Author: Nysa Stiell

On November 21st I went to see the play Hamilton at the Altria Theater. This play was about the timeline of Hamilton’s life from the time he worked under President George Washington to the time he was in a standoff with Alexander Burr. Hamilton began as an immigrant who wasn’t very wealthy, simply looking for a chance to show his talent. Eventually, once Washington discovered his talent, he was employed as a writer for the American Revolution. However, he wanted to be on the field at war with the soldiers. It angered Hamilton further when the leader that Washington put at the front line was incompetent. Eventually, Hamilton was given his opportunity or his “shot” as he kept saying in the play but soon realized 1) he was better with writing and 2) his family was suffering with him never being at home. A major part of his life that was emphasized was his writing of the Federalist papers. The play noted that although he worked with John Adams and James Madison he ended up writing most of the papers because that is how strongly he believed in creating a foundation for the new country that was free. Apart from his role in the politics and forming of America, the play went into Hamilton’s family life and discussed his love interests in Angelica and Eliza, the Schuyler sisters. In addition, the play also went into his love affair with another woman while he was working abroad–exposing each part of his life even down to his flaws.

The part I enjoyed the most about the play was the ending when the focus shifted slightly from Hamilton to Burr. After the stand-off where Hamilton and Burr both stood in the circle and Burr shot Hamilton, the narration described that because of this moment Burr is seen as the villain in history. All of his accomplishments and the work that he did for the country were overshadowed by this one moment which he admitted himself was juvenile of him but at the time he could not see that. All he saw was an opportunity to get rid of his opponent which he took advantage of. I appreciated and liked the fact that this was included in the play because it showed a part of history that isn’t often discussed– instead of simply referring to Burr as Hamilton’s killer we were able to get an inside view on what actually happened to Burr after the shooting (he was hated by everyone) and that he himself regretted the action but knew no better.

Leave a Comment

Reading this article furthered my understanding of the media and the power and influence it can have. Throughout Trump’s presidency, it was especially evident the role that certain media sources played in gained either support or disliking towards the presidency. It was during this time that the role of social media became more evident and had more impact on people’s viewpoints than it ever did before. Archer mentions fake news as something that has been on the rise but it is hard to critique or defend. This is understandable because it can be difficult to show news and relay information without including biases. Although we tend to simply ask for facts in order to make our own interpretations because the information revolves around other people they are bound to be filled with biases. Because of this, the media can be dangerous but it is evidently essential in revealing information which sometimes the officials themselves will not say. This, again, is relevant to Trump and the impeachment accusations which are taking place today. Without the use of the media, it would be difficult to gather multiple perspectives.

The unfortunate reality of this new emergence of tension between journalists/media outlets and political candidates/ officials. IT has become a back and forth of who wants to embarrass or expose the other the most. This, in my opinion, takes the factual information out of the news because it becomes more about an individual’s personality and their vendetta against another person or source instead of facts.

 

 

Leave a Comment

The Vietnam War is one that truly divided the nation and tested the bounds of our society. In watching this video something interesting that struck me was the usage of physical, violent efforts versus non-violence. It was reported that a lot of the violent efforts were carried out by college students. Specifically thinking about the March into the Pentagon that took place in Washington, this was a very bold, violent move that resulted in many arrests and prompted some of the violence that took place after this event. Although this march was very powerful, thinking about the non-violent aspects of the riots–they were also very powerful. In the video, we hear that there were multiple reports of people chanting “Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today”. This chant, even for the president, was very powerful as he said it made it difficult to sleep at night knowing that his people thought this of him–he was mindlessly killing young kids. In this case both methods were effective in their own respects but, it was especially interesting to me to witness the power of verbal protests in this movement.

Another interesting part of this video was the mention of fighting the Vietnam War abroad when the government had yet to fight the War on Poverty within the states. This is a topic that I think is still relevant today because the United States government, in my opinion, takes too much value in trying to fix other nations and their governments (ex: Venezuela) when there are countless problems within the states that should take precedence. I believe when running a nation that it is one’s duty to assure that everything within their own nation is being addressed before putting themselves, or in this case, sending unwilling troops, to fight another battle overseas.

Leave a Comment

On November 12th I went to watch Michele Norris’s discussion on the Race Card Project. In this talk, Norris mainly spoke about different 6-word submissions that her team received for the question about what race means to you. One of the responses that intrigued me said, “Father was racist, I’m not. Progress!”. This response stood out to me because it was a comment I didn’t expect to see written out on paper. This was one of Michele’s main goals in showing the card replies–to reveal these unanticipated responses.

Although people tend to have implicit biases and opinions that may be against the norm, it is difficult to say these thoughts and opinions out loud as the responses and replies can be very harsh from those who disagree. Through anonymous cards, people feel more comfortable putting their thoughts out to the public. The comment on this card, in particular, made me aware of how those who are not people of color feel about race. It is difficult, sometimes, to understand opposing viewpoints but this card was very clear and explicit about their personal relationship with progressing to a more equal society. Instead of simply saying that they were not racist, they acknowledged the past of racism being the norm as well as confirming that they would be the person in their generation to change those beliefs. Although I’m sure there is an entire story behind these words, which we cannot see, the choice of words was very powerful to me.

In addition to admitting these implicit biases, it also struck me that many of the comments on the cards were clearly from people who were not people of color. It is often expected that people of color are the first and most vocal about race and racial problems because it affects them the most. However, Norris talked about the fact that white people, in particular, have their own truth and the cards were a way to reveal that truth. Whether that truth was that they felt guilty for slavery, felt disadvantaged because of “post-racism”, or some combination of the two–this was their truth. I think this was a very important statement. When surrounded by others who look like yourself it is easy to have an echo chamber and never encounter new, differing opinions but Norris encouraged this as a way to expand your perspective and learn more about why your opinion is what it is. It is important to allow each person, despite race, to say their own truth even if we may not agree with it ourselves. She emphasized that although cards were a good way to hear this truth the message should resonate in day-to-day conversations.

Leave a Comment

In reading both of these short stories there was an overarching theme of followership and the effect that it has on an entire culture. When growing up within a cultured tradition it can be difficult to see outside of this tradition, as it is all you know. If there is nothing else to compare that one experience to, it is understandable as to why it has never been changed. Still, this does not mean the members of the community cannot question the tradition. Although I have little experience, I am sure that all cultures generally have a rule that each member should not kill or harm one another—as this is ethically and practically necessary to maintain a civil society. In the lottery, their killings eventually happen more and more frequently yet it is never questioned. This practice goes against the basic necessity to maintain a society but, since it is agreed upon by the society it became part of their norm and how they maintain a civil society.

The story of Omelas is a bit different, for me, in that it is a question of ethics and less of tradition and followership. The child in the room is being abused and everyone knows it. Yet, according to their rules, it is necessary to keep the child in the room so that everyone else may remain happy. This is somewhat of a trolley problem–do you sacrafice one life for the life of hundreds of others or is each life valued the same and therefore the child should be released from the room despite the consequences. I believe that this story is beyond followership because there is an aspect of tradition and fear. No one exactly knows what would happen if the child was released hence why it has become a rule to keep the child in the room. This cannot simply be deemed bad followership and failure to question authority because the entire town could be killed once the child is released. Both of these stories are complex in the themes that they bring about on what would be ethically or logistically best for each town.

5 Comments

In reading about the experiences of black people in the age of submission there two distinct topics that I thought of. One was the use of music, poetry and other forms of art which gave a political message and the second one was the usage of churches within the black community. Zinn showed many poems from authors such as Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes, and Paul Lawrence Dunbar. These Harlem Renaissance arts used their art to express political messages about the discrimination within the Jim Crow system. By writing from personal narratives as well as those which they knew were pervasive in the community, they were able to accurately convey the blatant racism and ostracization that took over their daily lives. This is especially powerful in Cullen’s incident poem as it shows that one racist experience can have a lot of power on a person’s life. By showing that his entire summer all he remembers was a racial slur that he was called, we are able to understand the message Cullen wanted to send to both the black and white audiences who read his work.

Another powerful aspect of these first-hand stories was the usage of the church, particularly Baptist churches, as a source of power, strength but also functionally as a place to meet where many marches and organized dissent started. When Zinn writes about Montgomery this is especially evident. By meeting at the church, it was symbolic of black unity but by also noting that the followers were instructed to “walk with God” demonstrates the power and significance that church and God had in these stories. The church, according to Zinn, was central to Martin Luther King’s movement but generally had a large presence in other movements as well.

5 Comments

Through reading this article I became very confused and recognized the complexities that exist when it comes to fighting inequality, particularly between those who are oppressed and those who are considered to be in the oppressive position. In early American history the vulnerable population of poor labor workers, mechanics and artisans were fighting to be treated equally and respected by the rich people who employed them. Instead of opposing them, the article spoke about how there were rich individuals representing these poor populations and broadcasting their issues. The rich “linked to the artisans and laborers through a network of neighborhood taverns, fire companies, and the Caucus…that gave credence to laboring-class views and regarded as entirely legitimate” (Zinn).  After reading this, I was pushed to question what benefit would the rich have in helping the poor. In this case, they are the oppressors and the ones who should be making changes but instead, they are siding and advocating for those who are oppressed. Although this is beneficial to the poor workers, the changes should come directly from the rich. This connection reminded me of the fight for racial equality and the presence of white allies in the Civil Rights movement. In a similar way, the white allies helped advocate for their disenfranchised counterparts. However, with this situation, I am able to understand that those who were advocating had levels of power but not political power that could change laws. In making this comparison there are many questions to be asked about who can be allies, who can help the opposing population and what exactly needs to be done to create changes in these situations.

Further in the article, Zinn wrote about the Regulators and their attempt to rebel against their oppressors. A major part of their problems revolved around taxes and not being able to vote on taxes which heavily affected them. In contrast to the earlier general population of workers, the Regulators were much more organized and even created revolts against the rich to assert their opinion in matters which affected them. They even went as far as ” organiz[ing] to prevent the collection of taxes, or the confiscation of the property of tax delinquents” (Zinn).  This group, without the backing of the rich, were able to create their own changes and rules. This additionally complicates the question of why allies are necessary, if they are necessary and what is their purpose?

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

On November 18th I performed along with Ngoma African Dance Company in the Celebration of Dance concert. Bringing together many different groups and styles of dancing this concert intended to build and celebrate dance in all of its forms. By including dances of Hispanic descent, African dance, hip-hop, traditional South Asian dances and many others the concert not only succeeded in showcasing talent but introduced many different cultures and traditions onto one stage.

For my specific performance, we performed Kuku, which is a traditional coming of age dance for youth in West Africa. The message of this dance intends to unite young adults as they all move into their next stage of life as adults. By dancing, we tried to replicate the group dynamic that is in the tradition itself throughout our performance. There were a few ways we tried to achieve this: firstly by interacting with each other throughout the performance whether that was by us talking, making small gestures, eye contact or depending on one another to know when our transitions were. This created a group dynamic that was very dependent on each other but encouraged us to work more closely with one another. In addition to simply dancing along with the other performers, there was an extra emphasis on group structure because we depended on the drums for cues rather than counts or a specific accent in the music. Working with the drummers brought the group even closer as we had to truly rely on each other to know what to do and when. Part of this reliance goes back to the nature of West African dancing and music. Our instructor taught us that in dancing to African music it is important that your movements follow the rhythm of the drums but in a way that seems natural and authentic. Although this was hard to envision, personally, because I was used to having choreographed movement, I came to understand his point.

Leave a Comment

In reading Miller’s article about domination and subordination a few interesting concepts/ tensions came to mind. When discussing the relationship that exists between a dominating and subordinating person in a temporary inequality, Miller noted that the focus should be on bringing the lesser up to the same status as the dominating person. The superior is expected to teach the lesser such that a teacher is expected to teach their students or a parent is expected to teach their child. Unfortunately, this ideal has been changed over time so that the lesser is not the focus. Instead of being able to rise to the level of the superior, the lesser becomes complacent and learns to adapt to being a good lesser- one that follows instructions, is not problematic and serves as a good mentee–nothing more. Although this relationship is only temporary it can have negative effects on the student, or child, (the lesser) because they never grow to balance the relationship. By this, what is supposed to be a situation of temporary inequality becomes extended.

In continuing to read Miller’s article I was able to connect the problem of the lesser to that of subordinates in permanent inequality positions. Miller defined permanent inequality as those who are seen as unequal from birth. Some key characteristics such as race, class, sex and other identifiers put people in an inferior category. This labeling is often internalized and prevents subordinates from reaching beyond the capabilities they are told to possess. This is evident, as Miller mentioned, through women in WWII who took over the “male jobs” once they were drafted. But also exemplified through many slave rebellions which only happened because the inferiors, the slaves, learned their strength, their power and their status as the majority population. This connects to the lesser adapting to their position because it is also a psychological understanding. Once they feel comfortable in their position as lesser and think that is their rightful place, it becomes more permanent than temporary.

Cheney and Lair’s readings focused on dissent and its place in fear-based culture. Through this reading, I came to understand there are two views of dissent: as part of the normalized culture or as threatening to existing norms. Once group solidarity is lost that dissent can be seen as irrelevant or as threatening. I’m just not sure what/who distinguishes when we believe that dissent is one or the other.

Leave a Comment

Reading both Bass and Burns’ articles about transactional and transformational leadership styles it is clear that, in the past and today, transactional leadership is less effective and successful than transformational leadership. Building a quick relationship with someone for the sake of gaining one thing in return provides no opportunity to foster growth in that relationship. There is no incentive or need to continue associating oneself with that leader or trying to learn from the leader when the leader has no desire to continue teaching their followers. In comparison, transformational leaders work to benefit both themselves and their followers. Through a process of teaching and working to accomplish their follower’s motives, followers and leaders are able to build a relationship that continuously grows. Burns specifically notes that this type of relationship elevates both groups and provides a greater feeling of accomplishment.

Going deeper into the distinctions between the two Bass describes it as seeing what can you do for a certain group versus what that group can do for you and how you can benefit (Bass 10). Most transactional leaders simply see themselves as a priority and put their needs above those of their followers. Instead of the transformational leaders who combine their needs with their followers, the transactional leader works to separate the two. Bass continues by noting the benefits of transformational leadership–by combing one’s goal with their leaders, the followers are able to move further up Maslow’s chart in order to be closer to self- actualization.

 

5 Comments

Ruscio’s article on humility argues that in order to rule democratically the leader needs to have some level of humility. Although I completely agree with Ruscio’s argument it leaves me to question how we are able to maintain somewhat of a successful country without a humble leader. As Ruscio’s last paragraph states, “We are testing whether our democracy can survive a leader without humility.” This statement implies that our country is 1) still a democracy and 2) our current president does not have the same level of humility as past leaders. If having humility was a necessary component of being a leader, that is respected by their followers, how it is that President Trump is still in power, making laws that endanger lives and allowed to run for re-election.

In addition to this tension that arose, Ruscio made a few other interesting points in the article one which was that leaders were expected to make mistakes in order to show that they were human and on the same level as their followers. Using the example of the Constitution, Ruscio argued that it was not the knowledge of leaders that set them apart but their limitations and what they could not do. By being open and honest about their weaknesses, mistakes, and places where they were unsure Ruscio showed that these leaders were given, more support, more well-liked and praised even after they were leaders anymore. By this, without making mistakes a leader was not a leader but instead seen as some form of a hero. Part of why this humbleness and humility was so effective was its way of showing the leader cared about things other than themselves and their own successfulness. In the example of Washington, Ruscio noted that he “understood the office is bigger than the person. The timeless duties of an office are distinct from the fleeting preferences of those who hold it”. Washington understood that the bigger picture was caring for the community and being an impactful leader. His characteristics of being humble facilitated this and made it easier for his followers to understand that was his mission. He was not engulfed in the idea that he was president or in some way had more power than those beneath him but instead, he was working for the people.

2 Comments

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave best showcases the power that followers possess and their necessity, perhaps more than leaders. Plato’s argument, at the end of the video,  is that once the freed prisoner attempts to show the captive prisoners the outside world, what he perceives as a better life, he will be killed. The captive prisoners will prefer their life inside the cave and resent the freed prisoner for trying to “blind” them in the same way he was initially not adjusted to the sun when he went outside. The mass of prisoners will not understand what the freed prisoner is showing them and they will revolt against him. The leader’s power, in this case, does not surpass that of his followers. He is not seen as a leader because his followers do not respect his ideas.

This theory, although established in 514A is relevant to the leadership styles that individuals aim to reach today. Many of our leaders present their followers with ideas which they think will beneficial to the entire population but often it is the decision of the population that dictates whether or not the idea is put into practice. Sociologist George Simmel articulated this argument best in saying that both followers and leaders are given the same amount of power and respect, due to the fact that one cannot exist or thrive without the other. There is an understanding that the collective population has most of the internal power because they are the majority. They may not be the face of an organization yet their views and principles heavily influence the goals and mission of that organization.

Another interesting point Garder mentioned was that leaders are born out of distress to lead the population. This leads (no pun intended) me to think about leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who was given his power and position as a leader because of his situation. The discrimination and segregation that he and other African Americans experienced pushed him to see the suffering his people endured and rise to the occasion of being their leader. Alongside this, it is important to understand that he was able to remain in power because he represented the voice of the people. Although MLK was chosen, if he did not perform as was expected he would not have maintained his position as a leader. In fact, like the freed prisoner in Plato’s cave, if he was not able to give the people what they wanted and was thought to be leading his followers in the wrong direction he would’ve been demoted or killed.

Lastly, Mabey’s article about citizen leaders pushed me to ask the question do we demand too much or too little from our leaders? On one hand, Mabey made the argument that we have many different types of transitional leadership traits which we expect our leaders to fulfill. We expect them to be able to identify problems and find solutions, as well as generally leading the organization, focusing on the future of the company and at the same time teaching and preparing their followers to be great leaders when they are gone. These are all different theories developed which we, ideally, would like all of our leaders to possess, even if it may not be possible. Yet, on the other hand, Mabey argued that within the liberal society we have today, many of our leaders are egotistical, focus on their own good and are simply given a title of leader once they fill a position, not necessarily reliant on their action and involvement as a leader.

“It can also be the art of the impossible, that is, the art of making both ourselves and the world better”

1 Comment

In determining whether or not King Charles deserved to be executed it is important to examine the events leading up to his execution. Most important to note is the fact that Charles I betrayed his followers and the members of Parliament after losing the English Civil War in 1646. Despite the thought that Charles might’ve lost his supporters, the people had no malice thoughts about him as a leader and still respected him even after losing the Civil War. By joining with the Scottish forces in an attempt to invade England, Charles committed treason. He did it in an attempt to gain back the throne, but there was no need to go to that extent. By this, there was no valid reason for Charles to attempt an invasion and he did deserve executed.

On another note, it is essential to understand that King Charles I was honorable with a strong sense of right and wrong. As a leader, he was respectful and loyal to his followers. However, he had a habit of escalating altercations with his enemies. Whenever there was a small challenge it would be escalated because of the attitude that he possessed. This quality is part of what pushed him to unite with the Scottish forces. Unfortunately, his pride got ahead of him and led him to be executed.

 

 

4 Comments

Charisma is an attribute that relies on many different aspects, making it difficult to simply give the word one definition. In reading Riggio’s theory of charisma, it stuck out to me that charisma heavily relies on the relationship between a leader and their followers. He says, “it is in the relationship between the leader’s qualities and the followers’ devotion to the leader and the belief in the leader’s cause that charisma lies”(2). By saying this, Riggio asserts that it is not solely having good charisma which creates a good leader, it is also neccessary to have a strong follower base who is dedicated to their cause. Not having the “follower base” component, it shows that the leader lacks the emotional intelligence and persuasion required to be a good leader.

This definition that Riggio adopted from Weber also follows the psychoanalytic theory of charisma, which similarly states that strong identification to the leader strengthens the loyalty that followers have for their leader. This further confirms that charisma is mainly demonstrated by how well groups of people attach themselves to the leader and identify with their cause.

Another point of interest in Riggio’s paper was Richard Arvey’s research that leadership is about 2/3 “made” and 1/3 “born”. Prior to the research, it has been a common argument as to whether leaders are born or made. Reading this article affirmed my beliefs that leaders are taught and groomed to developed their skills. Although some individuals may have certain traits in their genes, it is only manifested through acknowledging that skill and practicing it. Without practice, a person can possess certain skills yet not have the ability to be a good leader. I would even go further to deny that an individual can be born with leadership skills. The most common skills of good leaders are communication, charisma, and intelligence. There are a few others which also play a role, but most of these skills are simply not inherent. In order to be successful with any of these skills they must be taught, whether that is by parents or schooling.

 

 

 

2 Comments

Role models-Black female lawyers

Leader- Barack Obama

Heroes- Red Cross workers

Leave a Comment