The Power of the Printing Press 

The Printing Press, a simple machine that applies pressure to an inked surface on a print medium, revolutionized how we share, spread, and create our communication. This invention made the mass production of texts possible and therefore, the speed in which we gain information exponentially increased. Before the printing press, hand copying works or block printing (originated by the Chinese monks) was the method used to produce literature, pamphlets, or other texts. These methods, although innovative for their time and classic, took more resources and further human intervention to be able to do. The Printing Press minimized these factors of time and human error. 

The presentations in class stated that the Gutenberg Bible was the first work produced from the Printing Press. Johannes Gutenberg was the man who made the Printing Press in Germany during the 15th century. Because of him, the rapid sharing of knowledge all throughout Europe kickstarted the way we produce and consume information today. There are even still some original Gutenberg Bibles left in circulation. Not only did Gutenberg heighten the speed of modern day communication with his invention, but also helped to reduce mass illiterate rates as more people had access to different works of text now. Before, only the elite classes or people who could afford to buy texts had access to printed information. Now, with the introduction of the Printing Press, mass production in which aided supply and demand, made these resources possible to a variety of demographics outside the upper-elite. Illiterate groups of people now had entry into this realm of a socioeconomic based intellectual hierarchy.

Such a simple invention managed to completely revolutionize the world in multiple ways. Since the creation of the Printing Press, we have used its technological impact as a foundation for our modern communications. Without such an innovative advancement, the way we share and spread our ideas could have been vastly different than how we are familiar with it today. So, instead of celebrating medial accomplishments, such as Christopher Columbus's unoriginal discovery of the Americas, we should be revering heroes such as Gutenberg for their extremely impactful contributions to modern society… just a thought and suggestion.          

https://www.livescience.com/43639-who-invented-the-printing-press.html 

Pigeons...the underrated transformer of the world  

In the rich history of the Evolution of Communication Technology, many notable inventions can be studied. From the printing press to mores code, humanity has found newer and more innovative ways to spread, share, connect, and transfer information from one place to another. If we trace the evolution of technology back to its origins of hieroglyphics and cruciform alphabets, one "invention" worth acknowledging, that is still used to this day, would be that of the Carrier Pigeon. This useful and dynamic bird has been used for communication purposes since the beginning of time. The earliest record of the Carrier Pigeon's use is around 776 BC. Many ancient civilizations and world conquerors such as the Greeks, Romans, and the Mongolians used Carrier Pigeons as a pivotal role in the establishment of their empire and culture. If anything, Carrier Pigeons are reminders to humanity of just how strong we can create and form bonds with other species on this earth.

The reasoning for the pigeon's indisputable popularity in sharing information is because, similar to that of horses, pigeons have unique homing abilities. The urge to return to the place that it once came from and the reliability of the animal's flight patterns innately, makes this animal extremely valuable and useful in human correspondence. Especially between two locations not easily reached by foot or any other conventional communication method such as boat or wagon, pigeons become a relatively economically sound, easy, and reliable method to effectively deliver a message. The Mongolians especially relied on not just pigeons, but hawks and falcons too, to not only share information from their mountain posts down to the vast plains of the land, but for hunting and chasing as well. These special birds were gradually recognized more and more as an important asset to subtle communication when war time would come. Too dangerous to send an actual messenger out for relaying important details from one battalion to another, carrier pigeons were used exponentially more. The minimization of risk in losing just a pigeon made them very appealing and in 1917, The United States of America, invested heavily in this mode of communication during World War I. The subtle, non-suspicious nature of a simple pigeon flying in the sky, made crucial messages easier to deliver without fear of human intervention successfully. So successfully, that the United States and many other countries like Great Britain and France, invested in carrier pigeon programs with breeding, training, and more. Pigeons were again used all throughout World War II having the program finally discontinued in the late 50's as the cusp of technology roared on.

Today, Carrier Pigeons are still used for minor things such as delivering blood to remote locations in France or for spotting shipwrecks from helicopters -- due to their 360-degree visual plane abilities -- in the U.S. Occasionally, these innocently talented animals are used by drug rings to mule products around as distribution. Whatever the use may be, there is one undeniable thing. This form of communication, whether 'outdated' in modern society's terms or not, is reliable, easy, and consistent in nature; allowing for these animals and their abilities to maintain relevancy across decades of human technological advancement.      

• https://www.pigeoncontrolresourcecentre.org/html/the-pigeon-in-history.html
• https://vassallohistory.wordpress.com/carrier-pigeons/

What Do Our Laws Stand For...

Through our class' discussion on the Progressive Era, I started thinking about the 1st amendment in new ways. More specifically, I was interested in concepts such as Expressive Action, Incitement, and other maneuvers that bend the limitations, power, and reach of an amendment or law. These little loopholes or legislative add-ons are the ways in which law-makers in cases use their power and manipulation of the law to better pertain to their case of argument. We saw this especially with the curving of the 14th Amendment to help the railroad corporation in the Santa Clara Railroad case where a "person" under the 14th Amendment can be applied to a corporation. 

A recent case I was reading about in the news regarded the settlement between the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the University of North Carolina. The case revolved around the Silent Sam monument, a confederate soldier, and its being removed from the campus. After protesters came and stormed the site, brining down and removing the monument on the grounds that it symbolized hate and white-centric ideology, the school and the SCV came to a settlement of 2.5 million dollars. However, protesters and students challenged the settlement deal which reopened the debate. The judge dealing with the case asserted that the Sons of Confederate Veterans had no right initially to bring the lawsuit about. A group of the school's students rallied together, partnering with the Lawyer's Committee For Civil Rights Under Law to intervene in the dealings. The sentiment seemed to be the restoration of normalcy on the campus as well as to "protect public safety of the university community". Evidently, the student body was angered by the symbolism the monument stood for and used their democratic voice to bring at least a sliver of justice to the case. Many were unsatisfied by the settlement amount, which prompted the Judge to void the initial agreement.

I agree with the students and question why there was a settlement to begin with. If a physical monument represents old ideologies, there is no point in keeping it up. If anything, this is implicative of the still racial animosity between demographics. For in a different context, this would be synonymous to Germany still giving tribute to Hitler or any other Nazi symbolism through a monument, which would just be absurd. I like how different committees used their agency and ability to reject a ruling. However, quite unlike the 14th Amendment debacle and the many ways to manipulate and take advantage of our legislative assertions, this case demonstrates a more justified challenging of the law.     

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/482827-judge-voids-uncs-silent-sam-monument-agreement   

Muy Blanco

As another year passes, another Oscar Ceremony shall too. In past years, criticism of racial inclusiveness and better diversity throughout the awards has always been a hot debate. This year, the 2020 Oscars, is of no exception. The inspiration behind this specific blog post topic started with my seeing of the nominees for Best Supporting Actress. As a media production and popular cultural studies major, I try to understand how issues of representation unfold and what that means to our society. Immediately, I saw not one person of color amongst the nominees… This is troubling knowing that the films released and qualified for the award ceremony, had some amazing representation of intersectionality within them  (films like Parasite, Harriet, Dolemite is My Name, The Farewell, etc.) however, this aspect did not equate to the many nominations across all categories this year. Especially for Best Actor in a leading role / Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress / Supporting Actress, the diversity is almost nonexistent. The sole person of color nominated out of these four categories is Cynthia Erivo for her role as Harriet Tubman in the 2019 release, Harriet. And it's not just a racial issue (although it is still very much one). A lot of female representation for Best Director is also lacking. The absence of inclusiveness is blatant this year, sparking some much deserved criticism. Cynthia Erivo spoke out, saying it has been "bittersweet" to catch this nomination as the only person of color up there. Erivo also made the powerful statement that she wanted to "serve as an example of how we need to judge these films". 

The Oscar Committee itself has made statements in the past that they were taking measurements to be more inclusive, conveying more diverse representation amongst nominations and categories. However, they seem to have missed the follow through on those assertions… once again. Sentiments of inequality runs high fresh after the BAFTA (British Academy Film and Television Arts) Awards, where Joaquin Phoenix made some criticism about systemic and institutional racism throughout the industry, in his acceptance speech. He not only called for everyone in the room to do better, but making a point to say he is of no exception either. Erivo expressed concern on how this lack of diversity and intersectionality even happens within the industry.

To me, the answer is as simple as it starts in the writing room. From pre-production and casting, to even technical production, sets become extremely exclusive. Not only are most producers, writers, and grips / camera operators are men, they also tend to be white as well. This dynamic seeps into content and form, which only contributes to the ideology of "white and male" as the accepted norm, emanating through media, defining our societal expectations and cultural trends. The origins of this issue starts with the conception of a production and pervades all throughout until the very release of the film or work. From the hiring of departments to the cast and editing suite, sets need to be more inclusive and have stronger representation throughout the entirety of the process. The way to possibly amend this issue, is ensuring that the sets and teams industry professional operate within has this aspect of diversity within them. Individuals themselves must advocate and argue for equal representation within their departments, setting these ethical standards to help alleviate this pressing problem in the film industry. Until active acknowledgement and execution of this concept is practiced in full, the Oscars and film industry in general, will remain as devoid of varying representation as it does now.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51371360