bwade300-blog-blog

[bwade300-blog-blog]

Brandon Wade

Dr. Jonathan Beecher Field

English 300 Professional Development

May 2nd, 2013

  They Say vs. I say:  Dr. Ashton’s "Don't You Mean 'Slaves,' Not 'Servants'?

  Dr. Ashton’s article, “Don’t You Mean ‘Slaves,’ Not ‘Servants’” circled around a very sensitive aspect of contemporary life in rural upstate South Carolina, at a public land-grant institution originally founded to be a “high seminary of learning”.  Unfortunately, events shaping the cultural and political landscape of our part of the country have long since come to cast a seemingly permanent shadow on our brand of life.  At least that one specific brand I’m thinking about that is nationally perceived to apply to every backwoods, racist, stereotypical local-news interviewee, and we as a state have an obligation to honor our traditions (I argue on a very limited basis-nobody is alive to tell about the Battle of Gettysburg after all…) as well as to respect the progress that certain minority groups have made despite (speaking as a Greenvillian) our shortcomings on understanding the value of humans and their rights to live as free as our country allows them to. 

Her experience that essentially sparked her insight into the matter and ultimately motivating her to write about her specific case in this article, was the day she brought a group of students to learn about the history of our university at Thomas Green Clemson’s antebellum Mansion atop Fort Hill.  She was amidst telling them about the daily life and social hierarchy of the time when; Out of nowhere, a student rose up and asked about her choice of words when talking about the “servants” that most definitely were forced to labor right here on our very campus for the man that our institution is forever to be named after.  This article provided me with a unique glimpse at what an educated mind thinks about the demographic of students that attends Clemson University and how we as a generation understand the travesty that is slavery and applies it to our life in the present.

Sure, I’ll admit to Dr. Ashton that there are indeed numerous blatant representations of the Confederate Flag seen on campus the past couple of years I’ve been going to Clemson University, but this is not to say that “The south will rise again!” is a popular opinion of even ten percent of our student body.  My freshman year in Byrnes Hall, one of the three high rises, there were a total of four Confederate Flags adorning the windows facing down the Horseshoe for all the commuting public of on-campus residents to observe and digest as they walk to class…and that’s just one of the four sides!  I say that this is more of a crime than denouncing the reputation of Clemson.  How are we to advance our place in the world if were continuing to act as if racism is alive and well? We’re already shooting ourselves in the foot by making such a gigantic production of the fact that we allowed Harvey Gantt to even attend our school.

Dr. Ashton’s perspective is easily understandable, but as a pupil, eager and humble, willing to learn and soak every last drop of my valued education, I must admit that her vantage point clearly differs from that of a true member of the Millennial Generation.  Throughout the article, she focuses on what should be the case of kids in her class.  She sees the problem as something that is fixable in the short-run when the simple fact of the matter is that the general public is far too small-minded (around this part of the country especially) to stop thinking the way that they do, which experts agree is backwards and archaic as Toby Keith’s lyrics.  When this kind of “crowdsourced” racism materializes within the daily life of local children who will one day grow up to attend Clemson University, you cannot deny how it makes sense that we would have recently landed ourselves in the limelight for having the drastically bigoted “Black Face” party a few short years back.     

This “forward-thinking” sensibility that she wants so fervently for her employing university to posses is fleeting because that’s exactly the kind of appeal that attract private school kids from Northern Virginia to come to Pickens, South Carolina, to receive a fancy education. 

“While it is important to know that, while Fort Hill is in the epicenter of campus-essentially in the heart of the space that is between the University Union and the class room buildings-it is landscaped in such a way that it simply isn’t visable”

This particular quotation stuck out to me as being utter bologna.  I would maintain that if we took a survey of every last sweaty “landscape technician” employed by the state of South Carolina paid an honest wage to sweat and toil in the yard of ole’ Mr. Clemson’s house, they would definitely take severe offense if you told them that they were intentionally making an attempt to “hide” or otherwise cover the historic house of our university’s honorable founder. 

In closing, I suppose I read Dr. Ashton’s article with a bit of indifference because I’ve been the butt of every South Carolina crack that’s been made in my circle of friends within the past few years.  I acknowledge that cracks on South Carolina are easily made.  Hell, I would assert that we maybe have some department in Columbia devoted to weighting down our progress and making sure we have a yearly episode of public humiliation on a national scale. 

[bwade300-blog-blog]

Sensory Perception and Agency in The Return of the Native

In order to be a well-qualified and confident scholar in works of literature, it is of the utmost importance to not only be relatable with your message, but to also accurately reference and qualify other works within your own writing in order to substantiate or validate claims you’ve taken the initiative to make.  Because the world we inhabit today is so rich in cultural variety, writers need to practice more caution than ever in their compiling of sources, construction of allusions within the text, and the synchronizing of supporting anecdotes used to advance the action of the story, or simply to develop and reinforce a contention in a more persuasive piece.  This implied risk the writer takes with the collective mind of the audience is what Coombs analyzes through the lens of neuropsychological theories of association that suggest that sensory perception is a crucial part of the naturally occurring semiotic mental process.

Coombs frames The Return of the Native as an allegory of the evolution of reading.  In his British Literature Survey, he maintained earlier in the semester that cultural imperialism (example: Crocodile Dundee; Where an outsider enters a tribal situation and introduces the “modern” non-savage way of communication in order to liberate the oblivious tribesmen from their own blithering stupidity) is to blame for the systematic killing off of non-imperial languages and culture.  I believe he was applying it to the novel of Jane Austen—Persuasion, in order to understand the plight of Sir Walter and his false sense of entitlement in as contrasted to the salty pirates who pillage unjustly for their riches.  Alternatively, Mr. Walter, who simply was born with a silver spoon, does little to produce affluence, but is content in his life’s legacy thanks in part to this swollen wound that is an imperialistic mindset.  Sir Walter, through my own textual speculation, assumed his superiority to the pirates based solely on their inability to effectively communicate, as did he. 

One such real life example of the starvation of the meaning of words would be unfortunate case of the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean; where, in a tumultuous period of slave trade and political restructuring, the entirety of the Caribbean culture was assimilated by imperialist agendas. 

What’s at stake is the attention of the audience, the reputation of the open-mindedness of the writer, and the successful completion of running a gauntlet of reader’s intuitive assumptions gleaning every possible aspect of meanings of the text, misconstrued or not.  The differing structures of society in isolated parts of the world do not take well to those attempting to make a sweeping, generalized message.  To loose the audience in the dark, so to speak, by misusing or misaligning the readers’ psyche, would be a cardinal sin in Dr. Coombs’ book.

Regarding late nineteenth-century sciences of mind, Coombs provides us with a sparkling set of ideologies to guide us in the right path of professionally and seamlessly integrating our own personal style into a message that can be universally accepted without inciting distrust or losing the message within the context.

[bwade300-blog-blog]

Analysis of T. Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA4iX5D9Z64

Taylor Swift's official lead single from her fourth studio album is entitled, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together".  Her music video for this track is an example of a video filled to the brim with unadulterated hatred for a previous love.  At no point in this video is she open to the prospect of getting back together with her old boyfriend.  Not surprisingly, a tall, dark, and rather Nashville-looking previous lover makes repeated attempts at reverting her better-off-without-you, newly founded mental state back to one of romance and blissful enchantment with his unrelenting knocking at her painfully hip and modern-looking inner-city abode. 

The video initiates with a breakup scene, which finished with the previous lover looking entirely devastated and one hundred percent heartbroken.  The audience (who probably averages around 14-15 years of age) is led to believe that he spends the remainder of his time here on this earth regretting not actually bending to the whims of a country music superstar every last second of his life.  Although the prospect of actually dating Taylor Swift is admittedly…attractive, she completely ruins any type of thought involving herself and humility by repeating the gesture, “Like Ever” after the chorus…like 3 times.

Something I believe that is important to note is that her entire accompanying band is dressed as furry woodland creatures.  Not only does this suggest that none of her friends are aware of the break-up or even approve, but it implies that the whole process is just nature playing itself out.  The lead guitarist (male) is rocking some rather heavy eye-makeup in a metro attempt to look like some kind of a raccoon, and features intense eye contact with the camera around the :43 second mark.  Perhaps he is the new beau?  The fact that there is a super-fun appearing party taking place at her house so soon after the actual break-up signifies to me that she hasn’t yet told her friends (about the breakup) and is enjoying the initial “No Way Jose” stage of denying love and affection of a *hopefully still* potential suitor.  There’s something about not pleasing the wishes of someone you used to adore that is so empowering to women.  Or so it seems.

Taylor Swift utilizes some pretty bold language in between the actual singing.  Multiple times you can make out her saying “Get Out” to the boyfriend, after pushing him, shoving him through the threshold of her apartment door, and even going insofar as to -boink- him on the head like some kind of feminist man-eating superbitch.  After “this time” and only after the second attempt at rekindling love, she finally makes up her mind that “we are never ever ever ever getting back together”.

  This is not to say that she is portrayed as an immature and thoughtless young woman.  In fact, it would possibly be assumed that one grows in both wisdom and character after a failed relationship.  Who wants to be involved in a miserable existence pretending you’re fulfilled when the first person you want to kill is your significant other anyway?

Taylor Swift is pushing the boundaries of what a “country” music singer is and how an “indie” artist can be taken seriously in an increasingly millennial generation-run society.

[bwade300-blog-blog]

I am in english 300 because YOLO.