Music is a really interesting way for everything from emotions to announcements to be conveyed. I have always enjoyed music in a two fold way in that it can simply be something playing in the background that is nice to listen to, or it can hold immense power if you really give it the chance. Beyonce’s “Formation”, and the entirety of Lemonade, fall into the category of power. Through her music, Beyonce is able to address issues of social justice and race relations while further the creation of her brand as an artist. I think that because Beyonce was already immensely famous by the time she released this album, she had wiggle room for there to be backlash. It is likely much easier for her as an established Artist to use her craft as a way to get across a message than it would be for someone who is first trying to break into the scene of music. Nevertheless, artists always take risks when they put more than a fun beat into their music. Using such a publicized thing to get across standpoints on different issues can mean putting yourself out there for criticism and dislike from the public. However, I think as the reading mentioned, Beyonce has created her own brand and ascetic. This was first done through her music, but then everything from endorsements, to products, to performances, to social media have been used to shape her image. The facework that Beyonce does to maintain her brand is really interesting as it al conveys a deeper message. This reminded me of the idea of close reading and how in a way, we can either closely listen to or simply skim a song. Lyrics are like the message from an author and can have a lot to say about the artist and the culture of the time.

The idea of story telling is very interesting as we as people essentially use fiction to teach ourselves lesson’s that we are not observant enough to learn during our usual life. Humans for some reason need to listen to, read, or observe an interaction to take the morals from them and struggle to see it in their own life. The idea of symbols in storytelling have a very interesting connection to communication. Every single one of the words we use is a symbol for something else. These are all symbols that we have assigned meaning to and use to string together stories, plays, and in a way lessons that we are to learn from. This podcast really reminded me of a communications class I’ve taken where we discuss how symbols come to have their meaning. It is through our own perception that words and other symbols get their meaning. And eventually, stories and satire give words even more meaning than they have on their own in the language they are established in. I found it interesting how Shakespeare “forces” us to slow down with certain things like alliteration. The way that lessons can be shoved into our faces repeatedly and the way that we are made to take notice of them is very interesting. Yet somehow, we still seem to miss the point or the moral of the story. I think as readers or viewers we do not always take notice of what is being placed in front of us for us to observe or absorb. The lessons that can apply both inside and outside of context can be taken and applied to many different places in our lives. I think it depends on our own perception of these lessons if we actually make use of the lessons and apply them in other parts of our lives.

The ideas surrounding popular culture that were discussed in the podcast as well as both readings have really interesting connections to leadership. The story of Robinhood demonstrates how impactful popular culture is. Robinhood was a single story with a popular trope of “steal from the rich to help the poor”. Yet this one story was able to contribute to the creation of the House of Commons in England and further the elected representation government that we have in the United States. That trope and story has continued to be present in our current popular culture through movies and TV shows and continues to represent different ideas all surrounding the same trope. This makes me question what stories and tropes of today’s popular culture will be carried through to the future. How will our generation decide what of the current popular culture will be important to carry through as we grow up and become adults in society. The Harvey article tells us that as groups and as leaders we have to ask seven questions in order to get to where we as a generation are going. The first question “who are we” is where I see our generation in now. We are still trying to figure out who we as a generation are. As we spoke of in class, our generation is likely more elastic than older generations. However, creating an identity as more than elastic is challenging when we are able to change so quickly. I also think that our generation and our society is constantly asking “why should I care?”. Especially living in a current time where a global pandemic and social justice movement are extremely present, questioning why one should care is ever-present. What we care about defines what tropes and movements will be carried forward into the future. If no one cared about Robinhood’s story or the trope that went with it then our society could look vastly different. Regardless, figuring out wha from popular culture is more than just a mindless pastime is immensely important, but very nuanced as it is challenging to recognize that at the time.

First off, I think it is really interesting and cool that one of our own professors wrote this article. Being able to learn from someone who is so involved and knowledgeable about the history of the city we have all chosen to come to is a priceless opportunity. I think Dr. Hayter’s article about the history of the city council and voting in Richmond provides details that would be hard to put together otherwise. Dr. Hayter pulls everything from Supreme Court cases to local election results to population densities to exemplify and explain his argument. I found his exploration of Holt’s influence on voting in Richmond and political equality to be very demonstrative of just how much has been done to try and change the political landscape of Richmond City and how there is still so much to be done. Particularly, I found the section on Holt’s lawsuit against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fifteenth Amendment to be spot on of what Hayter was trying to explain. Reading that Holt was saying how the annexation of Chesterfield County diluted the voting strength of Blacks in Richmond City was what made me understand what the annexation of Chesterfield County truly meant. Connecting this to the podcast, I really enjoyed the way that history was portrayed in this article. Though I am very aware that recorded history is very Eurocentric, I find that it is still difficult to challenge what has been so consistently taught even though it is likely very narrow-minded and white washed. I found this article to be a very factual report of the history of voting and political equality in the city of Richmond. I appreciated the explanations of all of the lawsuits and feel that this helps me to better understand what has actually happened. I would be really interested to look more now at what the political landscape of Richmond city is district by district and how it has changed over time.

The advertisements that I watched were the from the Republican Party during the 2004 presidential election. This election was Bush running for his second term versus John Kerry. Most of these advertisements were attack ads on Kerry. The ads the were not attack ads focused on American freedom and the war on terrorism in Iraq. This makes sense given that much of Bush’s first term was dealing with the tragic event of 9/11 and then focusing on terrorism in the Middle East after being attacked at home.  The attack ads targeted mostly his contradicting and often changing opinions by pulling different legislation that he had both supported and opposed at different times. They also targeted Kerry’s credibility particularly through his time in the military by interviewing many people who had served with him in the military. This effectively created a feeling of distrust and lack of understanding of Kerry because who is someone if those around them don’t trust them and they change their mind often. I do not know much about this election so cannot make judgements about Kerry or Bush, but given that Bush was reelected, these ads clearly were effective in creating a dislike and distrust of John Kerry.

My favorite ad was titled “windsurfing” and was an attack ad on Kerry. The ad used a series of photos of John Kerry that showed him windsurfing. The message of the ad was that John Kerry’s opinion will go where ever the wind blows and the use of the windsurfing pictures was a funny way to attack Kerry’s inconsistency in policy decisions and stance on a variety of matters. I liked this ad the most just because it was funny. The little dance that the picture does at the end when they keep flipping the picture was funny and a refreshing break from the serious ads that focused on Iraq and the events around 9/11. I also think this ad was used to make Kerry’s image look unpresidential. Our generation knows the funny pictures of Obama on vacation due to the increase in paparazzi and media during his terms. But before the 2004 election, pictures did not float around as quickly as they do now and circulating this picture of Kerry in beachwear while windsurfing established him as the opposite of Bush who was always shown in suits with ties and looking very professional.

After listening to Dr. Bezio’s podcast and the reading by Dorner for this week. I felt that I had a fairly good understanding of systems theory. Working together with more people rather than unilateral leadership with a single forge ahead mindset is the path that we as a society need to head down if we want to make changes for a better future. I found the example from the podcast that surrounded standardized testing in schools to be very interesting. Standardized testing is something that our generation has always known. I took my first round of state standardized tests in first grade. And while I agree that there was likely and still is a strong need to fix the educational system, standardized testing may not have been the best path. Though it was developed by “educational experts” and systems theorist who likely had good reasoning for their actions, the longterm commitment to it despite the perpetuation of educational inequalities is likely a sign that the systemic issues of education should be reevaluated. It is easier to ask less question and simply assume that the devised plan is going to work forever as the best option. However, I think we as a society need to ask more challenging questions. I think this applies to our university right now as I see the Board of Trustees as having the forge ahead mindset as the university has functioned with these building names before so there is no need to change them now. Yes that is likely oversimplifying the discussion, but I do not believe the Board of Trustees is asking enough challenging questions.

I played the Millennial Village simulator for a little over an hour. I would say that while I improved my score in general, I struggled to devise a long term way for both my individuals and the village to be successful. I took many approaches with dedication of labor hours, loan amounts, tax rates, and resources limits. The one idea that I did stick with was that taking out a loan and working to turn that into profit through small business and farming was the most effective way to help yourself and the village. A limit on fish and wood was also necessary because without it shortages began to arise. Yet by the end of the game I felt that whenever I thought that I had figured out a way to sustain my people long term, disease or drought would strike which became quite frustrating. Overall, I think  much can be learned from this game regarding systems theory in action and how complex it is.

First off, I think it is rude of the board to make President Crutcher deliver the message that they made the decision on. The lack of responsibility taken by the board for inaction that is harmful to many student on this campus is childish. If the board is going to be the one making the decision, they at least need to be the one delivering the message as well. I also think the email really provided no way forward. It mentioned honoring our history and such but really did not acknowledge or specify how that would be done in a way that condemns slave ownership. Honestly I think our class has put more thought into the question of whether or not to remove or alter the building names than the board has.

I think that the naming of the buildings on our campus is a very difficult decision to make, one that is likely more complex than first meets the eye. I wish that in the first place, we didn’t have slave owners name’s on buildings; however, the reality of the situation is that these people did have a large impact on our school’s founding and development over the years. These contributions are what likely got their names on the buildings in the first place. I wish I could say that our Univeristy, and frankly our country, weren’t founded by a group of white, mostly slave owning men. Yet this again is the truth about the country we live in. Clearly, the honoring of these people with buildings is harmful to a group of students on our campus who already may or may not struggle to feel valued at a PWI. We cannot simply erase these names, as they are unfortunately part of our history and need to be acknowledged so that responsibility can be taken for their wrongdoings. Does this mean they deserve to have buildings named after them? Perhaps not. But there certainly needs to be acknowledgement of the history of our institution in an effort to move forward in a positive way and change the culture of our campus. I understand that changing the names of buildings can be controversial in terms of losing alumni and donor support. But frankly if someone in university administration had looked at the names previously and thought hey, maybe we shouldn’t name dorms after slaveowners, then the name could have been quietly changed and a plaque outside of the building or in the university museum could acknowledge that yes his person is integral to where our university is now, but we don’t agree with their decision to own slaves. I in no way think my proposed solution is perfect and certainly am glad that I do not have to be the one making this decision. But ultimately I think the student’s and faculty opinion’s have to be considered as we are the present state of the Univeristy and the future of donations.