I came into the University of Richmond knowing my exact career path and that I would major in Global Studies with a minor in Healthcare, hoping to one day work for a public health non-profit in some far-off corner of the world. Plans changed, a lot, and now I’m doubling in Psychology and Leadership with a minor in Art History, and honestly could go a million directions in my life. That is why I chose to add the Leadership major, because (although nobody seems to understand its purpose) it creates an intellectual base that allows you to pursue virtually any career path. The classes that I have taken at Jepson have taught me the foundational aspects of life, teaching me to question authority while also enhancing my abilities to express my own opinions as well as others. These skills do not fit into the application of one specific job like a pre-med track does, but they can be applied to any career path that I choose. By adding the hard skills of psychology and whatever else I choose to study as a graduate student, I can find success in HR, psychological research, education, or really any other field so long as I put the effort in. Yes, all of the above has come out of trying to explain my major choices to pessimistic and dubious audiences, (especially my grandma, who has heard this spiel twice and still doesn’t understand) but I truly believe it and cannot wait to see where it takes me in life.

Additionally, I really resonated with the tea-cup analogy used by Dr. Bezio and the similar messages about the potential impacts of unity in the first “Impossible” essay that was assigned for class today. I feel like a great example of this in action is sustainability, which seems unhelpful on an individual scale but as more people do it, it becomes incredibly impactful. In high school, one of my assignments was to create as little waste as possible for a week, hoping to cut down on the amount of garbage we had to take to the dump at the end. By myself, almost nothing changed, but as my sisters and parents joined in, we were able to significantly reduce the amount of garbage we produced as a household. I think a lot of issues would have similar results in this experiment, especially if they were done on a larger scale.

The podcast for today’s post really interested me because I have always loved music, but never knew how far back its history actually went. As Dr. Bezio explained, music has influenced every human generation, and as such, it is perhaps the deeply engrained form of communication we have. The rhyming and melodic nature of music makes it incredibly easy to recall and regurgitate, which historically allowed traditions and histories to be passed down in a memorable way and withstand the challenge of time. In more modern contexts, music can be used to empower people and spread unifying messages across groups in an entertaining way, communicating messages more effectively than speeches or articles. By weaving messages of political change into pop culture and specifically widely heard songs, artists allow for overt and subconscious changes in political opinion or at least a starting point for discussions.

An extremely successful example of this is Beyonce’s “Formation,” which topped charts worldwide and spread the message of black female empowerment through the audio itself as well as its accompanying music video. The general theme behind the video is a vision of black power after centuries of oppression and slavery, forming a narrative of hope and resilience for black Americans. This was largely achieved by role reversals, such as black women in plantation clothing, and symbols of political change. For me, the sinking police car was the most noticeable of these symbols because as the video progressed, it sunk further and further into the water. I personally interpreted this as a representation of how protests will eventually enact change and limit the powers of the police, eventually rendering them useless like the sunken car. I remember watching the entire visual album for the first time and being deeply moved by the music and the cinematography behind it. But after six years of not seeing the video, I forgot about the message that it carried. I listen to the song often, but because of the music itself rather than the political message. Perhaps it’s because I was not the targeted audience, but I often forget the deeper political message because the lyrics alone are not as overtly political as songs like “This is America,” by Childish Gambino. I don’t believe that this is an issue because first and foremost music is designed to be enjoyed, but from now on I want to make a conscious effort to understand the deeper meanings behind the songs that I listen to.

As Dr. Bezio mentioned in the podcast, I believe that close reading is one of the fundamental skills that one needs in this world. Entertainment and the messages that come with it are universal, influencing nearly every part of our day whether we are aware of it or not. The ability to analyze the meanings, whether they are overt or hidden, behind the media we consume allows you to form your own opinions about the messages being communicated rather than subconsciously assuming the opinion the author or director wants you to. Put more simply, close reading allows you to see through the BS of something and into the truth behind it, which you can then form your opinion around. I believe that the six steps that Dr. Bezio outlined in the podcast should be taught to all students, maybe in an introductory english class or something similar, to show them the proper way to analyze what they read and watch in their everyday lives. That way, less people would be unknowingly manipulated by the content that they choose to consume.

As for The Yellow Wallpaper, I had previously read it in a high school English class during a unit about short stories. Reading it for the second time, after listening to the podcast and the context it gave, created a very different narrative than the one I had previously read. Knowing none of the context behind the work, I assumed it was simply a horror story about a woman who had been trapped in the attic by her husband, I saw only the fiction and not the truth behind it. However, after reading it again with the context, I see that it is a complex interpretation of how women were historically  treated, especially mentally ill women. It is not only an interesting and engaging story, but also a nuanced feminist commentary. Without the close reading skills and context provided by the podcast, I would have missed this more important meeting hidden behind the story.

I thought that Dr. Bezio’s point that people are more likely to be changed by entertainment than hard facts was incredibly interesting, especially with the amount of social unrest and change that we have seen over the past year. Personally, I know that when I am presented with a fact that supports the opposite viewpoint to mine, I immediately try to discredit it. I search for fallacies in its wording, unreliable sources, or anything else to prove that my belief is correct and the other is wrong. I believe that this is human nature, we want to support our in-groups and teardown our out-groups when we recognize them. There is something in a story (whether that be a movie, book, or music video) that is harder to argue with, forcing us to turn off our automatic discretion and allowing us to see the world from another point of view. Using sympathy and narrative tools, directors help to build the more personal aspects of a movement for change. Humans are built around individual and societal connections, and I think that entertainment fosters these connections because it makes us feel like we know the characters personally.

This is why diversity and inclusion in the media are so important, by showing different types of people in a positive light you can lessen the divide between races and other divisive characteristics. I often hear people talking about representation for people within their own race, such as a little black girl getting to see some of herself in the black Disney Princess Tiana, but an equally important fact is that increasing representation can lessen racism simply through exposure. Although someone in rural Maine might not know a black person in real life, they could watch Black Panther or Hidden Figures and form positive associations with the black characters that translate to a less racist view overall. I believe that most racism and hate are derived from fear of the unknown and negative depictions of others, so consistent exposure should (hopefully) help to minimize racism over time.

I used to think of history as a series of facts and dates with some areas of argument, mostly due to my high school education convincing me that history textbooks and teachers were infallible. Since coming to college and studying work like Dr. Hayter’s, I have learned to critically analyze every piece of writing and find the argument that the author is trying to convince you of. For example, I had always learned that MLK was the main cause of desegregation with little to no help from others. I had never learned about the background work behind the movement and the extreme amount of planning and thought that it took to accomplish, which seems incredibly ignorant in retrospect. To know that so many people, especially black women, were historically ignored simply because they did not appeal to white people is extremely frustrating but easy to believe. MLK was an incredibly well-spoken, highly-regarded pastor and man, which automatically gained more of a white following than any black woman could. In this sense, he was the strategic choice for the face of the movement, but the work of other people in the movement should not be ignored as it currently is. Taken into today’s events, I wonder how the BLM movement will be remembered and historically told. Will people in 50 years know that 3 black women began the movement to protest another murderer walking free, or will they see it as a series of riots across the US? I guess that will depend on who is writing the history, but it is interesting to consider.

On a very different note, I liked that Dr. Bezio mentioned that the people of the past are not so different from the people living today. I always picture historical figures living in black and white or gray-scale worlds, like they are depicted in movies through color-grading, but this is obviously not true. There are key differences in core beliefs and daily practices, but the body and mind of an ancient Egyptian are nearly identical to my own. Maybe I’m alone in this, but I find it incredibly strange to think about it this way, and I’m not entirely sure why. I want to distance myself from historical figures because their lives seem so much different from mine, but in reality, we are mostly the same.

My assigned year was 2000, where the margin of victory was incredibly small for Bush and many believe that Gore should have won instead. After watching their respective ads, I can’t help but wonder what America would look like today if Gore had won. While Bush focuses on military defense and fear, Gore’s ads are mostly related to access to healthcare, education, and environmental protections. Although he might have exaggerated his claims and not actuated everything he mentions in the ads, I think that our environmental and educational systems would be far better than they currently are. Additionally, his tax plans seem to benefit the middle class with little harm done to the wealthy (this is not my expertise so excuse me if that is terribly incorrect). I believe that with him as president in 2000, we could possibly have better environmental protections and a less significant wealth gap today in 2021. Maybe I only see Gore as the better candidate because of this sense of possibility (and Bush as the worse candidate because I don’t agree with what happened during his presidency), but still, it’s an interesting reality to consider.

My favorite ad of his was “Question” because it states the facts to refute Bush’s false promises that were made in his campaign. Bush apparently promised one trillion dollars of surplus to both students and seniors, when only one could have the money. I liked this ad because I think that it’s a sneaky way to manipulate the audience without them noticing. By presenting the information as neutral facts with an open-ended question, the viewer is far more likely to agree with the narrator and vote against Bush.

I found the Millenium Village Simulator incredibly frustrating because it was impossible to win. I have played similar games in the past with other classes, so I assumed I would at least be able to do better than I had before but that was not the case. No matter what I did (or did not) do to keep them alive, Kodjo or Fatou died within the first few rounds of the game. Whether that was through starvation or illness, there was no way to save them with the resources I had available. Even when I spent the money to get them to a doctor, they still died because of the lost work time. With too much idle time, they died from malnutrition or insufficient water, and with too little they got sick. Growing cotton, although beneficial in other games and in theory, always produced a loss and lead to malnutrition. Even when it seemed like everything was going well and I might survive one round, drought or malaria brought sure death for Kodjo and Fatou.

After listening to Dr. Bezio’s podcast, I realized that games such as MVS are designed to be unwinnable so that they replicate the systemic failures in Africa. The actual people who these games are based on experience these same conditions, only in reality and not online. The need to dedicate so much time to water and food collection means that there is little time left for anything else, causing constant economic instability that can lead to worse health outcomes. Without aid or solutions to these systemic issues, they will continue to live on the line in between life and death.

Every couple of years, this Thai Life Insurance Company puts out an advertisement about small acts of kindness and how much of an impact they can have on your life as well as others. These videos go viral because they are incredibly emotional, this one is one of the less sad and more uplifting of the ones I’ve seen from them.

What I think is so interesting about this ad is that it does not feel like one, it feels like an inspiring self-help story with an ad slate thrown in at the end. This was obviously done on purpose so that the viewer’s lizard brain automatically connects the company with this inspiring and kind ethos. Rather than try to push life insurance, a very unsexy product to market, this company tries to connect its values to the values of the customer: community, kindness, and helpfulness. This resonates with all viewers, not just Thai ones, and bolsters the company’s standing throughout the world. As Dr. Bezio mentions in the podcast, we know cerebrally that this actor most likely does not use this company for his own insurance, (and even if he does, that does not make him lovely and kind automatically) but our lizard brains associate the company with these attributes and think that we will gain them too if we use their products. Overall, I think that this kind of manipulation is acceptable because even if it’s promoting the company, it’s doing so in an incredibly positive way that spreads a valuable message about being more self-less in everyday life.

I think this graph is interesting because without any context, it makes sense and the viewer will initially accept the idea that college is not worth the immense cost because it will not produce sufficient earnings. However, there are a few key facts and statistics that this graph leaves out that disprove this idea. First, it fails to show that having a college degree will  produce far greater earnings than a high school degree. This gap in incomes between education levels has actually greatly increased since 1964, making a college degree more valuable today than in the past. Additionally, the earnings represented by the red line are for initial positions and starting salaries, which are typically far lower than one’s salary would be at the retirement age of 60 or 70 years old. When these salaries are taken into account, college degrees return far greater sums than their initial cost and end up being far more valuable in the long term. Rather than a short-term gain, a college education is long-term investment that will yield good results with time, not right away. Studies have shown that “the $102,000 investment in a four-year college yields a rate of return of 15.2 percent per year,” which accumulates to a far greater amount of money than its initial cost.

The key reason that this graph is so misleading is because it fails to account for the other options, which show that it is not the college education system that is failing us but inflation and lack of salary increases to match it. The cost of living has skyrocketed across the globe over the past few decades, but wages have remained relatively stagnant across the board. A college education has increased in value simply because of this inflation, and the economy has not yet matched it. This is the real reason that so many college students are drowning in student loan payments that they cannot avoid or afford to pay.

Thompson, Derek. Hey, Everyone, Don’t Fall for This Misleading Graph about College Costs. 8 June 2012, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/hey-everyone-dont-fall-for-this-misleading-graph-about-college-costs/258299/.

I fully understand that the University of Richmond is a financial institution that is only able to survive because of the donations (both current and historical) from wealthy individuals such as Charles Ryland and Douglas Freeman. I also understand that publically attacking these individuals would lead to many conservative donors pulling their funding from the University, which could lead to its downfall because (statistically speaking) most of the donors are probably conservative.  Does that make their non-action morally right or acceptable? No, I don’t think so. But I do think that looking at it as a financial matter, rather than an emotional one, can help someone see why UR acted the way it did. Whoever decided on this course of action most likely plugged all the pros and cons and found that this weak, half-way solution produced limited long-term consequences because the people who would be most upset (students, various professors) don’t actually make that much of a financial impact on the university’s bottom line. Many of us are upset by their decision, but I don’t think that any of us are going to switch schools because of it. Donors don’t have that same obligation to keep giving UR money and their opinion literally decides the future of the university, so the administration will always side with them.

As a student, this is immensely frustrating because (as Dr. Bezio mentioned) UR pretends to only care about students and our well-being, and refuses to acknowledge that their real loyalties lie with the donors. I think that this was a terrible way for the university to handle the situation because it fails to recognize and acknowledge its own shortcomings. I believe that if they had said something along the lines of “We know this isn’t enough, but it is the most we can do at the moment and we’ll do more later,” that would have been much more acceptable to the student body. I guess that could still anger donors who would pull funding, so it’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do you think that there was a way that UR could have mad everyone happy?