Diane Arbus/Barrett

In Diane Arbus's photography she focuses more on vulger photography symbolizing her love for the way she herself grew up feeling unwanted and distant from her family. In Elizabeth Barretts documentary she talked about how children were triggered as "unhappy and unstable" growing up in families where they didn't have money and people outside of the "poor world" considered them to be unhappy with their lives and scared to be themselves. In Diane Arbus's photography she makes her subjects visible to the eye by appealing their sense of the unknown. Much like the people presented in Elizabeth Arbus's documentary the people didn't necessarily want to be put out in the media as "poor". In both the texts, the two share a common interest in perhaps shaming the people presented in the texts by not seeking approval from the subjects and not finding a way to get out in the media that there is a problem with poverty but without shaming the people publicly. Photography has the ability to change the way people think about themselves and others creating a powerful judgment among the human race. Much like Hobert Ison in the documentary of Hugh O' Connor, the people in Diane Arbus's photos appear to be unaware and bothered by something in their lives. Diane is putting out the problems with people and putting thier issues out publicly. Knowing this, is it safe to say that the film makers and photographers take advantage of the issues with people, photographing them and filming them saying "this is what's out there in the world and this is the problem, here are the people". It's easy to say that people today don't know how to present the problems in the world without putting shame to the people.

Carr

In Nicholas Carr's essay "Is google making us stupid" He proposes that reading online texts can inhabit the way you think after long terms of surfing the web and reading articles for long periods of time. Carr seems to think that the web effects the cognitive parts of the brain, making people less aware that they are skimming paragraphs. In Carr's essay he says "The brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.” (par.13) Carr seems to be saying that, once a brain breaks a connection, it forms a new one. When on the computer for hours and hours at a time it seems that people presented in Carr's examples have experienced headaches, and problems seeing after being on a computer for hours at a time. "Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating 'like computers.' But the changes, go much deeper than metaphor. Thanks to our brain’s plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at a biological level." (par. 16) Carr seems to be saying that in today's age we seems to refer to our brains as computers, the more information the hold and the longer it stays there, the easier we can access it after long periods of time. In ten years if we come across something we haven't studied in over ten years we can sometimes easily remember how to do it or recover information we read over ages ago. Today computers have made accessing information a whole lot easier in seconds. Students today can access a book in seconds and read the whole book in a matter of five pages making studying a whole lot easier but missing the key points in the book. "It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV. " (par. 17) subsequently enough, our brains are our computers and can hold information for as long as we can remember.

In Clive Thompson's article "The New Literacy" he explains how technology is creating a new generation of writing. Back in the day people rarely wrote anything outside of class, unless it had to do with class they pretty much wrote nothing. He talks about Andrea Lundsford a professor at Stanford University, she did a project to see how technology affects students academic writing. What she found was that students are writing ALOT more outside of class now than ever before, and that they are not using their texting or email language in the academic writing that they are creating. Thompson explains how students today enjoy writing more today because they get to write to an audience that they want to write too. At school they have to write to one person and that is the teacher. But when they write outside of school they can write to whom ever they please. Students can write what ever they want as well, its not just about a specific topic like they would have to do in a class assignment.
In my own opinion I believe that technology is killing our ability to right. Its not that it is affecting our academic writing, but it is teaching us other things about writing, and to me it is creating a whole new level of procrastination. Having all the new social networking devices, makes me not want to write a whole 5 page essay, I would rather chat with my friends on Facebook or Myspace. Where before they had technology students would write their essays then go do something. But since the internet has become so easy to access my 8 year old cousin even knows how to use it.

Stranger with a Camera Summary

Both Larry Daressa's review and ITVS’ interpretation of the Stranger with a Camera documentary thoroughly and accurately describe Elizabeth Barret, the director/producer's objective in making the film. Daressa mentions Barret's key inquiry and reason for making the documentary, and that is, “'What are the responsibilities of any of us who take images of other people and put them to our own uses?'” (Daressa) ITVS talks of Appalachia, the place in the film that inspired the question, and the murder within that made one mostly poor, mining mountain town famous. Daressa explains how film maker Hugh O'Connor's death related to and supported Barret’s claim about the responsibilities of film makers and photographers. He continues on to explain that the murderer, local Hobart Ison, was passive about the matter: “At his trial he made the novel claim that he had shot O'Connor in self-defense in order to avoid character assassination by camera: 'I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?' Ison not only owned the land, but he clearly believed he owned what was said about it and about the people who lived on it.” (Daressa) When he brought this up, it appeared that he had the intention of portraying Ison's reasoning, and making the connection of why Barret used the murder as an unsettlingly real example of the point of view a subject might take if they were being exploited. Daressa talked about one of the only people shown in the film who was all for the camera coverage in Appalachia as much as Ison was against it, and that was Mason Elbridge. Mason's stance was that the camera was a tool to educate people fairly about every walk of life. This talk leads to Daressa putting his thoughts in that photographers can only capture small pieces of a community, and that a community as a whole can't be defined by one group the photographer happens to capture and use as the label for the community. His review also articulates how Barret believes photography and film making, specifically ethnography leads to the warping and misrepresentation of the community, while ignoring the true purpose or bigger picture of the ethnography, which in this case was fixing problems of importance. Daressa finally gets to the answer Barret finds to her question, which is just to stay true to the story and represent all points of view. Daressa claims heavily that he believes Barret is naïve in thinking that objectivity in filmmaking can be obtained. Yet, he seems to stand by the feeling that she has the innate ability of not taking out her own personal woes regarding the community that she speaks of in the documentary, which she happened to grow up in and was part of her motivation for creating the documentary. So, she herself was following her own advice about having open-ended objectivity as an element of her own document.

-Tristin

Stranger with a Camera

In Elizabeth Barret's production “Stranger with a Camera”she tells her story of being on both ends of the camera. A main part of the story is an event that occurred between Huge and a property owner. Huge went on the mans property to document the lifestye, and was shot for it. Barret expressed her conflict with describing both sides of the story fairly and equally. One of the main topics of the video was the reporting on poverty and the trials reporters faced. Reporters didn’t want to put local people in embarrassing situations in front of their neighbors, so they didn’t photograph poor people. Barret asked herself the question, “can you show poverty without shaming the people?” Huge even lost his life trying to do so.
I believe that this question is Barrets main focus of her production. Although, she never directly answered the question. I think that she wanted her viewers to think for themselves about how you can present the life of Americans in a raw way without shaming them while they’re under hard times. Also, she wanted to question how to show America as “America the great” while showing it not to be what it really seems, just as Huge set out to do through his career.

Stranger with a Camera

In the documentary of "Stranger with a camera" Elizabeth Barrett seems to be pointing out the poverty issues in Kentucky and the media's attention toward the poor and how it "must be shown". Children of Kentucky were generally poor and had raggedy clothes, they we're hungry and sometimes bored. When Film makers caught children eating dirt, they assumed it was because they were hungry when in fact they were just being kids. Some believe that "suffering becomes worth a good image". In Elizabeth Barretts documentary she seems to point out the key factors associated in documentary, media, and film making when dealing with the attention span towards being able to show off other people's issues rather than ones own. In the documentary I noticed that hobert was still praised for even after the murder, "Hobert came from a community tht loved him and even loved him after he killed somebody". At Hoberts trial he continued to say that he shot Hugh O' Conner out of pure self defense. I think that both Hugh and Hobert were wrong in the situation, it could have easily been avoided and Hugh could have asked for Hoberts permission in shooting the documentary on Hoberts property. Hobert could have denied Hugh and nothing could have happened, but it didn't happen that way. The people of Kentucky wanted to continue to live the "American Dream" which was simply just happiness, and comfort. The people of Kentucky didn't care whether they had a low paying job as long as they knew the value of the things they worked for and worked hard to get themselves where they're at today. Photography is what makes art today, and even if that means showing off the flaws off todays social, and environmental change then that calls for great photography and film making. When dealing with film and the media, some take advantage of the fact that they have a camera in their hands and don't consider that people don't necessarily want to be seen on film as being "poor" and "low class" because of the embarressment and shame it causes, much like Hobert in the documentary. People loved Hobert, and Hobert simply didn't want to be humiliated on film. Hugh was a film maker and probably never thought about the way film could hurt familes and make them feel ashamed for all they have worked for.

Stranger with a Camera

"Stranger with a Camera" By Elizabeth Barret is a video about a filmmaker named Hugh O'Connor and the man who killed him named Hobart Ison. The film started out slow and was kind of confusing at the beginning but everything tied together at the end. Hugh O'Connor was a Canadian filmmaker. He traveled all over his daughter claims, filming children and adults in different communities. O'Connor once filmed a 10 year old girl, and showed her how to use the camera; he even gave her a few of the pictures. In his daughters eyes i can infer that she saw him as a great man. By what she says I agree and I do not think that he should have died. Hobart Ison was a man who owned a lot of land. He never wanted anyone on his land, it was his and he especially didn't want any camera people are it. One day Hugh O'Connor and some of his staff were drove by a house on Ison's land, there was a man named Mason Eldridge at the house along with his children. A woman, who saw Hugh and his crew filming on Ison's land, reported it to Ison. Ison came rushing to the area where they were. He had a gun he shot it a few times and told them to get off of his land. As they were being rushed to leave Hugh turned around to say that they were leaving, when Hobart Ison shot his gun right in Hugh's chest. He was dead, Hobart was put on trial, he was sentenced to 10 years of jail but after one he was given parole. Hobart Ison believe that Hugh O'Connor deserved what he got, Hobart was only trying to protect his land. "Land meant more to Hobart than money" one of his relatives explained in the film. Film makers wanted to film Appalachia to show the poverty in Kentucky, but the community there did not want to be put on the spot light.

"Stranger with a Camera"

“Stranger with a Camera” produced and directed by Elizabeth Barret is a film of a shocking murder in Eastern Kentucky and what it really means to photograph or document someone with objective.

Elizabeth Barret, an Eastern Kentucky native herself, investigates the murder of Canadian filmmaker Hugh O’Conner. In 1967 O’Conner was hired to photograph and document images of troubled communities. O’Conner headed to Eastern Kentucky since Pres. Johnson had declared the “War on Poverty” and Eastern Kentucky was named as the “poster child.” Hobart Ison a lifelong resident and landowner in Lecher County, Kentucky, didn’t approve of O’Conner setting foot on his property and photographing him of what he claimed as character assassination by camera. Ison did not want to be portrayed as a person in poverty. He shot and killed O’Conner in self defense in order to avoid being shamed by the camera, “I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?” Ison was sent to prison for ten years however was released after one year on parole. While filming Barret reports that the community thought that Hobart Ison “had stood his ground, and, in doing that, was a kind of hero.” The Kentucky community agrees with Ison’s way of handling the situation, however, it could have been handled in a more effective way.

Elizabeth Barret documents the murder of Hugh O’Conner because she wanted “to tell fairly what I saw; to be true to the experiences of both Hugh O'Connor and Hobart Ison.” “In other words, if communities or events contain diverse points of view, the filmmakers should attempt to represent that diversity.” (Lawrence Daressa, par. 9). Barret posed the question “What are the responsibilities of any of us who take images of other people and put them to our own uses?” She chose Kentucky as a place to film because she describes it as “inundated with picture takers.” To try to photograph with a nonbiased or objective eye is one of the hardest responsibilities for photographers and filmmakers. I believe that by photographing cultural defects and the abnormal not only brings about awareness, but to question the norm of the culture.

"Stranger with a Camera" a documentary film by Elizabeth Barret talks about how a resident of Kentucky shoots and kills a Canadian filmmaker. Hobart Ison a proud man, didnt like filmmakers coming and taking pictures because he felt that they are making him look bad and where he lived. Hugh O' Conner the man that had been filming the conditions in Appalachia. He was taking pictures so that the rest of the world could know what is going on. Though some felt good that Kentucky was being filmed others felt it was a bad idea to show Kentucky's poverty. Hobart Ison who didnt like the fact that Kentucky was being filmed killed Hugh O' Conner. One day when Hugh O' Conner was taking pictures of a family. When Hobart heard of this he went to go see for himself, Ison told them to get off his property. Hugh O' Conner's team was leaving the property and assuring Ison that they were leaving. O' Conner who had been carrying a heavy piece of equipment across the street turned around and told Ison that they were leaving, but Ison did not stop he shot and killed O' Conner.
In 1968 Ison was sentenced to 10 years in prison and paroled for 1 year. Prosecution accepted a plea bargain so that Ison would only have to serve one year in prison because they could not find a impartial jury. During Ison's trial he stated "that he shot O' Conner in self-defense in order to avoid character assassination by camera: I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and people who lived on it"(par 4). The community members felt that Ison was a hero because he held his ground. Barret felt it her responsibility to bring both sides of the story. She feels that filmmakers need to represent that diversity.

Stranger With a Camera

The film “Stranger With a Camera” by Elizabeth Barret was both intriguing and discouraging. The documentary was about the shooting of Hugh O’Conner by a man named Hobard Ison. The shooting took place in Appalachia, eastern Kentucky in 1967. Apparently Ison felt that O’Conner was going to smear Kentucky’s name as well as his own through the process of filmmaking. Not to mention O’Conner was also on his property. This feeling of threat must have lead Ison to believe that it was okay to shoot and kill O’Conner, and so he did. Elizabeth, a resident of Appalachia, narrated the documentary as a middleman of sorts. She described the story as nobody being particularly right or wrong.

I found the film intriguing because it displayed the struggle between those that exploit media to make personal gain, and those that want to be left alone at almost any cost. I found it greatly discouraging because it was an up close look at one of the uglier sides of America and the lengths certain people will go to keep themselves anonymous and unseen from the rest of the world.

There were strong connections between this film and Deshpande’s article because they both talk about how outsiders want us to view them, and the oppressed reality in which they live. Deshpande talks about National Geographic and how they only photograph what they want you to see in the so called “exotic” places they photograph. In this film the outsiders were the residents of eastern Kentucky, Appalachia. They wanted us to view them as decent people, and the oppressed reality was that ever since machines took many of their jobs in the coal mine they really didn’t have much work or money. As a result, not all of them but many became poor. Ison did not want people to think of the residents of eastern Kentucky as indecent so he shot a filmmaker for being on his property, an act which I find almost hysterically ironic.

This film made me think about the injustice that went on in our world, and the possibility that it may still go on today. Hobart Ison only served one year in prison for the murder and in my opinion that was not long enough. Ison’s feeling threatened that his name or state would have its name smeared in no way justifies murder, and I would like to believe that if something similar were to happen today he would probably be facing life in prison.

Stranger with a Camera

Even though Elizabeth Barret's film "Stranger with a Camera" was in black and white, for the most part I could not find myself to turn away from the movie. Barret did a great job of replaying the lives of both Hobart Ison and Hugh O'Connor from an outsiders and insiders point of view. She replayed the tragic death of Hugh O'Connor in 1967 and how Hobert Ison killed him trying to defend himself from the views of outsiders. Barret, a native to Kentucky herself, goes back to the roots of Appalachia and how the town considers everyone family no matter what they have done, even if they killed someone. The movie tries to display the feelings of the community of Appalachia and how they dealt with Ison killing O'Connor. Barret tries to represent the community as more than just a hillbilly town where people kill without thinking twice. She brings to life the real identity of the townspeople and how they too believed that even though Ison was a member of their community he should be punished for what he had done. Hobart thought that O'Connor like the rest of the reporters who planned on taking pictures of his land was there to negatively represent him. The town was stereotyped by the rest of the world because of the killing of Hugh O'Connor, and in order to clear up the misjudged town, Barret talks about the differences in both men's lives and how both sides of the story dealt with what happened. Barret also talks about the responsibilities to accuratly represent the events of the story from both standpoints. As a film maker and Kentucky native Barret felt a connection to the town and an obligation to acuratly display the town, relaying her feelings of the miscommunication and misjudgement, that resulted in the death of a man named Hugh O' Connor in 1967.

Stranger With a Camera - response

Elizabeth Barret, an eastern Kentucky native talks of the relationship the photographer and the photographed, through an incident that took place in September of 1967 where Hugh O’Connor, a director on the Nation Film Board of Canada, was shot and killed by Hobart Ison, a local landowner. O’Connor, a well renowned filmmaker, was directing a piece about the Appalachian people, how they came to be so poor, and how they needed help to reincarnate their prosperity. Ison, a proud man and annoyed of the media’s negative attention on eastern Kentucky over the last decade, felt threatened by O’Connor’s cameras and shot him to “avoid character assassination by camera.” Ison felt, and so did many of his community, that he did the right thing by killing O’Connor.

Barret on the other hand, was worried that Ison’s actions would make the world see her people as all hillbillies, which happened to some extent. The truth was, a good percentage was impoverished, but definitely not all. And this negative depiction of Kentucky was angering a good percentage, which showed through the support of Ison’s shooting of O’Connor. A trial was held, but no jury could be mustered, so the court accepted a plea bargain giving Ison one year in prison.

Many other of the people involved in this event, both insiders and outsiders, were interviewed in this documentary: from Ison’s relatives to O’Connor’s coworkers. Mason Elbridge was the man that caught O’Connor’s eye as he was leaving, making him want to stop for one last photo shoot. Elbridge had just gotten off work at the coal mines, and was sitting on the porch, still dirty with all the coal dust, playing with his daughter. Elbridge allowed O’Connor to take his photos, but Elbridge was just a renter on Ison’s land. Ison was warned that there were photographers on his land and rushed to scene, where he told the camera team to leave. They were attempting so, and O’Connor was shot in the chest.

Barret uses this event to portray the affect of the camera. She asks if filmmakers can show poverty without embarrassing the impoverished. The camera is like a gun, exploiting peoples in ways that are often harmful or threating.

with a camera

Christina Canton

In the 60s the poverty in America was discovered; the central focus of such poverty was in Kentucky due to the corporations stripping the miners of their resources. Corporations came in and the town became dependent of them for jobs, when they left they devastated the land and left many without resources. It became the area televisions and magazines came to report. People were coming from as far as Canada and from BBC. Volunteers, reporters and politicians swarmed the area to report on the downside of what was once the American Dream and to crusade for the "war on poverty". Along with the many international film crews came Hugh O'Connor in 1967. While documenting the tragedies of this area Hugh O'Connor was shot dead on his last tour in Lecher County by Hobart Ison. O'Connor was on the land of Hobart Ison who was believed in his county and loved his land very much. Everyone that knew him respected him an old friend quotes ”that he would do anything for them but that was his land and he didn't want you on it." Hobart thought that O'Connor like the rest of the reporters who planned on taking pictures of his land to exploit what was going on and show his home in a negative light. Ison felt the need to protect his home, if not much it was still his home and he was proud of it. O'Connor didn't realize what was going on in the community as it was a foreign culture even if they lived in the same country there were still different traditions and values that the Appalachian people upheld. A man from Kentucky quotes "it was strictly a case of misunderstanding the old man thought they were making fun of them, but us hillbillies we don’t bother nobody." Hugh was shot because of miscommunication and misunderstanding, Ison had no former encounters with the technology and cameras other than what the news reporters were doing "your giving a bad image to Kentucky you should hide our poverty." A woman in the film quoted "harsh view of a cameras lens can be very stark." Indeed it was quite stark the view being taken of Kentucky, but parts of the story were left out, there wasn’t documentation of the other side of town where people ate food and went to prom and homecoming with new clothes. Elizabeth Barret in her film "stranger with a camera" is trying to document the preface of why Hobart Ison shot Hugh O'Connor or in her words "what brought these two men face to face." She wants to portray why this happened especially since this is her home, and she two is a filmmaker, she feels some sort of "responsibility."

Stranger With A Camera

Elizabeth Barret documentary film "Stranger With A Camera" was about a local of her town named Hobart Ison who shoots and kills a photographer Hugh O' Conner. Barret story is how Hugh O' Conner was a man trying to help out poverity stricken people all over the world. And how O' Conner came to Eastern Kentucky to help to photos of poverity people to help let the rest of the world know whats going on. Hobart Ison was one of these Eastern Kentucky natives and was a very proud man, he didnt like the idea of people coming around taking pictures of them at there worst. Ison thought that they were trying to embaress his people, and make fun of them. Ison didnt want people thinking that him and the other poverity people where back ward hill billys. One day O' Conner went to take photos of a family that lived on Ison's property, when a car drove by warning him that a man was coming to tell them to get off his property. Shortly later Ison drove up yelling "Get off my property" with a pistol in his hand, shortly after shooting a couple rounds off in the air. O' Conner and crew were carrying there equipment off and saying "were leaving, were leaving." O' Conner was carrying a heavy piece of equipment and turned around to tell Ison that he was leaving when all of a sudden Ison shot O' Conner in the chest, while falling down O' Conner had said "why did you have to do that?" Later Ison was in trial for the murder but it was hard to find jury that hadnt heard the story and were not bias. So Ison was offered a plea bargain of 10 years at max, with a chance of paroll after one. After one year Ison was let fear out of jail. Many of O' Conners film team that were at the trial felt that the murder case was more of a man defending his land from people making fun of it more than it was of a man shooting another man, Ison was thought in some peoples eyes as some kind of hero. Barret was a local of Ison at the time and remeber's her view of how she thought that Ison was almost right for doing it and not knowing at the time what O' Conners story was. Barret's documentray was more than just the story of the shooting, it was also of how she feels as a film maker that its her responsilbilty to get what she believes is the truth from both sides and in the end trust that that is enough.

Stranger With a Camera

Elizabeth Barret uses her production of “Stranger With a Camera” to portray the background to a murder story from Kentuky’s Appalachian. Barret uses the “responcibilities of any of us who take images of other people and put them to our own use” (Larry Daressa, Par 1). The responcibilities are those to capture the image as a whole, showing the good and the bad. In the documentary someone stated, “It is exploited, not always true. Edited. It’s not that they take a picture of what’s not there, they just don’t ge the whole picture. (Stranger With a Camera) The filmakers that took pictures of the kentuky people, included Hugh O’Conner. In one area of the murder story, the whole picture wasn’t captured. O’conner turned back to say they where leaving but Hobart Ison shot him. Ison claims that he was doing a favor, but a good point was made. “eastern Kentucky’s appalachian region had become a metaphor for al lthat was wrong with American Dream” (The Story, Par 3). The region was dirty and the people didn’t have the best lives, but they were happy with the community around them. A resident of the area stated, “just about everyone I knew were the same. We couldn’t believe we were in poverty” (Stranger With a Camera). That’s what the filmakers didn’t always catch. They focused on what was bad and ugly about the hills. Barret showed both sides, as she came from a town not far away and in a bit higher life style. “[b]arret divides the world betwwen ‘insiders’ and ‘outsider s,’ the observed and the obsevers” (Daressa, par 3). The insider in the story was O’Conner, a man highered to capture the lives of coal miners, while Ison was the insider. The story was of how a camera and a gun came face to face. “a british film crew came to make a documentary on the center of america… The american dream had become a nightmare” (Stranger With a Camera). This nightmare had lasting affects on the community. O’Conners daugter got emotional when she spoke on the documentary, “my dad was shot one one day after my little brother after his tenth birthday. He was trying to be so strong, saying why did he have to go” (Stranger With a Camera) In the end of the documentary you see the daughter after a full view of Kentucky’s Appalachaian region has been told. “it’s almost as if there’s a chapter in your book that’s finished now” (Stranger With a Camera). His duaghter was one who just wanted to understand the story behind her father’s murder. But Barret quotes, “she had come to a place of resilution, but I have not…. As a filmaker I have the responciblility to show my cumunity what I see” (Stranger With a Camera). Barret’s perspective was one that wasn’t shown in the filmakers pictures. Instead she was out of the picture. She wanted to show the full picture that was laid out in front of her, just so the good could be shown, even years later. Her story gave a more indepth look at what the hills had to say.

Stranger With a Camera
Response by Melissa Geneser

Elizabeth Barret tell the story of the murder of Hugh O'Connor, and the lives of the Eastern Kentucky poor. Hugh O'Connor, strove to bring to all other Americans the true story, behind the poverty of their fellow neighbors. He wanted to help the coal miners lives, to give them a chance to rise out of the hole they had sunk into. A hole of poverty and shame, but they didn't want help. They thought that Hugh, was trying to have the world make fun of them, but it was the other way around. Hugh was trying to create a truthful picture of what the poverty stricken areas really look like, he was trying to show America what some of its people were facing. But what was he payed back with, he was shot and killed, just because he was trying to help those people. And the man that killed him, was free after a year. There was definite miscommunication on everyones part, the people believed that he was filming and taking pictures of them and the way they lived, so he could mock their way of life. After the machine was invented, there became less a need for workers to dig out the mines. There were many unemployed and poor people, after the machine came to Kentucky. The people were going hungry, and the education system, if you could call it that, was lacking. The people were socially behind their time, and O'Connor was wishing to show the world that their were people in their own country that needed help as well as others out side of it. I think that O'Connor believed that he could make a difference in the world, but he was restrained from succeeding to that goal.

"Stranger with a Camera"

Elizabeth Barret in her documentary “Stranger with a Camera” talks about a murder of Hugh O'Connor in 1967. O'Connor was filming with his crew in Jeremiah, Kentucky, he was in the property of Hobart Isan. O'Connor was filming Isan's property, he decided O'Connor was invading his space, Isan thought they were laughing and making fun of him, states Barret. Isan yelled “[g]et off my property!” O'Connor turned to say they were leaving, but it was too late, Isan shot his gun. O'Connor died one day before the birthday of his 10 year old son. The next day people drove by the hotel that the filming crew was staying at yelling at them as if they did something wrong. No one wanted to admit that Isan did anything wrong, they did not want to think that someone in their community was wrong. Isan did not feel any guilt for this murder, he felt that he had to do it. Isan states “I am not crazy! I shot the guy for what he was doing.” A camera is like a gun, it is very threatening and not always true. You can take a picture and change it to be how you want it to be, or just take pictures of the things that interest you the most. Just like what the film makers in this documentary were doing. A family was interviewed and asked what they eat for breakfast. The mother states that the baby eats gravy and eggs and the rest of the family has coffee and cigarettes. Barret is saying that we seem to capture on film what is the most interesting to us, which in most cases is the poverty stricken areas. The people in the Kentucky community were pretty mad about this, they do not want people thinking they only live in poverty, because there are places in their community that are not poor. So we should not always only capture the bad moments in peoples lives, but also the good. Because when we only show the bad we will think that is all there is in the community, we wont realize how much more there is to these peoples lives.

Stranger with a Camera

Elizabeth Barret, in her documentary “Stranger with a Camera”, brings up the tragic 1967 death of Hugh O’Connor a Canadian filmmaker who was shot by Hobart Ison just after filming one of Ison’s tenets on his property in Jeremiah, Kentucky. This film seeks to tackle the issue of portraying both sides of conflict and has many interviews with people that were involved. Barret herself is a native of the Kentucky community in which this shooting took place, and through this documentary she tries to tackle the question of how the views of our own communities affect the image we have of outsiders and the people who live within our community. She wanted to film this documentary as an insider representing her community rather than a group looking into the situation from the outside. There was a severe poverty problem in the 1960s and this drove many filmmakers and newsgroups to focus on this poor area in Kentucky to show the contrast of the American Dream to the actual reality to the situation. However, not everyone in the community liked this media attention. They felt that it was giving an inaccurate image of Kentucky. One women in the documentary said she was upset that some of the films didn’t look past to the poverty to the actual people or the culture and said, “some of these films insulted me.” Many others in the community felt that volunteers that came seeking to help were actually causing problems and were trying to influence the people to share their ideals. Towards the end of the film Barret starts to question the media and if it can show an accurate representation of the reality of a situation. One person she interviewed said that cameras don’t lie because they only show what is truly there, but she also said, “it is never the whole story”. Meaning that cameras can only show what they see and not the whole truth and story behind an issue. Barret finally comes the conclusion that as a native filmmaker she must paint her community from both sides both good and bad and see past her own personal connections to the community. She states, “[t]his is my community. My life is here. As a filmmaker I have the responsibility to see my community for what it is, to tell the story no matter how difficult.” What she means by this is that she has to show the reality and the facts of the whole situation and not just the part that would protect or benefit just her community. Barret’s documentary tries to portray and accurate picture of what happened free from spin to paint both sides of an issue fairly with their good parts and their bad parts.

Response to Cynthia Selfe

In her article “Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution” Cynthia Selfe states “the new electronic landscape retains a value on innovation, hard work, and the individual contributions of people of both genders, but only as they are practiced appropriately-within the traditionally gendered contexts we have historically and culturally ratified for women and men in our culture.” Basically what Selfe is saying is that technology is innovating for everyone, but only used by men in women in culturally appropriate settings.

While some Americans still feel this way, It is no longer an issue in this day and age. I think Cynthia Selfe is mistaken because she overlooks the fact that sex doesn't matter in a large majority of careers today. Now a days Men and Women are equal. Men can be Nurses, and Women can be Construction workers. Whether you are Male or Female now a days you can do whatever you want. While a small number of people “old fashion” or whatever you want to call it, may still feel that Men are the Labor's and Women take care of the house and family, I still maintain that it's not an issue today. And that technology is not being used based on sex.

The countering move I used is arguing the other side. I did this by showing that Cythina Selfe overlooks the fact that many careers today are not Gender specific, and that a lot of Women are getting jobs today that once were men only jobs. In result women as well as men are using technology in many different ways.

Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution

In Cynthia Selfe’s “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution” she discusses popular narratives of America dealing with new technology advancements, and how unfortunately these changes we aspire for are not happening as we may think. One myth Selfe talks about is “The Un-Gendered Utopia” and how we believe that whether we are male or female we have equal roles. However there is a boundary that is failed to be recognized, these genders roles are a predictor of social standings and its human nature or habit to have a say in what happens. For instance, Selfe writes, “While we maintain the vision of an electronic landscape that is open to all innovative and hardworking people, regardless of their gender, we also limit, the actual participation of women and men within the landscape to the more traditionally determined gender roles we have already constructed within our culture.” These traditional roles are sought out as being the men are set in with classic supporter of the household, and the women continue to manage the home and take care of their lifestyle. Speculations as to why this can’t stop happening perhaps could be that our society is not prepared for the new, and we take what we know and apply it to anything new that arises. By focusing on how we have applied gender roles to everything. Selfe overlooks the deeper problem of coming up with a solution. It is easy to enforce that America has an issue, but we have come very far. And even though there is obviously still a conflict going on between the myths and revisions maybe the bigger problem is that we know and still won’t do anything. Action needs to take place in furthering us down the line of becoming the complete “Un-Gendered Utopia.”

Cythnia Selfe

In Cynthia Selfe’s, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution,” she claims that in actuality the “Land of Equal Opportunity” is the “Land of Difference”. As Americans we want to believe, "in connection with computers and [the] change focuses on equity, opportunity and access". This idea that everyone, regardless of their color, class, or gender is able to achieve anything as long as they put forth the effort. Although Selfe makes it clear this land of opportunity can only be reached for some people. You won’t find images of people of color, poor people, people with the same sex partner or without a partner in ads. These ads are full of “mighty white” as Selfe’s grandmother would say. Selfe claims that as the American people we only make ads about ourselves because it is more comfortable for us. I think Selfe is mistaken because she overlooks the fact we as “mighty white” do this without even thinking. It isn’t like we mean to not include these other groups of people. Also Selfe overlooks this idea that it is very possible underprivileged people don’t care about the product that is trying to be sold by ads because they cannot afford them. Although I do understand this does not apply for African Americans, gay people, and such but we it would be unfair to include everyone except white people. My countering strategy was arguing the other side and my paragraph demonstrates this because I used some of the templates for countering, I argued with Cynthia Selfe’s idea with civility, and lastly I came to terms with Selfe’s point because I explained mine.

reading response

In the book "Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Centaury Technologies" that was published in 1999 Cynthia L. Selfe wrote a chapter called "Least We Think The Revolution is a Revolution: Images of Technology and the Nature of Change." Selfe wrote about many different ideas, about how technology is different for almost every single person. On page 301 Selfe writes "A second favorite cultural story that we tell ourselves in connection with computers and change focuses on equity, opportunity and access-all characteristics ascribed to the electronic landscape we have constructed on the Internet and to computer use in general."(Page 301) Selfe is saying that with the Internet people should have the same amount of opportunity. Selfe thinks that it doesn’t matter exactly what color you are, what gender you are or any persona qualities affect the way you use the form of technologies. I disagree with Selfe’s view that every single person has equal opportunity in the technology world is incorrect. I believe this because of the recent research has shown that everyone does not have the same access to technology. Also in the chapter that Selfe wrote, Selfe writes " that America is the land of opportunity for only for some people."(Page 304) So, apparently America is not what everyone thinks that we all have the same opportunity. In America many different people come here thinking that they will have a chance of changing there families future. If these people somehow don’t fit into the white male middle society class, then somehow you don’t have the same opportunity as a you white male has. I used the countering affect or "arguing the other side." In the article "Countering" by Joe Harris he explains many different ways of arguing. Arguing the other side is, "showing the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized or noting problems which one that she or he has argued for." I also used the "I disagree with X’s view that…. Because as recent research has shown," from Graff and Birtsteens book "They Say I say."

In Cynthia Selfe’s book “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution” in chapter 16 Selfe talks about how “at some level, English Departments have come to terms with technology change”. Selfe claims that educators “we [(being the educators)] have adjusted to diminishing supplies and equipment budgets to accommodate an ongoing program of purchases and upgrades, accepted computer studies as a new area of scholarly focus, integrated technology into various curricula, and modified many programs to include technology training and use”. In other words, Selfe believes that English Departments or educators are altering the way they operate to adapt to the changes in technology and to integrate technology into their studies.
Selfe’s claim that English Departments are adapting to technology changes rests on the questionable assumption that technology is beneficial to English Departments and what they try to achieve. Waxman, Connell, and Gray in “A Quantitative Synthesis of Recent Research on the Effects of Teaching and Learning With Technology on Student Outcomes” found in their research that teaching and learning with technology had a small positive impact on the student’s outcome. A survey taken in the 2005-06 school year for Technology Counts 2006 showed that 40 states had technology standards for teachers in order to promote innovative practices. Although teachers and students had access to technology, the level of improvement in the students on an academic level was unnoticeable. This showed that the technology offered was not being used effectively. The Waxman, Connell, and Gray research and the survey for Technology Counts 2006 convince me that the changes that English Departments are taking to integrate technology are not necessarily worth it. Teachers continue to use their traditional teaching habits and their students are not benefiting from the access to and use of technology.
Uncovering values was defined in “How to Do Things with Text” as “when you surface a word or concept for analysis that a text has left undefined or unexamined”. I applied this countering strategy by countering Selfe’s claim that the English Department’s adaptions to technology changes have been a benefit. In my countering I mentioned how the English Departments are changing because of technology but I explained that it was not serving the purpose that the Department intended to achieve.

Kimberly Sayler

Selfe Reading Response

Cynthia L. Selfe is the Humanities Distinguished Professor of the English department at Ohio State College of Humanities, as well as the author of several books about technology. In an excerpt from her book, Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution: Images of Technology and the Nature of Change Ms. Selfe says that "Because our culture subscribes to several powerful narratives that link technological progress closely with social progress, it is easy for us – Americans, in particular – to believe that technological change leads to productive social change." She goes on to say "we hope computers can help us make the world a better place in which to live." In making this comment Selfe is arguing that Americans have embraced the use of technology and expect it to have a beneficial influence on society and in their personal lives.
I am an American who has not necessarily "embraced" the use of technology, but rather been dragged kicking and screaming into using it. I have felt for several years now that the use of technology has been quietly eroding societal bonds. While I do concede that technology has many positive applications I fail to see how productive social changes are being made. Quite to the contrary I feel that we are losing touch with the sense of community that Americans used to feel, that the more we connect to the Internet the more we disconnect from each other. I’m speaking for instance about local banks, merchants, or utility offices where you used to be able to walk in and know the person you were dealing with, now being replaced by online banking, shopping and billing. Not all Americans believe the changes that technology has been leading us to thus far will make for a better world.
To counter Ms. Selfe’s comment that Americans believe technological change leads to productive social change, and the hope that computers will make a better world, I held myself up as an American who does not hold this belief or hope. I believe I argued the other side by discussing the sense of disconnect and loss of community that has been a by-product of some of the applications on the Internet.

Rodney's Countering Blogpost

In the article, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution” by Cynthia Selfe. Selfe states that “This landscape, Americans like to believe, is open to everybody – male and female, regardless of color, class, or connection. It is in fact, at some level, a romantic re-creation of the American story and the American landscape themselves – a narrative of opportunity in an exciting land claimed from the wilderness, founded on the values of hard work and fair play. It is a land available to all citizens, who place a value on innovation, individualism, and competition, especially when tempered by a neighborly concern for less fortunate others that is hallmark to our democracy.” In this statement Selfe is talking about technology and how we as Americans like to think that it is accessible to everyone. We like to think that everyone has access to technology and that anyone has the ability to use it properly and effectively.

While most Americans choose to believe in this vision, it does not exist in our day and age. There are many people in this world and even in America itself that do not even have access to modern technology, much less the ability to use it. There are countries that do not even have running water. As Americans we buy into this myth for selfish reasons, we like to believe this because it makes us feel good, we like to believe that that every one is as well off as we are, that everyone has all of the things we have. The thought of starving families, and sick and dying children sickens us. So we have created this “illusion”, this “alternate reality” in which everyone lives the same way we do.

I used the uncovering values method of countering. My paragraph demonstrates this method because I used some information that was left out of this passage in order to show the faults and flaws of this statement.

Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution
Images of Technology and the Nature of Change
Cynthia L. Selfe

1.Paragraph- “It is common sense, after all to link computers with change.” Computers/Technology has caused great change,
2.Paragraph - The English departments have adjusted to change, they have to adjust to something that has become such a huge part of every day life.
3.Paragraph – People believe strongly that technology is a huge asset in life, but they are also fearful of the change it will and has caused.
4.Paragraph- Technology affects the English teachers in extreme ways, example: The writing of the students have changed, there are so much online information to be attained.
5.Paragraph “ To believe that technological change leads to productive social change.”
6.Paragraph- Teachers are happy about technology, it has made there jobs easier in some ways and more of a challenge in others.
7.Paragraph- Americans hope that computers and technology will make the world a better place.
8.Paragraph- Technology has helped the government become better at financial and political problems that this world faces. Making for a better place and world.
9.Paragraph- “Technology threatens to disrupt the world,” technology has changed how the world thinks and views things.
10.Paragraph-Snapshots help the people see clearer and understand better real life.
11.Paragraph- There are complications/or mixed feelings about technology and the hold it has on our generation.

Cynthia Selfe believes that technology is changing the world, for better or worse, she doesn’t say out right, but you do receive the feeling that it is for the better. She feels that technology especially the computer, has been greatly embraced by the English teacher. It has opened the door for new and interesting topics and ideas that would not have come about without the invention of technology. The internet helps more than just the average people it also helps the government, the financial and political aspects. Though many people have mixed feelings about technology, the benefits out way the bad.

summary

Summary of Adverts and technology
It is easy to accept that technology is producing change. Cynthia L. Selfe agrees in her chapter Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution Images of Technology and the Nature of Change. Selfe explores exactly what changes are occurring with the wealth of technology and the ideas being promoted through the technological revolution virtually seen almost everywhere in America. Selfe believes that us, meaning most Americans, are still on the fence about our idea of the impact technology is having on society. Cynthia Selfe observes that we believe in the power and benefits the computer has to offer us, however we are still skeptical of whether h the effects will change familiar systems in our lives. Selfe notes "IN addition, these attitudes shade subtly into one another at multiple levels of a larger collective social experience, and they are worth exploring for that reason as well." Selfe explores several narratives that we Americans "subscribe" to about technology, through everyday advertisements. The first narrative "The 'Global Village' and the 'Electronic Colony'" discusses the internet allowing us Americans to view other countries and become apart of the globe's multi cultural family. The second narrative Selfe touches on is about "Land of Equal Opportunity" and "Land of Difference" something we are all familiar with living in the U.S. and constantly hearing how we are all the same. Narrative two reiterates the classic tale of how the internet will change circumstances for all regardless of their race, gender, origin, economic status etcetera. The final narrative explored in the "the Un-gendered Utopia and the same old gendered stuff." Selfe claims that while it is said that technology is to change constructed ideas of gender and equalize the educational properties of the computer forall, which is not the reality. After noticing that computer games are stilll made for boys and computer commercials are still aimed mainly at males Selfe believes that "Computers, in other words, are complexly socially determined artifacts that interact with existing social formations and tendencies-including sexism, classism, and racism to contribute to the shaping of a gendered society." She is saying that despite the idea being pushed that technology will shorten the distance between the gaps in gender the divide is still evident between the two. We can't fathom the idea of a fluid gender system; our ideas of gender are so concrete that the idea of revolutionizing their construction via internet is fearful. Selfe agrees "[we} revise the script of the narrative to fit more snugly within the historically determined contexts that are familiar and comfortable to us. In doing so, however, we also limit our cultural vision of gender with technological landscapes-constraining roles and expectation and possibilities to those we have an already constructed as a culture, limiting the potential for change by subscribing to a conventional framework for our imagination. People are still being bombarded with advertisements of traditional 1950's families when the case is its more common to see a single parent without time to take care of a dog or their white picket fence. The advertisements referencing yester year communicate to their audience women using technology the enhance their lives and benefit their families. Women can use technology but only within their provided gender role, to organize soccer practice not to create a new technological advancement.

Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution" Par 1-11

In paragraphs 1-11 of "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution" Cynthia L. Selfe talks about how technology is linked to change. Selfe seems to believe that technology is changing for the better of our lives but also we "fear the effect of technology, and the potent changes that it introduces into familiar systems" (par 3). Educators like English teachers, Selfe explains, have made the adaptations and now use technology while teaching. Selfe says that it is easy for Americans to believe that technological change is leading to productive social change. Many Americans hope that technology will make the world a better place to live. Selfe explains that in the profession of English they hope computers will help them as well as students to be more productive in the classroom. Selfe mentions Howard Rheingold, in "The Virtual Community" and how he talks about technology and how it can be used to support citizens in their effort to communicate with government agencies, corporations, etc. "Like most images, they are used to tell rich and powerful stories about social contexts in which they are produced" (par 10). By saying this Selfe is explaining how snapshots can tell you stories of a wedding, holidays, etc.

Selfe's Essay Summery

Our group focused on the second narrative of Selfe’s Essay, “The Land of Equal Opportunity”, and “The Land of Difference”. To me, The Land of Equal Opportunity is, in a way, what people believe the internet should be, and The Land of Difference represents what the internet is. Selfe makes several claims in the second narrative, one that I thought highlighted all the rest was, “This landscape, Americans like to believe, is open to everybody-male and female, regardless of color, class, or connection. It is, in fact, at some level, a romantic re-creation of the American Story…” This quote makes a connection with Robert Scholes’s American myth, in fact I would be so bold to say that it is an extension or a facet of that idea. The American dream covers a wide set of ideals about what America is, and how life should be lived in America. The Internet seems to be a takeoff of the idea that America is also the Land of Opportunity, and that since America is associated with freedom, so is the internet. However, the sad reality is that neither America nor the internet could be considered the Land of Equal Opportunity.

After the introduction of the land of equal opportunity, the article begins to talk about American commercials, and how they focus on using those “American Myths” to sell their product, while they are actually saying very little in the process. The American Myth does most of the talking in that the reader or viewer is expected to have foreknowledge of our culture that has been dubbed our “cultural memory”, and can easily piece most American myths together. This is illustrated best by when Selfe claims “…cultural memory is a potent one for Americans, and these ads resonate with the values that we remember as characterizing that golden time”. This furthers that there is a traditional line of thinking in America that we call the American dream, and that that dream took place in the Golden time. The golden time, to me, represents not a specific time that we could put a date on, but a time from each of our pasts that we remember fondly, such as our childhood when nothing went wrong. During this time is when we learned of the American dream, and there were significantly less problems that we had to deal with, perhaps not because they weren’t there, but because we didn’t have to deal with them.

Cynthia L. Selfe

The meaning behind the story "Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution Images of Technology and the Nature of Change," by Cynthia L. Selfe is very clear and well said. The story talks about how our culture is changing so dramatically that there may become gaps in our parts of the world. Some people who are less fortunate and unable to have these resources are not able to "keep up with the joneses," and have no opportunity to see other parts of the world then their own backyard. Selfe says that if you are not being stimulated in person by events going on in the world, you have no way to comprehend the real issues or social climate of such country. Also, stated in the essay were statements about how many men take over jobs dealing with computers, and there is a big gender gap. The internet is geared more towards men and not women, which doesn't help the gender gap. The real problem is women who have let the gender gap slow them down, and in turn more women rest on the social inequality, and idea that men should be more tech savy then women. I think that Selfe is trying to make the people of America notice that even though technology is helping speed up the travel of information, in turn technology is slowing others down who cannot afford or do not even know what a computer is in some parts of the world. Another big message in Selfe's story was the social feeling that women have when dealing with technology like the computer. If women allow themselves to step back and ease away from technology then they are only making the gender gap stay the same or grow. The only way that women can fight this social inequality is to be engaged and ready to learn new things outside of their "gender bounderies."

Cynthia Selfe-Reading response

My group focused more on the end of Cynthia Selfe's essay "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution" she focuses more on how the roles of parent, housewife, and secretary/boss are based on classified roles in which American women are traditionally defined. Women in this essay play the roles of being the typical mother, the beauty, and the seductress, often being the target for claims based on what roles we play in life as women. When technology is involved it is hard to imagine a woman being "the boss" and the man being the one at home taking care of the kids thus being the reason why tradition hasn't changed and change itself is hard to imagine. Americans are not up for radical change which is why the roles of the typical "male boss" is still intact and the typical "male president" has yet to be changed and women are the stay at home mothers, whereas others are either the seductress or the just the beauty in which that woman is "entitled to have whoever she wants" based on her beauty. Outside of the workplace men are typically classified as bikers, nerds, and sex maniacs. In the workplace men keep it professional and most people wouldn't be able to guess what they're up to outside of the workplace until they see what the boss is up to themselves. Americans find it exceedingly difficult to even imagine a change in which individuals experience new opportunites and men and women could get along in the work field whereas they bump heads. If change was to occur women could be in roles other than those classified as the seductress, beauty, and mother; and men don't have to the bikers, geeks, or sex maniacs but could be something rather appreciated in the workplace by both woman and men where they don't bump heads based on if it's a "mans job" or a "womans job". Technology in school is considered to be a distraction but educators have yet to serve the students the possibility that technology can also represent contributions and success in which students can be proud of. Technology in school is only being taught one way rather than both ways, where students could be informative technology scholars their really just experts in technology users. To be an accomplished technology teacher in subjects like English they have to be taught properly and informed correctly of even the technology flaws and imperfections but also the productivity of technology at the same time. With or without technology change is hard to imagine and even harder to pursue when challenging hummanity in this world dealing with racism, classism, and sexism it is easy to say that change is a difficult thought to enact on but it is our responsibility as citizens to urge the importance of change.

Cynthia Selfe intro

My group in class focused on the introduction part of Cynthia L. Selfe article, "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution."

The introduction, of the essay, starts off saying that technology is linked to change. And the English Department is adjusting to this change from technology. Technology has its good and its bad sides. Some people believe that it can improve our lives while others fear the effect of technology. Technology affects the work of English related jobs. "[i]t is easy for us-for Americans, in particular-to believe that technological change leads to productive social change" (293). Americans believe that technology will lead to a better change of the social environment. Hoping to create critical thinkers through the optimism of being “more productive, more effective as communicators” and to be “more responsibly involved as literate citizens in world affairs.” However optimism about technology “often masks” an extreme set of contrasting potent fears. Teachers are content with technology and hope that computers are able to help us since we have “modified many programs to include technology training and use,” (292). Selfe continues with three narratives, with the help of images produced by technology, tell rich and powerful stories, that they reveal hidden messages and meanings to advertise the technological world.

Selfe Intro

My group in class focused on the introduction part of Cynthia L. Selfe article, "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution." The introduction starts off saying that technology is linked to change. And the English Department is adjusting to this change from technology. Technology has its good and bad sides, some people believe that it can improve our lives others fear the effect of technology. It affects the work of English related jobs. "[i]t is easy for us-for Americans, in particular-to believe that technological change leads to productive social change" (Pag. 293). We think that technology will lead to better social change. Teachers are happy with technology and we hope that computers can help us. Computer networks can help people communicate with government places. Social forces dont like technology, they fear it threatens to disrupt the world. And Selfe goes on saying snap shots tell rich and powerful storys, like weddings and graduations, they reveal to us ourselves.

Cynthia Selfe - Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution (response)

Cynthia Selfe, in her book "Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution," explains how there is a large misconception towards technology and the affects its having on our culture. She talks on three narratives (myths, illusions) that America believes when it comes to technology: "The Global Village," "Land of Equal Opportunity," and "The Un-Gendered Utopia." Selfe equates these narratives into their true form in society as: "The Electronic Colony," "Land of Difference," and "The Same Old Gendered Stuff." Selfe urges "[c]omputers...are complexly socially determined artifacts that interact with existing social formations and tendencies - including sexism, classism, and racism" (pg. 306). She here explains that through social and cultural beliefs, our technology reflects the hypocracy in the system. Although it is said that technology is curing all these problems by making the world a "Global Village" or whatever, it is quite evident of the opposite. Selfe continually refers to 50's adds, showing that America wishes that it was still in the confident "we just won WWII" stride. This 50's mentality is what keeps the public in denial enough to not realize that these myths are far from being followed.

Selfe Reading Response

In an excerpt of 'Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution. Images of Technology and the Nature of Change,' Author Cynthia Selfe depicts three narratives that she insists technology illustrates for Americans through advertisements. One of her narratives 'The Un-Gendered Utopia,' Selfe suggests that, "Creating an electronic ungendered utopia means that we might have to learn how to understand people outside of the limited gender roles that we have constructed for them..." and that, "we find ourselves, ill equipped to cope with the changes that this Un-gendered narrative necessitates.'"In stating this, Selfe implies that we, as a culture, are incapable of imagining women as an equal to men and seeing women work and live outside of their predisposed constructed roles, as supporters, wives, seductresses, and loyal employees is uncomfortable to imagine.

Selfe's claim that, our culture is inadequate to imagine women capable of living above her 'constrained set of appropriate settings,' rests upon the questionable assumption that our culture is incompetent to 'think outside of the box' and accept change. As our culture changes with time, many of us have to come to the realization that women are capable of working outside of their 'roles.' Men are now competing with women for Managerial and Executive positions in the work force, in many households the roles have been switched and women are know the "bread-winners" for the family and in the greatest jump from 'roles', a woman now plays are large role in our government. As many of us see these changes and acknowledge them, Selfe's 'The Same Old Gendered Stuff' narrative begins to take a back seat, as we have now begin to understand and accept the roles of women are expanding and the boundaries are becoming more skewed.

The Countering strategy I used was 'Uncovering Values.' My paragraphs demonstrate this strategy by first assessing what Selfe's claim is and then questioning her central claim with examples that refute the claim.

Cynthia L. Selfe Summary

Cynthia L. Selfe talks about three popular American narratives and their relation to modern technology in her essay "Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution". One of the narratives that Selfe brings up in her essay is the "Land of Equal Opportunity" and how we feel that technology is allowing everyone to have an equal playing field through its wonderous glory likening it to the early American landscape full of oppurtinity, but Selfe ends up turning that narrative up on it's head and says that in reality technology is causing a "Land of Difference". Selfe brings up many advertisments that play on the optimisim from the 50's. According to Selfe we like these ads because they make us remember the Golden Era when everything was good and happy, and we recall as she states," the down-home, no-nonsense comfort associated with a good dog, a good pipe, a warm fire, a comfortable pair of shoes, and the other very American comforts accruing from a good salary and hard work in a culture where effort is rewarded with capital gain, regardless of race, color, creed, or class." What she means is that we have these fond ideas of the nice happy era of the fifties when everything was supposedly just peachy and that it was the pinnicle of the mantra of the American Dream. However, Selfe brings up the issue that in these ads really only one people group, the white happy family, is presented, and that they don't really show other people groups. She states that in reality only a privilged few in America really get to have equal opportunity and that we don't see all the other people groups such as the poor, illegal immigration, and the contrast between minority education in this country. Selfe argues, "in that Land of Difference narrative, if technology is to improve the lives of al Americans regardless of race and class and other differences, our collective ability to envision such a world is not evident in these images. According to Selfe if we are really going to allow technology to give us an equal playing field we need to include all people groups in America and show how technology can help then, and not only focus on the privilged few.

Cynthia Selfe

Cynthia L. Selfe a renowned author claims in her text “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution.” That “ Like the land of equal opportunity narrative, the Un-Gendered Utopia story can appeal at a romantic level to many Americans, while, at the same time, terrifying us on a practical level.” Selfe further along talks about how we as Americans say and think that gender roles need to be eliminated and that there needs to be women and men doing what they want and not necessarily what they believe they should do. But in fact we aren’t ready for this as a people and when the time actually comes for these things to happen we retreat to our normal male and female roles and allow little growth in terms of gender diversity in the workplace and positions of power.
I believe Selfe is mistaken, because she is overlooking what has gone on in our recent history, especially with the previous presidential race. There was a female candidate in Hillary Clinton, who almost won the democratic nomination, and there was little having to do with her being a woman but more to do with her ideas. But even on the republican side of things, Sarah Palin was the republican vice president nominee, and there was very little criticism to the idea of having a woman in a traditionally male dominated office. While neither woman won the position each was going for, there wasn’t a huge deal made out of women trying to make a move in politics which has been associated as a “man’s” job in our society.
I countered Selfe’s idea using Arguing the other side with the first template. I stated how she overlooked the present trends even in politics. Where women are starting to make a name in a field that gives immense power that has been traditionally dominated by males in the past.

Uncovering Values

Clive Thompson’s claim that, “The modern world of online writing, particularly in chat and on discussion threads, is conversational and public, which makes it closer to the Greek tradition of argument than the asynchronous letter and essay writing of 50 years ago,” rest upon the questionable assumption that the Greek style of argument is more effective. In doing so, Thompson assumes it is easier for all students to write this specific way. The back and forth conversational style of writing seems to be preferred by Thompson, but what he overlooks is the preference of some students by focusing on this new style of writing. Some students would rather write the traditional five paragraph essay due to the fact a template is provided. The five paragraph essay is simple, straight forward, and easier for the reader to understand. Kim Sayler, a professor at Western Washington University states, “As a student in my previous years, I find the predictable asynchronous essay to be less complex and complicated.” As Sayler points out, it is not only easier for the writer but for the reader to comprehend as well.

-We used both templates:
X's claim that____rest upon the questionable assumption that____.
"___" by focusing on ____, X overlooks the deeper problem of ____.

-We were civil about countering his opinion, we weren't rude or disrespectful.

-We found a surfacing concept that he left unexammed: he says the Greek tradition of arguement is a superior type of writing.

Alex, Kim, Esther, Ruthie, JT, Trevor, Chelsea

Cynthia L. Selfe "Lest We Think the Revolution Is a Revolution"

When talking about the Narrative #2: “Land of Equal Opportunity” and “Land of Difference” Cynthia Selfe talks about, “[T]he magic time of the fifties.”(pg. 302) This was the golden age for American’s when airplanes were the sign of technology advancing. But the narrative or myth of equal opportunity didn’t always work. Selfe states, “American know-how can accomplish in the land of equal opportunity when circumstances are right.”(pg. 302) An ad in Selfe’s article explains, “Technology uninfluenced by traditional American values can run amuck, especially in a postmodern world characterized by, ‘conflicting standards,’ ‘rival companies,’ ‘incompatibilities,’ and inefficient work habits.” (pg. 302-303) Technology advancing would lead up to people fighting and competing to create the better product. It wasn’t how the Americans valued things. If the values went ignored then the technology and standards wouldn’t be met.

Then Selfe goes on to talk about “[A] typical American family” (pg. 303) The idea of Narratives goes along with Robert Sholes “On Reading a Video Text” Scholes has the idea that, “In processing a narrative text we actually construct the story, bringing a vast repertory of cultural knowledge to bear upon the text that we are contemplating,(par. 4)” This connects to Selfe when she talks about the ads trying to convince people about the internet. They used the idea of her narratives to get more people to go along with the internet and start to use it. This add was to “suggest that citizens of the twenty-first century can achieve the same kind of happy security and personal well being that was enjoyed by citizens of the fifties.”(pg. 303) The ads are a type of media that the generation of the fifties had. It was the beginning of media and over time it became the video texts that we know now.

Dissenting

In his article, "The New Literacy," Clive Thompson discusses the controversial topic of whether or not young people's writing today is affected by their use of technology, specifically texting and online chatting. He uses research from professor Andrea Lunsford as evidence to his claim that student's academic writing are not being hindered by technology and are mabye even being helped by it. Thompson states, "The modern world of online writing, particularly in chat and on discussion threads [...] makes it closer to the Greek tradition of argument [...]" Renowned professors Bill Johnson and Steve Markey agree with Thomspon's argument that student's online writing are not hindering their academic writing, but see mto be on dubious ground when they claim that it is similiar to the Greek tradition of argument. This may be true, but the effect our modern writing is different than the effect writing had on the Greeks. In using the Internet as a way to communicate and argue our points and claims, we are lsoing our ability to practice these moves in face-to-face interaction. Our reasoning that this is dissenting is that we are trying to show how limited Thompson's argument is. It does not extend to any other ideas.

Rodney, Kiefer, Mariah, Cassandra, Areisha, Scarlet

Group 1, Arguing the other side

Group 1
Arguing the other side
Dylan, Andy, Cecily, Phillip, Anjulie, Taylor, Sarah

In Clive Thompson's essay "The New Literacy," Stanford professor Andrea Lunsford argues that the explosion of online writing is good on a technical level. Lunsford believes students are to asses their audience in a more convorsational public setting, instead of the traditional argument that a asynchronous letter or essay writing allows. We dissagree with professor Lunsford's view that online writing has done students good becasue recent research has shown there is more to being a good writer than having the ability to assess you audience on a personal level. In Graff and Birkensteins book "They Say I Say," they propose that to be an efficient writer one must be able to demonstrate the proper moves of writing, which is using templates, being thorough and having evidence to support your ideas. When we try to adjust our tone for our audience we don't show the proper moves to make our writing as good as experts.


Reasons:

-We used template #3 on the blue paper, "I dissagree with X ________"
-Evidence to argue point Lunsford is making
-Also use yes, but move yes assesing your audience is good, but not all you need to be a good writer.
-Harris says argueing the other side is showing the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized or noting problems with one that she/he argued. We did this by agreeing with Lunsford that writing to your audience is important but not the only thing needed to be a good writer. The right "moves" are also needed.

Selfe reading response

In author Cynthia Selfe’s essay called, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution” she speaks of three narratives about what Americans have come to believe technology has done for our society. After explaining these narratives she goes on to illustrate why these narratives are not based off of fact, but instead based off of what we want to believe due to stereotypes, culture, and what is comfortable. One particular narrative that “we tell ourselves about technology” is the “Un-Gendered Utopia.” What she means by that is that technology is making it so the road to success is equal to men and women because both have access to technology. The truth however (according to selfe) is that it’s just the “Same Old Gendered Stuff,” that the ways of society haven’t changed and that technology is putting women in the situation that they have always been in. Selfe specifically states that, “Women use technology within a clearly constrained set of appropriate settings: to enrich the lives of their family and to meet their responsibilities at home-as wife, as mother, as seductress, as lover; within a business setting, women use computers to support the work of their bosses-as secretaries, executive assistants, and loyal employees.” Essentially Selfe is arguing that no matter what women are still being put in the position that they have come to be acquainted with since the beginning of time, the supporter of the man. Personally I agree that women have fallen into the stereotype that they must support their family by being at home and watching the children while their husband is at work, whether or not people are comfortable with that idea it has been ingrained into our culture as Americans. However, I disagree with Selfe when she says that ALL women are using technology in the same old roles that they always have been. I strongly believe that this is a generalization of women as a whole which can’t possibly be an accurate proposal. A point Selfe doesn’t bring up is that most couples don’t even stay together anymore, therefore how could the woman be using technology to support the man/family when she isn’t even with him anymore? Also, she doesn’t bring up the fact that many women have accumulated higher positions than men in the work place and that they have MEN as their secretaries. In my opinion Selfe should stop generalizing the roles of men and women in society from the past and instead look at how they have changed over time (for the better) and how technology hasn’t hindered that change.

In my paragraph I used the argument style of dissenting. I used this because I did agree somewhat with what Selfe was saying in this section of her paper. However I didn’t agree with one small portion of it (the quote that I used is an example.) I showed how I agreed with her and then I went on to say how I disagreed because I felt that she was missing some key information.

Response to Selfe

Response to Cynthia Selfe

In the essay that Cynthia Selfe wrote called “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution”, she draws a big focus on the change of technology, and how we are adjusting to all these changes. She really explains how everything is changing and how were all adapting and dealing with this differences that are rapidly changing our everyday lives. In her essay, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution”, Selfe states, “Like most Americans, however, even though educators have made these adaptations, we remain decidedly undecided about technology and change. At one level, we believe in the pairing; we believe in the computer’s power, and we believe strongly in the beneficial ways that technology promises to improve our lives.” With her passage from her article, I can see she is making a good point. Basically Selfe is saying that educators have adapted to the technological changes we are facing in the world today and the rest of us remain undecided about it. Some thoughts that Selfe may be saying are most definitely not proven facts. She makes the assumption that most all educators are adapted to new technology and most everyone else is unsure about it.

From the second narrative, the main focus is really about our connection to technology. She talks about accessing and our opportunity we have with this technology, which I think was mainly focused on Internet and computer ideas. I think Selfe’s ideas in her passage are mistaken because she is using her own opinion rather than actual facts to support her claim. How is she to know that most all educators have adapted to technology. Also how is she to know for sure that “we” meaning the rest of Americans are undecided about technology and change.

The countering strategy I used was “Arguing the Other Side.” I felt like this strategy was appropriate because in Selfes essay she uses her own opinion to support her idea. This strategy is best for this passage because it gives me the chance to contradict her claim because I feel like there are many educators that have not adapted and many Americans who most definitely have.

Cynthia L. Selfe "Global Village"

In Cynthia L. Selfe’s writing “Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution,” she makes many
claims about how the evolution of technology is effecting the world. Selfe disscusses the idea of
the “global village”. I believe that what Selfe is saying is that the “global village” in theory can bring the world together through technology, and not be discrimatory. Selfe also describes the “romantic level” of appeal that global village has. What Selfe seems to be saying is that Amercians want other cultures to be like them, but don’t want to compromise anything to do so and that Americans don’t want to be equal to other cultures and give up being the dominate culture, as they have always been in history. What she’s saying in her claims is that Americans want to be seen as the creators of this global village, not as equal members. Although technology has made other cultures more accessable to Americans, they still vision themselves as superior while experiencing the other cultures.

Reading Responce

My group was assigned to show how; "uncovering values" is used in Cynthia Selfe’s work. There are many claims that Selfe makes in her writing, one of the main claims she chose was that women in today’s society still play the role of housekeeper, and I agree with the claim that she makes. No, it is true that not every woman in today world is still the home maker of the family as it often used to be, but considering how much the world has changed sense it was looked upon as “normal” for the wife/mother to strictly be an at home woman. More women still holding this title then you would believe to be true in this day and age. This could be a positive spin or a negative one depending on how you look at today’s society. Positive due to the fact that people are scrounging for jobs as it is, if more women chose to be stay at home moms/ housekeepers there would be more job opportunities for college students and other people who are looking for work right now. The negative look on this is that it gives our country a very old fashioned and “man ran” world look. We as a nation are all about progress and moving forward. Women being equal to men is a part of that image we pursue and having a large majority of our women staying at home with the kids and cleaning the house is a step backwards for our nation.

Self's Response

My group looked at Narrative #2 "Land Of Equal Opportunity" and "Land Of Differences. "This landscape, Americans like to believe, is openn to everybody-male and female, regardless of color, class, or connection"(pg 301) Selfe is stating that many Americans feel that America is open to everybody regardless of who and what they are. Though in fact it isnt, it is only the land of opportunity for some. It is limited to only specific people in America, if you look back at history you see that in fact it is only a place of opportunity for some not all. When Selfe talks about all 5 ads that were described she talks about how many feel that technology is helping put differences aside and bring us all together, but when looked at all 5 ads you dont find any trace of someone different but in fact you find a "white person." Overall I feel that Selfe is trying to say that America is a place of opportunity for only some people not all.

Reading Response 5

In Cynthia Selfe’s “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution,” she discusses three narratives relating technology with certain myths. The one I felt most connected to was Narrative #3: “The Un-Gendered Utopia” and “The Same Old Gendered stuff.” This narrative reveals the revised narrative in “The Un-Gendered Utopia.” The popular narrative states that one’s gender does not matter in the technological world. But in reality, also known as the revised narrative, “women use technology within a clearly constrained set of appropriate settings: to enrich the lives of their family and to meet their responsibilities at home” (307). Women use technology such as appliances to better their home environment for their families. Vacuums to keep the floor clean, dishwashers to save time, and televisions to keep the children busy.

I do agree with the statement that the majority of women in today’s society are still playing the role as housekeeper, but the problem with this revised narrative concerning genders and technology is the fact that many women in today’s society work full-time. Not only do they work, but they work with technology. So, to say that women only use technology to benefit their home lives is wrong.

The situation I created with my quote forced me to choose dissenting for my countering strategy. I feel that my quote states something that is universally known but its missing the fact that women are becoming increasingly more present in the work place.

Selfe summary

My group looked at Narrative #1. This narrative or myth was “[t]he ‘global village’ and the ‘electronic colony.’” I think that Selfe was talking about commerce and communication throughout cultures. She claimed Americans spread their expertise on technology to other cultures. Selfe also talked about two images. The first was of a Yanomami man in “ritual dress with feathers and face paint, presented as a wondering savage.” She claims that the man is unaware of the technology used to portray his image, and that Americans use technology to become educated about other cultures from their own living room. The second image is titled “welcome to the planet.” It is separated into “virgin’s one tribe” and “virgin’s one world atlas.” Selfe uses more images to describe that Americans simplify cultures to other people and aim to increase our own cultural profits rather than reflecting the much needed changes or improvements in the world, such as eliminating pain, hunger and war.

Anthony/John National Geographic

ok

Deshpande is a homie

In the “The Confident Graze” by Shekhar Deshpande the article talks about the third largest subscription based material in the United States after TV Guide and Reader's Digest. The article brings in to question the way photographs are taken for the magazine. Deshpade says "While we admire the accomplishments of its photographers to bring us the rest of the world, we gorget that the photographs and the contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happly place especially for the Western eye"(par. 9). Deshpande is saying that National Geographic is showing elements of other cultures that are some what photoshoped and made "nice," to the Western world. Deshpande talks about how National Geographic is mainly a photographic magazine rather than one portraying all of the despair and shortcomings of the people and places outside of our country. The article also says " The poverty in India, long a favorite and often the only reference for Western audiences is transformed in the pages of the magazine into and observable commodity, polished with gleaming light and perfection of the position of the objects, their eternal [r]eadiness at being photographed"(par. 11). The Western world is looking for an admirable more attractive world looking into the pages of the National Geographic.

National Geographic Response

National Geographic has been an established magazine in American culture for a considerable amount of time. IN Shekhar Desphande's article "The Confident Gaze" he makes note of the volume of National Geographic by tell his readers that it is the 3rd largest magazine subscription in the United States. Shekhar suggests that National Geogphic doesn't accurately portray the conditions of what are going in the places documented in the magazine. Despande believes that National Geographic is writing their magazine to sell to an audience by framing the information so it is appropriate and fits into the context of the American peoples lives. Despande claims "This power t o transform the most repulsive results of human actions around the world into images that are digestible is what makes for the culture of National Geogrphic." Shankar Despahnde believes that Natinal Geographic water down their finding and translates their message to the American audience to make them more comfortable with themselves because of their choosing to be civil.

"The Confident Gaze" Shekhar Deshpande

For years now many people have been reading the National Geographic magazines getting all the vital information on other countries and animals. It is currently the 3rd best subscribing magazine, claims Shekhar Deshpande in his essay on “The Confident Gaze”(par 2). In his essay he explains how National Geographic magazine is a photographic magazine (par 14). When I was younger I use to just flip through the pages and stare at the pictures in the magazine, it always interested me, seeing all of the suffering of other people while I on the hand was no where near suffering. The pictures just made me see how lucky I was. According to Deshpande “Human suffering becomes worth a good image,” he is trying to get the point across that photographers know what we want to see and what we want to see is others suffering to make us feel better about ourselves (par 10). We want to see the suffering of others he explains. National Geographic editors focus their points around the "Western Eye". The pictures in the magazine are all set up, for what we want to see not the natural environment itself. Deshpande states "... the photographs are rich in their content, but entirely dishonest in their relationship to the environment or the context. It is as if that world needs to be posed in the appropriate way to the Western observer, he could not see it in its bare essentialities."(par 13). Basically he is saying that the photos are set up to the way we, we being the "Western observer", want to see them to draw our attention towards the subject at matter. I found that to be a very interesting quote because I have never realized how set up the photos in the magazine are.

the confident gaze by deshpande

In the article “The Confident Gaze” by Shekhar Deshpande, Deshpande discusses why National Geographic magazine is popular. He claims that the photos taken for National Geographic magazine are set-up so they are easy to look at and don’t show the entire story. He asserts, “Human suffering becomes worth a good image” (par 9). Deshpande is alleging that people like looking at the photos in National Geographic because viewers can relate to bad experiences and if the bad things in the photo aren’t happening to that person, it makes them feel better. Deshpande states, “The “innocent” attractiveness of the photography of National Geographic, its ambiguous representation of the knower and the known as the most “natural” and inevitable parts of our world are what have made for the success of the magazine” (par 7). He is claiming that engaging the readers by the photos, even if they are not real, is a strategy to sell the magazine. The magazine may claim their goal is to educate viewers, when really it Deshpande argues that National Geographic magazine’s top priority is trying to sell their product.

"The Confident Gaze" by Shekhar Deshpande

In Shekhars essay regarding the National Geographic, I find that he makes alot of claims towards the way people in India live and towards the pictures themselves. I've noticed that people don't read the magazine, people really look at the magazine because it's eye capturing and whats on the cover is so intensifying that people are drawn to look at the pictures. Shekhar states in certain quotes that people don't necessarily think about what it's really like in India but more of what the pictures look like is what it's really like. When Shekhar states that "Human suffering becomes worth a good image" he means that when people look at the image they feel better about themselves because they personally are not going through the suffereing themselves. I believe this is true because not everybody is out there to help people in India who are suffering, alot of people are selfish and only think about themselves, and when seeing pictures where in India people have it worse people feel better about themselves because they're not going through it. Also, when Shekhar states "What attracts a common reader is that the magazine provides a balance of images of both, once irreconcilable aspects of life in other cultures." He means that people are drawn other cultures, especially pictures of them and are curious of what it would be like to live in other cultures that we're not personally familiar with because it provides a sense of curiousity but at the same time feeling out of place but kind of mysterious at the same time. Shekhar believes that people avoid things that make them sad because in reality nobody wants to read about sappy stories and watch sappy movies or look at pictures that are going to make you sad. So the National Geographic provides a sense of security for those who are looking at the pictures, but in reality the people in India don't have it easy. Kids have lost parents due to wars and are left with nothing living in orphanages, kids are sad and living in poverty. National Geographic points out that "poverty is beautiful" and "worth the photograph."

The Confident Gaze

The article "The Confident Gaze" by Shekhar Deshpande is about the well known magazine National Geographic. Deshpande explains how National Geographic is a magazine that people of the Western world often go to to find information about the other worlds around us. The magazine gives many pictures and information about other countries and their problems. Deshpande often talks about the covers of this magazine and what the goals and intentions are of the photographers that take them. Throughout the article not only does Deshpande talk about the effect this magazine has on people but why this magazine has such a great effect on the Western world. Deshpande claims that "[w]hile we admire the accomplishments of its photographers to bring us the rest of the world, we forget that the photographs and the context in which they are placed represent a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy especially for the Western eye" (par 9). In other words, the National Geographic photographers take their pictures in a certain way. When looking at the cover of one of these magazines the pictures almost seem posed; posed in that posision to make the magazine cover more apealing to the reader. When Deshpande refers to the "Western eye" he means us, the culture that is more technilogicaly advanced than the other cultures that witch National Geographic talks about. Since we, people of the Western world, are exposed to the media National Geographic and its photographers need to take pictures that we will respond to us and that will capture our interest. This is hard because we have pictures, the news, and all of these sources and information all around us; its hard to stop and look at just one thing. It needs to grab out attention.

Deshpande also states that "[h]uman suffering becomes worth a good image. The hunger with which the photographers eye looks at the word consumes those images that are transferable into nascent and yet technically perfect photographs" (par 10). Even if the photo is of starving children or homeless obviously hungry people, the photos capture the reader with its color and emotions. We feel bad for these people we see but the photo graph makes it looks better than it really is. Its not the true meaning, its a half meaning of what is really going on. If its not happening to us, if we aren't the ones living like those in these pictures then we are happy.