RCL 5

https://bigcatrescue.org/donate/

I chose bigcatrescue.org as featured on the Netflix series Tiger King. This is an organization that protects big cats such as tigers, lions, bobcats, cougars and others from abusive owners. They claim their mission is to preserve big cat wildlife. One of the arguments on the website is their claim of dissociation from zoos. Unlike zoos they do not buy, sell, or trade their animals. Big Cat Rescue states “zoos are in the business of showing animals for a fee, or for donations.” Though Big Cat Rescue is indeed a rescue organization, they do allow visitors on the property to engage with the animals for donations, which is exactly what zoos do. The main difference the site mentions is zoos allowing visitors and workers to physically touch and engage with the animals, which Big Cat Rescue does not allow. Even with this difference Big Cat Rescue mirrors zoos in using the appeal of people wanting to learn more or witness an exotic animal for the exchange of money. This organization also claims that zoos care little about wildlife conservation, attributing this to the small amount of profit zoos donate to this effort. However, Big Cat Rescue (BCR) failed to disclose how much they donate to the same cause and if they even donate. From the website, it seems as though most of the donations this organization receives goes to providing shelter and food to the rescued cats. Instead of wildlife conservation, the website did mention the large investment of virtual reality zoos. This seems like an effort to make money in the future, not conserve big cat species in the wild. 

BCR makes it a point to shame private ownership of big cats. They believe private ownership only contributes to less wildlife in their natural habitat. A lot of private zoos or small zoos trade, buy, and sell large cats, but a lot of these transactions are between current or previous owners of these animals. If someone exchanges an animal that was already out of its habitat, then that person is not directly contributing to less animals living in the wild. Just as BCR takes care of large cats that are already outside of their natural homes, so do other private owners. BCR claims to care mostly about the endangerment of large cats, however they are like other owners who deal with not being able to return these animals back to the wild.

 

Advocacy

Partners: Faith and Destiny 

Don’t touch my hair has been a movement in the black community for decades. Applying to all people, black men included, “don’t touch my hair” has been coined by a plethora of black women. Over time, as black hair care products became more accessible and black women were putting more time and effort into controlling their locks, “don’t touch my hair” was a popular phrase. In modern media, it’s “hasn’t anyone ever told you NOT to touch a black woman’s hair?” and “who told you you could do that?”. Solange even made it a song!

This protective instinct stems from history; it has taken years for black women to gain hair representation in the industry. It’s been a harrowing process, dealing with competition with other black people, as portrayed in Self Made: Inspired by the life of Madame C.J. Walker (back in 1906!). And we still have to deal with the non-black community involved in damaging hair care for black women. Products such as relaxers that would straighten black hair to appeal to the “proper standard of beauty”. It has been a fight for representation, proper care, and fair treatment, and to include the entire issue of a negative self-image, opened a lot of doors for resentment towards people who can’t respect the afro. Towards people who can’t respect the visually effortless looks that black women have curated over the years. 

All that to say, Destiny and I have chosen the topic “Don’t Touch My Hair” as the focus for our persuasive essay, and for our advocacy project, we came up with the idea to reach out to black women in our communities and curate a playlist dedicated to black women’s hair, black women’s self image, and our journey to a positive perspective on the way with live. The playlist will begin with “Don’t Touch My Hair” by Solange, and all the songs following it will pertain to being a black woman in the world we live in today.

Since the advocacy project has to be something easily accessible and easily shared, we felt this would be the best thing to do that would gain the most traction. I (Faith) came up with the idea when I woke up one morning. I (Faith) thought it would be a really good idea because it’s something anyone can contribute to at any time and it’s super easy to just listen to some good music suggested by black women!

  1. Keegan, Kayla. “Madam C.J. Walker Was Just as Incredible in Real Life as ‘Self Made’ Portrays Her to Be.” Good Housekeeping, Good Housekeeping, 23 Mar. 2020, http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/a31818505/madam-cj-walker-self-made-netflix-true-story/.
  2. Knowles, Solange. “Don’t Touch My Hair.” GENIUS, GENIUS, 2 Oct. 2016, genius.com/Solange-dont-touch-my-hair-lyrics . 
  3. Yeboah, Stephanie. “I Don’t Care If You’re ‘Fascinated’ by My Afro, Stop Touching It.” Metro, Metro.co.uk, 9 Sept. 2019, metro.co.uk/2019/09/09/i-dont-care-if-youre-fascinated-by-my-afro-stop-touching-it-10708877/.

Persuasive Essay

Partners: Destiny and Faith

Thesis: If not authorized, you should never touch a black woman’s hair.

This topic is very relevant and necessary because black women all across the world are constantly dealing with others feeling entitled to their bodies and their space. Touching a black woman’s hair not only violates their physical being, but also ties back into the idea that their bodies belong to their historic oppressors, who are often the ones violating this rule. This topic needs to be further evaluated because it is such a simple concept that is not equally honored for all people. This rule is not one that was specifically created by black women either. In our society, our children are taught at a young age to keep their hands to themselves. It just so seems that the rule does not apply when black women are the subjects, which has resulted in black women having to defend their bodies accordingly. 

When discussing anything relating to race and ethnicity, the subject matter may not be easily accepted by others who do not identify with that specific community because they may not think there is an actual issue. Misconceptions surrounding this topic are that this is an uncecessary topic in 2020, black women always have issues that tie back to the days of slavery, this conversation contributes to racial divide, and hair holds no value.

Some of the main discussion questions for this persuasive piece are:

  • Why are black women’s bodies’ and space not given the same respect as others? 
  • Why do historic oppressors feel entitled to black bodies.
  • Understanding that people from different regions of the world have different physical traits, why is ethnic hair, specifically of African descent, seen as taboo?
  • Why is hair so valuable in the black community?
  • Why do black women spend so many resources (time, energy, and money) on their hair?
  • Where does this protective nature of their hair stem from?
  1. Young, Sarah. “Gabrielle Union Defends Hairstyles That Were ‘Too Black’ for America’s Got Talent.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 15 Dec. 2019, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gabrielle-union-hairstyles-video-instagram-americas-got-talent-racism-a9246856.html.
  2. Whaley, Natelegé “Solange’s ‘Don’t Touch My Hair’ Is An Anthem Reclaiming Black Autonomy.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 6 Oct. 2016, http://www.huffpost.com/entry/solanges-dont-touch-my-hair-is-an-anthem-reclaiming_b_57f67383e4b030884674abca.
  3. Johnson, Maisha Z. “8 Reasons You Want to Touch Black Women’s Hair – And Why They Mean You Shouldn’t.” Everyday Feminism, Magazine, 26 Oct. 2017, everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/dont-touch-black-womens-hair/.

Deliberation Discussion

I attended ‘The Art of Swiping Right: A Discussion of Dating in the Digital Era,’ after my own about the S.O.S Scholarship. In comparison to the scholarship deliberation, the one based on online dating was more of an open forum discussion. The approaches were set as prompts or key points to discuss during the deliberation. Two of the main approaches included the effects of online relationships and impacts of “catfish” online personas.

First, the room was set up in a big circle, making it easy to see everyone and connect with each participant during the discussion. For each approach, appropriate background was provided to prompt members of the subject at hand. A few discussion points posed as questions were then provided to lead the deliberation. For the second approach, one of the consideration points was whether or not fake online presences can negatively impact those who are catfished. Many people then went on to discuss their personal experiences or experiences of people they knew who were affected by this online dating problem. During the dissection of this approach, the social aspects of Gastil’s Criteria were met. People were receptive and respectful of other participants and each person was given equal opportunity to engage in the deliberation. 

For the analytical criteria components, the group did not deliver in the same way. Because our generation lives in an era of a heavy online presence, the presenting group substantially relied on participants having background information so that they did not have to provide as much. This worked in the group’s favor because there were only undergraduate students in the audience. If there were members of an older generation, those participants would have been left out of the deliberation due to their lack of knowledge and the lack of provided information regarding this topic. In addition to this, there was no real problem addressed to the audience. This disqualified the criteria that determines potential solutions to problems and also considers the pros and cons of each.

Though the deliberation did not meet all criteria, as a participant I enjoyed the discussion of this topic. Since I was able to understand the topic and relate to it on my own experiences, I found it easier to sympathize with other participants.

 

Deliberation Test Run

After reviewing the 2017-2018 season report, it is shocking to note that UCLA found television creators to be 91% white and 84% male. Shocking not only because of the high percentage, but also due to the long history of television and the perceived notion that the entertainment industry is more diverse than ever before. With the emergence of stories based on women, different races, different sexualities, and orientations, it is hard to believe that mostly white men are the creators. That does not go to say that white men aren’t diverse, because everyone has a different background and perspective that contributes to overall diversity itself. However, it is more difficult to believe that they are the creators of other people’s stories. This leads to my first question: are diverse groups okay with their stories and experiences told by others who will never see the world from their perspective? Do people know the difference between entertainment created by someone from their community or by other? If stories are created by those outside of one’s community, are they still deemed authentic?

It is not only important to discuss diversity, or the lack thereof in this case, but to also analyze how minority groups are portrayed in the media. In an ongoing study, researchers are finding that economic pressures are influencing how different minority groups are stereotyped. These stereotypes presented in children shows and animations are already influencing children to believe someone may be “good” or “bad” depending on the voice of an anime character. These same children are also able to explain why an actors and/ or actresses seem bad. Understanding that children are able to think for themselves and comprehend good vs. bad based on how someone sounds, it would be interesting to analyze how stereotypes in television impact children’s view on people in the real world.

 

References

Dobrow, Julie, et al. “Why It’s so Important for Kids to See Diverse TV and Movie Characters.” The Conversation, 16 May 2019, theconversation.com/why-its-so-important-for-kids-to-see-diverse-tv-and-movie-characters-92576.

Levin, Sam. “Despite Reckoning on Hollywood Diversity, TV Industry Has Gotten Worse.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 Feb. 2018, http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/feb/27/tv-industry-diversity-women-people-of-color-decline.

 

Analysis of Online Deliberation

A blog post found on variety.com (https://variety.com/2019/tv/columns/game-of-thrones-finale-review-1203220588/) sums up the series finale of ‘Game of Thrones’. The author leaves the comment section open for other fans to discuss this review, as well as their own views and opinions on the final episode of this fan favorite series. 

The commenters were only able to post one original comment of their own, instead of having the opportunity to communicate back and forth with each other. This removed some of the social process criteria Gastil established due to the lack of direct interaction between responders. However, people were finding ways around that by discussing other mentioned ideas in their own post. 

Due to the popularity of this series, commenters arrived very opinionated to this deliberation. Passion was the main driving force, often resulting in the lack of regard and respect for other participant’s feelings and beliefs. Many people were very insultive if other participants were satisfied with the series ending. This is also a contradiction to the criteria, as Gastil intended for participants to be respectful of all the ideas and opinions of others.

Although this deliberation did not abide by all 9 criteria, some were satisfied. Participants discussed numerous potential endings for the finale while still recognizing the intent of the writer’s direction for the final episode.

 

Paris Attack and False Information

After the terrorist attack in Paris, multiple social media outlets and networks wanted to be the first with the reports. It seemed like everywhere I looked, I was swarmed with different information about the attack from different sources. This almost always occurs when an unfortunate event around the world takes place. This makes it hard for me to get the real truth and have a personal opinion on the situation, because I don’t know the accurate details.

When I was finished reading the two sources provided, I realized that it wasn’t wrong of me to be confused in the mist of chaos because literally no one knows what is going on. Different news stations and reporters often provide information that is not confirmed, making it false and unqualified. They probably pull information from witnesses from the scene who are distraught and unreliable or write about hearsay. A report given by The Telegraph on the Paris attack gave information which was given by anonymous sources, which may not be credible. The Telegraph also cites information from unspecific people, such as “law enforcement official,” who may not have been on the scene or know for themselves what is going on.

I believe it is unfortunate that the world is constantly given false information. It makes it not only hard to trust our “credible” sources but our officials too. People would much rather have all gathered and verified information at a later, yet reasonable time, rather than false information, which is almost always proven untrue later, given right after a tragedy happens.

Rhetoric Draft

What do people assume when they interpret the American flag? Most Americans will often think about the two basic principles America was founded on: democracy and freedom. Colonist had to fight for their freedom from British rule and after they accomplished that, they established a democracy balancing the power in government and giving people a say in the laws they follow. Today these two principles are granted to the citizens of America and foreigners who come to America for these basic rights they feel they deserve. Because these are the commonplaces of most domestic and foreign civic groups, we need to ask ourselves is that all America stands for? Has America been perfect at demonstrating these two qualities that are so prevalent in it’s society? If not, what ways can we make America a better place for not one, but all major groups in and out its society?

If not all, most Americans have heard the slogan “Make America Great Again.” This was adopted by Donald Trump from the campaign slogan of Ronald Reagan in 1980. It is a saying that is often thrown around, but do people understand its meaning? It alludes to the fact that America was once a great perfect nation, founded on perfect principles, that have helped people from all walks of life and backgrounds. It is used today to give Americans hope that the country can return back to the old good way that it used ot be. This propaganda is used to push Americans to let the country be led by someone who has traditional American values.

Outside of the underlying reasons why the slogan is used, a whole movement was created on these four basic words. The movement wants to create new job in America for hard working citizens, supply medical needs and job opportunities for people who have served in the military, crackdown and prevent illegal immigration, and protect America from threats and attacks made by terrorist groups. In all the movement recognizes that America has a problem in these areas and it believes that fixing these problems would in facts make America great again.

The issue with this slogan and meanings are the words used to describe America. Great, perfect, and all are very specific words that imply specific meanings. Great and perfect suggest something that is flawless in all aspects. All is used when describing an inclusive thing, group, or people. These three words should only be used when describing a utopian society, which America is not.

The actual goals of the movement only address some of the issues America faces. They don’t include the social injustices of many groups, especially minorities in America.

“Traditional AMerican values” can be interpreted in many different ways, but most people often associate them with ignorant, exclusive, and unequal attitudes most people had in the past. It was very common and acceptable for the majority to discriminate toward diverse groups because that was the standard of that time. The dominant majority, white men, made it okay to just worry about themselves when making decisions for the country and other groups. It is no hidden secret that women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals, transgenders, people with disabilities, and other underrepresented people in American society have fought and continue to fight for their basic right as American citizens and more importantly humans. It is a never ending fight for diverse underrepresented groups to feel as though they are treated and valued as equally as all the other groups in American society.

Because of this never ending struggle, movements like America Was Never Great were created to contradict the basic principles of the Make America Great Again movement. Unlike Trump’s slogan, America Was Never Great addresses the imperfection in any area creates incompleteness in the country as a whole. But because America Was Never Great is used, doesn’t mean this movement expect greatness and equality for this country.

Slogans like Make America Great Again can’t be used if America was never great to begin with. If we plan to achieve greatness, we as a country need to address the obstacles we face that prevent us from this goal Citizens in America need of change their fixed mindsets before we can make America great for the first time.

RCL Three Artifacts

When the word artifact is mentioned, most people probably think of different tools and dishes used during ancient times. I never would have known that artifacts could be something not directly related with history. After learning what the word civic meant and what civic artifacts were, I broadened my idea of what an artifact could actually be.

While deciding what artifact I want my speech to be about, I considered a few options. The first was the American Flag. I think the flag can represent many different things and be interpreted by many different civic groups. To most Americans, the flag represents freedom and democracy, but I want to challenge people in my civic group to consider the artifact through different perspectives during different times in history.

The Bible is another artifact that can raise different feelings and emotions for different religious groups. The most practiced religion in the world is Christianity according to NPR. Are people who practice other religions offended when they see the Bible, or are they unaffected by other religious books? These two questions involve deep analysis from different people who are ready to share their opinion and consider other people’s views from different civics.

The Constitution was the last artifact I thought about using for my speech. If asked to consume this document, most people would automatically think of the rights they do or don’t have, if they are American citizens. When constructing the Constitution, the delegates wanted to make sure it was a flexible governing system that could be changed and revised over the course of time. During the analysis of the Constitution people should determine for themselves if the Constitution is a flexible document and if it is an relatively easy process to change it. Do they feel comfortable that all their rights aren’t specifically stated in this document? Do they feel comfortable having their rights forced into boundaries set by other people? Are there any suggestions people would give to make the Constitution a better document?

Sources: “World’s Muslim Population Will Surpass Christians This Century, Pew Says.” NPR. Bill Chappell, 2 Apr. 2015. Web. 19 June 2016.