Museum Trip 2

Being at the WWII exhibit I had to take advantage. I've been "taught" about WWII previously in High school but I really didn't absorb it and basically went through one ear and out the other. When I was there I knew that this was a great opportunity and I wasn't going to just walk around looking at things pretending I knew what I was looking at. I try my best not to fake my intellect. Even the simple things such as who the Axis Powers were, was not known to me but I now I do.
I spent most of time at the first half of the exhibit. After doing so I have formed an opinion. My opinion is businesses disrespectfully profited off the war. What I mean by that is, businesses thought "how can I make money off this" before they thought about their fellow soldiers going out to war and risking their lives just so they could have a business in the first place. For example, the Daredevil comic book's first issue had Daredevil himself go and defeat Hitler. Captain America's #5 issue had Captain America attack the German American Bund. Was is that the Jewish creators were trying to give hope to their fellow people? Possibly but my first reaction was they just wanted to make money. A better example was a sign in the museum that read, "Send A Salami To Your Boy In The Army". Kat's Delicatessen used a slogan that a lot of people could relate to. There were a lot of family members that were out at war. Kat's Deli found a way to capitalize on the situation. If the Deli were willing to send their product out for free then I would have a different opinion. In the world we live in, where we need money to survive, I guess that's all they were trying to do.  
Another thing that I did not know about was domestic dogs were recruited for war. That was kind of disturbing to me. I don't think animals should be part of a war. A war that they did not cause. Reading that reminded me of the picture of the dead horse I saw at the Civil War exhibit.

Unfit For Service At The Battle-Field Of Gettysburg - July 6, 1863 by Alexander Gardner or Timothy H. O' Sullivan

(Automatic Writing - involuntary or unconscious writing: the production of writing while in a trance or similar state as an attempt to make contact with the writer's unconscious.)

Look at that stupid horse on the ground a picture of a horse on the ground. Sleeping no of course the horse is dead. Stupid horse. Why did it go to war horses can't fight. No guns for it to hold, no stamina die horse die lying on the ground you weren't fit for this war buddy now you're in this museum forever immortalized should be ashamed of yourself should be a picture of you standing tall you are weak not fit for war.

This picture disturbs me because it shows the death of an animal as the result of the Civil War well I don't know that for sure but that's what this exhibition is meant for. The right of a horse where is that They should've informed the horse that it was going to war and allowed it to make it's own decision why must they bring the innocent the ones that had nothing to do with it. If you want war go and fight it don't stay in your office you want war go fight don't send an animal out to do it for you you should be pulling the wagon and lying on the floor in that photograph not the horse who was not informed about the war. Oh I wonder what it thought when the gun shots sound wave penetrated its ear.

Blog Assignment Number 2 (Revised)

"Slave and Citizen" by Frank Tannenbaum compares the life of slaves in North America to the life of slaves in South America. This was published in 1947. Just to name one example of the differences between their lives; slaves in Latin America could by their way out of slavery through manumission while, the slaves in North America could not. Tannenbaum states that the people who controlled Latin America believed that the slave and master were equal. They came to this conclusion with their belief in Christianity by claiming that God sees everybody as equal. The claim that the Spanish lands in South America believed that the slave and the master were equal, does not sit very well with me. Slaves and their masters were not equal in the physical life. Masters controlled slaves. If someone has control over someone else they are not equal. If these people on the island were so religious how can they justify slavery by saying that they still view the slave as an equal? It's kind of like, "yeah you are a slave but we see you as an equal so it is not really that bad". If they truly viewed them as an equal, slavery would have been gone before it had started. If they were so religious I do no believe that they would have allowed slavery. Yes, the slaves in South America did have opportunities to interact with society, such as buying their own freedom, being in a political office, and so on. Still, just because they had more rights than slaves in North America, does not negate the fact that they had slaves in the first place. Did they think they were better Christians because they treated their slaves better than Christians in North America? If so, they were just creating an illusion that prevented them from seeing that slave is not an equal, no matter who says it is. If Christianity was the proper way to justify slavery, why don't devout Christians in the present, fight for the right to own slaves today? Just because the people who have high authority on the land say that slaves are equal, it does not mean slaves are equal. Do you think that the slaves felt they were the same to their master?

Blog revised based off comment left by Nico:

Robert, you seem to pose a number of interesting questions and claims regarding to the text however you may want to consider letting your audience know what you are referring to. Their needs to be a way you present the novel or piece of work you are speaking of in this response. By this I mean a literal mention of the novel, monograph etc. Also with all the questions you pose to the audience you may want to find a way to turn them into claims with reference from the text. There are a lot of questions that you leave unanswered when maybe you can create one question out of them all and answer them throughout your response.

Some questions you may want to consider answering are:
How were slaves different in America vs. the Spanish Colonies?
What other information from the text may you tie in to create clarity?
How is it exactly that the Spanish Christians justify slavery?
How was Slavery and Christianity related in the Spanish colonies?

You have great insight on the view of slavery. It was interesting to read your intake on the enslavement of people and their justification. I believe you have a good start to working on your perspective of this text. I liked the way you questioned the writing and threw in complicated questions to evoke ideas and thinking. I found it most intriguing when you mentioned the slave and master being equal in the eyes of Christians. Also the claim you made about an illusion being created to have slaves believe they were equal. They were both very important parts of your blog and I suggest working off those claims. 

Blog Assignment Number 2

The claim that the Spanish lands in South America believed that the slave and the master were equal, does not sit very well with me. If these people on the island were so religious how can they justify slavery by saying that they still view the slave as an equal? It's kind of like, "yeah you are a slave but we see you as an equal so it is not really that bad". If they truly viewed them as an equal, slavery would have been gone before it had started. If they were so religious I do no believe that they would have allowed slavery. Yes, the slaves in South America did have opportunities to interact with society, such as buying their own freedom, being in a political office, and so on. Still, just because they had more rights than slaves in North America, does not negate the fact that they had slaves in the first place. Did they think they were better Christians because they treated their slaves better than Christians in North America? If so, they were just creating an illusion that prevented them from seeing that slave is not an equal, no matter who says it is. If Christianity was the proper way to justify slavery, why don't devout Christians in the present, fight for the right to own slaves today? Just because the people who have high authority on the land say that slaves are equal, it does not mean slaves are equal. Do you think that the slaves felt they were the same to their master?

First Blog For Violence In America

What I learned about the first two paragraphs of the Declaration Of Independence on Tuesday was eye opening. I never was really taught about what the content of the Declaration Of Independence consisted of and I never took the initiative to find out. It was not very pleasing to realize that the Declaration Of Independence justifies acts of terrorism. Oh, by the way, if you have a noble reason to kill someone just make sure you tell them first! Like that makes it any better. I also don't agree with the fact that it uses God as as justification to kill somebody. I am not a religious person but it is not appropriate to use the name of something/someone that has nothing to do what occurs on the Earth, to justify acts that you commit on Earth.

Jefferson vs David Walker

The Declaration Of Independence states that American citizens have the human right under God to go to war. Also, the government is there to protect/secure those rights which include; Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. If the citizens feel that going to war leads to happiness they are justified in doing so.

David Walker's Appeal states that God created people with a darker skin tone so they should not be labeled as slaves. His claim is that if both white humans and humans of color believe in the same creator then they should both agree that that creator would want them to live together equally. David Walker is basically saying, practice what you preach.