honors class

Today’s lecture was really interesting to me because I have been thinking a lot about housing developments, land, space, who can live who, and who gets to decided who can live were. Let’s blame all of this thoughts on my civilizations class. In my civilizations class our focus is Utopian societies, and we have read novels such as Moore’s Utopia, Machiavelli’s The Prince, and Hobbs Leviathan. All of them pointing this central idea that the distribution of land is the most portent subject of Utopia. Maybe it is because I have been studying for finals and Utopia is all that I can think about, but I truly believe that “Raisin in the Sun,” would be a Utopian based play.
For starters there is the historical context of the play. It specifically takes place on the Southside of Chicago during 1959. This was a time period with high racial discrimination, and what was the chief concern? You guessed it property. The people were worried about who lived were, how many people could live were, and the stinging issue what race could live were. According to the presenter about 60% of the Chicago’s population was black. The slide depicting the locations that blacks were able to live showed that legally blacks could live in what I would say was less than 5% of the available space. It was really pathetically small. Besides the obvious racial discrimination this is I want to focus on how this relates to Utopia. Like I mentioned earlier one of the primary concerns in a Utopian society is determining property. Are we going to live in common houses? Does everyone have their own home? How many people can live in one home? The questions go on, but in the play “Raisin in the Sun,” I think that the primary concern race determining who owned property.
It seems like an obvious statement, because frankly this is what the lecture was about. The play “Raisin in the Sun," and how it related to the housing in Chicago. What I observed was that Lorraine Hansberry, the author, was purposing a Utopia herself. In her Utopia the distribution of property is not determined by race, but other elements such as hard work, determination, or family values. I really do want to read the play now, and see what elements Lorraine Hansberry believes should be included in Utopia.

soc

Joy Prior
25 March 2010
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #7
Question #1
What impressed me about defending your honor was it lead back to who you wanted to honor. It the examples given in Worlds Apart Social Inequalities in a Global Economy demonstrated that the amount of “respect” one earns is a circumstantial.
The example that stood out to me the most was on page 166 the section when the author is talking about the “drug lords” compared to a judge. There were two points that struck me about the drug lord. First was that a drug dealer could become prestigious if he became a drug lord by “giving gifts, jobs, and protection to people within his neighborhood.” He could gain prestige in a given area by honoring the people in that area. Second I realized that no matter how much money the drug lord made he would not be honored the same as the judge in a court of law. The judge (a just judge) wants to respect the law, and they makes oaths to do so. In this situation the judge is honoring the law, and so in a circumstance were the law is respected the judged is honored. On the other hand the drug lord in the bench is not honored, because he is assumed to have dishonored the law. What I realized from this is that it in societies were gifts, jobs, and protection are honored the drug lord can become respected. In a society that honors justice, and protection from illegal trade the judge is honored.
In my civilizations class we read the French novel Pere Goirit. This chapter reminds me of Pere Goirit an elderly man who lives in the boarding house. When he first enters the boarding house he has nice clothing, but as he uses up his money his clothing becomes poorer, and he moves up towards the attack and the servant courters in the boarding house. More significantly in the novel when we are introduced to Pere Goirit’s daughters we learn that once his daughters married into high society they were embarrassed to speak his name in their homes, because of the fear that it might ruin their reputation. When one of his daughters begs her father for money Pere Goirit sues his son-in-law to get his daughter’s stolen dowry back. She then pleads with her father not to sue her husband so that he can save his name. The entire novel is about people in High Paris society with no money, low morals, and high concerns about obtaining prestige.
The characters in Pere Goirit did not have much honor in my opinion. There was cheating, gambling, immorality, and all the unimaginable. They did honor in their specific society though. Everything that the characters “moving” in the Paris society did was in worship of money, women, and vanity. This related to Worlds Apart Social Inequalities in a Global Economy because just like the drug lord was honored in his society the characters in Pere Goirit were honored in their society, because they honored the same things that society honored. The drug lord earned respect by ensuring gifts, jobs, and protection for his society. In Pere Goirit the character Rastingac earns respect in society by honor money, immorality, and vanity. I find it particularly interesting though that although the drug lord and Rastingac are honored in their society the society that they have built themselves up in is momentary and the drug lord ended up in a court of law, and Rastingac ended up penniless at Pere Goirit’s grave site.

2nd marx

Joy Prior
Professor Lee
Karl Marx

Karl Marx predicted several items about capitalism in The Communist Manifesto their effect on the global economy. In this paper I would like to address namely mans alienation from his homofaber nature, how alienating factor work can be, and how the global economy increases alienation.
One of Marx concerns was the alienation that comes from capitalism. Personally I believe that factory work in any society is alienating, and not simply capitalism. Marx states that the bourgeoisie class, “It has resolved personal worth into exchange value.” The personal worth I believe Karl Marx is talking about is homofaber, or the idea that human beings are a “man who creates.” This word is taken from the idea of homosapiens which means man who thinks, and Marxist evolved the concept to mean that someone is only human is if they are creating. Factory work is alienating because it separates the worker from his personal worth by denying him his nature of creation. To do simply create what he thinks is best. For example in a factory that makes four legged chairs it does not matter if the worker thinks a three legged chair would work better, because he is bound by regulations to create a four legged chair. If you truly believe that humans are homofaber and that an assembly line makes it impossible for man to utilize his ability to create then the worker is not fulfilling their nature and consequently they are not obtaining their personal worth.
The purpose of a factory is to produce the most of a product at the lowest possible price. A factory in particular that I believe has been alienated is factory farming. Farms that have an influence in today’s economy do not have a few chickens, some cows, and a horse. Instead they are factory farms that produce as much of a specific product as possible. There are farms for specifically cows that produce milk, a different farm for cows that produce butter, and another farm for cows that produce beef. Marx believed that the bourgeoisie had “stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe.” Even the farmer is compelled to “adopt the mode of production,” to be competitive in the economy.
An example of how factory farms effect the global economy is when there was the mad cow scare in Europe. The bad beef was coming from a few isolated factory farms in Europe, but to ensure the safety of the American people our country canceled almost all beef trade with Europe. Not only that but the United States Government increased the requirements for beef. Although the Mad Cow scare was in a factory farm half way around the world Farmer in California had to altered their production to meet the demands of the United States government. The farmer is denied his ability to create his farm how he wants it to be. He can not create what he will call good beef, how he will create his beef, or what equals good beef because he is bound by the restrictions of the capitalist government. The purpose of this example is not to say that I want to eat beef that might give me Mad Cow disease. Instead I want to emphasize the idea that in our global economy beef production in Europe effects beef production in the Untied States, and the farmer feels more alienated from his homofaber as he complies to the demands and regulations developed in capitalism.

Interview

Joy Prior
Leigh Cherry
Spanish 105 Section 1
Interview
Joy: ¿Como se llama?
Moscoso: Me llamo Cecu Moscoso.
Joy: ¿De donde?
Moscoso: Soy de Columbia.
Joy: ¿Qué cosas recuerda usted sobre su primer día en los Estados Unidos?
Moscoso: Mi primer día en los Estados Unidos... Recuerdo que estuve en un aeroplano. Cuando nosotros entramos en los Estados Unidos no había comido en el aeroplano. Mi tía me tomó al Coral de Oro y mucho comida. Todos tipos diferentes. Mucho, mucho comida. Recuerdo yo no podía decir ningún inglés, y yo no podía entender nada.
Joy: ¿Cuánto tiempo antes que usted entendiera el inglés?
Moscoso: Mmm… 8 meses primero yo entendía. 2 años yo hablaba.
Joy: ¿Donde usted habló espanol?
Moscoso: En mi casa, hablo espanol.
Joy: ¿Qué es la diferencia de los tiendas en los Estados Unidos y tiendas en Colombia? ¿La tienda de comida?
Moscoso: En Colombia tiene muchas tiendas pequeñas. También… una tienda para vegtables, frutas, carne, y las tiendas son para cosas specifice. Hay una tienda para una cosa. Hay muchas pequeñas tiendas. En los Estados Unidos hay una tienda con todos. También en Colombia todo la comida es fresco. No comida esta congelada. Todos las frutas son fresca, todos los vegtables son frescos, y nada congelados. Hay gran varaity también. Hay muchos tipos diferentes de frutas y muchos vegtables. No sólo manzanas y naranjas, pero varaity grande.
Joy: ¿Es la comida en una lata?
Moscoso: No sé, No… o sí. No puedo pensar. la fruta en esta una lata, o vegtables en una lata. Todo que yo recuerdo era fresco. Atún, y sardina son una lata. Los estaban en una lata. Pero las frutas y los vegtables no tienen una lata.

birthday party

Joy Prior
Professor Cherry
Interactive Activity
I went to a Birthday Party for my friend Liz’s dad. It was a lot of fun, and I enjoyed myself a lot. There were several things that I noticed first time, food, language, music, and how patient everyone was.
The birthday party was suppose to start at seven, but no one could come at seven and so the party got pushed back to starting at nine. Liz and I wanted to go and see a concert so we left at about eight to go to our concert, and planed to get back in time for desert and leftovers. When we got back to Liz’s house at ten almost ten thirty that party had not even started yet. People were still arriving after we had, and they had not even started bringing out the dinner food. We made it on time for every thing.
There was a lot of good food. I mean a lot of food with a lot of flavor. It was all unique flavors to, none of this easily package stuff that you buy at the store. I had never tasted some of the flavor combination that were in the food. We had something that they called pollo loco, salad, fruit salad, rice, beans, and this stuffed homemade hot pocket. I can not remember the name of the last thing that we ate, but it was really good. It was full of meat and black beans with even some hard boiled egg in there. My favorite was probably the beans. They were really flavorful. Like I said before it was not the type of flavor that you get from a little premixed package at Wal-mart, but this stuff was really unique and good. The beans were in a runny sauce and they were small and light brown.
Speaking Spanish with a lot of native speakers was actually really embarrassing for me. I know that I have a horrible accent, and that most the time I sound like a five year old when I try to form a sentence. Everyone was really patient with me, and most of them just expected me to speak English. I spent most of my time listening, and I was surprised with how much I could understand. A lot of what they were speaking in was past tense and I was so happy that I had learned that in class. They told funny stories and laughed at each others jokes and memories.
When we first went to the party there was Latino music playing. I have become more a costume to Latin Music playing when I hang out with Liz, and so I did not expect the music to change. Then during the party her mom put in some eighty music. Everyone was laughing and talking and they all wanted to hear some good old time music. I looked at the CD and I expected that the eighty music would be like translated into Spanish or something, but it was not. The music was good old fashion eighty music, it was probably the same CD my own mom plays at our house. It was really fun for me to hear that type of music at the party, and to see everyone laughing and singing along to it. The people there were good and singing along, but I was thinking about how ridiculous our Spanish class must look in the early morning singing along to the hymns and making up half of the words. It was fun to see how universal music is in all cultures.
Her mom told me that I should come over and practice speaking Spanish with her. She hugged me and told me that she would love to help me learn, because it would be so nice to speak with me in Spanish. I realized how all of the people there could speak both Spanish and English fluently. They were really patient with me attempting to speak Spanish, and I think that it has to do with the fact that most of them understood how difficult it is to learn a second language. When I speak Spanish I get all self conscious and think about how I am spluttering this beautiful language, but that night I realized that native speakers a usually just happy that you are trying to learn their language.

2nd draft

Benjamin Franklin Looks His Best in Green
When I was in elementary school I wished I had a 100 dollars. Then not wanting to be unfair I did not want to be unfair so I would wish my friends also had 100 dollars, still not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings I’d wish all of my friend’s friends had 100 dollars, and eventually wished everyone in the entire world had 100 dollars.
I remember the day I realized this was a pointless wish, because if everyone had 100 dollars then 100 dollars would have absolutely no value. So I started wishing for a puppy. As I look back on my wasted wishes I realize how paper currency changed exchange value. While reading The Communist Manifesto I disagreed with Karl Marx prediction of the world economy’s downfall because He did not incorporate how “invisible” money (green slips of Benjamin Franklins) would influence the bases of economy.
Karl Marx did not recognize paper money as a valid form of private property. In The Communist Manifesto Marx states, “private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.” It is important to understand Marx was not under the impression that nine-tenths of the population had no money, but rather he believed that nine-tenths of the population had no wealth. Ironically enough in the United States two thirds of the nation’s wealth is controlled by the top ten percent of the population. The other ninety percent share the remaining third. Yet, in the United States ninety percent of the population is not impoverished, because they have valuable money.
Marx underestimated how valuable dollars would be considered across every social class. In The Communist Manifesto it reads that the labourers (factory workers) are all, “slaves of the bourgeois class,” and that “he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker.” The prediction of labourers living in slavery might be true if the bourgeoisie class did not depended on the exchange value of money also. My one hundred dollar is worth the same as Paris Hilton’s one hundred dollar. Even the wealthiest investor depends on the ‘invisible’ value of the dollar. And although it is not what Marx wanted our economy is based on exchange value. When was the last time that you went to the store and saw someone pay without a credit card, better yet, when was the last time you went to the store and saw someone pay for their groceries with a bushel of wheat. Image the Wal-Mart security guards trying to counsel that poor customer. Not only would you never expect to see this at Wal-Mart, but we would not accept it as a means of payment.
The Communist theory “may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property,” but because Marx did not take into consideration my childish wish I do not believe that he properly predicted today’s economic structure. Today, private property does not simply included land, houses, and cars but also Benjamin Franklins.(Benjamin fanklin meaning money?) Read in the context of a world were private property is only valuable if it rings up a cash value The Communist Manifesto is simply a description of my childish wish, to give everyone one hundred dollars. Marx failed to predict that the world would embraced Benjamin Franklin in green, and if he gave everyone one hundred dollars the exchange value would be entirely lost.

Marx first draft

Benjamin Franklin Looks His Best in Green

When I was in elementary school I wished I had a 100 dollars. Then I did not want to be unfair so I would wish my friends also had 100 dollars, not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings I’d wish all of my friend’s friends had 100 dollars, and eventually wished everyone in the entire world had 100 dollars. I remember the day I realized this was a pointless wish, because if everyone had 100 dollars then 100 dollars would have absolutely no value. I started wishing for a puppy. As I look back on my wasted wishes I realize how paper currency changed exchange value. While reading Communist Manifesto I disagreed with Karl Marx prediction of the world economy’s downfall because He did not incorporate how “invisible” money (green slips of Benjamin Franklins) would influence the bases of economy.
Karl Marx did not recognize paper money as a valid form of private property. In The Communist Manifesto Marx states, “private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.” It is important to understand Marx was not under the impression that nine-tenths of the population had no money, but rather he believed that nine-tenths of the population had no wealth. Ironically enough in the United States two thirds of the nations wealth is controlled by the top ten percent of the population. The other ninety percent share the remaining third. Yet, in the United States ninety percent of the population is not impoverished, because they have valuable money.
Marx underestimated how valuable dollars would be considered across every social class. In The Communist Manifesto it reads that the labourers (factory workers) are all, “slaves of the bourgeois class,” and that “he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker.” The prediction of labourers living in slavery might be true if the bourgeoisie class did not depended on the exchange value of money also. My one hundred dollar is worth the same as Paris Hilton’s one hundred dollar. Even the wealthiest investor depends on the ‘invisible’ value of the dollar. And although it is not what Marx wanted our economy is based on exchange value. When was the last time that you went to the store and saw someone pay without a credit card, better yet, when was the last time you went to the store and saw someone pay for their groceries with a bushel of wheat. Image the Wal-Mart security guards trying to counsel that poor customer. Not only would you never expect to see this at Wal-Mart, but we would not accept it as a means of payment.
The Communist theory “may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property,” but it did not take into consideration my childish wish. Today, private property does not simply included land, houses, and cars but also Benjamin Franklins. Read in the context of a world were private property is only valuable if it rings up a cash value The Communist Manifesto is simply a description of my childish wish to give everyone one hundred dollars. Marx failed to predict that the world would embraced Benjamin Franklin in green, and if he gave everyone one hundred dollars the exchange value would be entirely lost.

hugo chavez

Hugo Chavez in me! You had better believe it. I found today’s lecture interesting on several key notes. Namely the sub-consciousness involved in politics.
The government’s influence seems to be subconsciously associated with every aspect of my life. Across the world people are controlled by politics without even consciously being aware of it. I myself am influenced by politics everyday: freeways, student grants, and even my apartment had to be approved by the government before I could live there. All the same it is not like I leave my apartment in the morning on my way to class and think, “gee whiz, I am so glad that the government of the United States approved this complex that I am living in, and look at that sidewalk they provided for me to walk on while I go to college at a University that the government validated.” If my thoughts were like this I am sure that I would have little space to think of anything else. So, these thought are pushed to my sub-consciousness. To a point I think that I will have to experience a different government in order to fully comprehend how much my subconscious recognizes the United States government as the force that in one scene controls my life.
It was interesting to watch the footage of Hugo Chaves and realize how much politics depends on the subconscious awareness of its citizens. The professor was clear to point out how although many of the members in the class do not agree with Chaves’ political actions we (in the United States) are subconsciously the same as him. The graph that he showed us depicted how even up to eighty percent of American citizens are support populace ideals. This subconscious mentality that the government should be run by the people, there is corruption in government bureaucracies, and there is good and bad in politics appears to be the underlining layer of conscious choices.
How is my subconscious reflected in my political choices? Let’s look back at my apartment complex that the government so graciously allowed me to live in. What do I believe? Well, I think that the government should allow people to live in houses, but that alone is a simple statement. Does the government have the right to put rules where I can and cannot live? How much it costs? Who I can live with? And so on. I can make that stand that the government should allow people to live in complexes if they are willing to pay and live by the settled amount between the landowner and themselves, and then consciously I will vote in politicians who support this belief. The key point that I realized today during the lecture is that in politics I make a stand and act on that position, and the other stand that someone else makes is… well wrong, they don’t understand, they just are not seeing the bigger picture, or better yet together we need to come to an agreement that supports my ideals. This mentality is subconsciously the same as Hugo Chavez!

soc

Joy Marie Prior
12 February 2010
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #6
Question #3
I really did not understand the second shift section, and I would apreciate going over that in class.
The glass ceiling described on page 155 as being, “Women have been moving into managerial positions in increasing numbers for several decades no, but they are still scarce in top executive positions… as though they have run into an invisible ceiling that blocks their advancement.” Was what was really intriguing to me, because I connected it to the musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. My senior year of High School I was cast as one of the countless secretaries in this production. While reading the section on glass ceilings I was reminded of the play, because although there are male and female employees in the company, but all of the female employees were caste as secretaries, and all of the males were castled as executives. This depicted the ideal form of how the Victorian women has helped to create the glass ceiling in businesses today. The women were willing to “act like men” to marry a husband that they thought would bring them the most prestige.
The play is based on a book published in the 50’s and it was performed on Broadway in the 60s. Consequently the characters uphold the ideal “Victorian womanhood”. Every single female character (including all of the extras) were unmarried secretaries. There was only one older secretary, and the rest were young, beautiful, and lively. The basic stereo typical 1950’s pink-color job position with the ideal Victorian women who after she got married planed to end her career. On the other hand all the male characters varied greatly in age, and prestige. Finch’s character was exactly what Worlds Apart described in the differential socialization passage. The men in the musical had, “developed career plans early on, were willing and even eager to take on risks, liked to work in groups where they were noticed, were sensitive to company politics, and knew how to cultivate relationships that would work help them get ahead.” I thought about how the ideal Victorian woman adds to the development of the glass ceiling that keeps many women from holding high executive positions.
While thinking about the musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I was struck with how women really are willing to “act like men,” by developing a plan early on, take risks, work in groups were they can be noticed, are sensitive to social politics, and know how to cultivate relationships not to rise in the economic world, but get a husband. Throughout the musical the secretaries worked the system so that they married who they thought would bring them the most money, and happiness. The song that comes to mind is Cinderella, Darling were all of the girls sing about marrying their bosses. In this particular musical the secretaries believe they were moving up in the world when they married higher up in the company. The men felt like they were moving up in the world as their positions in the company got higher up. In both cases they “acted like men” to get what they wanted, but it was to obtain entirely different things.
I think that what men and women consider successful is one of the determining factors to the glass ceiling idea. If a women thinks that marrying high up in the company is successful then she will spend most of her time reaching for that, but if her goal is to make money than she will being willing to take the time to do that. On that note, it is important to consider the social structure of the work place. Just as the book mentions there are socially restrictions. It leads back to that idea was there the chicken before the egg, or did women feel like they were successful if they married high in the company before they society pressure to marry high up in the company was expected. I still do not know which I ‘side’ with, but I think that it would have to be some sort of combination of both. I am interested to see how this discussion goes in class.

soc

Joy Marie Prior
12 February 2010
Sociology 112
Section 4
Homework #6
Question #3
I really did not understand the second shift section, and I would apreciate going over that in class.
The glass ceiling described on page 155 as being, “Women have been moving into managerial positions in increasing numbers for several decades no, but they are still scarce in top executive positions… as though they have run into an invisible ceiling that blocks their advancement.” Was what was really intriguing to me, because I connected it to the musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. My senior year of High School I was caste as one of the countless secretaries in this production. While reading the section on glass ceilings I was reminded of the play, because although there are male and female employees in the company, but all of the female employees were caste as secretaries, and all of the males were castled as executives. This depicted the ideal form of how the Victorian women has helped to create the glass ceiling in businesses today. The women were willing to “act like men” to marry a husband that they thought would bring them the most prestige.
The play is based on a book published in the 50’s and it was first preformed on Broadway in the 60s. Consequently the characters uphold the ideal “Victorian womanhood”. Every single female character (including all of the extras) were unmarried secretaries. There was only one older secretary, and the rest were young, beautiful, and lively. The basic stereo typical 1950’s pink-color job position with the ideal Victorian women who after she got married planed to end her career. On the other hand all the male characters varied greatly in age, and prestige. Finch’s character was exactly what Worlds Apart described in the differential socialization passage. The men in the musical had, “developed career plans early on, were willing and even eager to take on risks, liked to work in groups where they were noticed, were sensitive to company politics, and knew how to cultivate relationships that would work help them get ahead.” I thought about how the ideal Victorian woman adds to the development of the glass ceiling that keeps many women from holding high executive positions.
While thinking about the musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I was struck with how women really are willing to “act like men,” by developing a plan early on, take risks, work in groups were they can be noticed, are sensitive to social politics, and know how to cultivate relationships not to rise in the economic world, but get a husband. Throughout the musical the secretaries worked the system so that they married who they thought would bring them the most money, and happiness. The song that comes to mind is Cinderella, Darling were all of the girls sing about marrying their bosses. In this particular musical the secretaries believe they were moving up in the world when they married higher up in the company. The men felt like they were moving up in the world as their positions in the company got higher up. In both cases they “acted like men” to get what they wanted, but it was to obtain entirely different things.

Dance Brazil

Dance 240R Section 002
Contemporary Dance Tec & Thry 1
McAllister, Andrea
Joy Marie Prior
March 3, 2010
2 Performance Critique
This past weekend I watched Dance Brazil perform at Kingsbury Hall on 26th of February 2010. It was a completely different style of dance than what I was expecting. During slavery in Brazil the masters forbid the African slaves from owning weapons. To protect themselves the slaves learned how to fight with their bodies, but they covered up that they were training for physical fighting by doing the steps to music and songs. Today it is an art form practiced all around the world. Each of the dances were approximately forty five minutes long. Throughout one number though there were distinct different sections with separate music, costumes, and movements. Three particular sections that stuck out to me in the second act were what I have called Going out into the field, Merriment, and Bondage.
Most of the songs are about slavery, and so the Going out in the field one was what started the dance. When the dancers walked out they went from stage left to stage right, at the end of the entire number (forty-five minutes later) the dancers entered from stage right and exited to stage left. I thought that this was rather brilliant chorography because it gives the impression that all of the different emotions expressed throughout the piece were apart of a typical day. The lighting was very important in these number because as each of the dancers enters they are bathed in a blood red lighting. This gives the illusion that the dancers are separate from the world and each other. Many of the movements were bond and strong. It was incredible to physically see their head tale connection as they did hand stands and back flips. What I really noticed was that when the dancer dropped their hand and let it hang loss their entire arm went limp, but when they dancer wanted to placed their arms out strong it looked like it would have been impossible to move their hand even the slightest. I believe that the movements emphasized the suppression that comes from being a slave, and yet they were so graceful and controlled that the movements embodied the truth that we are all human, beautiful, and created in the image of the one and true God.
The Merriment number was one of the most lighthearted sections in the dance, and I think that is what I especially liked about this piece. This was the only section were the dancers wore color, and the girls had on short skirts instead of pants or shorts. I imagined the song was celebrating something in the slave villages away form their masters. Most of the movements were interactive with lots of couples switching partners and many intertwined steps. This dance was flat out fun to watch, and it left me feeling jovial and excited. I believe that as the dancers smiled at the audience, twirled, and flipped over one another they wanted to express the idea that slavery was not just about working in the fields, but it was about people. A people who like to party, celebrate, sing, and dance. I really did get that message.
Bondage was by far my favorite section. It was all male dancers and they started in the middle of the dance floor. They were in a spot light that altered red and black lines giving the impression that they were in a prison. All the dancers had on were nude colored short spandex, and yet although they looked exposed it was not a vulgar dance. I wish there was a word in between vulnerable and determined because that is the only word that would describe this dance. Every movement was bound and strong. There was lots of carving movements, and many level variations. The dancers were entirely aware of the space around them and they explored it, and controlled it. This caused them to appear in control, but all of their movements were in the center of the dance floor. The light helped emphasize the illusion that all of the dancers were trapped. Although they had dominion in the space that they were given they were very aware of their boundaries. I believe that the piece wanted to emphasize how determined the slaves were to escape and obtain freedom, but to also show how restricted they were physically, mentally, and spiritually.
I enjoyed this performance immensely, and would recommend Dance Brazil to anyone and everyone even if they are not familiar with contemporary dance or any form of dance for that matter they would have enjoyed this performance.

last draft

Civ 240; Professor Lee; Joy Marie Prior
The United States was not founded on More’s Utopian ideal simply because The Federalist papers verify that our Founding Fathers felt obligated to persuaded Americans to support The Constitution and to simply inform American Citizens of The Constitution.
I think that it is significant that The Federalist Papers are biased, logical, and simplistic. The Federalist Papers were biased because as any good author knows you bring up all of the good points, and argue the negative points for your argument. It is important to recognize that The Federalist Papers used logic because it shows that the citizens expected a thought out and through explanation before they would cast their vote. All of the papers are written simplistically because the authors were addressing the common-well-read-American audience. Throughout the papers some words are defined, and phrases in other languages are translated. The Federalist Papers are evidence that the authors of The Constitution went through great lengths to persuade citizens to support their decision.
Utopia is based on informing citizens and not persuading them. The government informs citizens about matters such as jewelry, food, education, were you live, and how long you will live there. Debates, campaigning, pamphlets, or newspaper articles are not even mentioned in section about elections in Utopia. None of the Utopian candidates persuaded the citizens for their vote, because in all reality what is left to persuaded Utopians of when they are informed of everything? How can you expect a society that is unable to chose what they what to wear in the morning, or were they want to sit for dinner to make logical choices about war, property laws, or elections. The Utopian Government does not persuaded, it informs Utopians what Utopians should act like, and be. The distinction between More’s Utopia and Madison’s Constitution is The Federalist papers; in the United States we expect to be persuaded and not merely informed.