Author: Celia Satter

Recently, my dad came to visit, and us being from Chicago, we wanted to learn more about Richmond and its history. We went to this museum and went to all of the exhibits. I learned a lot of cool stuff and I think that a class just about Richmond history would be really cool to have here at UR.

One thing I found particularly interesting was the split of the Virginias. I knew that there were two, but I didn’t know that it happened that recently, in the beginning of the Civil War; when the northern part didn’t want to secede, they split and formed West Virginia, while the other part wanted to secede, so they stayed and made it the capital of the Confederacy. Another interesting, yet disappointing, fact I learned was that Virginia rejected the women’s right to vote in 1919, which angered a lot of progressives during the time (they didn’t know that 1920 legislature for women to vote was going to occur, so they were angered and saddened at this).

Another exhibit I particularly enjoyed was the one room full of paintings from the Civil War, slave trade, and historically racially segregated times. The paintings were just elegant and the people they were portrayed were all types of people. They had people who were enslaved and working in the fields, slaves coming off the boats from their homelands, white people on horseback with guns, and so many others. One that got me was a painting, maybe the smallest in the room and in the far corner, was of an African-American man standing solo right in front of a boat. He obviously looked distraught and lost, but his eyes also faintly showed hope – in my opinion, maybe that he would find his family or friends that he had lost in the chaos of being captured and being brought here.

I recommend this museum to everyone because it’s so informative and also just really cool in its exhibits and how its really pushing for equality and for everyone to be aware of history and how brutal/mean it was to certain groups of people.

One thing I found super interesting was a concept found in the conclusion, where Archer asserts that when elites question the credibility of the media, it allows for citizens to dismiss anything they disagree with as fake news and exacerbates divisions of society. I think this is very relevant because as we’ve laughed before in this class, people tend to follow others in positions of power or higher rank, for example groupthink. I think that if a person in power, like the President, says that “the press is the enemy” and calls out fake news or discredits the news then people will also do this in order to be in the in-group and have a sense of belonging. This is very detrimental in my opinion because once a society or group of people begin to vilify or not believe the news, the already visible divisions in society will be emphasized and enlarged, which isn’t good.

However, I do think that news should not not be criticized because sometimes they get it wrong or they step too far in their research. An example of this would be the Chicago newscaster who lied about being in a helicopter who was hit by enemy fire (everyone onboard died) but instead was in the other helicopter that safely landed. This aspect of news, the lying to create a story, should be criticized and removed but the informative nature of the news that usually occurs should be trusted and continued in society.

The play was about a slave named Simon who was hired out to a horse owner. Simon then becomes a well-known, almost famous, jockey and wins a ton of races, all the while having his heart set on freedom and buying himself and his future wife, Caroline, from their owners, the Colonel and his wife. Once he bought Caroline’s freedom, he bought his own horse, and races both the Colonel’s horse and his own until he sustains an injury during one. Eventually the Civil War happens and Simon becomes a free man, but is no longer a jockey because of the injury, working in a hotel with very racialized rules as a bellhop. Colonel finds him again and they become friends and go back to the Colonel’s farm together to live.

This play was very controversial but representative of the times it was showing. It used the n-word, with a hard r, a lot and the maltreatment of African-Americans was very obvious in the language and tone utilized. It made me uncomfortable a lot because of these aspects of the play but I think it was also very eye-opening because the audience sees how degrading slave life was and how even though the Colonel and his wife treated Simon and Caroline well, both of the slaves still kind of despised them for owning them. I liked how it focused on a well-to-do, talented African-American because even though Simon was praised continuously throughout the play, you can still see how slavery and its entrapment of his entire life brought him and made him do things that seem unimaginable, like hitting his wife after buying her freedom because “she was his property”. It made the audience think that even though he suffered his whole life as property, the second he has his own, he abused it and demonstrated everything he hated about slavery.

I think this protest movement gained so much traction and become such a big part of the nation was that a lot of people could relate to the inequalities of this draft. College, marriage, and money could allow people to decline going, and also Vietnam’s war was not so much our place to step in. Not only did it not involve us, but the Vietnamese people did not want us there. The years of fighting only resulted in very insignificant changes to the latitude lines between North and South, but over 25,000 American men died and couldn’t come home after fighting “a war that wasn’t ours.” I do think, however, the booklet created to avoid the draft, such as faking madness or homosexuality, is very unpatriotic and naive of the men to make. I agree that people should be able to decline the draft on some terms but the booklet took it too far in my opinion.

The extremism of the anti-war protest and how it seemed that world was getting taken over by these radical protestors didn’t help their cause. In my opinion, anyone who is trying to achieve a goal or in a leadership position, a cool and calm approach will more likely get them what they want than violence or extreme acts of protest. This goes back to effective leadership styles and I don’t think that the college students who began this protest necessarily obtained this qualities, maybe giving the reason for why the removal of last soldiers didn’t occur until 1973, eight years after the first soldiers were sent over.

While reading the beginning of “The Lottery”, I was not at all expecting the last part where they stoned her. I kind of got some foreshadowing of something bad happening to whoever drew the “correct” paper when Tessie originally began to complain about Bill not receiving enough time to pick a slip of paper and when the girl whispered that she hoped it wouldn’t be Nancy. Therefore, I disagree with whoever wrote the response/summary article B because they claim that the only surprise was the stones and not the act of execution, while I think the entire execution of Tessie and the dark manner of it was surprising. Another surprising aspect was how willing and able the villagers were to stoning her; almost immediately after the crowd knew she was the one to be stoned, her friends and their children were hitting her with the stones without hesitation. It shows how deeply-rooted tradition can become to the point where immoral acts like murder become mindless action, without thought to how it will affect those around them.

Similar to the first story, “The ones who walk away from Omelas” tells the story of the brutal abandonment and horrible life of one child in order to maintain the happiness of the rest of the city. I’ve read this before, and it still makes me angry but it demonstrates, like “The Lottery”, how once a tradition or ideology is imbedded into society, the chances of it becoming unrooted or people going against are so slim. It shows how that this ritual or concept will lead to mindless action, like ignoring the child’s existence and not speaking to the child at all, which then furthers the ideology and continues to harm people.

Kind of maybe a stretch but I think these stories are creating an analogy to slavery, in the way that white people became so mindlessly blind and ignorant to the suffering and pain that the slaves endured and continued to create all of these laws and rules to maintain their happiness and “balance”, when in reality, if they spoke to the slaves or were empathetic to them (like how those who left understood the horror of what Omelas was doing to that child), they could’ve seen the damage they were doing and created an equal society from the beginning.

Apparently, the black revolt of the 1950s-1960s was a surprise, which to me sounds like a bunch of bologna. Due to the nation’s history of discrimination, segregation, and racism, it seems like the Civil Rights Movement should’ve been a given, that it would happen and everyone would know it was happening. Granted, I wasn’t alive when it happened, I wasn’t alive to see both sides, and it isn’t common culture now to discriminate and assume superiority based on race, but to me, it shouldn’t have been a surprise.

Zinn details all of the various forms of art, poems, and songs that conferred ideas of freedom and equality that many black artists wrote and did to convey their discontent and feelings towards their ancestry and history. All of these pieces of art show how their past and their ancestors’ pasts aren’t just memories, they are still parts of their lives and will/should remain parts of everyone’s lives until equality isn’t fought for anymore – it’s a given part of life.

One thing I found particularly interesting in “Slavery Without Submission” was the idea that poor whites only sometimes helped blacks, while blacks risked it all to help the suffering whites around them. I think if someone truly understands the concept of being on the outside or disregarded as a human, they would do whatever works to help another so that that one person doesn’t experience the same things they do. In this sense, I’m low-key shocked that the poor whites, who were also under attack (but for land) by the wealthy whites, did not do more to help the blacks that were truly suffering everyday, the same people who risked beatings and sometimes their lives to help them. The slaves’ values of kinship and community showed through their willingness to help those that sometimes didn’t help them, seen through the one example that Zinn gives the readers, of the slave that was beaten because he gave a sick, poor white neighbor food because the neighbor was sick.

I think the central idea of this chapter, that the mobilization of lower class energy by upper class politicians in order to achieve upper class goals, is clearly demonstrated in our nation’s history, obviously seen through the thorough examination of the American Revolution. I also think it is still seen today, with how many politicians are voted in based on the false promises they make during the electoral processes, and I believe that this needs to change. But it will be a difficult change to implement due to countless times this ideology has been used over the years; therefore, Patrick Henry’s ideology of unity through a common language is very important in today’s day and age. In the Revolution’s case, the people wanted their right to essentially voice their opinions and have an effective, common government, along with the concept of erasing the distinction of the rich and poor, leveling the general masses. Similarly, the language to unite the people today would be a language of equality and removing the gaps between men and women and between the rich and poor. Utilizing a common language will allow for honest politicians to implement effective and accepted laws and norms to create a united nation.

Another thing I found interesting was the idea of the worst lawlessness being the riots and those who disturbed the peace by, for example, breaking and entering. While this makes sense because it isn’t a useful or guaranteed way to effect change or get one’s point across, but I feel like it does make a statement and gets the idea across of how badly a group wants change to occur, so in this way, I feel like it would be an pretty good way to demonstrate lawlessness.

In Miller’s article, I was able to see the two types of inequality, once they were clearly drawn out, in examples in my life. I see temporary inequality in how a parent deals with an unruly child and in how a teacher prides himself in their degree and how he deals with his students. However, I don’t really ever see temporary inequality really ever playing out to attain the supposed goal of ending the relationship of inequality. I feel like the dominant group in this type doesn’t want to give up their power or keep the lesser group down. I can see the second type, permanent inequality, more in history and the nation’s history of racism. The way that birth and skin color didn’t allow for blacks to gain citizenship, how blacks weren’t allowed to partake in free labor, and how white people were destructive of their political, social, and cultural freedom clearly demonstrates the ideas of permanent inequality.

While reading about permanent inequality, I noticed that it uses the idea of sociologist Howard Becker’s labeling theory, which states that if someone is labeled as one thing, they will begin to act according to that label. Permanent inequality contains the idea of the dominant group assigning roles and labels to the subordinates, to keep them down and maintain power. I feel like that concept of labeling and then the labeled beginning to act according to their new label has a more powerful effect than the dominant group straight up destroying the subordinates. Once inside the subordinate’s head, they have complete control; the lesser group won’t have full and honest control over their actions because they will believe they have to act in a certain, inferior way.

While reading the article “Groupthink”, I kept thinking about how before I read this, I had always assumed the influence and impact of group consensus but never to this extent. By extent, I mean that groupthink can lead to genocide or massacre and then the group who committed the act doesn’t see the moral consequences or the ethically wrong aspects of it. And even if there are morally conscience and ethically aware members in the group, they “unintentionally suppress [their] critical thoughts due to the internalization of the group norms”, which would be believing the consensus regardless of if their policies are working or not, and the group’s exertion of pressure on any doubters or disbelievers. Another flaw of groupthink is that the group doesn’t check over their plans for possible warnings or risks, which could be blatant warnings, like in the case of Pearl Harbor mentioned in the article. The extent of groupthink’s reach is really dangerous because once a groupthink consensus is reached, it seems almost impossible to alter it or tweak it for the better, leading to only negative outcomes.

One part of the article that made me feel better about groupthink was the remedies section and how it detailed how groupthink can be avoided. I feel like these ideas would really work and stop groupthink before it even occurred, especially the concept of bringing outside experts in. I think this would work very well because once a group forms, it is unusual for new members to join, let alone be heard within the group; by having a new voice and new eyes to the situation, warnings and alternative options can be drawn up and implemented, preventing poor decisions to be made.

I really thought it was interesting how Burns stated that leadership should include the leaders encouraging their followers to act towards a common goal. I think this is a very important aspect to leadership because in order for followers to have respect for or listen to a leader, that leader needs to have control over the group and fight for their needs and values. This is also why I think transforming leadership is a much more effective way to lead compared to transactional because Burns mentions how transactional doesn’t bind the leader and follower in the same way that transforming does; in order to have a mission met or a common goal achieved, there needs to be a sense of community or fellowship among the leader and followers.

Although I believe transformational is ideal, I think that leaders need to use transactional leadership as well in order to receive resources to accomplish goals and it’s hard to be a transformational leader, due to the training, education, and development required to become transformational that Bass details. I also thought it was intriguing that he said that the hardest part to teach was the willingness to be transformational rather than the ability, which makes sense because it seems difficult/strenuous to be a transformational leader.

On another note, I thought it was pretty cool that it stated that women are usually more transformational leaders than men. I believe like this is right because women tend to be more aware of others’ feelings when making decisions, while men tend to be more decisive and therefore more able to just exchange or do the deal, not saying that men can’t be transformational though.

We visited an exhibit called Determination focusing on the 400 years of racially-motivated hate and discrimination that has run our country. It was really interesting to see the culmination of segregation and inequality in all different aspects of life, from education to housing to fame. The title comes from a speech given by MLK about the determination African Americans have portrayed in this centuries-long fight for equality and justice. I really liked the title and exhibit because it not only encouraged the mission for equality but also gave credit to a multitude of factors and people – the exhibit focused on thirty individuals who are remembered for their contributions to the fight for equality, such as MLK and Nat Turner, demonstrating all of the various parts played.

I liked how the exhibit was set up, starting with protests from slaves up until present-day fights for equality. It showed how each protest or riot built upon previous ones and the accumulation of ideas, all of which advocated for similar things but the wording or the ideology improved each time. It also detailed how way that protests occurred, violent or nonviolent, and how each ended (mainly the nonviolent worked better than violent).

One thing that stood out to me was the Rosa Parks, Colvin bus riot incident (not ideal word choice but I couldn’t think of another word). I had to tell some of my classmates about how it was not Parks who did the act of civil disobedience and why there was a change. They were dumbfounded, and it made me realize even more how the Great Man Theory has effected our view of history, whitening it and making it male-orientated.

However, I didn’t like the end because it was a board of who inspires visitors, and many people didn’t take it seriously, taking away from the necessary intense-ness of the exhibit. The intensity and focus of the exhibit really honed in on how necessary it is for equality to come about, and the board seemed to be a distractor instead of a contributor.

The very last sentence of Ruscio’s article almost asks the reader if we believe that a democracy can survive a leader who lacks humility? In my opinion, absolutely not. A leader without humility has pride and arrogance which cloud their judgment and decision-making skills. They don’t fit easily in a system that almost depends on them making mistakes and being wrong, so that they can learn from them and move on. A leader without humility also has a composition that places them not in the middle of arrogance and timidity but leaning towards arrogance, which ultimately can lead to them being labeled as a tyrant, due to tyranny being defined as a leader who acts in their own interest and not in the interests or needs of their people. In this way, a leader without humility is basically or almost a tyrant, which means that it is no longer a democracy.

In the article, Ruscio lists off abilities of a humble leader, such as the ability to admit their errors, learn from their mistakes, and have reverence for the institutions they occupy or that are above them and the reluctance to utilize power. Hearing these characteristics of a humble leader, it made me think that our current leader isn’t very humble. Throughout his years in office, I haven’t heard of many apologies or how much respect he has for valid people in our democracy. I don’t believe his learned from his mistake either in that he keeps doing the wrong things, in Tweets and in how his laws aren’t promoting equality or honestly. Trump also does not see himself as imperfect, which Ruscio states as one common denominator amongst Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.

Liz Satter                                                                   Hitler