This page is a series of panels in March 2 depicting a movie theater in 1961 Nashville refusing tickets to African-American customers. Showing the black protestors patiently standing in line during a snowstorm waiting their turn to ask for a ticket and then re-entering the back of the queue communicates the nonviolence and dedication associated with the “stand-ins”(17) aspect of the Freedom Movement. Additionally, Lewis shows the comments and thoughts of white patrons by including a speech bubble of a white man saying “can you believe this?”(17) to his wife. This speech is also in a different font from the rest of the text, adding to the emphasis of these words. Clearly, the white patrons grew impatient and aggravated by this disturbance. Since they are not used to waiting in frigid temperatures and being refused service, this drawing expresses the white community’s ambivalence toward the Civil Rights cause and demonstrates their privilege as they selfishly wanted the black protestors to leave for their own benefit. Additionally, the movie playing was a screening of the Ten Commandments. This inclusion is particularly ironic because the Ten Commandments were written as a reminder to worship God because he is omnipotent. Even though this is the message of the movie, it is clear that God does not respect all of the movie customers equally. If this is the case, then Lewis most likely includes the speech bubble mentioning the Ten Commandments in the center of the page to draw attention to this inconsistency of thought. By drawing three white men skipping giddily in a circle chanting “Hup two three four”(17) outside the ticket office, Lewis is showing the cycle of segregation perpetuated by unaffected white bystanders who seem to be mocking the protests with their cheers. This series of panels stirs frustration among readers and sympathy for the activists waiting in the cold and receiving blatant disrespect. While this situation occurred over fifty years ago, outright discrimination based on appearance is still a common theme rooted in society. We should work to protest these absurd and outdated socially constructed differences surrounding race and gender.

Chapter 1: 

In Sontag’s first chapter, she introduces her ideas about graphic, gruesome images in modern society and how they contribute to violence and war. Firstly, Sontag emphasizes the difference between the male and female satisfaction in and desire for war. According to Sontag, most men “like war”(Sontag, 3) because there is “some glory, some necessity”(Sontag, 3) associated with war in perpetuating manliness that women do not feel. While traditional gender roles for men and women were created based on a patriarchy, our contemporary society acknowledges the equality of men and women so this claim is innately biased.

Next, Sontag transitions to explaining how photographs are an important form of communication as they serve to show images that the “privileged and the merely safe might prefer to ignore”(Sontag, 7). This concept of conversing through photography allows a person to temporarily enter the lives of another potentially vastly different from his/her own life. Photographs can be used as a “call for peace. A cry for revenge… [or] bemused awareness”(Sontag, 13) of terrible images that can either numb people or empassion people. By distributing an image of suffering and/or violence, people and governments can use this emotional baggage for multiple purposes.

Violent images imprint in the brains of observers, thus they are an important tool for preventing or encouraging force and change.

Chapter 6: 

Continuing her exploration of photography’s impact on human emotion, in Chapter 6 Sontag discusses the apathy that comes with over-saturation of gruesome, horrible images. When there are so many of these images distributed, people often “feel obligated to look”(Sontag, 95) at the disgusting images, yet so few people internalize the photos and ruminate on their impact and importance. Unfortunately, people are self-absorbed and concern themselves with this horrific terror for a split second before turning to another, more present issue. Lamentably, violence is incredibly prominent in society, so there is a large “quantity of images”(Sontag, 102) distributed. This proximity to images of suffering results in a sense of helplessness and a loss of compassion. Oddly enough, repulsive images tend to attract a certain dark side of humanity, exposing that humans are drawn toward distorted images. These impactful images often only result in an “initial spark”(Sontag, 103) instead of a continual desire to help. Maybe people enjoy looking at suffering because it shows a positive contrast between a painful life and the relatively pleasant life they may live. If this is the case, then these comfortable and safe people should use their privilege to motivate them to productive action.

The influx of distressing and repugnant images distributed in society leads to an apathetic response in observers.

Chapter 8: 

Chapter 8 focuses on the struggle of remembering versus forgetting horrific images and occurrences. Many disturbing images innately communicate the message: “Don’t forget”(Sontag, 115). However, Sontag emphasizes the importance of thinking about images rather than merely remembering them. Society often associates proper morals with remembering abominable events and regards forgetting these events as unethical behavior. But simply recalling an image or event does nothing to explore why the event occurred, why it was significant, what can be learned from it, and why it should be remembered. Solely watching an event or seeing an image is different than interpreting and internalizing it. Sometimes, people need to stand “back and think”(Sontag, 118) instead of jumping to conclusions about images. Similar to ruminating on images, people should do the same with other people. Often times, humans are quick to judge others on appearance, like an image. But if a person took the time to learn the history underneath the appearance, then the world would be more accepting and civil.

Memory of certain events or disturbing pictures is only important and useful if the observer takes the time to investigate the causes and effects of the actual image and uses this newfound knowledge to influence change.

Option 2:

Unfortunately, modern political discourse is filled with incivility and immorality because individuals act selfishly to pursue self-interest. Many political figures use bullshit as a vehicle of deception to control the masses and further a specific political agenda. According to Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit”, bullshit is “deceptive misrepresentation”(Frankfurt, 118) and is used in a “deliberate”(Frankfurt, 118) manner. Taking this definition of bullshit, one can assume that bullshit is intentional. In that case, the line between lying and bullshitting blurs as both lying and bullshiting are ways to convey incorrect information. Another way to use bullshit to communicate a false message is by including a monotonous image of beauty and intelligence in the media. Several powerful groups can globally distribute unrealistic false standards for their own benefit not thinking of the detrimental effect on minority groups’s self-confidence. If contemporary discourse relies on these tactics to disperse intelligence and expectations, then the people are not receiving accurate and truthful information in order to make educated decisions. As a result, the people should take measures to hold themselves and others accountable for spewing bullshit.

Option 3:

In relation to Unit 1 and our discussions about equality, how does our perception of reality introduced in Unit 2 affect our ability to understand the struggles of people in other socio-economic classes and to effectively implement change? I am asking this because Unit 1 assumes that we are all able to imagine the hardships of others, even if that is not our reality. However, in Unit 2, we studied Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” which emphasizes the limits placed on the imagination by the reality in which we were raised. A potential answer is that we are unable to perceive other people’s reality until we actively engage with that person and his/her community. Additionally, actively learning stories and participating in tangible research could help people realize the value of all life from every different background.

Question: How does human connection affect prejudice?

Agree on: Many people today acknowledge their conscious bias against minority groups (aka racism) brought about by years of historical inequality and media description of one superior race. However, when the same people have the opportunity to outwardly discriminate, they chose and/or can learn not to because of the empathy and compassion that connects mankind. When two people meet, they should acknowledge that the other person has blood, skin, hair, and other features resembling their own. All humans have the same inevitable fate of death and the common fear of pain. While these basic aspects of humanity connect us despite physical differences, many fail to realize these similarities until interacting with those one might view as different. Brooks, Stevenson, and Morrison all share the optimism to imply that human connection can destroy injustice and bigotry.

Disagree on: Brooks, Stevenson, and Morrison disagree on how to combat innate bias. Brooks encourages people to appreciate their differences. While this is a noble sentiment, it is too idealistic as most will not take the time to think before they act. Stevenson urges people to keep hope and continue the fight for justice by listening to different everybody’s story. Undoubtedly, the action of listening and internalizing various opinions and stories can have a lasting and cementing impact on the recipient. Hearing and telling stories engages our pathos and welds a lasting connection between two previous unsympathetic acquaintances. Morrison suggests learning from history to avoid a close-minded and ignorant attitude toward different people in the present day. Undoubtedly, using the poor examples set in history to dissuade present day discrimination would be effective, but it would be nearly impossible to require all people learn history.

During the student-run microaggressions panel on 9/25/19 about the presence of microaggression on and off Davidson’s campus, five students of different ethnicities discussed the definition and effects of subtle, mostly unrecognizable acts of racism commonplace in everyday society. These students describe a microaggression as a statement or act not often intended to be harmful and as gaining power from its cumulative effect. For example, people repeatedly asking a peer where her accent is from is not an innately biased question, but it subliminally tells the peer that she is seen and recognized as a foreigner who may need help to understand the majority’s language and culture. After receiving this question once, she may be stung and annoyed, but receiving and answering this question multiple times becomes an attack on her existence and purpose. Microaggressions often stem from stereotypes and close-mindedness. While many microaggressions are unintentional, the lack of response and constructive action is disgraceful. Not only are people ignorant about how their words affect others, but most are also not taught to act in a different way. Additionally, the use of microaggressions in media and the entertainment industry through a portrayal of the stereotypical white beauty and talent standards prolongs the belief that all other races are inferior. By having white lead actors in movies and the standard white, thin models on magazines, all other races and body types are ignored and disrespected.  As a society, we should encourage introspection about our own microaggressions and encourage others to do the same to create a more inclusive and accepting national atmosphere.