Author: Jesse Chiotelis

COLLOQUIUM: Through an Indigenous Lens

I attended this panel for my Art History class. The panel took place in the Robins School of Business, Ukrop Auditorium. The panel was made up of three filmmakers- Sky Hopinka, Adam Khalil and Zack Khalil and was moderated by to UR members. Going into this talk I did not know what to expect; growing up in the northeast with an uncle who has committed his life to working with Native American communities in the United States and Canada I am very aware of not only their hardships of the past but the lasting and further forced struggles and mistreatment these communities face today. 

I am very interested in film and see it as a tool for change but I am aware of the negative, misinformed ripples it can cause. The three Contemporary Indigenous filmmakers and curators explained the harm and misconceptions media and photos have brought to their communities. This was very interesting and something I was very unaware of. They shared their own works and explained that while the widespread media about indigenous people puts them in a box, limited their people to solely who they were in the past. However, unlike the US Government’s beloved untouchable Constitution, the indigenous people’s practice and social practices are always evolving. This is not what it publicized or taught in schools- limiting the general public to the past practices of the indigenous people is very harmful to their image and carries a large misconception about who they are in present-day which leads these communities to be further oppressed and neglected. This panel was eye-opening. 

Leave a Comment

Free the Facts

Free the Facts came to present to UR students on a rainy Tuesday, October 29th, to present a policy seminar on Social Security. I first learned about the Free the Facts presentation when a student ambassador came to WCGA to teach us about what the organization was, their goals, and to ask for our support. They shared that a goal of the presentation was to empower us, our generation, by educating us on the facts and complexity of the United States’ fiscal policy issues. Free the Facts is a nonpartisan organization trying to give students info we need to make informed decisions about the biggest issues facing our generations. They especially emphasized one of their slogans “getting America’s brightest minds on our biggest problems” as they especially focused on the “biggest problems with the biggest price tags. They spoke about the facts behind social security insolvency, the inability to pay one’s debts. While some of the information they shared was over my head, it was clear that this issue needs the attention of our and all generations and attending the presentation made me feel more informed and motivated me to do some personal Social Security research of my own. I was personally drawn to this talk because social security and how it works has never been very clear to me but I knew I wanted to understand it now, early on, both to make informed decisions about my own future AND IN THE POLLS. They mentioned that they also present on student loans, Medicare, and pensions… I would like to see them again.

Leave a Comment

The Race Card: Observations on Race, Identity, and Inclusion 11/12 – Michele Norris 

  I really enjoyed getting to see and learn from Mrs. Norris (Peabody Award-winning Journalist, Founder of The Race Card Project, and Author of The Grace of Silence). I first learned about Mrs. Norris in the Sharp Viewpoint Speaker Series in a WCGA meeting weeks prior. How to have constructive, meaningful conversations about race is a skill that I have developed much deeper at my time at UR and am still developing. 

I really liked Mrs. Norris’s talk as it brought to light new perspectives and suggested productive ways to approach conversations about race with people who have opposing views to oneself in a productive way. She explains that it is never beneficial to tell someone you feel that their viewpoints and understandings are WRONG and then attempt to educate them on what you believe is right- that is not productive because people get defensive or become more close-minded to what you are trying to say for the simple reason that YOU were just closed-minded to what they were saying. She explained that you must recognize that their truth is real and logical to them and the only way to have a mature conversation is to first hear them out; she says to listen, you do not have to agree- but acknowledge how they feel because dismissing their truth is not productive. She addresses that she is aware this can be challenging when someone’s truth is hurtful to you but having the tools necessary to have a productive conversation about it is the only chance for change.

 

A main point of hers was that looking at everyone is the only way to look at race. Dismissing opposing mindsets is almost counterproductive in the long run. She uses the metaphor that bridges are held together and able to remain standing and functional only when there is tension form to forces holding it up. 

Leave a Comment

After watching this short informative film I understand why it is titled “The 20th Century: Vietnam Protest Movement” because wow, there were a lot of protests and a lot of different sides as the war in Vietnam continued. Divides in the country were formed.

It is always a red flag when the authority (the government) is being violent and oppressive to a large group of people. I feel that when there is a large group of citizens, nationwide who feel a certain way their thoughts should be heard and dealt with in a regimented protocol that gives voices to the people in a way that they can be heard effectively. The tensions that arose between the government forces and antiwar protesters were all due to fear on both sides. Fear for the lives of loved ones or oneself being sent to kill or die in a country halfway around the world for reasons that were unclear and unjust and fear of the countries reputation stays intact. The government’s murdering of protestors is also a red flag that in my opinion dirties the reputation of the US government around the world and for those who live in it.

Also- something that infuriated me was Nixon’s comment on how we as a country could not let North Korea win because that would be embarrassing and American’s dont loose….. LIKE WHAT. I understand it is important to have pride and to give each effort your all, however, with an incitative that was unclear and not supported by so many, including those who were being legally forced to fight, kill, and risk their own lives it is poor leadership and unjust. This just brings me back to how many early presidents (GWashington) played a long hands-on role in the battlefields in battles that were fighting for conflict in our own country; I wonder if the pride and reputation of America would come first if government officials or Nixon himself were forced to be on the battlefield.

3 Comments

One of the parts of the story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” that really made me think and look back throughout the reading is the last several sentences when Le Guin describes the people who leave the town after seeing the child. Le Guin puts it like “They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.” This is so intriguing to me and made me try to decipher what this truly meant and/or parallels from the real world that I could find.My guess is that the ones who walk away are like those in any society that recognize an injustice or flaw and strive to fix it… or at least they cannot continue being a happy part of the happy town knowing there happiness is at the cost of another. When Le Guin says “But they seem to know where they are going,” I interpreted this as, while the literal solution is unclear, those who walk away knowing that the direction that they want to be going is away from the ideologies of the happy town. They know that they are headed in the best direction, even if they do not know where the destination is quite yet.

 

 This story is clearly about followership and fear in the face of the unknown. The followers who choose to stay in the town, happy, even though they know a child is suffering reminds me of the phenomena that happen in real life. Millions, trillions of people go on with their lives knowing of the troubles, inequalities, and horrors of the world are occurring and will continue occurring because these thoughts are swept under the rug or saved for later by so many.

3 Comments

This article, like several we have read in this class, is very interesting because it reveals pieces of history that were untaught, unmentioned, and in some senses swept under the rug. I appreciate Zinn’s mostly unbiased inclusion of all the different factors and discussions that occurred leading up to the abolition of slavery. He thoroughly discussed the country’s reasons for holing onto slavery for so long. When I was growing up I was aware that the south was dependent on human labor for their agriculture however I was not under the impression that the whole country, at least those who were of wealth, were accepting of slavery and the economic profit it brought forth. This is somewhat disturbing to me because human slavery is never justified, and the fact that many more American citizens were ok with slavery, even though they knew it came along with physical punishment and lack of basic human rights. EW.

 

It was also very interesting to learn more about Abraham Lincoln. Growing up I thought Lincoln was the MAN. He still is in some ways yet learning about how he tiptoed around the wants of the wealthy alters my view of him. In Zinn’s passage, he mentions “Lincoln could argue with lucidity and passion against slavery on moral grounds while acting cautiously in practical politics,”(Zinn 187). While I do understand that he has to be considerate of all opinions of his followers in order to stay in power, this was still eye-opening for me. Maybe it is because I have subconsciously linked the abolition of slavery with Lincoln. I always viewed Lincoln as a freedom fighter, activist, stick it to the mankind of guy, a man with morals he was willing to fight for… Hm.

8 Comments

This reading provided a lot of new information about the American Revolution and the events leading up to it. Zinn describes the large economic divides within the colonies and the wealthy colonists’ deceptive manipulation of the lower classes. On page 65 Zinn explains that “colonist leaders had a divided white population”. He explains how leaders of the Independence movement were thoughfully instigating rebellion when they wanted to and made attempts to contain rebellion of certain things to avoid the risk of an uproar on them, the wealthy.  He later explains that the colonies’ leaders s would bring the need for rebellion to the attention of the populations that could help them when they needed the manpower. For example, they would approach the mechanics “who had a stake in the fight against England, who faced competition from English manufacturers” and assure that they knew who the enemy was that was causing their economic struggle.  One of the most eyeopening phrases from this piece was when Zinn mentions that one of the “biggest [problems] was to keep the propertyless people, who were unemployed and hungry in the crisis following the  French war, under control” as the leaders of the Independence movement tried to aim the mob energy of the poor towards the British while also containing it so” it would not demand too much from them.”

Zinn displays that the motives and strategies of rebellion against English rule were not unified or equally distributed amongst the colonist population. There was a large push to “relieve tension between the upper and lower classes and [instead] form a bond against the British”. I was aware that not all colonists were equal in occupation or economic rank but it was never explained to me that there was such a conscious effort of the wealthy to guide the anger of the other classes towards the British and away from themselves.

2 Comments

In the reading and analysis of Miller’s “Domination/Subordination” and Cheney and Lair’s “ Elevating Dissent” some important and diverse views on inequalities and the idea of superiority were introduced. Early in Miller’s chapter in the section about inequality they make the statement: “the superior person is supposed to engage with the lesser in such a way as to bring the lesser member up to full parity; that is, the child is to be helped to become the adult.”(Miller). While this makes obvious sense in the example used (child and adult) I believe it is very important to recognize the subjective nature one should take to approaching a person or population that they perceive as inferior.

This connects me to a concept I learned in my World History class, “the white man’s burden”. The “white man’s burden” revolves around the idea that in history, individuals in western societies that believe they are superior’s sense of obligation to help “inferior” countries or populations. While in some cases in history this is all out of good-natured desires to help those they view as less-fortunate, this idea is rooted in racist and religious beliefs that are very subjective and ignorant. This has become an extreme issue because of differences in beliefs and cultures; who decides what is a “superior” way of life? While these moments in history and even present-day may have been out of good intention they have lead to major conflict and struggles in the said “inferior” countries. Some examples of this are imperialism or religious expansions were in some cases the more powerful party enforces their own ideologies on another society that may not want their interference.

8 Comments

Burns explained the impact of a childs upbrining on how they approach authority:” , parents believed that it was most important to teach their children to respect authority, to respect the church, to respect one’s government, and to avoid questioning authority. Today parents believe it is most important to teach their children to accept responsibility for their own actions, to be willing and confident in accepting challenges, and to question authority when necessary.” I thought this was really interesting; how one is raised effects the way they act in leadership-follower relationships in their future.

 

This is also interesting how this has evolved over time due to international events. The effect of what is needed from a worker/ the average worker revolves around what is needed by that nation as a whole. As discussed by Burns, after the cold war the main type of worker needed was someone that is more specialized, more educated and trained. I feel like this shows the important role the follower plays in the type of leader.

9 Comments

I found this article very interesting as I find the humility to be one of the most admirable traits an individual can possess, let alone a leader. In class we have been discussing leaders who have a much more dramatic approach to leadership, charismatic leaders, royal families,etc. It was interesting to read about leaders that are so well known, like Lincoln and Washington, that most learned about them in our earliest years of education.

Something from this piece I found really important to note is the positive ripples humble leaders can produce. In the discussion of Keneddy as a leader, Ruscio mentions how Kennedy owning up to his own lack of experience and accepting help and guidance of others changed the course of history:” Kennedy introduced new formal steps within the senior staff for deliberating when reaching decisions… That change in approach was largely credited with later saving the nation from a nuclear exchange during the Cuban Missile Crisis”

Early in the piece, Ruscio says, “Humility is not arrogance, which may be obvious. But neither is it timidity or reticence, which may be less obvious.”  I thought this misperception of humility was intriguing and it got me to thinking that it would be interesting to see how this plays into gender roles. In our class, my Leadership 102 class, my sociology class, and my psychology class we discussed the dividing role gender play in how a leader is viewed and therefore how effective they are. In all of my classes, we discussed along the lines of how social constructs of certain genders (male and female) are associated with different impressions of that leader. An example of this is how an assertive male leader is perceived as being “on top of it” while a female leader is considered “bossy”. In terms of humility, I wonder how gender plays a role in how followers interact with and perceive the leader. Would humble female leaders be respected and liked due to the stereotypical ideal female being a quiet, well-behaved woman? Or would they be disrespectful and take advantage of this nonintimidating boss? The same question arises for males, would a humble male leader be misperceived as a slacker or shy? It seems to be a double-edged sword.

2 Comments

As John Gardner says early in Leaders and Followers “Leaders are almost never as much in charge as they are pictured to be, and followers are almost never as submissive as one might imagine”(185). This is completely true. Leaders are literally powerless without followers and the illusion of superiority that leaders possess is all a matter of how the followers respond to them. Gardner asks the question “should the relationship [between leaders and followers] be more informal… leaders making the goals clear and then letting the constituents help determine the way of proceeding”(186). I believe that yes, the followers should be the ones that truly influence the way of proceeding; I believe that oftentimes followers do in fact influence the way things turn out, even if they are not aware of it. 

This impact followers can have brought me to think of several examples from class and the world today. One example of the huge role followers can play in the action taken by leaders and in a way lead themselves was the Parkland student’s response to the shootings at their school. When it became clear that no real action was going to be taken by the government to prevent school shootings they made their voices heard. As stated in The New York Times by Margaret Kramer and Jennifer Harlen “The Parkland students became a force for gun control legislation and boosted the youth vote. Here’s how they changed America’s response to mass shootings”(2019). They saw how the leaders of our country were responding and instead of just letting the injustice and terror of the shooting shift into the background they were vocal in a way that was heard by the nation. They put pressure on the leaders to make a change and influenced other followers to not just stand by. If people become aware of the important role that followers play and the huge amount of influence they can have on the outcomes of our leader’s decisions followers can come together and assure that they are being heard in an organized, purposeful way.

Link to NY Times article below:

7 Comments

Alright… King Charles I can definitely be labeled as a toxic leader for several reasons. Claiming he is the voice of god due to his “divine right” to the throne is always a red flag when looking back in history; an indicator of a singleminded, narcissistic leader. However, I still have strong opinions against the justification of executions. Life is so precious and executions are so permanent. The only possible case where an execution could be arguably partially understandable is if everyone on the high court strongly and definitively believed it, they had opinions of an outside impartial party supported it, and the leader was an unethical killer. However, this was not the case in the execution of Charles I for several reasons. The decision was not strongly supported and the parliament had been corrupted.

In one of the articles, the “Rump Parliament” is defined as members of the parliament who had remained after the purge of moderates in 1648. Basically, all the “pro-Charles” voices were forcibly removed. This “purging” members of the parliament or any group of lawmakers and legislators are always concerning to me. After readnig about the role the parliament played in the undoing of Charles I it was concerning to me giving that the lead-up and final decition of the execution were “reluctant” and “shambolic”. This corruption and onesidedness of the Parliment bring me to think of the lack of diversity we have today in the Supreme Court Judges. (GO RBG). Differences of opinion can be challenging to deal with if there is an agenda that needs to be agreed on but that is exactly why that diversity needs to be present in desition making. The articles mention of high court justices dieing or killing themselves after the execution furthers my standing on the injustice of execution. Taking a life is traumatic and inhumane and when it is not 100% justified (which I believe it never is) it can take a huge emotional toll on the individuals who contributed to the decision to execute.

I feel that there is always another option. Exile the king to an isolated island, put him in jail, whatever! Murder is so permanent. Taking a life is hard and often never unjustified. If we kill a leader that is the end of their story, there is no way to learn from them, no possibility for change. I dooo understand the possibility that their strongest supporters could cause a mutiny or form a cult in honor of the leader which could be dangerous but not as unjust as murder.

3 Comments

I am an optimist. I like to believe that there is hope in every person for change and ethical. While these readings make some very strong points about the political justification of Tyranicide I do still believe that death is never a justified punishment. Yet, I do understand the extreme sense of fear and insecurity that Tyrants inspire makes it extremely difficult to rebel without execution. A possible solution could be an international council of judges who can sentence a Tyrant to life in prison or a life of exile. This would be beneficial because the council would include respected members from around the world; the power and respect they would hold could overpower the fear of the citizens who are being ruled by the tyrant. This council would be in charge of physically removing the leader from their position. This method could also be beneficial because while these tyrants are in excile we could study and interview them, understand their pasts, their reason for thinking the way they do. This could potentially lead to less extreme methods of removing a tyrant as the knowledge gained could aid in coming up with ethical and effective ways to remove a tyrant from power. That is instead of chopping off the head of a snake to kill the body… this is flawed because there is no regulated way to reconstruct society after the fact.

I think it is interesting how early in “Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern terrorism” George states that a selfless act for the good of the people. As mentioned earlier in my post, when I think of murder I think of terror, fear, lack of ethics, and insanity. However, I personally have never lived in a society ruled by a tyrant. I have never known the fear and lack of trust that sprouts from being a powerless, vulnerable citizen. The closest I have come to this phenomenon, aside from learning about it in class or on the internet, is film and movies. The need or inclination for tyrannicide can be understood by thinking about the intense fear when the villain comes onto the screen and the sense of relief that comes from seeing them fall off a cliff or being taken away. It is efficient. It can seem like the only effective option, especially in a society who has lost hope and sence of self secutiy.

3 Comments

“ … it is in the relationship between the leader’s qualities and the followers’ devotion to the leader and belief in the leader’s cause that charisma lies,” (Riggio)

I strongly agree with Ronald E. Riggio’s point about the important role context plays in determining the followers’ need for a charismatic leader. When leaders display confidence and offer a clear message with charisma it indicates a sense of security that can unify followers in troubled times. Charismatic leaders are easy to see and easy to understand; like moths cling to light in the dark, individuals and communities that have been through rough times are more likely to swarm to charismatic leaders than they would be if all was good.

One of the reasons the follower-leader relationship and the context it is formed under is so important is because while charismatic leaders strengths are their confident, charming manner, these strengths can also lead to their downfall. The easiest way to understand how charismatic leaders can be ineffective is to imagine an extraverted student bombarding individuals in THC, unempathetic of their need to get to class or lack of interest: for a shy first year a shout out could be exactly what they needed to have the confidence to approach the table, but for a well-informed junior who also approaches the table in out of politeness and annoyance it could feel as if the person tabling is preaching to the wrong choir. A leader’s charismatic way could also make them less relatable or even seem very one-sided and not open to change that some may want

In a public forum of while charismatic leaders can adapt to the mood of the crowd, if an individual in the crowd is also confident in their state and their own beliefs, a leader who proudly and assertive preaches their own views can come off as arrogant, insensitive, and unable to relate to the average person.

I was always taught that in relationships listening and understanding is much more important than talking. If one takes the time and puts in the effort to truly comprehend what the other is saying, there is a sense of trust formed. Charismatic leaders get this trust by being so outgoing and self-assured that followers figure they must know what they are doing to be so active about it!

Again Riggio talks a lot about contributing and adding to the conversation but he mentions little to nothing about charismatic leaders being openminded and listening to new ideas. This is dangerous in the way that this indicates that they are not treating the followers as equals.

“Charismatic individuals use their emotional expressiveness to arouse and inspire others and to spur them to action. It is also this spontaneous emotional expressiveness that causes people to describe charismatic individuals as animated, emotionally charged, and full of life.”

This was also an interesting section of the passage to me because it made it seem like charismatic individuals did not have to be knowledgeable or noble or even organized, they just had to be good actors, emotional actors. This brings my mind back to Trump’s inauguration with the speech that sounded a little too similar to Obama’s… it makes me think that many leaders are more like puppets than intelligent, informed individuals.

I also connected this trait of “expressiveness to arouse” and being “animated, emotionally charged and full of life” to influencers on social media. They capture snippets of their lives in a photo and combine them with eloquently worded captions that inturn inspire millions to eat healthily or buy certain brands.

4 Comments

Hero: Maggie Doyne

Leader: Frida Kahlo

Role Model: Julie O’Rourke

Leave a Comment