This is a contemporary article with many valid statistics. This item was written to show people a falling music industry to the point where it is almost corrupt. The audience again is anyone concerned with the future of the music industry....

The Rise and Fall of Whisky Rock (Eng Paper #2)

Justin Purvis
3/22/09
Eng 102-J016
M. Benton

The Rise and Fall of Whisky Rock

Music genres are created to stand for a number of reasons. Some genre’s intent is to get present a message to its listeners or maybe to bring a new type of sound to the table. In my mind different types of music are created to reflect different things to its audience. Some genres reflect a simple unique sound appealing to its listener but some genre’s represent much more. Southern rock has reflected a way of life for Southerners since the genre planted its roots in the late 1960’s. My intent in this essay is to explore all aspects of southern rock, from its formation in the deep south to the racist and “redneck” identity it assumed throughout its popularity. Also I will highlight many of the important artists that contributed to the genre’s proud history. Overall you will see how southern rock has evolved through the years but still appreciates and holds close to its roots.
First off what exactly is southern rock and where did it come from? Most people would obviously say southern rock started in the south. That idea is true to an extent. But actually the sound of southern rock was first heard from two bands, one from California and one from Canada. Creedence Clearwater Revival a band from northern California and “The Band” from Canada were the first two significantly popular bands to introduce the southern twang to the media. While both bands carried an ideal southern swagger in the sound of their music they are labeled more towards classic rock than southern by most music critics. So what artists from the south first started the notion of “southern” rock? In 1969 a band out of Macon Georgia, calling themselves The Allman Brothers debuted and quickly gained respect of southerners with their music that crossed genre’s such a blues, jazz, and classic rock into a specific sound that also had key elements from country and folk music in its structure. In 1971 the band released Fillmore East a commercially successful album that became a spearhead for what others termed southern rock (Szatmary). Time Magazine termed the pop music scene (referring to the Allman Bothers) at the time to be “a roaring pulsating paradox of sound-the white man singing the black man’s blues” (Szatmary). While the bands popularity continued to flourish over the next four years the band came to a complete stop in 1971 when the band lost their leader and main guitarist Duane Allman due to a motor cycle accident. But this unfortunate event did not hurt the bands ongoing popularity until the broke up in 1976 (White).
In the early seventies more bands from the south carrying sounds similar to the Allman Brothers started appearing and immediately gained respect from southern people. The distinct sound of southern rock at this time was rock and roll mixed with country but a lot of bands had elements of folk and blues showing in either its instrument make up or lyrics. Seventies southern rock bands like The Marshall Tucker Band and The Charlie Daniels band were unique to the genre because of their ways of incorporating southern instruments such as fiddles and harmonicas into their rock sound. While bands like ZZ Top from Texas and Lynyrd Skynyrd from Florida were gaining popularity due to their ability to put a southern spin into their hard rock style of music. These bands were entertaining, aggressive and in all fun to listen to. Lynyrd Skynyrd’s tone and stage presence was described by John Swenson author of Tales of Southern Rock Survival as “interlacing ropes of electric guitar lines crackling through the mix, a sound that created mayhem despite its carefully calculated precision” (Swenson). Their songs a lot of the times told stories and showed a lot about the bands past proving true to southern tradition. This powerful band from Florida went on to create many legendary songs such as “Free Bird” and “Sweet Home Alabama” that are held in most people’s common knowledge even today.
The southern pastimes of gun fights, cowboys, and whisky were often popular subjects in their music stating bands were proud of their southern heritage. Their music reflected a southern way of life in its lyrics as well as in their appearance. Long beards, rebel flags, sunglasses, and cowboy hats all belonged to southern rocks public image at this time. This new found sound was simply rock n’ roll, southern style.
As the popularity for this emerging genre grew so did its criticism. Southern rock began receiving stereotypes such as “redneck” or “rebel” rock. Ideas such as racism began to cling to the image of southern rock. These rugged characteristics were thought to be the personality of the southern male, were they correct, well maybe. This made the fan base of the genre mostly consist of white men and women a lot of the times from southern states. Popular southern songs such as “The South’s Gonna Do It Again” produced by the Charlie Daniels Band in 1975 didn’t help the bands rebel image. In all reality southern rock groups through the years have stayed true to their initial image, and not really cared about negative criticism. Throughout the seventies southern rock continued to grow more and more popular. Barefoot Jerry, .38 Special, The Outlaws and Molly Hatchet all were popular southern rock bands of the seventies that continued to expand the growing genre. None of these bands were exactly made up musically or instrumentally alike but all carried the same southern rock attitude.
The beginning of the eighties affected music society greatly by applying music in television and music videos to people’s everyday life. This only helped to continue southern rocks ongoing popularity with the American public. Also the southern rock sound started venturing overseas and influencing bands in countries besides the United States. Legendary bands like A/C D/C from Australia and Def Leopard from Britain both began showing appreciation and approval for the southern rock sound. The rebel flag logo began being famous in rock star fashion. The lead singer of A/C D/C Bon Scott began wearing a belt buckle of the rebel flag during stage performances (White).
Now in the 90’s there was a shift in southern rocks role play in the music world. Bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd and ZZ Top’s popularity continued to show on the radio with classic songs such as “Free Bird”, “La Grange”, and “Sweet Home Alabama”. The identity of southern rock at this time shifted from playing shows/concerts not too far from home to acquiring the stereotype of arena rock. Basically popular southern bands started touring and enjoyed a large pay raise due to their efforts. Throughout the eighties southern rock’s popularity stood steady and continued to be more and more accepted by other musical artists during that time. Even emerging artists (not thought to be southern rock artists) such as Blind Melon and Stevie Ray Vaughn showed signs of the southern rock influence in their music. This growing trend really helped establish southern rock as a permanent music genre instead of just thought to be southerner’s rock and roll.
Now after the 90’s passed southern rock sort of flat lined in the idea that popularity didn’t diminish for the genre, but the real southern rock musicians stopped coming out with new music. But although artists stopped producing southern rock albums, offspring’s of the genre started to surface. Post Grunge Bands started to emerge during this period, these bands while having elements of 90’s grunge in their sound also incorporated southern sounds into their music. Bands such as Shinedown, 3 Doors Down, 12 Stones, and Default all enjoyed time in the musical spotlight. Kings of Leon an alternative band from Nashville music style was described as “taking the southern rock of the late 1960s and early 1970s -- already a hybrid -- and fusing it further”(Pareles). Shinedown a popular hard rock band from Jacksonville, Florida (the same place Lynyrd Skynyrd was from) showed the appreciation for their roots by covering Lynyrd Skynyrd’s classic song “simple man” in late 2004. This cover showed immediate popularity to the new age listeners of modern rock as well as classic southern rock fans.
Now days in 2009 southern rock still has its respect but unfortunately is losing its popularity. The most recent famous artist to try to produce modern day southern rock is the Hip Hop rocker from Detroit who calls himself Kid Rock. While his music is well known and in some places very popular I think anyone who is a fan of true southern rock will admit that good southern rock is long gone, now we are just seeing acts trying to continue the genre but failing. I think the idea that classic music is made classic by the time period it arrives in applies when talking about southern rock. I like being able to agree with my grandparents when I hear them say some music genre’s today just aren’t the same as they were in the past. In that assumption it almost feels as if music of today’s society has lost its soul and uniqueness.
About six months ago I was able to see Dickey Betts (guitarist from the Allman Brothers) at a concert in Louisville, Ky. My mind after leaving the show was wrapped around the idea that you just don’t see or hear music with that sense of purity in today’s world. Maybe I’m just a fan of the classics but it almost seems like music coming out today is losing its individuality and starting to blur together into just modern day music. Hit songs today can have meaningless cheesy lyrics and all sounds are processed through five different machines before reaching the fan’s ears. These are common day tendencies that really make me appreciate classic southern rock and really any type of classic music produced when musicians were deprived of the technological advances we have today.
So who knows what will happen to the genre of southern rock. The likeliness genuine bands will revive the true sound of southern rock, not likely. But that’s okay in my mind the idea of a genre dying out in a sense makes its inventors more special and irreplaceable. That’s why true southern rock music is dead and gone and I don’t think any band or artist could protest.
But not to fret, even though in my opinion the true identity of southern rock cannot be revived because of social standards and virtues consisting in today’s world, I still think the genre will live on. Martin Scorsese even agrees in his conversation with music enthusiast Levon Helm that Rock n Roll is equivalent to a melting pot (McKeen). This melting pot consists of everything that has happened musically since the first string was plucked or first drum was stroked. There are no limitations on what type of music, what genre, or who is playing the music, it all goes into this giant pot consisting of music through the years. This idea of music has always been growing and evolving from one genre to the next, whether we have noticed it or not it is simply unstoppable. In my opinion it always will be. As for southern rock I don’t think there will be any renaissance or “rebirth” of true southern rock anytime in the near future. But as a true southerner I’m content with saying that we have left our mark and that is good enough for me.




Sources Cited
McKeen, William. Rock and Roll Is Here To Stay. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000.
Pareles, John. “Good Old Southern Rock, With Some Modern Touches”. New York Times. January 31st, 2009. http://blc-lrc.bluegrass.kctcs.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=36306856&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Swenson, John. “Interview”. Billboard. December 5th 1998. http://blc-lrc.bluegrass.kctcs.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1342847&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Szatmary, David. Rockin In Time. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000.
White , David. "Southern Rock 101". About.com. March, 3rd 2005. http://classicrock.about.com/od/history/a/southern_rock.htm

Ideology

After reading Wikipedia's definition of Ideology I can some what agree with most of the information posted defining the word. In all honesty the definition still appeals to me as being alot of words with little significant meaning. Or in other words the definition can be altered into simpler terms. But we will get to that later.

Lets start off with the one main component of the definition I strongly disagree with. The very beginning of the text states ideology as being "a set of aims and ideas, especially in politics", this to me couldn't be more incorrect. Ideology is a term that should be used when referring to a world or life view much more broader than just politics. A person's ideology could heavily influence his/her position when it come to politics but not fully determine it. A present day example can be found with the ideology of our past election. I don't think that since U.S. citizen might be African American that doesn't mean his ideology would of directly make him vote for Barack Obama. His ideology he/she has acquired from being African American could influence him to vote for the democratic party but not make the person. Everyone evaluates life everyday, our ideology shapes how we evaluate life and make decision.

I think ideology connects to a theory used in communication terms. The idea of Standpoint Theory means "a person's position in society shapes his/her view on society". This theory proves true to me when talking about ideology. If you think about it our position in society is another way to describe the type of ideology we assume. For example if our role in society is a poor maybe homeless individual than our ideology will be that of a unfortunate person. The ideology or outlook on the world this type of person would probably not be too positive because of his/her social status.

Now my last bone to pick with Wikipedia's definition comes when it states "a way of looking at things with common sense and with philosophical tendencies". My argument is the idea than can't common sense and philosophical ideas be determined through society and culture? I would think that ideology is determined through common sense and philosophical tendencies, I don't agree that these things are derived from our personal ideologies.

Ideology- The outlook a individual assumes when analyzing information based on his/her culture, environment, and social status.

Above is my personal definition of ideology. Its shorter than Wikipedia's but still broad in content like any definition for the word ideology should be. Ideology to me is more of an idea than a concrete term. I don't think any persons ideology on life is exactly the same as any other persons ideology. Ideology is unique to the individuals personal character and upbringing. A persons identity reflects their ideas how they arrive at those ideas and in a world view their ideology.

Response To Welsch Lecture

When this assignment was given during class I really didn't look forward to it at all. I glanced at the text and media and my first thought was that it was going to be boring and far from interesting. I couldn't be more wrong. This guy gets it in my opinion. He understands how in to days society media plays the lead role in just about everything. Also his ideas on how students interact with information (in a classroom setting) has changed drastically in the past ten years and couldn't be more correct. He see's that the world we live in is always advancing and evolving and its our jobs to keep up and try and exploit its new convenient ways of sharing information.

After watching just about ten minutes of the lecture I saw how it related to our English class. He supported connecting with students by incorporating more advanced ways of communicating such as blogger, face book, wiki's?, etc into the classroom setting. That away students feel more like their school work is more connected to their everyday lives and then feel more subjected to stay connected and interested in the information. This is directly shown in our English class. We use Blogger to do just about everything. We share information, relay information, submit information, etc. The great thing about this is it can all be done from one media source; the internet. Also by having the class structured like this students feel the class is a little more personal at least more so than the only thing that differentiates you from the next person on essays and assignments is the name on the paper. Using this type of tool to have a class interact is brilliant from a professors point of view and it just makes the class more meaningful and enjoyable for the students. (At least I would say so)

Back to the beginning of his lecture I thought it was very interesting when he talked about when he analyzed his own classroom and the result he found. He found by simply asking students questions that alot didn't enjoy school, but yet wanted to learn, and he found that ways of relaying information in the class wasn't that effective. Students admitted that they didn't read 49 percent of the readings that were assigned also they only thought a third of the information they were supposed to retain had any real-life meaning. These kind of ideas make it seem that college classes are losing their relativity. Should that be the case?

College classes aren't losing there relativity, the way in which the criteria of the subject is being communicated is losing its effectiveness. I personally believe that alot of what people learn in school they don't find to be interesting to them. I also believe that people will learn easier and more efficiently when studying something they have personal interest in. Therefore what should be done to connect these two ideas. Its obvious to me that connecting the medium in which a class is communicated through to a students personal interest would directly trigger their attention. Therefore more attention would produce more involvement and more involvement would reflect better understanding of the criteria.

Overall I found this lecture could be very important to any kind of educators knowledge. This could dramatically help the effectiveness of their class especially if they are still caught up in the more old fashioned ways of class teaching. Basically the world is evolving and advancing in every which way and I think if its to our benefit, we should evolve with it. By acknowledging the guidelines in this lecture I think professor are doing just that......

Beatles Album Cover: Abbey Road

Writing 3















Above is the Beatles 1969 album cover to Abbey Road.





When the instructions were first given out for this assignment I knew exactly what image I wanted to analyze. Thinking about connecting concepts like symbolism and hidden meanings to images I knew a perfect candidate for my study, The Beatles! The Beatles late album cover of Abbey Road showed the 4 band members walking across a normal London street (as pictured above). This would look to most people as just a regular band shot album cover showing the band members in plain day fashion simply strutting across the street. The fact is besides indeed being one of the Beatles albums cover, this image also has its hidden meaning. If you know the controversial myth of the idea that Paul McCartney died in a car crash midway through the heart of the Beatles era, only to be replaced my a similar look-alike then this image reveals much more. Back to the image let’s examine each band member and his significance to this theory…….

- First in line John Lennon (Guitarist/Vocals) is shown wearing a polished white tuxedo outfit which is supposed to symbolize a priest or preacher taking part in Paul McCartney’s funeral.

- Next in line is Ringo Starr (Drums) is dressed in a black suit which is supposed to symbolize his role as the friend in mourning at McCartney's funeral.

- Then you have Paul McCartney (Bass/Vocals) who is dressed casually in a normal navy and white suit. The significant thing about Paul in the picture is he is the only one holding a cigarette that looks almost like a gun (symbolising that he is dead).

- Last in the picture you have George Harrison (Guitar) who is dressed in a blue jean jumpsuit which is meant to symbolize the grave digger at Paul McCartney’s funeral.

If you are familiar with the Beatles and the “Paul is Dead” myth than you can appreciate how easy this picture is to understand. The Beatles left many other "clues" through way of songs (some intentional and unintentional), pictures, and actions. Alot of these other "clues" left behind to support the popularity of the myth were much more harder to pick up on and understand. For example another clue was hearing the words "Paul is Dead" muttered on the fuzzy end of a song recorded on a scratchy record.


Back to the image, what is the most obvious detail to pick out of this image when examining Paul McCartney? Is there anything he is doing in the picture that makes him different from the others? Look at his feet and footing. He is the only member leading with his right foot. Why is this, I don't know but it does make him different from the other three. Also as if it's not obvious enough, he doesn't have any shoes on! I highly doubt this is a fashion statement even though it was the late 60's. Coincidence or is there truth behind these unusual characteristics?


I don’t ever think the world will determine this myth to be concretely fact or fiction. Personally I think its better off that way. The controversy of this myth totally help build the Beatles excitement, uniqueness, and on going popularity. But there are many different pieces of information that could leave a person to believe that this is a sham or a uncovered event in music history. I guess you can decide for yourself…..

If by chance you are interested in the Beatles and want to learn more about the "Paul Is Dead" myth, here are some links to other Beatles clues made visible on the internet.

"Paul Is Dead" The Rotten Apple 1

Is Paul McCartney Dead?

America the Beautiful, Right?

Writing 2

Its pictures like this one that show just how beautiful people around the world think America is.























"Proud to be an American" is a famous quote that most people living in the United States would probably have no problem acknowledging proudly. But there are others who half much different opinions. Alot of people don't know the outlook in which foreigners have on the great country we live in. Also many people don't know the true identity America puts out when assuming its social status as a country. This post will hopefully open a few eyes to the mighty, righteous country we all know and love.

Say the country of the United States existed as a human being. What kind of person would this person be? What characteristics would he/she have? Most people might use words like tall, strong, courageous, polished, supportive, etc. This truly is the view most Americans have on their nation as a country among other countries. The quarterback, the CEO, the sheriff these are some identity's America might take on. But what about characteristics such as power hungry, arrogant, uneducated, and snobbish. How would these ideas on Americans sit with our own people? Below is a video documentary exploring ideas on America's identity through opinions of both U.S. citizens and people from other countries. You will quickly learn that we all don't have the same positive image of the United States and it doesn't at least look like we are gaining any popularity.



I look at videos like the one above and see how common this trend of antagonizing the American citizen and his or her values is becoming. It seems the stereotype of "stupid American" is becoming more and more popular. Why is this? Are Americans really as dimwitted as they are portrayed to be? Maybe some foreign assumptions are right. I bet most American citizens could discuss their favorite reality television show well before they could name the name of the British Prime Minister. In that sense do Americans pay more attention to entertainment than they do politics and important current events happening around the world? The answer to most average blue-collar citizens is sadly yes! I feel some Americans feel no reason to stay up to date on what is happening around the world because hell, we live in America the greatest country in the world, why is that important to me? We have a sense of security as Americans that is for obvious reasons good to have, but might be affecting our ethics negatively.

Maybe the reason why some Americans are so out of touch with whats going on in the world is because we feel actions and events taking place around the world have no or minor affect on us as people. While I guess some could dignify that idea I really don't think that is correct. Millions of people from the Middle East paid huge amounts of attention to the U.S. 2008 Election because the individual who next assumes office could majorly affect their life in several different ways. The fact is, is that the role the U.S. plays in worldwide dilemmas crucially affects the outcome of the situation to many different countries. Our actions as a country most having to due with government affect different countries in different ways, to some this can be highly beneficial or highly discouraging. This role we play in this "worldwide theatre" is very important and demanding, but reviews aren't always so supportive of our cause.

After reading this post I hope I have maybe opened your eyes to the realities on the American image. I'm not saying after reading this you should have a negative outlook on your country. Just always remember that everyone has their successes and flaws.



So what is America? What do we stand for? Are we a land of sinners, or saints?
Well, who knows? Definitely not us.

Boondock Saints Movie Trailer

"Morality is a personal matter and society should not force everyone to follow one standard"

Writing 1

I'm writing this essay to analyze and try to correctly interpret the quote above. So indeed what exactly does this statement mean? Is the quote a punchline for people that might not always jump on the conformity bandwagon? Or should it be considered a universal guideline? I don't think evaluating the statement is based on agreeing or disagreeing. I believe the meaning behind text lies in how you interpret the idea as a individual.

From a personal standpoint I couldn't agree more with the statement. Society shouldn't force everyone to assume a certain moral standard. But lets all be totally honest; does society and the world we live in influence what people think to be a social standard? Of course It does. I think it always will and nothing can change this. Peoples moral standard and reasoning will always be influenced by the society they live in because it is nearly impossible to live without interacting and being apart of some human society. Simply the life we live and the things we are influenced by and grow up around will always influence our morality because it is oddly enough, all we know. To go along with that statement I don't think society is the absolute sole thing that influences us as human beings. What about what makes us, us?

I think the culture we grow up in and the environment we live in has a major impact on our personal views of morality. If this statement wasn't true than everyone everywhere would agree on just about everything. Since its obvious we don't live in a perfect world we know that's not the case. Those characteristics are what make us unique as different people. Anything from our ethnicity, religion, geographical location, government type, etc can all affect how we judge things as being moral or immoral. For instance the way most American females dress walking down a warm city street are far different from the way most middle eastern women choose to clothe themselves. In our country walking down the street in a pair of tight fitted jeans and a tank top would be regarded as being normal, while if a woman from the middle east wore the same clothes in her home country it wouldn't socially accepted the least bit. This is a simple example of how cultural complexity and differences directly shapes our social standard.

It also comes to my attention that many stereotypes are derived from peoples social differences. Take for instance the ongoing stereotype that Europeans are more sexually outgoing and comfortable. Is that a misconception or is it that sex in Europe is regarded more casually and commonly than it is other places around the world. Someone from a country where sex is kept more quiet and "in the box" would probably agree. While people that live in Europe with this point of view would simply claim this trait to being a way of life. This is one of my favorite stereotypical assumptions. How many times have you heard the claim that someone that does not like chinese food simply doesn't like it because they do not trust that they know what they are eating? Maybe they might think that they are eating dog, cat, or maybe horse. Well this stereotype is simply because it is true that in some places in China its socially accepted that some animals like dog or cat are perfectly fine to be served with fried rice and a egg roll. Obviously we have different views here in the United States while across the sea that culinary concept is a relatively normal way of life.

So after expressing my ideas the conclusion about the idea that society should not force everyone to follow one standard is, no society should not force people to follow a certain moral standard but sure enough it does. If you think about it people are basically brutally forced by the society they live in to follow a certain moral standard. Because what if people choose to object and not conform to societal standards of being normal? What kind of person are they? Are they weird, unmoral, incorrect? Or are they just following a different moral standard than everyone else?

First Day Blog

First Day Blogging