Richter’s series definitely appears to be harmonious in that the photos are all in the same color scale and appear to have motion or blur to them, making it seem as though all of them could exist within the same moment. Though some are subjects and some are landscapes, they seem to take the viewer to an alternate world.
Richter is claiming in the interview clip that observing his art is no closer to the experience of reality than observing a photograph. At the heart of it, they are both just replications of what really happened, and each. is just intended to make the reader feel a piece of that reality. He is playing on the idea that we consider art more based in “realism” to be more “real,” and that photography is the most “realistic,” when in reality none of it is “real.” The only real part of any replication is the feeling it evokes, and Richter blurriness helps create a feeling of disconnect and fuzziness that would exist in a memory of the reality.
Part of the experience of Ulrike Meinhof’s life is that the public didn’t get to experience all of it. I think that we could interpret the blurriness of richter’s portraits to represent that missing information, but also to represent the complications of what she stood for in the collective conscience of German society. (Is that a jump?)
!: Germany dislikes America as much as America dislikes Germany. I knew America didn’t like Germany bc of WWII and also Karl Marx inventing communism but I never thought about the feeling is mutual.
?: Why did she assert that the Soviet Union is the country with the least conflict both internally and with allies? That seems just… wrong??
Hitler Within You:
!: She is clearly critical of the genocide– but considering her position as such a left-wing person, she takes no credit for the role of the country in aiding the genocide, commenting on the fact that people are living in fear during the Eichmann trials. She will die for her cause– but apparently acknowledging guilt in the Holocaust is not a worthy collective cause.
?: How are “old Nazis” different from “new Nazis”…?
Everybody Talks About the Weather:
!: She uses the pathos of keeping family together as an argument to give citizenship to Nirumand… but she abandons her family to be a political terrorist sooo
?: Why is she critical of anti-authoritarian kindergarten that is apparently in progress? And why does she call it that? Is she pro-authoritarian???
!: Not all of the paper is intended to be political/op-ed. That is the job of the columnist.
?: Why is she talking about the job of the columnist (isn’t she a columnist?) as a profit maker if she is anti-capitalism?
The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum:
!: The concept of “free media” is backwards in the movie– the ability for the media to say whatever they want was another way for the state to oppress people. (Fake news?)
?: I’m still not entirely sure why her Katharina seemed to be hiding things, or at least refusing to cooperate with the police. I certainly don’t want to victim-blame her, but wouldn’t it have been in her best self-interest to cooperate? Also, why did she just suddenly fall in love with Ludwig and give up her whole life to be with him??
!: The movie makes you sympathize with the RAF. I was fairly far into the movie before I remembered that they were considered a terror group.
?: What was the ultimate fate of the RAF? As generations continued with more violence, how did the German state ultimately stop the terror?
I prefer the translation by Thomas over the translation by Anderson because I think it maintains more poetic license. I like how the Thomas translation repeats two words at the ends of the beginning verses, saying “goodbye goodbye,” and “pray pray.” I also find that it has more rhythm when I read it aloud. Maybe this is because the lines vary more in length in the Thomas one and some particularly short lines add emphasis to the poem.
!: The role of a poet is more significant in Russian culture than in American culture.
?: If they are just beginning to re-piece and honor/not honor Russian history under Stalin, what do we see as the future of the Russian collective conscience regarding that time?
I had the privilege of attending Ambassador Susan Rice’s interview. Ambassador Rice is well-spoken and had great advice for Davidson students– you can do everything at 100% all the time forever. She also has a great personality and is impressive in her professional and personal accomplishments in so many aspects.
The most interesting thing that I heard Rice say was when she mentioned the political conflict that is apparent in her family. Her son is conservative and even used to be the leader of the Young Republicans group in his college, obviously opposing Ambassador Rice’s views, as well as her husband and daughter’s views. She said that it was the most important thing to everyone in her family to maintain their close connection even though they have differing political views. She also said that its the most impiortant thing to listen to each other with open hearts.
This seems cliche and is something I would easily write off if it wasn’t said by President Obama’s former ambassador. It made me think about how I could apply this thinking in my own family context. Sometimes I agree with my brother about financial views, but I find it much easier to agree to disagree with him on those views when I know that his ideas aren’t personal toward me in any way. Can I think about my conservative Christian aunts and uncles in the same way when I know that it’s their social ideas that are in contradiction to mine? Should I be expected to listen to my family with an open heart and to prioritize my family over our differing views when they disagree with my “homosexual lifestyle?”
I am not sure what Susan Rice would say on the matter, but it is certainly interesting to think about what Rice is truly calling for in her speech to love others beyond political boundaries.
!: “They are inclined to be impatient to see if something can be done: and inclines to think that it can be done, until it’s proven otherwise. That is their real optimism…” (p. 7) Snow describes scientists as optimistic because they believe discovery is possible until they have sufficient reason to believe otherwise… I think it is interesting that Snow uses the word “optimistic” to describe this thought process. I would sooner use the word “open” or even “thorough.”
?: Could this same logic of two-polarized groups not understanding each other be applied to virtually any conflict?
Theories I recognize:
oxygen theory of combustion, plate tectonics, special relativity, general relativity, quantum theory, evolution by natural selection, and heliocentrism
Experiments I recognize:
Gregor Medels’ genetics, Isaac Newton’s light experiment, Marie Curry’s radioactivity experiment, Ivan pavlov’s conditioning experiment, Millikan’s electron experiments, Young’s wave experiment
!: The violence of cartoons was disguised as comedy… though cartoons really perpetuated the same violence that minstrelsy always has. Was that Bugs Bunny in blackface singing about Dixie? Do cartoons today shape children with the same violent images that they did in the early 20th century– and if so, what are we perpetuating?
?: Was “eenie meenie miney mo” originally with the N word– as the film portrays? Because if so, that is so unsettling.
The scene where the children of Birmingham marched in the park and got the fire hoses and dogs on them stood out to me. I hadn’t before given much thought to the role children had in these dangerous protests as well. For starters, I was surprised at how quickly the police arrested them, and how hostile the reaction from Bull Connor turned. It’s heartbreaking.
At the same time, this scene showed a nuanced moment of impact from the children on the police. On pg. 134, we see one white officer turn to another and say apprehensively, “Hey, FRED… uh… how many more HAVE you got?” while holding his hat and looking distraught. Despite the horrific display of violence against those children in Birmingham, their presence not only was an amazing image for the movement, but effectively disrupted the oppression of the police, if only in their brief apprehensiveness.
I chose this image on pg. 135 in particular because the image is powerful– and one of familiarity. In the background, we can see an officer directing kids to march into the back of the police truck, to their arrests– and the kids are going, just like following the lien through the hallway at school. In the foreground, we see the sweetest girl, with a braid, Mary Janes, the cute young-kid mumble, and a protest sign. It reads, “Can a man love God and hate his brother?” This is perfectly related to what Prof. Wills is explaining in class– how Christianity was used both as a means to perpetuate and dismantle racism.
This image also displays our motif of the absurdity of these oppressive, racist, actions. If the image were blatant enough in showing the ridiculousness of an officer asking why the young girl is protesting, the page says it right at the bottom: it was an embarrassment to the city.
I like this image most in the book because it seems to be a familiar one, one that I’ve seen many times in the civil rights movement. Most notably in my mind, the painting “The Problem We All Live With,” picturing Ruby Bridges being escorted to school. Though it’s not exactly the same, for some reason the image in the book immediately made me want to reference it. Maybe they strike me as similar because the young girls hold themselves with such resolve and power, while at the same time appearing to be innocent and in a sense powerless with the guards next to them.
Because this image takes up an entire page, it is certainly meant to stand out to the reader. It is curious to me that the policeman is on his knees to be the same level as the young girl. Is he there to get onto her level in some form of twisted sympathy? Or does him being eye-to-eye with her assert his dominance better than if he towered above her?
This play was very intriguing and well-done. Though it was not uncommon for my high school drama department, which I was highly involved in, to tackle hard and complex topics– I don’t think I’ve ever seen a play about such a reverent topic. Though I’ve never admitted it, my number one fear when coming into college was that of, “Which night will I be raped?”
My main takeaway from this play was the idea that there is no “correct” way to handle sexual assault. Admittedly, I spent the majority of the play thinking that Cassie, the woman starting the Back The Night Movement in response to her assault, was the one I should be “rooting” for. Her friend Em, who coped with her assault by denying and ignoring it, was in my mind lesser for not having the strength to process what had happened to her. At the end of the play, however, I found myself frustrated at my own judgement. Neither woman was “correct,” and in a sense I had engaged in my own twisted form of invalidating Em’s experience.
I hate that this is a shared fear of people across college campuses and I hate that there is no way to escape it. However, I think Back The Night presented to me a more nuanced understanding of how people can respond to trauma, and allowed me to be more empathetic to all the possible ways the survivors in my own life are coping.
Both Terrell and Wells were born in the early 1860s and become successful women in their fields and leaders of the Civil Rights Movement despite the oppressive Jim Crow laws of the time.
Terrell was born to two freed slaves who became among the richest black people in the south at that time. She studied at Oberlin college, where instead of following a “ladies” curriculum she studies more vigorous “mens” subjects, and then worked in the Civil Rights Movement and the Suffragette Movement. It is clear that her parents were more conservative religiously than she was.
Wells was born into slavery and was emancipated with them during the emancipation proclamation, but her parents and brother died a few years later of yellow fever. Wells went to college and was a very skilled writer, and became a cofounder of the NAACP (though not formally recognized as such).
Though it is hard to find a clear religious affiliation of either woman, we can see some differences in their rhetoric that align with their childhoods. Terrell grew up with a father as a millionaire, and her rhetoric is mostly about the job opportunities that black women are prevented from getting due to racial prejudice. Wells focuses instead of the systematic horrors of lynching, which she could be more determined to write about because she was born into slavery. I will not say that the difference in these women’s childhoods is why they focused on different issues within the Civil Rights Movement, but it is interesting to consider their differences in studying these great leaders of the movement.
I got to go to the talk given bu Kata Chillag this afternoon titled “International Medical Graduates at the Crossroads: Ethics of Immigration Policy and Health Care in Underserved Areas.” In this presentation, Chillag presented the process of becoming and maintaining status as an International Medical Graduate (IMG), and focused on West Virginia and the poverty of Appalachia to display the need for health care in underprivileged areas.
One important point that Chillag made was that, “disparity follows disparity.” She pointed out that is was a common misconception that places have more widespread illness as a result of poor healthcare… but in reality places have poor healthcare because of a lack of resources, and the widespread illness follows.
The example she provided about West Virginia was interesting because in underserved places, the amount of IMGs that are working in those areas is higher, up to 30% of the health care professionals. However, West Virginia is also not diverse and public opinion polling shows that there is a common anti-immigration sentiment throughout the state. In this sense, it is tragic that the people who are being served by immigrants do not value that contributions of immigrants, and that just furthers the barrier between the people of Appalachia and their access to healthcare.
I learned about the process of being an IMG in America and how people maintain that status here. If non-native people are educated in a medical school outside of the United States, the need to go through extensive testing, including a many month residency that must happen in America, to prove that their training is sufficient to serve the American public. IMGs most often work in areas that people do not have access to professionals that were trained in American schools, and their presence here is vital to the success of underserved communities. However, IMGs can only stay for a fixed amount of time, 7 years for many people, and after that they must either have accessed permanent residency or citizenship. As we know, that process is not always accessible, and for many IMGs they must return to their last country of long-term residence for 2 years before returning to America to work again. There is, however, a newer program in place that allows 30 IMGs in a given area to stay past their 7 year term if they are elected to that position because they are contributing to an underserved area.
Overall, I found this talk quite interesting because I had no previous information on the topic of IMGs. I think that this study shows many different nuances in the the American experience, from those of poverty to xenophobia to the broken immigration policy.