It is hard to fathom the popularity of the minstrel show post civil war and into the early 20th century. I begin to wonder whether it’s about whites displaying their insecurities because they now feel challenged by free blacks. If this is part of the reason it may make sense for these shows’ popularity. Whites, specifically in the South, may feel threatened by the now freed black man and they may be showing their insecurities through the minstrel show. For the whites performing and watching they may have felt that the only way they could feel secure was to display stereotypes that made African Americans look like lesser people. I think there may be another thing that draws whites to the shows and that is freedom and escape. Under black face your identity is altered and you’re given a sense of freedom and a lack of societal constraints. It is possible that during reconstruction, people in the South felt their identity had changed and minstrel shows provided a metaphor for those without a real identity looking for an escape from society.

The minstrel show in its earliest form shows white performers crossing genres and taking part in activities that may not do without being under a guise. While the minstrel shows attempted to reinforce stereotypes it also demonstrated how whites would like to act if they were not judged by society. A large change occurs when African Americans begin to perform in minstrel shows, some may believe that they’re accepting the stereotype. I believe that these African Americans took these roles to act subversively and point out the ridiculous of the stereotypes and help dismiss them. I think a modern day example of African Americans accepting a role in a minstrel type show to bring about change is Dave Chappelle in the Chappelle show. In a certain sketch, Clayton Bigsby, Chappelle plays a blind racist white supremacist who is actually black and the color of his skin is not known to himself or to his followers. Bigsby takes on the role of an overt racist making jokes which makes the audience confused at whether to laugh or not because of how racist they are. In this scene Chappelle is taking the issue of racism and mocking it for how ridiculous it is to judge someone for the color of their skin. It is in this manner that he plays what can be seen as a minstrel part playing to racial stereotypes while at the same time undermining it.

Under DARPA, the arpanet provided information separated, so that there is not one central demand. The information could be divided into packets and relayed across the country. In class we discussed how this goes against the cold war in terms of undermining authority and control, but I believe it does more than just go against a regime. I think that the arpanet is paradigm shifting for the military in the United States. The military was and still is for the most part a very structured system consisting of individuals having to run decisions up the chain of the command then having the decisions come back down. With the influence of a non linear progression in arpanet helped alter decision making in the military. It proved that technology could interfere and possibly skip steps in the hierarchal form, leading to more decentralized command in the military today.

In 1948 Claude Shannon stated that “information has nothing to do with any inherent meaning in a message”. This quotes states that the meaning is irrelevant and the message should be treated for information. This, in a mathematical context and technological context makes sense to me, but I think it should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, if you’re relaying a message in a technological sense it seems logical that you just want to get across the information. I think that if you apply this notion to life in general it does not apply. I think that in every personal interaction between individuals the meaning is the message and that they are not divorced as Shannon theorized.  I think the key to fundamental success in human relationship is to be able to determine the meaning in the message. I do not buy Shannon’s theory outside of the a mathematical context, but I do think it his theory is applicable to viewing how to transmit messages more efficiently.

As detrimental and as terrible as war is, it can be said that war brings about technological advancement. Carr may argue that this is detrimental since the cold war brought about the birth of computers, but I think this is one of the few upsides of war. The government flushing researchers with money allows for advances that were previously not thought of. I believe that these atrocities had one small positive in that it produced innovative men and gave them the funds to pursue unique ventures that would change the way we thought of technology and ultimately our approach to life. One great man who arose during this time is Vanover Bush who envisioned the Memex – microfilm reels storing information. Though some may say this idea undermines authority and changes how we perceive information and authority, I believe it is instrumental for completing a more efficient society. I also think that this approach which may seem less organized is more realistic to that of the human brain. The human brain does not function like a book it seems to jump around more and the perfect example is when you day dream or have thoughts come into your head that you either think about or dismiss in order to continue what you’re currently working towards.

In reading Carr’s book, there were certain things that did make sense, and I do think the internet has taken away from our ability to focus and develop a deep knowledge of certain topics. I believe people today have some knowledge of a myriad of things; but also, lack a deep knowledge of certain topics. There is no denying that the internet offers a large amount of distractions, but is it the internet’s fault for human performance and knowledge declining as Carr believes? I believe it is much more of a psychological effect that the internet may play a role in, but the blame should ultimately fall onto the individual. For me, the fundamental problem is the lack of discipline. Some may say that the internet is to blame for this, but I believe that by blaming the internet we avoid being accountable and looking at ourselves in order to become more disciplined. It is not fun to sit down and write a paper or read a book for class, it requires discipline. This skill, I believe, can be learned by doing things that we want to avoid each day. I do believe the internet may encourage distractions, but I think that blaming the internet is the easy way out. We should not blame the internet and technology for why we can’t concentrate, this action avoids accountability.  I think the proper way to correct societal issues is to work individually to accept the problem and encourage tasks we want to avoid in order to build discipline.

In class we compared early silent films to those of more modern cinema. In the silent film shown, the director only shows scenes of separate action creating a static perspective for the viewer. We then contrasted this with a more recent film, Saving Private Ryan, where the perspective of The D Day scene seemed to be constantly changing. This provided the viewer with the feeling that they are omniscient and provided a sense of realness while at the same time illustrating the impossible. The constant change in perspective is something that I had never noticed when watching movies until this class. The constant changing of camera angles and perspective always made me feel like the movie was more realistic and I never figured that the changing perspectives provided an unrealistic feeling. The change in perspectives of films today, compared to films in the early 1900’s may illustrate societies short attention span, but I believe it also illustrates outside the box thinking. Today, society is more distracted than ever and film presents the perfect metaphor for that, but we also live in a society of incredible ingenuity. The stagnant perspective of early films may present a lack of distraction, but I also believe it presents a lack of ingenuity. Yes, there is no denying that there were still incredible men and women that pushed society forward, but I think these figures were less abundant than today. I think our cluttered society filled with distractions has encouraged alternative thinking and produced an abundance of entrepreneurs.

Between the 1840’s and 1920 immense technological change brought about innovation in the U.S., but it also brought about massive confusion for much of the population. Sure things like the Railroad and Telegraph made connecting to others easier, but technology was advancing at such a rate that many people struggled to keep up with it.

I think that the invention of electricity shifted humans lives so rapidly that it created temporary disorder. Prior to electric light humans operated around the sun and once the sun was down not much occurred because what you could do in the dark was severely handicapped by candle light. In the course of a few years, people’s daily activities are shifted because they can now work or enjoy leisure activities at night that could previously only be done during the day. The invention of electricity creates a paradigm shift in society and would almost cause a sense of paralysis initially. The way in which people viewed the day completely shifts and while electricity does allow for more possibilities it also changes peoples schedule. It is tough to go from having your life completely centered around the sun to having light at will. Electric light creates a sense of confusion for many individuals as they now feel lost in the disorder.

An argument can be made that compression has tainted the overall quality of music. Compression has taken away from the individuality from certain instruments and can affect the quality of a singers voice when heard. This does not mean that compression is necessarily a bad thing for all people, and it has proven to be very popular. Pop music today involves compression and all the chart leading songs involve compression, so to say it’s bad, is a tough claim to make. Another tough thing to do is to differentiate between good and bad music. There is no universal standard for what is good music. The fact that there is not one standard to compare everything to creates a situation in which nearly everyone can favor a certain song over what other people believe. Why there is a preference for certain music seems to be an unanswerable question, but there are possible reasons for why society prefers compression in music. Compression at it’s core allows for a level sound that does not fluctuate. No fluctuation means that you do not have to change the volume, creating for a more simple and easy listening experience. Another possible reason for the preference for compression is the how the listening experience has changed over the years. Music used to be a primary source of entertainment, but as the popularity for television increased music became more of a background noise and  music that didn’t fluctuate helped provide the background music.

Welcome to onMason. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!