I attended The hunting ground screen earlier in November, this film showcased the reality of rape and sexual assault on college campuses. It gives stories of college students who had been sexually assaulted and explains how they began a fight for justice against the administrators which was a very difficult battle to fight. The administration often denounces these cases in order to preserve the overall reputation. The movies also explain how these survivors were doing after their experiences and actually how hard it is to actually recover from a situation like this. These victims are constantly harassed by peers. He finally explains that there is a culture that not promotes rape but enables it to happen. Overall it was a very interesting documentary and one that I would recommend everyone else see.
Leave a CommentAuthor: Ethan Ng
I found Yasha’s speech to be very interesting. I think its really scary think about the “internet as a weapon” because as explained its a very dangerous game. He also explains that the world is wired, everything is connected to the internet, our economy and more importantly our safety. I’m nervous about our future because he said that computers were made to fight wars whether it be drone strikes or cyberattacks they can always affect us in some way which would be detrimental to society. The Cambridge project was something I had heard about earlier but when he mentioned it I figured out what it was. It was a super interesting project in which allowed him to spy on different leaders of the movements of the new left. And this technology makes it so surveillance video is indestructible.
Leave a CommentI really enjoyed pure confidence. The premise is there is a slave who is also the best horse jockey rider in the south and he wants to become a free man. I thought that this play was really informing and overall I had a good time. I thought that this interpretation of what it was like in the south during the civil war with people who didn’t support slavery. I also thought it was interesting how the play made the northerner people out to be the bad guys and how they were more racist than some people in the south. I thought that that was really political and I was surprised but the play portrayed the southerners to be more supportive of the cause. I think this play has very interesting messages about the south and the north during this time period and how no one wasn’t racist.
Leave a CommentAfter reading this chapter about “Attacking the Fourth Estate” I found that media and what they have to say means a lot in elections. The fourth estate is really important because it often influences the people and it can create conversation along with arguments. Media also spins stories and it can lead to different things coming out of different sources which can lead to polarization. Polarization is very apparent in our country right now and having a bias in media outlets certainly does not help. It is clear that the media plays a role that isn’t even that controlled by the government even with its ability to influence so much.
When Archer says “In the middle of the twentieth century, Republicans and Democrats alike viewed the news media as an institution that was fair and worthy of the public’s trust.” I was shocked because as a young teenager, I’ve only experienced the times of polarization and it’s crazy to me to see just how much has changed if this is really true.
8 CommentsThe Anti-war movement is one of the most interesting movements of the new left, I feel like it is very interesting because we see many different Americans from different backgrounds supporting the movement. Even MLK and Civil rights groups opposed the war. Even though it affected different groups in different ways, people still came together to fight against “tyranny”. It is in movements like these that I wonder how democratic our country really is, because of the sheer amounts of people who wanted to pull out of the war and end it, there was very little action by the government to appease the protestors until the very end. Even still it can be argued that the war only ended because we had actually lost.
One thing in this video that surprised me were the reactions of the soldiers already in Vietnam to the draft protests. They stated that if they should have been fighting than those at home protesting should be here with them or have already given up their lives for the country. I think they felt as if their service wasn’t being appreciated which was not the intention of the anti-war movement. Further, this video pointed out how political parties would use these movements to come into power. With Nixon’s rise to power.
Another thing this video opened my eyes to was the power behind college students and how dedicated they were to the movement, they fought the national guard many times and suffered many blows, however, they stayed until the end.
2 CommentsI was very surprised by this story The lottery, it starts off innocently enough with the children gathering rocks and coming to a lottery after school is done. The entire story is about the lottery system and how it wasn’t fair for Tessie. It is revealed that Tessie has drawn the bad card, there is a twist in that it ends up being Tessie is to be stoned by her family and friends as they surround her.
The ones who walk away from the Omelas is an interesting story as well because it describes the city as a perfect society and utopia, however, this concept and idea is constantly questioned in terms of legitimacy. The people are happy and it talks about their celebrations and traditions.
Both of these stories show how people in societies react to tradition and when constructs are built-in society how people are quick to conform and just do. People act blindly when they feel like everything will work out and attribute their behaviors to success without thinking deeply.
3 Comments
Reading this article was very interesting to me, I find it intriguing how Zinn exposes or tries to explain history from the point of view of those who have never gotten the chance to tell their story. Starting off, Zinn challenges the story of slavery itself and instead of painting it racially, the way we have all been told, he explains that the country and its greatness has been built on the backs of slaves. Capitalism itself has systematically kept African Americans down and they are in fact the ones who built it up. Further, Zinn dives in-depth into the horrors of slavery and tells the story of a slave rebellion which led to the deaths of 55 white slave owners. This ended up prompting worse treatment of slaves because white masters wanted to discourage any resistance in the future.
In terms of leadership, however, one part that stuck out to me was the section about Abraham lincoln. “Lincoln could skillfully blend the interests of the very rich and the interests of the black at a moment in history where these interests met.” This reminds me of MLK and his ability to appeal to not only African Americans but also White liberals and ultimately this skill is something that tends to be very useful. In the history of America, the larger the audience a speaker can represent, the more successful they are in the long run and they tend to be more influential. Also, it says that Lincoln did not denounce the fugitive slave law because he knew to pick and choose his battles. He knew that he was an on a thin line that connected his two audiences and it would be destructive for him to anger one group if he really wanted progress.
1 CommentI think that Zinn provides a very interesting point of view on these topics. I find these ideas intriguing because it’s a whole new way to look at the start of our country and whether or not America is really founded on ideals that we should continue to live by. The idea of America being founded by people exploiting others but promoting freedom and equality is quite radical however he makes great points and is pretty convincing. “In colonial America, for example, events unfolded organically from people’s actions and responses. When the upper class made a move to tax property, the working class responded by forming the Regulator movement in protest. The upper class then pushed back by redirecting the people’s energy against faraway enemies in Britain. When the working class realized capitalism wasn’t working for them, they attacked capitalism’s most powerful symbol—private property. Zinn demonstrates the reasons behind people’s actions, the results of their actions, and the long-term effects. These patterns are what constitute history.” He brings up this point that there wasn’t a group that controlled America and planned everything and everything just unfolded in a certain way which allowed for these types fo things to happen.
2 CommentsAfter reading these two articles, I was reminded of the concept of the never-ending cycle. With Domination and Subordination, it would seem that these two concepts reflect this cycle. The Dominant group as described by Miller believes that the normal way of life is a good way of life and that there should not be change. The idea of Change is one that scares and bothers the dominant group. Subordinates who are usually oppressed feel the need to change but are put down by the system put in place by the dominant group. Because its hard for the submissive group to rise to equality, the system remains the same and the subordinates are less motivated and it makes it almost impossible for the rise to equality. One thing in Cheney’s article that I found important was “Dissent at work often involves the ability to challenge existing policies without fear of retribution and it can be encouraged or discouraged at the level of the organization’s climate.” For the most part, challenging the dominant group is rare and very hard to do. Because socialization factors lead people to live and believe certain things, the subordinates are already at a disadvantage and it makes it harder for the dominant group to understand why change needs to be made. There is always a challenge and less collaboration between the groups which is why change is soo hard and why miller explains that those groups don’t actually work to elevate the inferior to equality instead they are kept in the same place and even as time goes on the cycle continues to work and change is minimal.
6 CommentsEthan Ng
Transactional leadership and Transformative leadership are the two categories under which relationships between leaders and followers are defined. After reading the texts I learned that Transformative leaders move beyond their immediate interests and elevate the group, this reminded me of citizen leaders who come from within in order to elevate a group and the Transactional leadership is more of a deal. The followers will give something in order to get something out of a leader, Its the idea of an exchange of services which empower both groups and their needs.
I believe that transformative leadership is something that is more effective in these groups because it inspires other leaders within the group which can create a strong lien of leaders behind a cause which ultimately will make them more powerful as a group.
2 CommentsIn this reading, the concept of Humility is explored. This concept is focused on here and it is used to show how this trait or ability to harness humility is quite powerful. When people talk about soft power and charisma, I feel that Ruscio puts this trait up there in being important. Humans inherently arent perfect so those who make the most of their imperfections and try their best to make up for imperfections make their followers understand and bond with their leader which is oftentimes very important. This reminds me a lot of the fear vs Love concept because humility allows more interpersonal communication with followers which can lead to a sort of love whereas those who do not embrace humility enjoy standing out in a godlike persona who wants to be feared. This reading really explores the idea of not exerting power and rejecting power. Ruscio points out “Historians frequently point to this episode as indicative of Washington’s innate ability to establish a bond, a trait that ultimately led him, in more significant historical moments, to acquire authority and legitimacy, not by exerting power over those he led, but by rejecting formal power.” This clearly was more effective than being tyrannical with power and had a better overall effect it seems.
6 CommentsAfter watching Allegory of the cave, it made me think a lot about how exactly it plays into our study of leadership. I had to rewatch the video again and break down some of the different things that Plato was trying to explain. I believe that by putting those prisoners in a world where they only know one thing is similar to how people in our world can be sheltered and we only know as much as we’ve experienced and thus were are in a bubble essentially. It’s an interesting concept to think that everything that we know is just how we have perceived things through our socialization factors and we could be looking at things in the wrong way. This can include our parents, media, school, peers, etc. Plato also brings up the idea of idolizing those who excel in something we think we understand. This made me think of the great man theory and the idea that we believe that certain qualities make one person superior because of the way we perceive society and the way that we believe that we should act. While I believe as a society that we are moving in the right direction, it’s hard to really understand what is right versus wrong.
Allegory of the cave also reminded me of the question of how we define morals and ethics. Of course, as a human, we have this conception that preservation of life is good and soo is progress however that is just in the scope of what our minds can comprehend. We also agree that death is bad and we want to bring about happiness as much as possible, however, our definitions only apply to humans and the way that we understand things.
2 CommentsAfter reading these different texts, I didn’t have an answer to whether or not Charles should have been executed. What I took away from this was not the right or wrong or even why but the historical context that he was executed. King Charles should have been executed from the side of the parliament because in their eyes he was a tyrant and challenged their power. Had King Charles cooperated with them, his death could have been avoided. However, I believe that in the Position of Charles, he did the correct thing by continuing to preserve the monarchy as well as he could. He was a martyr and royalists rallied behind his cause.
The entire concept is interesting when it comes to the divine right vs the law of the land. When the people of the land demand one thing and the king who claims to be the chosen of God has another idea in mind there is bound to be conflict. It’s especially interesting when one the monarch truly believes he is doing the work of god because morally there is no correct side.
I believe that the king must do anything and everything he can to maintain the monarchy and the inheritance of god and I believe that the people must dispose of a tyrant in order to enact the law of the land. A king cannot be allowed to be above the law or else the effectiveness and legitimacy of the parliament are void.
1 CommentAfter reviewing the two different readings, I found that Tyrannicide is quite an interesting topic due to how people interpret it. Throughout history all around the world, there are people praised for tyrannicide, there are legends and different myths. However, where it gets really interesting is the difference between terrorism and tyrannicide. When is something Terrorism or Tyrannicide? This Terrorism vs Tyrannicide concept is very interesting to me because in simplest terms they are very similar, so what makes one more hated than the other. I found that Tyrannicide has a targeted leader in mind which often is a symbolic leader whereas Terrorism is the act of scaring and threatening all with no specific leader or victim. Basically, there is a lack of discrimination in terrorism but in tyrannicide, the target is symbolic and reasonably precise.
I also found that the United States and Americans are fond of tyrannicide. This was surprising because the idea of patriotism is the one that goes against terrorism. So it’s very interesting that Americans support Tyrannicide due to American History but don’t perceive terrorism the same way because it is an attack on their home. While the articles distinguish the two from each other the average person I feel couldn’t give a strong answer to how the two are different. I mean even I had a hard time figuring it out until after reading the texts. So I thought I would just point out that it’s a weird phenomenon.
Overall I think that Tyrannicide is extreme but can be a necessary option for people living in dictatorships. These are countries where people are exploited and have a poor quality of life due to the tyranny of its current leader. The concept of killing the head of the snake and collapsing the rest of its body can be needed.
2 Comments
The way that Charisma is defined by Riggio is as a constellation of positive traits that ultimately allows one to move and inspire others on an emotional level. Basically, their personality traits make them likable and these “leaders” such as Gandhi, FDR, and even Adolf Hitler have the ability to communicate effectively to an audience. I found Riggio’s discussion on communication most intriguing because I am currently taking a class on communication and how efficient and good communication works. When Riggio talks about the characteristics of leaders, the one that caught my attention was the ability to respond effectively to others through emotional communication. These people can read others, their emotions, and attitudes which give the leaders another tool in communicating with their audience. Leaders can be social chameleons and charisma allows them to be successful in social situations such as schools etc.
The idea of manipulation is also strong, leaders are able to harness their ability to read crowds and then feed off of their energy. Whether the cause is good or bad, this is something that effective leaders utilize and this has been seen throughout history many times. I believe that emotional manipulation is the strongest because when there are masses of people fighting using their emotions, they have nothing left to lose and will follow blindly under a cause. This again can be for better or for worse however it is still a skill that many, if not all leaders have.
Another thing that I found interesting was the charisma and tsav. This introduced the concept of leadership as an object or a symbol. It is described almost like a real-life black panther scenario. In Black Panther, the king or leader takes something called the heart-shaped herb which endows its possessor with superhuman powers. Tsav is very similar in that its possessors are gifted with leadership skills such as charisma. It allows one to dominate a social situation. I think that charisma is really different social skills that develop over time through different situations and blossoms into what we call a gift.
7 Comments
