Personal Ideology

                This Rhetoric of Citizenship course, which speaks on numerous subjects relating to citizenship in America, has been what one could call an “eye opener.” This course speaks on the role and history of our government, and public issues. The readings have provided a great amount of insight on topics related to the government and public concerns and I have enjoyed the articles of the authors. However, when it came to my own personal ideology on public issues and governmental concerns I had no real clue as to what it is because I have yet to fully form ideals on these subjects. I have often found myself having difficulty in forming one because I had trouble bringing myself to truly care about concerning these topics.  This wasn’t me being a part of the “Spiral of Silence” where I have concealed my own views because I feel as though I may be in the minority, I simply couldn’t bring myself to take interest in matters involving public and political concerns as I am usually a guy that simply goes with the flow of things. However, during this course things began to change a little while going over the readings and I began to develop a view of how things are.  

                I could identify with most was read during the course such as the theory of agenda setting. This theory discusses how those with the power to make decisions in the media attempt to influence and determine how we think about a topic of their choosing. I believe this to believe very true and we can see agenda setting throughout the day in magazines, television news programs, and newspapers.  Every media outlet seems to filter out things in reality they deem to be important and shape it they want it to be and only seem to concentration on a small number of topics which leads us to perceive those peculiar topics as more important than other when there are times when that it is not the case. They media seem to influence not how we think, but what we think about as they focus in on the topics they have chosen.  An example of the media setting an agenda would be when a magazine or newspaper place stories they find more important in large headings, which in turn attract our attention. I feel that since we get most of the information regarding what is happening in our community and nation we cannot allow ourselves to think about a small amount of topics and must be more aware of the interworking of the media so that we may be more informed and more critical of the information provided by the media.

                If we go further into an issue than what the media provides us with then the more likely we are to come to well-informed answers and be better prepared for what is ahead.  I found the theory presented by McCombs and Shaw to be very solid and we can see it every facet of the media. It was a really interesting and important read.

Kirk Cameron and The Grammys

Kirk Camera Slams the Grammys; Pimps own Movie as Savior

         On the 26^th of January, the night of the annual Grammy Awards a large political statement on the gay marriage debate was made during the show when the Grammy’s hosted a mass wedding, which included same sex couples.  In the event there were 34 couples, both straight and gay exchanging rings and saying their “I do” as Queen Latifah, sworn temporarily as commissioner by the state of California officiated the event while it was during the performance of Macklemore & Ryan Lewis, who performed their song, “Same Love” which is seemingly known as an anthem for same sex couples. Many people praised the event and the Grammys for making such a statement, others found the event to simply be a publicity stunt and as one would expect, many people from everyday citizens to news reporters and politicians found the event to be distasteful and were outrage that such a thing had occurred.  Of those angered by the event was actor turned Christian activist, Kirk Cameron. Cameron had taken to Facebook to voice his displeasure toward the event while also promoting his faith based movie, “Mercy Rule.” In the post Cameron stated that the wedding event was an “assault on the traditional family,” that “last night, the lines were drawn thick and dark Now more than ever, we must work together to create the world we want for our children” and that his movie would be help to “strengthen families.”  The article above criticizes Cameron and his recent criticism and self-promotion. 

       When it comes to the topic of the LGBT community I often find myself indifferent towards the topic in general but feel no qualms about the subject. I feel as though that people are free to marry whoever they want whether it is someone of different sex or not because if they truly feel love towards their partners then who to tell them they are wrong for it and there is really no real valid reason as to why one should oppose it. The Article written by L.A. Ross, amusingly titled “Kirk Cameron Slams Grammys’ Gay Weddings; Pimps Own Movie as Savior to ‘Traditional Family’ seems to make fun of Cameron and seems to imply that Cameron is using the event to hype up his own movie. The first hint of Ross’ mockery is with the title where it gives off a feeling of sarcasm. Another sign would be when Ross mentions Cameron older movie, “Fireproof” and mockingly brings up how that movie had “restored marriages”, which it did not. Ross also criticizes how Cameron made no mention of how the marriage equality was connected to subject of his movie and also made no mention of opening performance of Grammys which include the married couple of Beyonce and Jay-Z that affirmed marriage. I find Ross criticisms and his act of mocking to be very valid as Kirk Cameron was very off the mark regarding his narrow-minded comments about the event as he tried to promote his own movie while criticizing the Grammys support of marriage equality.

Black History Month, Do We Need It?

As we all know the month of February, since 1976 has been designated to be Black History Month. Originally Black History Month used to be Black History Week and was created in 1926 when Carter G. Woodson and his organization, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History or ASALH announced that the second week of February would become known as Black History Week. At the time since its creation it was met with positive responses which lead to its growth in popularity over the decades leading to its expansion to a month and its adoption by the United Kingdom and Canada. However over the years there has been an increasing concern over whether or not the month truly still serves any purpose and whether or not it was fair to dedicate a single month to the history of one race. One notably critic of the month would be actor, Morgan Freeman. In 2006, in a CBS interview with Mike Wallace, Freeman stated that he found the concept of Black History month to be “ridiculous” and that "I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history." During my time in Elementary School and High School the faculties would be encourage us to celebrate the month and sometimes even incorporated within their daily programs during that month. In my High School years specifically I, myself began to wonder whether or not Black History Month was something we truly needed at this point in time in which African Americans are largely represented in things such as politics and literature.

Recently I’ve read an article that has discussed that matter of Black History Month. The article was written by writer, Nadra Kareem Nittle, who has written for a number of publications on race and politics. In the article, Nittle discusses whether or not Black History Month has outlived its usefulness and brings up arguments for and against Black History Month. I believe her article to be well written and that she does a good job in going in depth of those for and those against the Black History Month. As mentioned in her article, before the time Carter G. Woodson and his organization started Black History Month, the history of African Americans had been largely distorted, ignored, and left out. This led Woodson to create what was originally known as Negro History Week as a way for to explore Black history and instill pride within the race. Thanks to its creation and popularity there was a large increase in the curriculum of African American studies that helped to fill in certain missing parts of American history involving Black America.

In Nittle’s article, the argument for the side for Black History Month is that the annual observance still has uses to teach those still unaware of our history in this nation by connecting to our ancestors, addressing current issues that we face today, and helping the black community to progress. Nittle mentions that if the observance can be used as platform to outline strategies to improve the community then it is possible for the observance to remain important for the community. In the argument against, it is believed that the month is “shallow” as students receive little background on the historical context in which the historical figures lived and fail to grasp the importance of certain inventions or actions of certain African American figures. Thinking back to my time in High School, I can attest to this as I was mostly taught on whom certain figures were and what were their inventions, but the teachers had never gone in full depth of these figures and what the importance was of them and their inventions. Another argument for those against is that they find the month to be racist because it relegates the celebration of African American history to a single month. Nittle also brings up that while Woodson had created the month to celebrate our history and bring awareness he had also hoped that African American would be so integrated that there wouldn’t be a need for singling it out in one week, which is now a month.

The side I am on is the side against Black History Month, as I do not see the need for it anymore. It has been mention, and not just by Nittle that Carter G. Woodson had expressed hope that there would be no more need to singling out a week to celebrate history and that it would eventually lead to it outliving its usefulness because he felt that African Americans would be so integrated in society there be no point of it anymore. I believe that the Black History Month has accomplished what Woodson had wanted it to because African Americans are so integrated in everything nowadays. I believe it we are at point in time where we need to simply accept that our history is one and the same. Black History Month was a good starting point and Woodson was able to lay out great groundwork for the road ahead, but I believe it’s time that we move on from this. Rather than reduce the history of our group to one month we should speak more of our history through a larger portion of the year. We are integrated in this society, that I simply just don’t see a point anymore.

 http://racerelations.about.com/od/historyofracerelations/a/IsBlackHistoryMonthRelevant_2.htm