HAC Part 1 Blog Post

The Slave Galleries Project attempts to facilitate discussion in several ways, evident in the stated objectives for the project. Objective one listed three priorities in stimulating facilitation - "to humanize the experience of the space, to raise difficult and enduring questions, and to incorporate multiple perspectives". I think all of these viewed together can be seen as an attempt to make The Slave Galleries Project relevant to as many people as possible on the deepest level. In a community as diverse as the The Lower East Side, it would be easy for many different ethnic groups to look at the slave galleries and go "so what? Why do I care?" By humanizing the experience and attempting to put names and stories to the "slave galleries ghosts'", the project attempts to look past race and reach individuals. Additionally, incorporating multiple perspectives is crucial for the project because it becomes the entire community's project, not just the African American community's project. By bringing community leaders from all background into the space and allowing them to draw connections to their heritage's own history, it connects different groups through their histories.

I felt I didn't receive enough information from the article to conclude if The Slave Project was successful in facilitating discussion. HAC explicitly explains all the actions they took in an attempt to facilitate discussion, for example the actions discussed above. When it came down to the section entitled "Impacts of Arts-based Civic Dialogue Work on Partners and the Neighborhood", I felt HAC didn't touch on real results. For example, the section in the article discussing "Impacts" says,  "The project [The Slave Galleries Project] also trained almost half of the committee as dialogues facilitators. This ensured that the slave galleries would continue to generate effective dialogue". This was just repetition of what they had told readers earlier in the article. I knew already that extensive dialogue training was given, but what I didn't know, and still don't, is how this training translated into discussion. Also, the ending section entitled "Questions for the Future" voiced some concerns I had been thinking during the article about how effective is dialogue and what is it worth. While I am glad the article voiced them, I didn't think it did a great job in answering them.

Overall, I thought it was an interesting concept to use The Slave Galleries Project to stimulate current discussion. It was interesting that the creators objective from the beginning was to not only preserve and exhibit history, but apply that history to current events. In that regard, it sets it apart from the typical historical building which attempts to solely inform visitors of history. I also liked how "the committee agreed with Li's recommendation that the program should be conceived in a way that is open, flexible, and can readily reflect new discoveries and that the space should be presented to reflect the "process" of preservation, rather than as a static exhibit". This point goes back to something I earlier discussed on making the space relevant. This will allow the exhibit to change and apply to issues that have yet to come up, but will affect the community in the future.

I believe the Slave Galleries Project definitely has the potential to facilitate relevant and important discussion. In addition, the leaders of the community have been given the tools needed to lead this discussion. Unfortunately, I didn't feel there was much proof that it did or did not work in the article.

Profiles: For Critical Inquiry

1.) I thought by the end of the profile, the author had given enough background information to illustrate why Alewitz was the natural choice. The profile highlights his background as a worker, activist, and proponent for education which gives him a lot of life experience to pull from when creating murals. The profiler also states "Everything under the sun is suitable for reworking as an Alewitz image". It seems Alewitz is able to sympathize and create a mural for many types of situations. I think this makes him an effective muralist because he is not stuck solely in his own experiences, but applies what he has learned from them to many different situations which might not directly correlate. I think the profiler does a good job portraying this when describing several specific murals Alewitz had painted. They deal with a variety of subjects but are linked by key characteristics like working conditions and education.

The effect of letting the question of why Alewitz was the natural choice challenges readers to decide on their own if the statement is accurate. We spend the rest of the profile gathering evidence for each side of the argument. In that sense it is an effective technique in making the audience read more closely and also prompting the readers to have their own opinions.

Overall, I did not like how the author posed that question at the beginning. The profile never referred back to that beginning mural of Cesar Chavez. Perhaps that was deliberate so that readers had to make conclusions on their own of whether he was the natural choice, but to me it seemed like setting up a question and never getting around to answer it.

2.) First off, I should admit I am not totally sure what the question is referring to as a "dominant impression", but I am taking it to mean that the profile creates a strong, defined perspective of who Alewitz is as a muralist. With that being said, I didn't feel like the profile created a dominant expression of Alewitz. I felt the profile wasn't always cohesive and often I wondered how we had gotten from one topic to another. In particular, I did not understand or like the flow in paragraphs 7 through 10. It goes from discussing the places/movements Alewitz had covered to his artistic inspirations to the process of making a mural. Without the annotations I don't know if I would have fully understood the profiler's thought process moving through those few paragraphs. I felt that because I was sometimes questioning the structure of the profile instead of focussing on how it applied to Aleqitz, it took away from his "dominant impression".

3.) Buhle evaluates Alewitz's murals as reminders to citizens that they must play an active role in the education and furthering of themselves while also having pride in what they do. I think the profile did prepare readers to understand this because it explained several specific murals and thus gave lots of people ways to identify with them. There was the Chavez mural in Oxnard, the food worker one in Austin, and the civil rights one in New Market. Each of these had different purposes and concerns being depicted, but shared Buhle's evaluation of what Alewitz's murals "boldly insist".

Rhetorical Analysis Project

The object of my analysis is the Rotunda in the State Capitol building. I knew I wanted to choose something in the capitol building because it is such an important part of Madison, literally (it's huge and a focus of the city) and culturally (important political demonstrations and decisions are often associated with the capitol). I selected the Rotunda specifically within the capitol because I thought there would many aspects of it to analysis -- it's spatial significance, the components of it's murals, etc. I also picked it because I think it has an interesting history.

As mentioned briefly above, it is influencing people in it's political importance. For example, during the Union protests last year, the Rotunda was a physical and symbolic gathering point for people to come together and voice their opinions. I think it also influences people in a way that is less controversial. I can remember a field trip my 4th grade class took to the Capitol and the one part of the building that stands out in my memory is the Rotunda. It's size and beauty are also influential to people and can leave lasting memories.

One question I have about RA and the Rotunda is what aspects of it do I focus in on to analyze? There are so many different components to it (the murals, the dome, the arches) I am worried that my analysis won't be focused and coherent. Also, is there a way to tie it's history into the analysis? Should I touch on the context of the Rotunda or focus solely on the physical make-up of it?

AARP and Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical analysis involves critical reading forms of rhetoric in an attempt to understand how the author has tried to influence an audience through language. Jack Selzer describes two types of analysis – textual and contextual. Textual analysis involves focusing solely on the text and looking at things like the writer’s word choice, format, and tone. Contextual analysis involves understanding the environment in which the rheotic was created in order to understand how that has influenced the author. Using rhetorical analysis on a piece of writing “can offer you additional perspective and understanding”.

The interest group website I choose to analyze is the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). The organization is for people 50 and older and they are actively involved in lobbying Congress, providing information through magazines and bulletins, and giving member products, services and discounts. Using rhetorical analysis on the website is especially interesting because the AARP is considered to be one of the most influential interest groups in Washington. Knowing that ahead of time, it is interesting to look at how, or if, that political influence is present in their website.  It is also important to note that AARP is a membership organization, so they are also selling something through their website.

To get a better understanding of AARP, I concentrated on analyzing the “About Us” information pages. Selzer probably would have mentioned the website’s arrangement of dispositio. The initial About Us page is very brief, less then 3 paragraphs. At the end of it, it gives users an option to Read more. The left hand side bar breaks down “Who We Are” into many categories like History, Our Executive Team, and Diversity at AARP. I think they keep the initial introduction brief as a way to get user’s initial interest. A long, non-categorized webpage would lose reader interest. By categorizing the information and allowing readers to choose the link they want to read more about the web page, the website elicits interest and allows users to find information they are looking for easier. It also works to draw users deeper into the website because they must click numerous links to find more information.

AARP also relies on ethos to persuade users. It’s history section talks about how the organization has been well established for over 50 years. It discusses its leadership and their expertise to establish their own. It also establishes ethos through by listing their political achievements from the last year. They give concrete examples of what they have done in order to win people over.

This is just a brief analysis of the website. An interesting thing to note about the website overall is that it does not come across as blatantly trying to sell or persuade users. The website appears like one you’d expect for a magazine. The home page has links to sections like “Food”, “Travel”, and “Relationships”. There are quizzes and games you can take and play on the website. While the content of these is definitely geared to an older crowd, the first feel of the website is not going for an obvious sell.

Here is a link to the website.

Linenthal Narrative

            Linenthal’s uses a narrative in the opening of the chapter as a way to introduce readers to the material in a way that is easy to understand and accessible. A problem with some academic work is that in between the big words and cited research, the literature can be hard for people to grasp and make meaningful connections to. In using a narrative to introduce the chapter, Linenthal helps ease readers into the material – the narrative is effective in that regard. Another way the narrative is effective in Linenthal’s work, is it foreshadow the perspective of the rest of the piece. The chapter largely focuses on the Anglo-American perspective of the Custer’s Last Stand. The narrative is set up similarly, told from Linenthal’s vantage point of a white American looking back at Custer’s Last Stand. Therefore through the narrative, Linenthal has also introduced the perspective the rest of the chapter will study. Another aspect of the narrative I liked was how Linenthal’s memory of the Custer’s last stand invites readers to think about their own experiences and make their own connections. I don’t remember Custer’s Last Stand being very memorable in my own childhood, but his narrative brings up different memories of mine like the remembrance of Pearl Harbor each year and the cultural issues surrounding that. In that sense, even though Custer’s Last Stand is not of much personal importance to me, Linenthal’s narrative at the beginning helps increase my overall interest.

One thing I thought the narrative was not effective in was portraying to readers what Linenthal’s purpose was in writing the chapter. While having more background about the book itself would obviously help figure out what Linenthal is trying to achieve in his writing, the introduction is a good place to reiterate the purpose of the text.

            From Linenthal’s narrative, I took away several points that I will keep in mind as I write my own. First, I think a narrative should be clear and easy to understand. I will concentrate on writing clearly in a way that readers are able to follow and relate to. Additionally, Linenthal’s narrative highlighted the importance of perspective in a narrative. Even when writing a personal narrative, the perspective is an important aspect of the work. Lastly, my narrative should have enough personal details that readers are reminded of their own past experiences.

The Financial Crisis of 2008

The current event I picked to analyze was the climax of the subprime mortgage crisis in late 2008. The article, written by Andrew Ross Sorkin for the New York Times on September 14, 2008 highlights the dramatic conclusions to the financial crisis of 2008. To give a basic overview of the events, private firms had begun a practice of purchasing subprime mortgages, bundling them, and then selling them to investors in a process called securitization. During this time, there was a trend for many financial institutions to issue low-documentation loans meaning there was little verification required for homeowners to prove their ability to pay back a loan or place a down payment. When US housing prices peaked in 2006, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures soared. The crisis reached its climax in September 2008. Prominent financial institutions Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers were both on the verge bankruptcy following the crash of the subprime mortgage backed securities market. Described as “one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history”, Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America followed closely by Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy. Simultaneously, insurance giant AIG was seeking over $40 billion dollars from the Federal Reserve and The Fed was beginning to build emergency funds for the Wall Street banks.

I believe the event embodies several important aspects of public memory. First, it was an unprecedented moment on Wall Street where “once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees”. Industry experts and civilians alike were shocked at the speed and intensity the financial crisis gripped Wall Street. The after effects of the financial crisis gripped Americans in more personal ways. The stock market fell, unemployment rose, and the bubble of relatively good economic times people had experience prior to the crisis was over.

The financial crisis makes me wonder what David Rieff would have to say. In his article, “After 9/11: The Limits of Remembrance”, Rieff argues that “the stark reality is that in the very long run nothing will be remembered”. He makes a compelling argument, using Pearl Harbor as evidence to support his assertion. He poses to readers, “But how many Americans actually remember the 1,177 American sailors killed on the U.S.S. Arizona that day…?” I am compelled to agree with Rieff. Eventually, the majority of Americans won’t remember names like Merrill Lynch or Ben Bernanke. However, I think the public’s memory of their own emotional response to the events and what followed will ensure that collectively, the financial crisis of 2008 will not be forgotten soon. True, in the future it many not be remembered for it’s precedent-breaking financial implications. But, it will be recalled by one individual as the time they lost their home to foreclosure due to the stagnant housing market. Or perhaps it will be remembered by someone else as when they lost their job due to rising unemployment rates. Each person’s individual memory of it, overall is combined to produce a collective, public memory of the event.

"Lehman Files for Bankruptcy, Merrill Is Sold"