|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on Jun 11, 2016 14:23:32 GMT
Response to Question 1: I think Poe poses the good point that the internet is not revolutionary anymore, it's just not new anymore. But what I think is important to realize is that although the institution of the internet is not new or revolutionary, the new found abilities through the internet are revolutionary. He does raise a good point with saying that the internet did not take any new time away from people, the TV was already a mainstream thing and once the internet came out people were already used to staring at the TV set, or if they were able to, their personal computers. I think it is interesting that we see the internet as something that has the ability to change everything, while I believe that to be true, I don't think we will see that happen within a generation. Let me explain this. Each generation had a revolution in technology. For my grandparents it was the entertainment revolution as we went from having home radios to home televisions. Then my parents were born into a world that already had TV, they would never know a life without it. And in turn they were young when personal computers became common, and although there was no internet they still went from watching TV to playing games on their computers like ZORK, which I have come to love (yes there is a place to play it online)....if you don't know what ZORK is use Google and if you do, yay! There was no internet until they were almost done high school and all research was done by hand...from books. Kids today would die if they had to do that. And just like the internet they watched the birth of mobile communication. So then when I was born in the late 90s we already had all of these things, TV, computers, internet, and even cell phones. I don't know what life was like without them. My generation hasn't had our big revolution yet. But in the grand scheme Poe is right when he says that not much is new from this world to the world that is in the not so distant past. "Email is still mail. Online newspapers are still newspapers. YouTube videos are still videos. Virtual stores are still stores. MMORPGs are still variations on D&D. A user-built encyclopedia is still a reference book. Stealing mp3s is still theft. Cyber-porn is still porn. Internet poker is still gambling." The internet just made it easier to do all of those things. In a weird way I feel that the internet helped revolutionize technology, by making it more user friendly, but I also think it revolutionized the way people think today. For example, if I have a question regarding a certain subject am I going to say "Hold on let me go the the library, go the Encyclopedia Britannica and look it up" hoping that the answer is there? No...that would be a last resort for me, instead I would pull out my phone and just Google it until I got the answer I wanted. How many of us are programmed to do that, and would not even think about the fact that the library is packed full of books with the same information? Honestly I feel the internet has made us lazy and unsocial. Yeah I know there is Facebook and Twitter, both very popular social media's, but let me ask this, out of all of your Facebook friends or your twitter followers, how many do you actually know, and how many do you interact with face-to-face? It leaves an interesting thought about how the internet has affected our social lives. I think the creation and establishment of the internet most definitely ranks among the other revolutionary processes that we have learned about in this course. One of the common themes through any revolution is the piece of communication or sometimes the lack thereof: the colonists communicating with the Native Americans, the miscommunication that happened through all the drama of the Civil War and slavery, and so many more. The internet created a new wave of communication. In fact, if it wasn't for the internet I would have never been born, because my parents met on AOL when it was still just an open chat room, so yeah that happened. And to add processes to the course I think could be the revolution that is happening in the pharmaceutical companies as medical marijuana is becoming more prevalent and accepted, the rise in personal communication and wearable tech, and because of that the revolution of the lack of communication skills in teens and young adults today. wattsajengineer, I really liked your post, especially how you made personal examples with it (I'm definitely going to try to find that game)! I agree that the Internet in theory cannot be considered revolutionary because it is not new and doesn't really have that much of an impact; however, the certain actions it can attribute to scotty could definitely be considered revolutionary. Like you said, each generation has grown up with some type of new of shiny technology that evidently took over and pushed older versions out of the way; they all have that in common which can be argued as anti-revolutionary. What makes it any sort of revolutionary are the different, newer, and more efficient things it can contribute to society. The Internet is a great example of this because while the idea of it isn't that new, the accessibility is. Never before have we been able to have access to such a realm of knowledge at our fingertips and to say that isn't revolutionary would be a lie. Another thing that I thought of while reading the Poe passage was what he considers "revolutionary" because just because something is not "good" doesn't mean it cannot be revolutionary. Great read! Thanks, Gabrielle |
|
|
|
Post by danielkogan on Jun 11, 2016 16:40:08 GMT
Response to jpetonak2:
After reading your post, I thought you brought up a very noteworthy point about relating same-sex marriage to revolutionary processes. After doing some research, I learned that same-sex marriage essentially became a public debate in the early 1970s; later as you mentioned, was settled by by the US Supreme Court making same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states. With that said, in my opinion, I believe that the revolutionary process surrounding this issue is essentially residual at this point. Meaning, yes same-sex marriage is of course still a very debatable subject; however, the matter was settled legally. So, I believe that the revolutionary processes that is taking place regarding same-sex marriage is just in the form of an outstanding lingering of opinions. As for your other point about racism—I am in absolute agreement. Though the legality concerning the racism issue was legally settled decades ago, racism is far more deep rooted and has a much more involved history than same-sex marriage. For this reason, I believe that the racism movement is not necessarily residual; however, an ongoing revolutionary process that will continue to be publicly fought and advocated against.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on Jun 11, 2016 16:57:20 GMT
Primary Source Analysis Source 1 www.accessible.com.libproxy.temple.edu/accessible/print?AADocList=1&AADocStyle=STYLED&AAStyleFile=&AABeanName=toc1&AANextPage=/printFullDocFromXML.jsp&AACheck=1.115.1.0.0source 2 www.accessible.com.libproxy.temple.edu/accessible/print?AADocList=2&AADocStyle=STYLED&AAStyleFile=&AABeanName=toc1&AANextPage=/printFullDocFromXML.jsp&AACheck=1.115.2.0.0 The two documents that I chose to do the primary source analysis on are both newspaper articles from FREEDOM’S JOURNAL. FREEDOM’S JOURNAL was a newspaper in New York, New York in the eighteen hundreds. The first one is titled “The Young Indian’s Song” published July 13, 1827. It is about a young Native American most likely around seventeen or eighteen years of age who talks about how the “white people” came to their land and he experience the “white world” for himself. It also talks about the young Indian revisiting some areas of his childhood. The second article is titled “Ordination of an Indian” published January 31, 1829. It is also from FREEDOM’S JOURNAL and talks about Indians coming and joining the settler’s society and faith. I remember reading about how the settlers were trying to educate the Indians and to teach them their ways to help “coexist” or as we have seen, take advantage of. The first article, “The Young Indian’s Song,” talks about the young man’s home with him riding across the land of his people on the back of a horse. He states; “I’ll hie to the west, to the land of my birth.” From what I have learned and read about the Native Americans, they are very spiritual people that have a deep connection to the land and certain places that special events take place. By the Young Indian stating that he rides to the land of his birth, means that he has some kind of connection to that place. The article also states how the Young Indian has seen the “white world” and will not go back to it. He also states that the hearts of the white people are as white as their faces meaning they do not care about the same things the Indians care for such as the land. The article does not include the authors name so one may wonder if it is the words of and Young Indian man or the words of a settler who observed the Native Americans. The article is just under two hundred years old and was saved most likely by the printing company. The second article is about Native Americans as well. It discusses an event that took place on December 27, 1828. It contains accounts of the ordination of a man named Sampson Burch, to the Baptist church at Great Crossings, Scott County, Kentucky. The man, Burch, is an Indian form the Choctaw nation and was being educated by the settlers for two years before his ordination. The article reminded me of the article written by William White, “The Colonial Virginia Frontier and International Native American Diplomacy.” It reminded me of White’s article because of the school that the Native American, Burch, attended. In White’s article, he talked about how the settlers tried to have some Indians to join their schools to educate them in their ways and to also help diplomacy with the Indians’ own tribe. While in the settlers’ schools, the Indians were exposed to the settlers’ faith and would often convert to the religion of the settlers. I thought the two articles were similar in some ways. This article from FREEDOM’S JOURNAL also does not have an author but one would expect that it was written by a settler and not an Indian. The article also, was most likely saved by the publisher and filed away. I chose these two articles because they are very close to the same thing and time in American history. I also chose these two articles because one gives you the perspective from a Native American while one gives you the perspective from a settler during the same time period. The fact that they give different perspectives is important when looking at a certain time period in my opinion. When two groups are involved in something and someone would like to find out what exactly happened, that person would have to get both sides of the story because both sides are going to bias to their side. The fact that both of the articles come from the same publisher is also interesting because one is the perspective of an Indian and the other is the perspective of a settler. After analyzing both of the newspaper articles, you can see the similarities in how the majority of Indians did not take the “white world” compared to the few Indians that did. The question of who the authors are is the biggest question for me. I searched online trying to find the authors but every website I clicked on did not contain any information about who the authors are. (771 words) |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on Jun 11, 2016 19:39:17 GMT
In response to both gabriellerabadi and wattsajengineer, I also like how you gave personal examples because I was able to relate to them and understand exactly the point you were getting across in your post. Similar to your post, I also found that its not the idea that the internet is new or revolutionary, but the fact that somehow it brought about a type of "change" or how you worded it, "new found abilities" that are revolutionary. Although I didn't pick up on this while analyzing the two assignments, I like how you came to find a common theme - communication or even lack of. In my post for the assignment, I emphasized the key "groups" or "populations" in each revolutionary event, but I did not touch on communication, which is very important. For the Indians, it was communication or lack of communication with the European invaders, Civil War it is the communication or lack of between the states in the Union and outside the Union, and the Internet is now a global type of communication. So, I really do like that you picked up on that communication theme because truly, communication is key. By focusing on that theme of communication, I clearly see how you found other areas that may be revolutionized in the future and I couldn't agree more! Response to Question 1: I think Poe poses the good point that the internet is not revolutionary anymore, it's just not new anymore. But what I think is important to realize is that although the institution of the internet is not new or revolutionary, the new found abilities through the internet are revolutionary. He does raise a good point with saying that the internet did not take any new time away from people, the TV was already a mainstream thing and once the internet came out people were already used to staring at the TV set, or if they were able to, their personal computers. I think it is interesting that we see the internet as something that has the ability to change everything, while I believe that to be true, I don't think we will see that happen within a generation. Let me explain this. Each generation had a revolution in technology. For my grandparents it was the entertainment revolution as we went from having home radios to home televisions. Then my parents were born into a world that already had TV, they would never know a life without it. And in turn they were young when personal computers became common, and although there was no internet they still went from watching TV to playing games on their computers like ZORK, which I have come to love (yes there is a place to play it online)....if you don't know what ZORK is use Google and if you do, yay! There was no internet until they were almost done high school and all research was done by hand...from books. Kids today would die if they had to do that. And just like the internet they watched the birth of mobile communication. So then when I was born in the late 90s we already had all of these things, TV, computers, internet, and even cell phones. I don't know what life was like without them. My generation hasn't had our big revolution yet. But in the grand scheme Poe is right when he says that not much is new from this world to the world that is in the not so distant past. "Email is still mail. Online newspapers are still newspapers. YouTube videos are still videos. Virtual stores are still stores. MMORPGs are still variations on D&D. A user-built encyclopedia is still a reference book. Stealing mp3s is still theft. Cyber-porn is still porn. Internet poker is still gambling." The internet just made it easier to do all of those things. In a weird way I feel that the internet helped revolutionize technology, by making it more user friendly, but I also think it revolutionized the way people think today. For example, if I have a question regarding a certain subject am I going to say "Hold on let me go the the library, go the Encyclopedia Britannica and look it up" hoping that the answer is there? No...that would be a last resort for me, instead I would pull out my phone and just Google it until I got the answer I wanted. How many of us are programmed to do that, and would not even think about the fact that the library is packed full of books with the same information? Honestly I feel the internet has made us lazy and unsocial. Yeah I know there is Facebook and Twitter, both very popular social media's, but let me ask this, out of all of your Facebook friends or your twitter followers, how many do you actually know, and how many do you interact with face-to-face? It leaves an interesting thought about how the internet has affected our social lives. I think the creation and establishment of the internet most definitely ranks among the other revolutionary processes that we have learned about in this course. One of the common themes through any revolution is the piece of communication or sometimes the lack thereof: the colonists communicating with the Native Americans, the miscommunication that happened through all the drama of the Civil War and slavery, and so many more. The internet created a new wave of communication. In fact, if it wasn't for the internet I would have never been born, because my parents met on AOL when it was still just an open chat room, so yeah that happened. And to add processes to the course I think could be the revolution that is happening in the pharmaceutical companies as medical marijuana is becoming more prevalent and accepted, the rise in personal communication and wearable tech, and because of that the revolution of the lack of communication skills in teens and young adults today. wattsajengineer, I really liked your post, especially how you made personal examples with it (I'm definitely going to try to find that game)! I agree that the Internet in theory cannot be considered revolutionary because it is not new and doesn't really have that much of an impact; however, the certain actions it can attribute to scotty could definitely be considered revolutionary. Like you said, each generation has grown up with some type of new of shiny technology that evidently took over and pushed older versions out of the way; they all have that in common which can be argued as anti-revolutionary. What makes it any sort of revolutionary are the different, newer, and more efficient things it can contribute to society. The Internet is a great example of this because while the idea of it isn't that new, the accessibility is. Never before have we been able to have access to such a realm of knowledge at our fingertips and to say that isn't revolutionary would be a lie. Another thing that I thought of while reading the Poe passage was what he considers "revolutionary" because just because something is not "good" doesn't mean it cannot be revolutionary. Great read! Thanks, Gabrielle |
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on Jun 11, 2016 20:20:54 GMT
Both the podcast and the Poe Article gave the impression that the internet is not revolutionary. The podcast came said that people will become lost and wouldn’t be able to do anything without the internet. While the Poe article discusses how the information is “packaged” differently today than in the past. I believe the internet is revolutionary because it has changed the way humans do certain activities. For example, the internet allows more and more people to share information at a faster rate than ever before. This makes it a lot easier for people to learn and understand information. However, the internet has some negatives. For example, some people have become a lot lazier because people just want to stay inside and play on the computer. I believe the internet is revolutionary but it isn’t the top revolutionary thing that we learned from this course. For example, the issue of slavery was resolved and that I believe was revolutionary. All African Americans were free to do what they want and it changed the country forever. Today, the internet has the potential to allow revolutionary things to occur faster than events in the past. For example, same sex marriage, and the legalization of marijuana in certain states probably wouldn’t have happened so quickly without the internet. I understand your point mostly agree with it. I too think that the internet was definitely revolutionary, not in just in ways of how people communicate, the jobs it created, and the new activities it created. Internet has also revolutionized the way war is fought. The internet actually got started about 50 years ago as a government weapon in the Cold War. Scientists and military used it to communicate and share data with one another. We were afraid of the Soviet Union - that we were falling behind technologically. Though we will never know whether the internet has actually saved us / the world from the Soviet Union or not, that has changed, created, and steered us towards many other great things - such as the development of satellites, space rockets, etc explorations and discovery of space. |
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on Jun 11, 2016 23:42:43 GMT
Both the podcast and the Poe Article gave the impression that the internet is not revolutionary. The podcast came said that people will become lost and wouldn’t be able to do anything without the internet. While the Poe article discusses how the information is “packaged” differently today than in the past. I believe the internet is revolutionary because it has changed the way humans do certain activities. For example, the internet allows more and more people to share information at a faster rate than ever before. This makes it a lot easier for people to learn and understand information. However, the internet has some negatives. For example, some people have become a lot lazier because people just want to stay inside and play on the computer. I believe the internet is revolutionary but it isn’t the top revolutionary thing that we learned from this course. For example, the issue of slavery was resolved and that I believe was revolutionary. All African Americans were free to do what they want and it changed the country forever. Today, the internet has the potential to allow revolutionary things to occur faster than events in the past. For example, same sex marriage, and the legalization of marijuana in certain states probably wouldn’t have happened so quickly without the internet. My Response: I like your contrast about how the internet has its positives and negatives. From an information and fast processing view point, the internet may be the most revolutionary device that the world has ever seen. Never before have we had so much information at our fingertips and have had the opportunity to call on it as fast as we can with the internet. However, the downfall of the internet is that it gives us so much information and this prevents some people from leaving the internet. Why would humans leave the internet if everything we need to access is right there? The initiative that people spend too much time surfing the web than doing other things that could be more productive is a real point. I also like how you put the internet back in context with everything else that we have learned. For instance that freeing slaves was more revolutionary than the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on Jun 12, 2016 3:00:32 GMT
Question #1
After listening and reading about the internet, I think that the internet was at one point revolutionary but not anymore. When it first came out, it was a huge deal. It was great, new, and made life easier; but that’s about it. Today, it's like 'wow…the internet…'. The Internet isn't exciting anymore. It just made doing things easier which is making us lazier, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong I love to go on Amazon.com and shop because it's convent and less of a hassle (unless you are getting something shopped from FedEx then it’s a headache) but that's all it is…convent. However, a point was made during the podcast that grabbed my attention. What if we didn't have the internet anymore? What if we entered the Digital Dark age? What if I couldn't order my Chuck Taylor off of Amazon and I actually had to venture outside my house to Foot Locker? (the horror!) We rely on the internet for every little thing that we do that we wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves if it would just one day by gone. Honestly, people would lose their minds. A man on the podcast spoke about how he met his now wife on MySpace (I use to have a MySpace). His wife was so mad at him for deleting his account because it held all their early messages. I see that as depending on the internet to hold our most precious memories. I will say that I do use my laptop to save school documents and picture, but that’s how far I will go. Yes, saving messages between you and your future spouse is cute and all but how long will MySpace last. Whatever happen to writing cute little notes and leaving them in notebooks or lunch bags? Now those I do hold on to because the person took the time to WRITE out how they felt. No typing required.
I believe that the Internet is up there with other revolutionary processes we learned not only through this course but throughout history. It was a game changer. For example, guns was a game changer when it came to fighting in wars. Yes, guns and weapons have changed and evolved overtime, but it still at the end of the day a gun. Poe made a point that "emails are still mail; online newspapers are still newspapers". We just turned physical things into digital ones. Yet, at the end of the day it is still fulfills its main propose. Even though I get my news from scrolling down my news-feed on Facebook, I still grab a Metro and read it because its nothing like having an actually newspaper and reading from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on Jun 12, 2016 3:07:38 GMT
I agree with your statement about we lose little pieces of information every time something is done differently. Like with the space tapes from the podcast. Important data about space has been recorded over other important data and then some. The original picture of space is a copy of a copy of a copy. We never really get the true form of anything anymore. I remember that my dad had me look-up online a VHS converter so that he could convert all of our home videos to DVDs because come on, who uses VHS players? Do they even sale them anymore? Maybe Ebay if you're lucky. question one- There is nothing new about the internet. It has been the same for decades, and although technology might get better, or might appear different, there is nothing new about it. Poe an the podcast on the Media both talk about how there is nothing revolutionary about the internet. There is nothing located on the internet that you find, that somebody else hasn’t already discovered, what you see, watch, listen to, has all been done thousands of times by millions of people across the globe. Poe says it perfectly when he showcases that the internet is just new form of something else. Everything that you can do on the internet, can be found in various forms in real life, and all are readily available just like the internet. Though the internet makes information easier to find, and in larger quantities, are we really benefiting from the advance in technology? Every time something different is done, we lose little pieces of the information we had before, something we can never get back. Whats the point of having all of this technology If we can’t even keep data around for longer than a couple of years? What sort of trace are we leaving our children if we digitalize everything, but the files get lost? Both Poe and ‘On the Media’ pose these question in much of the same way. The internet is not revolutionary because its nothing new, it’s not exciting, in fact, I would go on to say that all technology is on the same field, and not one is better, or more outstanding than the other. Instead of placing all of our histories and stories into technology we need to start recording things like they did hundards of years before us, with pen and paper. Atleast with that, we know we can try and preserve it but with technology, it is always evolving, things are always being added to make it better, and with that, sometimes things we need can get lost in translation. |
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on Jun 12, 2016 18:47:52 GMT
Source one infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=N53G4DJGMTQ2NTczNDY4Ni4yMzIxMjc6MToxNToxNTUuMjQ3LjE2Ni4yMzQ&p_action=doc&d_viewref=search&s_lastnonissuequeryname=8&p_queryname=8&p_docnum=133&p_docref=v2:11BE9340B7A005AB@EANX-11D0A374B16F9FD8@2397146-11D0A374CA6400F0-11D0A37512EDEAB0 Source 2 infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=N53G4DJGMTQ2NTczNDY4Ni4yMzIxMjc6MToxNToxNTUuMjQ3LjE2Ni4yMzQ&p_action=doc&d_viewref=search&s_lastnonissuequeryname=8&p_queryname=8&p_docnum=134&p_docref=v2:11BE9340B7A005AB@EANX-11D0A374B16F9FD8@2397146-11D0A374CA6400F0@1-11D0A37505F1AAE0@The%20Slave%20Hunting%20Law The two documents that I chose for my analysis are both articles from the Fredrick Douglas Paper, both published in Rochester New York in the early 1850’s. Both articles are published in the same month, a few weeks apart. One article discusses a meeting that was held in Syracuse, New York about the Anti-Fugitive slave law. The other article discusses the Slave Hunting Law that was introduced into the state assembly. The first article that I will discuss is “Anti-Fugitive Slave Law Meeting” which is about a group of people throughout the state of New York who met in Syracuse who were opposed the Fugitive slave law. The second article is about the “The Slave Hunting Law” which was a subsection in the Fugitive slave laws. Although both articles are written about the same topic, they express different viewpoints on a very difficult topic in our history period. The first article that will be analyzed is titled “Anti-Fugitive slave law Meeting”. The Fugitive Slave Laws were a set of laws that were passed between 1793 and 1850 to allow the return of slaves who escaped one slave state into another free state. The article was published by the Fredrick Douglass Paper in Rochester, New York in 1851, and accounts the resolutions that the abolitionists had against the law that was passed. Fredrick Douglass was an African-American abolitionist who escaped from slavery and later became the leader of the abolitionist movement, and was the leader of this meeting. The meetings was held for people throughout the state of New York whom held strong discontent for the Fugitive Slave laws. The members discussed how they would actively ‘resist’ the Slave Laws, how they would start marking slave catchers as “kidnappers” and “land pirates”. The article goes on to state how the members of the abolitionist movement were not trying to get rid of the law, their much bigger goal is to end the practice of slavery. Out of the whole article, the fifth resolve is the most important one because it shows that the abolitionists know they cannot change the law, so they say their most important goal is to end slavery all together and to grant freedom and rights to all people. Unlike the article that we will see next, this article shows a side of slavery that we don’t often see. When talking about the horrors of slavery, and the events that happened in the south, we tend to forget that there were people who were actively against the process, and fought the government for rights of all people. In the growing age of technology why would we keep newspaper articles from our early years as a country? This article shows a clear juxtaposition between the north and the south, the article shows that not everybody in the country was for slavery and there were people who would do anything to stop it. The second article is still about the Fugitive Slave Laws, but this talks more about the slave-hunting clause that was written into the bills. Within the first few sentences of the article, the author already shows that the slave hunting law is being used to protect the rights of American citizens. However the article goes on to show how not all of the laws in the Fugitive slave acts weren’t bad. In section 2 of the law it states that if any person escapes to a free state and lives there for one year, before they are captured, arrested, or removed, the courts will deem them free citizens of that state. Even though this article was more political, in that it actually talked about the law and listed all of the section, once you look at all of the sections, you can see that even though the law was passed, there was still some options if slaves did escape, and gained there freedom. Much like the first article I believe this piece was kept to show the different sides of a very difficult topic to talk about and to discuss. This article was more of a political piece then the first article, but it shows a clearer picture on what the laws where, and why some people would be opposed to them. When learning about history we cannot just learn one side of the story, we have to learn all sides so that we can have a clear picture. This article shows the other side of the story we talked about earlier. Throughout this summer we have been exposed to different aspects of revolutions in America. The reason I chose these two articles is because we had a section that we read about on slavery in America, and one of the books for our primary source was on African history. We haven’t learned about abolitionists in our readings, but we have learned about the way, we, as Americans view ourselves, and our county. In one of the first few weeks we know that we have an exceptionalism view point and we discussed why we might have that. I still believe it is because when we learn about our history, we aren’t learning both sides, we are only learning one side of the story. To truly know our whole history, and to make sure that we do not repeat our actions, we have to read everything that is presented to us, even if it comes in opposing views. Its when we are presented with opposite ideas, that we come up with the best options. (Word count 916) |
|
|
|
Post by madison on Jun 12, 2016 23:45:52 GMT
Source 1: "The American Slave Coast Relied on Cotton; American Slavery would have withered without Cotton." 2016.Wall Street Journal (Online), Jan 31. search.proquest.com.libproxy.temple.edu/docview/1761348539?accountid=14270. Source 2: Snyder, Christina. 2013. "The Long History of American Slavery." OAH Magazine Of History 27, no. 4: 23-27. America: History and Life with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed June 12, 2016). My first source, “The Long History of American Slavery,” was published in 2013 in the OAH Magazine of History. Christina Snyder, who has written many articles on the topic of slavery, wrote the article on the History of American Slavery. The second source that I have chosen is a news article, which was published in the Wall Street Journal. “The American Slave Coast Relied on Cotton,” was published in the year 2016. As the article was published as a news column, it was also in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. I first would like to focus on the news article of “The American Slave Coast Relied on Cotton.” This article struck a particular interest to me, as it was based off of someone’s opinion, and not just complete factual information. The article was published in New York, New York by an anonymous author. As this was written in 2016, there was no major slavery crisis, that I am aware of, going on in the world. I believe this author struck an interest in the topic and had done background information in order to create the article. There is one point that the author focuses on, which is that without cotton; slavery would have been much different. My second article, “The Long History of American Slavery” focuses on the roots of slavery in America, and how historians have uncovered more information over time. Christina Snyder was able to focus on multiple parts of slavery, which provides a deep understanding. I believe Christina Snyder has an interest in the topic of slavery, as she has previously published a book on that topic. During the time that this article was published, historians were continuing to search for more information and evidence from slavery, as it will always be an ongoing process with new theories and evidence. Both of the articles focus on the aspect of slavery that dealt with cotton picking. The Wall Street Journal article focused on how cotton was the engine of slavery. For a long period of time cotton was the greatest export in America, which is what drove slavery. Snyder’s article touched on the slaves work on the Mississippi cotton farms, but focused primarily on the aspect of captivity. I liked how Snyder’s article focused on the different parts of slavery, unlike the Wall Street Journal article, which only focused on what drove slavery. In Snyder’s article she speaks of how slavery is a form of captivity where a person is bonded to their master. Regardless of what the slaves’ job is, they must obey their master or face the serious consequences. If a historian were to read the two articles, they would be able to learn about the information based on cotton and why it drove slavery. Historians would also be able to learn about why slavery started, what slavery means, and how it expanded. When looking at slavery it is important to focus on why did it start, why did it continue, and how was it able to continue. While the articles do not individually answer all three components, combined the two articles do. If cotton was not as profitable then slavery may have never began or it may have ended sooner. There are many ways to look at the possible outcomes that would have happened, but never did. |
|
|
|
Post by jacksharkey1234 on Jun 13, 2016 0:16:39 GMT
I tend to disagree with both sources on the way they view the internet. They argue that the internet has not been changed much since it's inception, but I would argue that it is the driving force behind cultural and social development worldwide. With the internet now allowing people from all over the world to be connected instantly, it has never been easier for the spread of ideas, views, and news pieces to be delivered or conveyed to an audience. With this connectivity, we now have an instant demand for information and news, which I think has negative benefits among the many positive ones. With this increase in demand for information we are now being bombarded with news stories and information on an endless amount of topics every time we log onto the internet. How can we figure out what is truly relevant or important to our daily lives? With the recent mass shooting events of the last few years, viewers of these stories now learn about the intimate details as fast as they are made available to the internet. This is both helpful in the sense that it makes it harder for the media to promote certain narratives because it makes it harder for important details to be omitted, but it also can spread false information about any given event or person.
While I agree that the internet is not an integral part of what is required for humans to survive, if we were to lose the internet suddenly there would be very severe consequences, and it would be a very negative thing for society to be forced to adapt to.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on Jun 15, 2016 0:56:04 GMT
The title of Poe’s article, “The Internet Means Nothing” sums up the content of the article and Poe’s opinions very well. Poe finds that “the Internet gives us almost nothing the much maligned “traditional media” did not.” Although he mentions the usefulness and ease the internet provides, he finds that there is nothing new, or revolutionary about the establishment of the internet. On the other hand, media experts have focused heavily on how the internet is “easier”, but Poe still does not find this something that is transformative or new. He doesn’t find the internet to be something that is going to change everything, especially because there are prior creations that were already in use. Poe resorts back to time periods of ancient Mesopotamia, Renaissance Europe, and even the mid-twentieth century and examines their uses of literacy and technology. He does not find any of these periods to be categorized as a period where there was creation and establishment of revolutionary material. Poe makes it very clear in the article that he does not find the creation and establishment of the Internet, writing, TV and radio to be considered a revolutionary process in any such time period, since none of them were “new at the moment when they “took off.”” Unlike Poe, The On the Media podcost focuses not necessarily the internet, but more on the digital dark age. It recognizes the changes in technology and environment that one day might lead to a revolution, or “dark age.” Instead of focusing on the present like Poe’s does, its reflects back on technology in the past, such as NASA film and photos, and the future such as how DNA can be used to store information. The podcast was very eye opening and interesting to listen to. From the podcast, I was able to find that this age of technology and internet is revolutionary and will continue to be revolutionary. Although right now, it is a “good” revolutionary moment in time, in the future it may lead to a “dark age.” However, if media experts are also considering the internet to be revolutionary, a major question I find is what defines this as a revolutionary process in comparison to something like the establishment of the “new world” or the Civil War? These instances are very different from each other, but also similar because in all instances, there is an introduction to something that America has not necessarily seen or dealt with before and Americans must find a way to take hold of the situation. Although, it doesn’t have to be “new” to be revolutionary, as Poe believes, there is a remarkable change occurring in “normal day” instances which makes the development of the internet, the creation of the “new world”, and the uprising of the Civil War all revolutionary events. Although Poe may not agree exactly with this statement, this is how I perceive it. All in all, other processes that could be addressed in a course like this is focusing on the revolution of rights for the LGBTQ. This is something that is becoming a great part of history, as we have this “group” or “population” of people who are going through a revolutionary time themselves- gaining rights and support from a social and political standpoint. Response: Late I know, but anyway I definitely agree with your questioning of the internet as revolutionary. You definitely hit two points, or at least I thought you did. The first being that the internet wasn't anything new when it gained momentum and popularity and ultimately became what it is today. There is also the point of the internet itself not being revolutionary. After reading your post I rethought about what I originally posted. I tended to side with Poe and gave my own interpretation which was that it wasn't new or revolutionary because all it did was give us another option on how we do the same things we've been doing for decades, such as shopping (going to the store), obtaining information (reading books), or being exposed to advertisements (literally everywhere). But just because these are not new per se, doesn't mean that the internet didn't revolutionize the way we do those things. The internet, I think would be the best statement, has revolutionized how we obtain information. Poe may have had an almost pessimistic view as he explained by internet users getting information from wikipedia because they are too lazy to get it from reliable sources. While wiki is often the first site appearing on a google search, I think that people, being more optimistic, who have a real desire for that info would go beyond the first link. I've gotten a little off track, but yes the internet is not new, and it is not revolutionary. It is not a brand new idea or revolutionary way of thinking; however, it has revolutionized the way we do things as I mentioned. And yet I still feel like "revolutionary" is hard word for me to use when describing the internet. I think the word I may have been looking for is "easier" or "convenient." But is "easier" still "revolutionary"? Does the fact that we don't have to step outside our homes to do tasks make the internet revolutionary? Is the heightened potential for laziness revolutionary? I don't think so. Yes, we think of it as revolutionary and couldn't even think of a world without it - especially our internet connected phones. God forbid one should lose his or her phone and be without internet until reaching a computer. So we speak of "revolutionary" with positive connotation. But revolutionary doesn't have to mean good or positive. It's a word to describe a noticeable change and I think people older than us could remember how people didn't walk around while looking face-down at "the internet" (phones). That's a change, it changed the way we interact, how we sit in the same room with friends but seem to be off in different worlds, all looking down at our phones. Now after all that I've said, I think I'm ready to commit to saying revolutionary or not. And I say yes, it is quite revolutionary. It created a completely new world in which we immerse ourselves in. It revolutionized social interaction while at the same time revolutionized social isolation. |
|
|
|
Post by robgallagher on Jun 15, 2016 2:46:46 GMT
Question 1: Both the podcast and the Poe Article gave the impression that the internet is not revolutionary. The Marshall Poe article more so, because the podcast talks more about what will happen to society if one day we no longer have internet. They hypothesized that the world would become dysfunctional and chaotic because information is lost and we don't know how to do anything productive without the internet. Poe on the other hand talked more about how technology advanced slowly over time and that it has only changed the ways information is "packaged" and not how humans do their activities. I slightly disagree with this because the internet age has changed a lot of humans activities. Such as children don't go outside to play anymore and many people go into jobs that are internet based such as computer science, virtual assistants, and social media marketing. It hasn't changed human nature definitely, but then again, nothing has changed human nature. Humans' basic needs and desires have not changed for thousands of years. One thing that was somewhat revolutionizing about the internet is that it's able to spread information globally and to anyone and everyone around the world. That is how movements such as same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana are able to organize together and become strong. It allows us to spread messages around the world to anybody, whether that person wants to hear/see it or not. Either way, Poe made a good point that the internet is not necessarily evolutionary and he did made some good points. The podcast also made some interesting points but I don't think that the world would go as chaotic as they make it seem. It's just internet, it's not like water or food or electricity. I think that we'll become uncomfortable and throw tantrums for a bit but eventually we'll figure it out and adapt a life like it was before the internet. I agree with you that the internet isn't revolutionary. The internet is a way to make people's lives easier but people can live without it. I also agree with you that it also causes some harm with the younger generations. Kids don't want to go outside because they want to play on the computer. Going outside wouldn't hurt them and not having the internet will do that. In today's world, it would be very difficult for people to completely get rid of the internet from their lives because almost everyone uses it for many purposes. But that doesn't mean that the world can't live without it. Like you said, it might get a little chaotic without the internet at first but people will learn to adapt to live without it. |
|
