Museum Bonus: Alex Giangreco

  I visited the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in the 18th and Vine district, because I have a membership and that made this post a no-brainer. One of my major interests is baseball, specifically baseball history. The most fascinating era of baseball for me is the Negro League era, for two reasons. They played a style and brand of baseball that is unique to that time and circumstance, one that would change the game at the Major League level forever. They played for the love of the game, and nothing more.
    For decades there was no uniformity in compensation. Players on the winning squad would split the take from ticket sales with the venue, and the loser went home hungry. They would play doubleheaders in almost every town, sometimes even more than that. Even winning didn't gaurantee pay. Even pay didn't gaurantee food or accommodations. It was a life lived on the road, not just out of neccesity of schedule, but because of hostile environments for black men during Jim Crow. They were forced to develop of a kind of Underground Railroad, a network of businesses and families known to help. 
Knowing that their performance was their pay, these players developed a hard-nosed but flashy style of play. The more butts in seats, the more take home pay at the end of the game. Satchel Paige would be the most notable of larger than life characters, famous for his taunting behavior towards opponents and interactions with fans, but he was far from the only one. The entire league played fast and pretty in the field and on the base paths. You couldn't just be good. You had to look good, too. This extended to the clothing the fans wore to ballgames, dressing up in their Sunday's best for each game.
 I grew up hearing stories about players like Cool Papa Bell, Roy Campanella, Josh Gibson, Minnie Minoso, and Double Duty Radclife from my grandfather who used to go to Monarchs games when Municipal Stadium still stood at 22nd and Brooklyn.  As a kid, those stories made those guys sound like comic book superheroes.
One of the players my grandfather would talk about most was a pitcher by the name of Hilton Smith for the Monarchs. Hilton and Satchel Paige were the most feared pitching duo in either of the Negro Leagues. They were both tall, aggressive, multi-tool pitchers. Satch became the famous one for his antics on field, but he could be taken advantage of that way. Hilton was a quiet man, all business, and very hard to find a weakness in. Hilton Smith was instrumental in the Monarchs dominance, but even today he remains a very little known name, despite having possibly the best record in Negro Leagues history. (Statistics were never properly kept, but what we do have shows he rarely lost.)

Players would supplement their meager incomes by playing exhibition, or barnstorming, games. This eventually lead to the export of players to Central and South American countries during winter months. To begin, the Negro League players were paid much less than their white MLB counterparts in these Latin Leagues. Simply because they knew the Major Leaguers there. Before long, the black players began to show they were worth the same pay, and they got it. Think about that. These men had to leave the country just to get the same pay and food as the white players they proved they could beat back home in exhibition games. Check the qoute in the picture for an idea of how differently they were treated South of the border.

Countries like Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela became hotbeds of baseball talent, attracting the best white and black American players, professional Latino players, and even professional players from Asia, all playing side by side. This undercurrent of talent is what lead to desegregation in the MLB. Certain owners and managers began recognizing the talent at home and abroad. Latino players actually integrated first, but they were always light skinned and usually had their names changed. But those superficial restrictions needed to fall if owners really wanted to win ballgames and cash in. The games played in South America remain the stuff of legend, but it is often glossed over. This museum does a terrific job of explaining this era and it's value to the development of the game.

Bonus 9: Who has the right? By, Weini W.

I feel like everyone has the right to write about anything. But in my opinion when it comes on writing tragedy events, anyone who have a good intent and had made research thoroughly can write tragedy events. It is undeniable for us to want to hear the story from those who were actively involved or who saw the tragedy happening on firsthand in order to relate or to know what the tragedy feel likes. But the reality is, those people who were in the tragedy might not have the knowledge on how to write and the ability to put what they went through in words. This might result for the tragic events on remaining untold. Those people who go out on their way to meet up and learn what went on, might be able to hear the story from the people life experiences. Those life experiences are the fuel for authentic and powerful writing. Those people who put their self in new, even challenging situations absorb and understand different types of people and this may result in building the readers empathy muscle. Life may sometimes imitate art, but more often, life inspires what humanity and meaning of life is.

If we look at the discussion we had in class where the story provides the structure for narrative flashback and personal commentary “The Third winter”, the author Martha Gellhorn visits and interview a family in Barcelona. If we focus on whether she had the right to write the tragic event or not, I would argue that she does. At that specific period of time the people who were suffering from the war, their voice could only be heard through a third party who have been watching what they have been going through and that is what the reporter Gellhorn did at the time. Even though she wasn’t suffering as much those people did in first hand she was able to show the readers what their situation was and that they were living with hope and faith.  

In my opinion those people who  have the right to write are those people who read widely beyond the confines of their subject or genre, watch film and television in a variety of genres – fiction and non-fiction, listen to talks and podcasts on a wide range of topics and have a clear knowledge of the tragic events. Those unusual influences will make their writing stand out since they have a good intent and research it thoroughly. There might be times where those tragic events might not be acceptable by the readers due to the lack of putting all the detailed information. But the bottom line is those stories need to be told. If we have to wait for those people who were actively involved or who saw it first hand, the story will remain untold and people might end up not knowing what people had gone through. Those tragic events need to be told in a right way in order to get the justice and peace what any human being deserves.

Bonus 9: Who Has the Right? -Sam U

I also struggle with this topic and I ultimately come to accept that works such as Wonder are necessary to understand the differences of people across all cultures or circumstances. Story telling may contain many truths, lies, exaggerations and censored or uncensored content. Writing novels on sensitive topics is more than likely a huge responsibility that is assumed by one person and a hard task to accomplish. As readers, it is our own responsibility to interpret these stories as we see best because only the authors themselves truly understand the motives and feelings they are trying to convey behind every sentence/scene.  

Even if authors attempted, they simply cannot tailor each and every single one of their stories to fit or ‘please’ every one’s sensitivity spectrum or point of views. This may seem a bit harsh but in the end, I believe anyone is entitled to say or feel whatever they like. Authors tend to go based off of their own research, feelings and experiences. Therefore, it is easier to have an open mind and try to understand where they are coming from as opposed to disputing it all. Their works should be respected for what they are even if you don’t agree. Whether they are factual, non-factual, valid or not valid it is solely up to ourselves to pick our truths. Just like no one can actually live a day in another person’s life– we can try to empathize much like the authors do.

Authors understand that mass criticism is a consequence of publishing novels and directing movies. If their work was socially acceptable or not, it doesn’t change the fact that it was already created. Certain things I come across do upset me but I try to brush it off and continue my search of what is morally right for me and my set of values. I also try to remind myself that it isn’t the first or the last of its kind. New movies and books are written every year! I simply cannot taunt my entire existence due to a piece of work I didn’t find myself to agree with.

It is certainly saddening to see how some stories are taken, misrepresented and unfairly told but that is only one voice. Allow me to further explain, I am not trying to justify anyone for any reason but there’s plenty of other authors and voices patiently waiting to be discovered. Hopefully, learning from previous authors tackling similar subjects with the intention to improve and encourage honest pieces of work. Furthermore, to account for all the bad works we should encourage only those who aim towards telling truth. Not every piece of work needs to receive attention or recognition. If it is badly constructed the numbers will show.

      Overall, as individuals we all have differences. No one and everybody has a right to tell a story of another person. Freedom of speech allows everyone to have their own voice and this is very powerful because we can’t essentially change or regulate what authors decide to do within their stories. They will  continue to do so regardless if we think they have the right or not to tell the story of another person.

Bonus 11 - What's so Funny? by JJ Leath

            Humor is really quite strange. While there may be many theories on what makes something funny, there really can never be a solid definition of what makes something funny and what is acceptable to joke about because both of these are unique to every individual. What I believe makes something funny comes down to the unexpected happening, and what is acceptable comes down to context, who is saying it, and who he is saying it to.

            First, what makes something funny at all? In the question originally posed, it is stated that “Humor usually violates personal norms that tie into cultural norms.  For instance, fart jokes.” I think there is a lot of credence, but I don’t think that this is the very thing that makes something funny. For instance, consider puns. These are not funny because they go against cultural norms. These are funny (to some people) because they use words or phrases in unexpected ways.  Further, consider Trevor Noah’s end to the “black Hitler” bit. This was funny because he previously mentioned wanting to be black, so when the German yelled “black Hitler!”, Trevor ended the bit by saying “at least she said I was black.” That’s hilarious. I would call this clever humor. You didn’t expect that to be what he said after this encounter. I think that if you were to boil humor down to its essence, I think it is just when something happens or is said that you didn’t expect. This explains why personal or cultural norms being violated is funny – you don’t expect it. It also explains why seeing someone fall down or stub their toe is funny – you expected them to walk with no issue, but issues arose regardless. Humor is a response to surprise similar to shock.   

            Secondly, what makes something okay to joke about? I think this comes down to three things: context, who is saying it, and who it is being said to. Consider Gabriel Iglesias’ bit about the “racist gift basic.” The context was a comedy show, so this is pretty harmless. Imagine, however, if he was speaking at the funeral of a black individual killed by white supremacists. The same thing said by the same person is no longer funny. With the same skit as an example, consider if Gabriel was a white man. I think that the audience would have thought it to be less okay. Because Gabriel is a minority himself, even though he’s not black, it is likely to go over better. This comes down to the history of cultures. There is a history of white people being oppressive towards black people, so further oppression is not going to be funny. The Hispanic and black community do not have the same scarred history. Finally, who you are saying the joke to is going to influence what is okay to joke about and what is funny. If you tell a joke that is about how stupid Trump is, it would probably go over well with the audience at the Democratic National Convention. However, it would likely offend many and be unfunny to the audience at the Republican National Convention. Your audience matters as well.   

            There are a lot of variables into what makes something funny and what makes something okay to joke about. These variations create a broad spectrum of comedy. You have comedians using all types of comedy (clever tie-ins, clever social commentary, puns, or “fart jokes”) appealing to all types of audiences. John Mullaney’s dry, story-telling comedy is vastly different than Daniel Tosh’s extremely crude, offensive comedy. Both are professional comedians, but an audience member of one comedian’s crowd is probably unlikely to think the other comedian is very funny at all. There will never be a formula for what is funny, there will never be a strict definition. And in a world where most things have definitions and in a world governed by the formulas of physics, this is unexpected. Isn’t that funny?

Bonus 10 - Game of Thrones and Rape by JJ Leath

Bonus 10

            I have not watched the show Game of Thrones, but I have read the books. The books are brutally violent, and there is a good amount of sexual violence. I have never gotten the notion that Martin was using this violence for cheap shock thrills, however. As Martin said in the quote given, these books show realistic depictions of human travesty against other humans. I think that this is the main theme in Game of Thrones. There are monsters and supernatural enemies, but the acts of terrible villainy are done by humans. This is important social commentary that Martin is making, and I agree with Martin’s use of it in the books. However, I disagree with the film adaptation’s likening of these acts to pornography.

            If you compare Game of Thrones to The Lord of the Rings, I think that Martin’s social commentary really shines through. At the surface, Game of Thrones and The Lord of the Rings are very similar series. The message is vastly different, however. The violence in The Lord of the Rings is minimal in comparison to Martin’s epic. There is absolutely no sexual violence at all. Humans are the “good guys”. To quote Martin, “orcs and dark lords” are the bad guys. The Lord of the Rings is a story about the human spirit (or Hobbit Spirit, but for all intents and purposes, Hobbits were analogous to humans). It is a story about how the goodness of Man can overcome any evil. It is a feel-good story that largely romanticizes war.

            Game of Thrones, however, does not romanticize war. All of the retched things that have plagued humanity’s history are graphically depicted. People do horrible things to other people. But this is exactly the point – monsters are not found in fairy tales, they are found inside us and are entrenched in human history. To exclude sexual violence would be to inaccurately describe war, and the commentary on the human condition would be diminished.  As my only experience with the series has been the books, I can speak for the books that the sexual violence is used for a deeper purpose than cheap tricks or titillation.  However, from what I know about the show, it seems like it does use the brutality for cheap tricks and it does sound like it exploits the actresses to simply use their bodies to attract a heterosexual male gaze. 

            The film adaptation of the series has perverted many of story lines from the book in my opinion. The gruesome acts done in the books, the disturbing incest, and the sexual violence against women has seemingly been turned into soft-core pornography. From the articles, it seems like one of the most highly sexualized characters is Daenerys, who in the books is a child. That is definitely concerning. I think that this is just further commentary on humanity. We might not be as evolved as we think. 

Post 4 Group B- Sound of Music and the Perfect Wife ~ Dianesa Sanon

The Sound of Music is a movie based on a real-life story of the Von Trapp family living in 1930s Austria with war looming just around the corner. It released in the 60s and is, in a way, a product of its time and a romantic historical film. The war that is only hinted at in the beginning is made more obvious towards the end of the movie. The father of the Von Trapp family is a widowed strict navy general of seven unruly children. A nun, Maria, is introduced to the family and despite their rocky start the children start to love Maria who also finds herself in love with the Captain who in turn is falling in love with her but he is engaged to a Baroness who eventually makes herself sparse and Maria wins the heart of the Captain and they get married. All the while the Captain is being encouraged to fight in the war with Germany against his home and eventually the family, quite literally, runs for the hills.

The Sound of Music highlights what the ideal wife is supposed to be like. This movie, in my opinion, is more about Maria’s nurturing and loving personality. The war is a component to but it is just used to the support Maria. The film follows the optimistic and bright young woman fresh from a nunnery whose faith in God is as important to her as it is being kind to every person she come across. Throughout the film we can see how she manages the children, is slow to anger, is resourceful and is small and innocently beautiful.

Maria’s bright personality and optimism is a big a part of why the Captain and his children fell in love with her. She could turn thunderstorms into a list of pleasant things, she could turn a day into town a music lesson, she could keep the children orderly while the Captain needed his space to do his military stuff. Maria is presented as the buffer that subdues the catalyst. She is the epitome of what a good woman is. In every other scene her display of compassion and nurturing hardly ever falls short.

In the 60s women were expected to be well rounded in taking care of not only then home but the children as well. In the movie she’s met with the task of taming seven children who were so horrible they ran away all the other nannies that came before her and not only does she gain their trust and affection she sings her way through it all like some type of Disney princess. She even teaches the children a couple of songs that they sing to entertain the Captain, the Baroness, and a houseful of guests.

Post 4, Group B: Fear of Failure and By Jacob Bothell

    This weekend I returned to Wichita in order to work with the production company that I have been a member of for 2 years now. The event was a mixed martial arts fight (MMA) at the Kansas Star Casino just south of Wichita. I had somewhat of an odd experience in this particular journey that I have not had in quite a long time: the fear of failure. This fear was odd for me. I am not sure why this particular event made me feel this way, but it did and I would like to understand more about why and attempt to not have that again... because it makes my job REALLY difficult.

    What was it that a stage tech veteran (approaching 10 years) would feel anxiety about? Well this particular show I was to be running 2 jobs that would have me in 2 separate worlds of the production environment; the first was the job of audio for video, and the other is being a PTZ camera operator. The job of audio for video is where I sit in the video trailer and mix/produce the audio that people watching the live stream or pay-per-view hear. This job honestly on its own is exceptionally boring because once everything is setup all there is to do is maybe make adjustments during a video playback or if an announcer gets excited or if you want to make a moment emotionally interesting. The other job takes full attentiveness of the event and what and where the action is happening, and the interesting part of this particular job because it is a PTZ (pan, tilt, zoom) camera I am operating it remotely a.k.a. I am probably 200 feet away from its perspective and am not even in the same room as it which makes situational awareness difficult. So my only info on what is going on in the room is from my and the other cameras... very limited.

    Combining these 2 jobs is actually much more difficult than it may seem; because while I am trying to frame up a shot that the production manager wants I am also attempting to make sure that the audio for the people that are not at the event is still engaging and informative. The interesting part of that is that the times that concentration is required for both of those tasks is exactly the same. For example, think about while 2 boxers are going at it and one begins to corner the other and more or less finish the fight. This is the emotional climax of the action and as such the audio should reflect that (turn up the ambient mics to hear the crowd/ring sounds and keep the announcers levels in check), and by golly the camera should never be pointed away from the action because you never know when your camera will have "the shot."

    So I think that I am beginning to understand why my fear of failure began to emerge in this context. It is not because of some sort of stage fright, and I don't think it was because the job was crazy intimidating (mainly because I knew what I would be doing when I agreed to show up). I do think that it was because the job pulled me in a multitude of directions, that while being used to being aware of and being able to be critical of and fix things if I had to, there were simply too many different facets of the job(s) at hand to be able to appreciate and refine enough of them to feel that I was doing an adequate job.