Michelle Norris came to speak about her initiative “Race Card Project”. It is a 6 word identity exercise that forces people to dive into the deepest but most simplistic form of their identity. It was an amazing talk to listen to and to participate in. One of the most iconic things that she addressed was the melting pot theory. She said that the US is diverse and is unique because of it. There is a large mix of cultures that each group takes immense pride in. Why would we want to mix up everything that each of us identifies by? Instead Norris suggests that we build bridges. Instead of trying to pour my ideas onto someone and to make them believe it, through education and enlightenment I will teach others about my identity. Through this process we will build bridges across cultures and identity and educate people around us while we also learn. This is the first process required before we can earn equality because it requires awareness. However, before awareness can be attained people must be willing to teach and equally as willing to learn.

Leave a Comment

This play was amazing. There were many parallels between the end of the era slavery and the racial tensions that exists today. The author did an amazing job writing for the characters that played slaves and showing that they were multifaceted. I loved the character dynamic of Simon who refused to blindly align with the restrictions applied to him through slavery.

After the play ended there was a talk back where the playwright answered questions about the play and ideas behind some of his decisions. The audience addressed their discomfort in the presence of domestic abuse between the two married slaves throughout the play. People questioned why even black writers portray black people as aggressive and violent in the media made by and for people of color. A gentleman challenged the validity and accuracy of this relationship. Black men are not animals and not all abusive so why do we continue to perpetuate the presence these tendencies and stereotypes in the media as if it is true.

I heard these concerns but at the same time do not disagree with its presence in the play. It was not uncommon to find domestic abuse in this era because of how prevalent violence was in the everyday life of marginalized groups during this time period. Domestic abuse did not become as taboo and cautioned until recently. This is not to say that white men are not abusive too and I do agree that black men are very frequently villainized in the media but Pure Confidence was accurate. It depicted an accurate story for someone somewhere which is not to be generalized across an entire race of people. Pure Confidence is a story that needed to be told.

Leave a Comment

Williamson makes several great points about the origins of the Constitution of the United States in contrast with our reality. He talks about how the things mentioned in the constitution sound great but has never truly been enacted. All of these desires may have been the poor English white man’s dream which brewed inspiration to go and seek out a better life. However, to do so the “founding fathers” took those same realities from another group of people to promote their agenda and then reframed the picture to make themselves look good.

I love that Williamson talked about the definition and reality of the word democracy that the US claims so proudly. It requires “sense and fairness” and “democracy is not a form of government that guarantees justice.” Williamson also explains that when this equality is missing from the idea of democracy, doors are opened to constant grievances, moral resentment, social rancor, and social instability.”  In order to truly fix our government and create a nation that is what it has pretended to be for centuries, we must all be educated on the past. Everyone needs to learn the truth about the past and present horrors that exist in our country. You can never fix a broken pipe if no one ever acknowledges that it was broken. And it would equally as unwise to fix the pipe without investigating and finding out what caused it to burst in the first place. We need to fix the root cause and replace the pipe and we need to stop pretending like the pipe is not broken. Only after we acknowledge this will we be anywhere close to a truly democratic government that grants its people life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5 Comments

Appropriate was a play that was very eye opening. I believe that the content of the play was extremely relevant to the dynamic of society today. The only thing that has been truly constant about the United States has been its degradation of marginalized groups when the norm allowed it. We have seen Japanese Mass Genocide, Slavery, Japanese Internment Camps and Gender and Sexual Inequality -just to name a few.

Now in the wake of the country leaning more progressive and acknowledging inequity, no one knows what to do. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 happened only 55 years ago. It is now 2019 and we still have not passed a federal anti-lynching bill. It has gotten passed the Senate but not the House nor has it been signed by the president. Being from a state that practiced lynching frequently, these facts are heart wrenching.

This play taught me alot and also put a lot of things into perspective. I did not know that people would come to the victims and cut off their body parts as souvenirs or “trophies”. The scariest fact is that these people who committed such horrible atrocities were actually people. They raised families and passed on legacies and wishes all while stealing those same things away from other people.

And now here we are as a country two generations removed while at the same time not removed at all. We are here striving for equity as if these things never happened and without addressing them properly. Kids do not learn about true history in school and adults do not always know the horrors that have been committed through their bloodline. Then we get to colleges and universities and expect them to be integrated and inclusive spaces. Why do we expect that?

This play made me ask myself a lot of questions. To what extent are we responsible for the sins of our family members? How much power do we actually have in acknowledging these actions and creating a new narrative? How can we be inclusive if the majority is oblivious to the history that still carries weight today? How can we expect people to process that their loved ones did in fact love them and do nice things, while also committing terroristic ones? And how much psychological trauma will be inflicted due to the educational enlightenment and acknowledgment of how harsh our history truly is?

Leave a Comment

The idea of ingroups and outgroups in a very interesting topic to discuss within the compounds of being a student in college. It is an idea that I have explored deeply based on how ingroups and outgroups are also intersectional. Yes, I am a black woman and share this ingroup with a certain population on campus. However, being from the south there is another ingroup created. When talking about the communicative pros and cons there are many that differ depending on which ingroup is being highlighted at the moment. I did not understand exactly how much black woman could disagree on formerly perceived commonly agreed upon ideas, until living with a group of black women from different places and differing backgrounds.

To me, the biggest takeaway from this experience is the fact that people can create their own bridges to outgroups by building in groups whenever it is necessary. The reading talked about socialization and confronting stereotypes by conversing with outgroups. However, I challenge this mindset. Instead of viewing it as educating yourself on an outgroup, view it as acknowledging ingroups. Every student at this university has a commonality. Decisions made by the university big or small affect us all (for the most part). There are people who within this ingroup, also share majors, concentrations and even professors. All of these traits contribute to intersectional ingroups that can connect people more than we allow despite potential differences in race, ethnicity and socio-economic background. The most commonly addressed ingroup versus outgroup topics is about race. Race outside of ethnicity, culture and systematic oppression means absolutely nothing. There are no genetic differences that separate people based on the color of our skin but we create outgroups based on arbitrary lines that have been generational, which also contribute to systems of disparity.

The true way to bridge gaps and foster real equity is to acknowledge ingroups aside from the scary outgroup classifications. Without doing this there is the threat that any intergroup relationships will be one-sided and disingenuine. We are all people, we have goals, we may share them or even share values. Finding commonalities will allow us to forge something real and then see people for who they are along with their outgroup characteristics instead of seeing them as a representative of their outgroup.

1 Comment

The videos did a great job explaining the Women’s Suffrage Movement in multiple facets. I like that it pointed out the difference between struggles among women of color as well as the many contributions to women’s rights from people of color. The video makes an amazing point that “‘not every man is a tyrant but the law grants every man the right to tyranny.” Our country is so deeply rooted in patriarchy because of how the laws were (ARE) written. It was very extremely ingrained into the customs of our culture that white men make all decisions regarding anyone and anything.

Women were not “given the vote”, they fought for this right and earned it. This goes to explain how important it is for minorities and marginalized groups to have a seat at the table. While presidents were traveling trying to spread democracy, rich white men were the only people who truly have this right. Now today decades later, there are still disparities between gender, race, economic standing and more. In order to truly be democratic, we must create a culture that wants to hear from everyone, not just those willing to destroy and die for something that should be open to all.

5 Comments

I loved this article. It broke down the follower types were effective. It is very frequent that people discuss leaders and their effect on their followers. However, we never truly dive into followers enough to get close to categorizing them. I agree with most of the definitions describe throughout the article. There are many ways to be an ineffective follower which can infringe on the impact that leaders are able to have.

Kelley discusses sheep, yes men, alienated and effective followers. He dives into each one providing traits and explanations for their behaviors. It was a fun read because I have definitely experienced the different times of ineffective followers that were mentioned. Often times people place blame mainly on leaders for the effect of their impact not addressing whether or not the results experienced are on the blame of the leaders. Followers and leaders participate in a relationship that both parties have to contribute to. When this is not done properly everyone notices and places blame on the opposite party. When we can effectively observe both leaders and followers and assess productivity in a healthy manner, then we will truly see organizations and governments create waves with much less effort and much more cooperation.

3 Comments

Jim Jones preached racial equality. He started his roots based on good things. Also the time period allowed this because of how separated and unequal society was for people of color. He started the People’s Temple and accomplished things like helping restaurants desegregate. He helped to rehabilitate and educate people struggling with drug addiction and started free nursing homes.

Then he started declaring crazy things like that he had been Buddha, and Jesus Christ. He also started moving people and trying to create an entire socialist commune. He played on the fears of others, things like nuclear bombs.

Finally he moved the cult to Guyana. This is when he really started to isolate people or “believers” from their families. If they were willing to give up their lives for the “People’s Temple” then they were invited to come move to Guyana and to work for many hours very harshly to help build the compound.

Jim Jones started off a good guy. He seemed like a trustworthy leader. Despite the fact that some of his actions were questionable, Jones had gained enough respect to retain support through it. This is what allowed him to become a tyrant. He then became so extreme that his encouraged over 900 to kill themselves. However, he also forced others to drink it or injected them with the poison. This story shows that it is very dangerous to allow any levels of tyrannicide. It is hard to stop something once it gets enough momentum despite how easy it may be to look back on it in terror and confusion. This is not fiction but it is real life. It seems like something that cannot happen to anyone but it can and it has. This shows that we, as people have to stay educated so that we don’t drink the kool-aid. Once a tyrant leader has galvanized enough support, we may not have time to spit it out if we realize it too late. This was the story for those 900 people.

4 Comments

Groupthink is definitely a serious issue. However, it is integral to the solution for people to understand it’s true definition. I love that Janis explains the definition against the commonly confused definition as “ nondeliberate suppression of critical thoughts as a result of the internalization of the group’s norms.. [not]… deliberate suppression on the basis of external threats of social punishment”. Both of these are issues that often sprout when there are leaders working together in groups. However, groupthink is almost more threatening due to its invisibility. It is hard for people to know, let alone to acknowledge when it’s happening.

The solution to the problem of groupthink is true inclusivity. Diversity insinuates that there are people of different characteristics or viewpoints, while inclusivity adds the empowerment piece to it all. Inclusivity allows enough cohesivity that everyone feels the power to speak up while also maintaining their individual authenticity and not letting their ideas get swallowed up by the group. The examples given in the article in conjunction with the movie all give great examples as to when and why even powerhouses like the United States can move very inefficiently. When the United States effectively uses its one “secret weapon” of diversity in all aspects, we will truly be made great. We have yet to do so but hopefully with acknowledging tendencies like these, we can correct these issues as we move forward. So we will never have to be in such a strenuous period of such avoidable nature, ever again.

4 Comments

Based on the reading by Cauto and Bass, the main difference in the two beliefs are the direction of power discussed. Cauto believes that leadership flows in a more linear direction than what is believed by Bass. Cauto believed that the important influence can only be productive when going from the leader to the follower. On the other hand Bass believed that it was more cyclical and reciprocal where the followers pass inspiration and influence the leader who also enforces the ideas as they flow upward.

I think that the opinion and viewpoint that Cauto has is very dangerous. This crosses the line heading into the direction of tyrannicide where the influence of the leader is the only one that matters. Cauto is saying that the leaders should possess the influence to do what they think is best without the consideration of his subordinates. This thus implies that he would not be preoccupied with the wants and needs of whom he is supposed to lead. Cauto justifies that leaders do as they please which is never the best option for a leader.

4 Comments

The Servant as a Leader

I agree with the theory that the best leaders are those that emerge from servant positions. It is best to follow someone who knows what it is like to be in your shoes. Greenleaf describes servant leadership as something that “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first”. Then Greenleaf proceeds to add that then a “conscious choice” is what brings a servant to desire to lead.

It is sadly common that many leaders today lack humility. They do not truly desire to serve. Some leaders truly believe that everyone else is at the pleasure of the leaders. Non-servant leaders have agendas but their goals do not necessarily always have the common people in mind. Servant-leaders are created from people that intrinsically like to serve. This means that when they become leaders they are simply now using stature and prestige as a resource to further serve the people.

Greenleaf ends the article after empowering individuals and ideologies. It is discussed that for any great change at least one brave individual is needed. Not only this but an individual with a servant mentality must come second to a dream. For the “United” States of America, a dream is very much present but we need someone with a servant mentality to come and make this dream accessible to everyone.

5 Comments

The point that Machiavelli made definitely makes sense. As much power as leaders have, they are not truly omniscient ever. If they are truly omniscient this is dependent on how tolerable they are to their followers and also have empowered their followers are to retaliate against them. I appreciate how Machiavelli adds that a King must not infuriate in the clergy. It is true that there are caste and class differences in most societies all over the world. It is not imperative in every society that the leaders please everyone. The real importance is that leaders either please enough people or simply enough of the right people.

A good example that this made me think about was Charles I. The fact that Charles I believed that he obtained Divine Right and was definitely a Tyrant is not actually relevant. This problem for Charles I appeared when he did not truly satisfy his clergy. It was exacerbated when he expressed his lack of acknowledgement of the issues that his clergy had. When he got enemies he became a target. He could have been like his father and believed what he wanted while still serving those at minimum would might challenge him. In this case, he probably would not have been assassinated. Machiavelli’s ideology definitely makes sense. No one really cares how much other people have unless they are truly without. Leaders can have as much power as they please if they continue to support those that are below them. When this expectation is broken people truly begin to get labeled and tyrants.

3 Comments

I am not sure that before this podcast I ever noticed that “everyday” women do not show up in history. It makes total sense how it took a certain privilege throughout history to be able to “misbehave”. This allows us to, oftentimes, only recognize the women throughout history who were in the upper class and able to achieve upward mobility in spite of their risk on the societal standpoint that came along with going against the status quo. At the same time, women of color who often did misbehave are still erased from history from the sheer fact of them not being acknowledged, so there were prerequisites to having the ability to gain general traction in the event that some marginalized “Great WOmen” did “misbehave”.

I love the point they made about describing ladies of science as beautiful. This is what draws away from their contributions and plays into gender roles and expectations. It is bothersome that women are not acknowledged enough for our contributions throughout history as a whole. Women often do immense amounts of work to either support men or have men take credit for their achievements very often and this is so sad.

What is even sadder and eye-opening is how easy it is for women to fall into the great man theory as well. It was crazy to hear the story from the special guest about how she and her students could only find one example of a woman in science to write about from their science literature at their entire university. It is sad to say that there are a lot of examples of how history is often only told from one perspective. There are so many great people that get lost along the way.

This reminds me of the idea of implicit bias. Everyone is primed so often to believe that men belong in the positions that society deems to be powerful. Everyone is then also primed to believe that women are not only supposed to support these men in doing so but to also get used to not getting credit for their actual contributions. Men built the system this way, and women live in it and perpetuate it. I am grateful, as a STEM woman of color, for this podcast highlighting this for its listeners and for myself.

It is sad that I have to actively seek information on people whom I know existed, that fought odds and made waves and also looked like me. It is because society does not value them enough to teach anybody, even little girls who also like me.

6 Comments

I definitely agree with everything stated in the “Crooked Politics” by Bezio. It proves the theory that there is truly “nothing new under the sun”. The amount of parallels between Shakespear’s storyline and Trump’s behavior since the 2016 election is astonishing. Not only did he use the exact same tactics as Richard III but it links very closely to our idea of Tyranny. Richard the III became a medieval tyrant of sorts degrading other people as his tactic to get into office and through his reign. It is sad to me that we are not past the point of accepting this sort of behavior from our leader in the era of innovation or cultivation that we are currently in.

In the article, Bezio highlighted how both Richard III and Trump played on the fears of others to make their way into office. This links strongly to the idea of Charisma, importantly, the way that we discussed it in class. Charisma has nothing to do with qualification, care, or authenticity. Instead, it has everything to do with what a person can say and who they can convince. Nothing is rooted in truth or transparency. This is what allowed both Trump and Richard III to refuse to answer to those who are in office as a form of Checks and Balances (Congress).

I appreciate the tone of optimism used at the end of the article. However, if we as a culture keep allowing charisma to overshadow quality and honesty, then we will remain in the cycle of leaders who do in fact abuse their power. We will be stuck with leaders who are held accountable to no one and who feel free to say anything to anyone no matter how degrading. The main difference between the Richard III era and the one that we are currently living in is that back then there were enough people who saw Richard’s actions and were repulsed.

I fear that now the country is too immune to the actions of Trump to be as repulsed as it would take to replace him. In other words, no one supports his actions, however, they may vote for him again due to party affiliation despite everything that Trump has done that people may personally disagree with.

However, since apparently we are currently living in a play- I do hope that Bezio is right and that our story will end similarly to what Shakespeare intended.

4 Comments

MLK was and will for a long time be viewed as one of the United States most iconic leaders. I agree with both of the articles by Camerota and Carson. Camerota’s article pointed out the big ideas surrounding the man that was MLK. He was well educated and had a supportive wife to help him. While at the same time Camerota states a valid point by highlighting the fact that MLK Jr.’s push for peaceful protests was highly disagreed with within the black community. This was what made it challenging for MLK to lead.

 

At the same time, Camerota points out the fact that the FBI did have evidence of some infidelity. Some people that this evidence is real and others do not because the FBI did bug phone calls and send mail all to try to discredit MLK during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. All at the same time, Malcolm X had a very different idea of what black people should do to propel a movement. In the end, the U.S. government supported Martin Luther King Jr. because he did promote nonviolence and they knew that making successions with MLK Jr. was safer for them than to allow the ideas of Malcolm X to take lead in the movement completely. I believe that all of this information is relevant when studying the leadership of MLK. I do like that Carson brings up the background of the movement and the pieces that are often left out of the history but the job of MLK Jr. was difficult because he had many people that despised him on several fronts and different communities. Yet he still managed to be a figurehead for his controversial movement. That seems pretty charismatic to me.

 

3 Comments

Hero / Leader / Role Model 

By Lauren Stenson

 

 

Leave a Comment