I feel like this is a generality that applies to literally every living person, but I can see the author is trying to claim that it's a special case for this generation.

This seems to be tied to annotation 6, which she is probably using here as a theory text.

What about sexist, ableist, and just all-around offensive content?

I think I'll take a similar approach for at least a part of my paper, examining how people have responded to hateful ways in which Pepe is being used by posting their own non-hateful Pepe memes.

There is so much disagreement about what constitutes as hate speech, especially in an age where certain political agendas are trying to claim that certain words are inherently offensive--which is, of course, impossible.

And so contextually, young people tend to show passivity and don't take action to respond to these comments which is either because they don't like law enforcement or because they don't want to break the status quo. I'd agree that it's much easier to just stand back and wait for someone else to do something than to do something yourself which is the Bystander Effect.

This is a bold claim that also addresses the issue of nature vs nurture where these people aren't inherently racist but act and speak in that manner because the environment cause them to do so and the norm is established that way.

This is another good point to add in regards to how online speech differs from real life because this anonymity and creation of a illusory self creates a medium for these people to carry out their actions.

So she is focusing on how young people experience hate speech but not why it happens. It seems she wants to set up a starting point for others to explore why hate speech arose.

As far as background goes, it would be interesting to see how much research has been conducted since this article was written. She states that youth research is few but that seems strange compared to how many young people are out there. I could state in my own essay that there is a lack of discussion into the topic of youth and hate in the Internet.

this means the researcher is a subject of the study

By this definition which is considered a legal definition hate speech addresses a certain type of group but of course it depends on context. The author argues that this definition doesn't address the complexity of the topic but I'd argue it's hard to nail down a legal definition which can be cited that's agreed upon by most people. It's hard to say what the scope of hate speech is but the phrase " incitement to harm" seems sufficiently agreeable.

A LONG bibliography: many of you will note texts to follow up on....

Indeed in the case of online authenticity, the Internet is forever changing with information coming in and out and it can be hard to present a true self when it's so easy to make a fake persona. People can believe an internet celebrity is a role model but in real life this might not be the case.

Basically, since globalization exists places are becoming more similar to each other and losing that sense of uniqueness. Of course, these places try to recreate that appeal but it's hard to be authentic in this case if theyr'e doing it just for the sake of tourism.

this shows how circumstantial (and maybe insignificant) authenticity judgements can be.

this could be used in my essay as it relates to how people use their family backgrounds- real or imagined- to enhance their own identity / justify their actions

the idea of group identity is really complicated because people can try to claim authenticity in some field (music, restaurants, etc) just because of they identify with a certain group. And then there's the question of who is actually authentically in that group/ can people achieve authenticity without bring born into the group?

also could relate to my essay. Interesting how people change their perceptions of the past to fit more coherently with how they perceive or want to perceive the present. also goes with the idea that people only want to remember the details that make the best story

this relates to my essay regarding how people make up an ancestry to identify with but justify it with something that seems "authentic" like a clan tartan or a family crest or some other symbol of their "heritage"

authentication by location was used to prove the superior quality of the wine.

a change in the idea of authenticity

I can use this in my essay

the other half of authenticity

love this guy

country music and authenticity ... hmmm

this is what I want the core of my argument to be in my essay. that what one says ought to be what one does and behaves as.

I think the argument here is that people are more authentic now because they can better chose the groups that they identify with

authenticity is subjective to the person

in this context authenticity = originality

this could definitely be used in my essay. this idea that authenticity in a groups identity is critical. That each individual can decide or find their identity through the group as it is either inauthentically or authentically identified.

we've talked about this already. could be a good spot to go back to in the essay.

it seems that is the way the media is covered today. who cares if it is authentic news when it could be "FAKE NEWS" instead

to say there is a "new" Beatles band such as "one direction" or boy bands such as this implies a sense of inauthenticity. For something to be authentic there is an implied originality to the thing such as a band. this could also be used in my essay.

This is an interesting concept. I think a big problem with authenticity today is there is an increase in polemics of authenticity because we are so often fooled by lies of being true. This accounts for my upbringing of being weary of ads and salesmen. All claim to have an authentic product but not telling the truth when they say it. This could definitely be used in my paper.

Peterson suggests that it is the fans who determine the text!

This idea is an interesting take on group-identity authenticity--that it is only loosely defined, and subject to fluctuation and change. Authenticity is more fluidic than we believe.

Although Peterson doesn't mention it here, I think I could use this idea in my research paper as a "Argument" source, perhaps, offering a way to think about how fans interact with authors. Fan-fiction is a good example of this phenomenon of a new authenticity that represent the old--fans are building their writing popularity by using characters and places that potentially already "belong" to the author.

As the article stated earlier, the market is more diverse than ever. Allow your brand to have a distinct identity - it can appeal to its own niche by crafting its image rather than pandering to the widest demographic. Could this mean that true authenticity necessitates not being universally accessible or likable?

Many argue that this is how he won the presidency. His unconventional statements and views made people believe he was unfiltered and authentic; yet perhaps they were specifically filtered to create this effect.

This is arguing that authenticity cannot require effort. It is inherently natural to whatever is characterized by it.

How are we being graded on the "quality" of our annotations - what if something that is low in quality is high in authenticity?

Ironically, the former clause in this sentence sounds like a rhetorical pit for its audience - conceding the audience's authority and superior capacity to create a sense of trust.

"Pays respect to it"? Or finds alternative ways to manipulate it?

A dangerous assumption here that ALL people are inherently self-infatuated. Is Donald Trump the best synonym for humanity? Do benevolent, selfless people exist?

But are they? Claims like this are subjective when some consumers genuinely don't appreciate the true authenticities of Vice or Kanye. Sometimes, we don't like it when we see someone's true colors. A later Trump example in this article further highlights my argument. Is it better to be authentic if the reality stinks?

This is my modern dating crisis. All men are pigs anyway though, so does it really matter?

why are these capitalized

I definitely appreciate the compliment and attention, but I'd say this might need a source and evidence.

1. The psychology of cosmetics is something that I will research more into. Society has created the "need" for women to wear makeup, so that is something engrained into their way of life.

1. Brundage is very upfront about how he views the problem of authenticity as it relates to marketing. His stance is very clear that using "authenticity" as a branding tactic is a poor idea. He instead suggests letting people create the brand's image.

This roots back to Congress' inability to pass an adequate amount of legislation as polarization also produces gridlock between parties.

One of the few positive proponents to engaging in polarization

I plan to use this paragraph as theory in my essay as it takes the older examples of polarization in American history and compares them to the polarization we are experiencing currently. Blankenhorn proposes a possible explanation to the intensity of polarization today as he claims it has become "less issue-specific and more generalized."

I think this is a very important distinction. By immediately establishing this difference, Blankenhorn shows that the issue is not with disagreement in general, but instead our allowance of disagreement to justify the belief that our opposition is wicked and corrupt.

This is the definition of polarization I plan to use in my research paper.

Here are annotation instructions for Peterson's essay, a survey of the problem of authenticity that attempts to synthesize a wide range of material:

1) Please make at least one annotation that focuses on one of the aspects of the essay listed in our "Writing With Sources" handout (rhetorical; argumentative; paraphrase/summary; context/motive; disposition/stance). Use this notation to do something you think will be generally useful to the class / your own group as readers of this text.

2) Please make at least one annotation where you engage with the essay from the perspective of your own particular research idea: how will this essay help clarify/develop your thought process? Try to use the vocabulary from the "B-TEAM" handout ("Kinds of Sources").

3) Please response at least once to each of your group members! Give them feedback on how they are presenting their own perspective, on what they say about their project

This is the final reading in our "food & authenticity" mini-unit. I've provided it because it offers a new kind of perspective, a sociological understanding of the problems of understanding authenticity as a problem in both economic and political terms.

Annotations on this text are optional; those of you who have fallen behind, I encourage you to ask questions and make comments, focusing particularly on howItalic** the article works with the concept of authenticity, and the extent to which its key concept of "ghosts" might be helpful to you in your own developing research project...

The title says it all. But maybe Donald Trump just can't help it. He was born this way - with an unsophisticated flavor palette, I mean. https://jezebel.com/donald-trump-eats-his-steak-well-done-with-ketchup-lik-1792770173

This is a rather disheartening assertion to make about our world, but it is hard to refute satisfactorily. We like to feel that civilization has progressed past misrepresentation and into an age of opportunity, but perhaps we have simply made this misrepresentation more subtle and more acceptable.

Like in the Washington Post's article about ethnic food, we remain ignorant to the generalizations we make about cultures until we actually gain an interest in them.

Says who? Are references to mythology or to literary symbolism/allusions really credible and valid sources? Never have I ever experienced bull-like strength.

two words that have links to the words inauthentic or myth. not necessarily false but not completely true at the same time. its like gilded jewelry

This is the author making note of the inauthenticity in cooking food for its appearance.

So what does it say about Donald trump?

Thus one of the criticisms of Trump's preferences are that it shows a low level of intelligence and class which the French favor in the rarity of steak.They seem to emphasize the softness and wetness of a good steak which is nonexistent in a well done steak.

I started to get hungry until this part...

This is the myth he was talking about earlier. The grass is greener on the other side

I'd definitely say that how the food looks is one of the biggest factors into preparing something, which does question how real something looks vs how it tastes. Certainly all those sauces and swirls could look cool but it could just taste like blended mush.

I would argue that a lot of European countries are this way. You drink for the taste of a beer in Germany. Scotch is fabulous in Ireland. Maybe in America the idea is to get drunk when drinking but this seems to me to be an extremely European value.

The modern day example is fast food commercials where the burger looks way better than what you get at the counter.

I'd agree that wine seems to have a kind of power in the act of drinking it as much as its contents which is most unlike other liquor which is drunken mostly for the induced state.

This is a strange thought because usually upper class people tend to stray away from the lower classes especially in the case of intellect. Barthes seems to suggest that pressure from class forces them to relieve themselves through a "lesser drink"

But does it make strong men weak or talkative people silent? And even so, does this always happen? I'd say this is a contradiction which does counter his belief that wine doesn't have contradictions.

This particular author clearly emphasizes that she doesn't support Trump and lambasts him on his unclassy preference for steak. She does acknowledge the counter-argument about how cooking a steak enough is more beneficial to health though.

A simple salad made of local ingredients, mainly in Nice, France.

I love the phrasing of this, because it so eloquently encapsulates that the food has no substance or value other than how it looks.

I think it's funny that putting a glaze on a food can be seen as a commentary on authenticity.

I wonder if the solitude is related to authenticity, in the sense that one can be pressured into inauthenticity by societal pressures.

I think this is so funny. I like that his "authenticity" can't necessarily be translated by someone who is not a part of this culture.

This absolutely came out of left field, and I think it is absolutely unfair of the author to do this. The author gave a brief history of wine and its importance in French society and how it is unique to France, and quickly, suddenly stated essentially "oh, by the way, wine production is awful and hurts tons of people." I think it unfairly characterizes French people as indifferent to injustices surrounding wine. I don't think he gave justice to the situation, although I'm sure he would disagree.

I would argue that the opposite argument has been made. Wine seems to be portrayed as the "water" (fundamental basis, necessary for survival) of the social scene of France.

This sentence annoyed me, frankly, because I've heard similar sentiments in sociology before, and I'm annoyed by those who consider every single choice we make to be coerced by larger society. I understand that the environment we grow up in shapes us to an extent, but I also believe that we are all individuals and have our own personalities, and are thus capable of being unique. All this is to ask, why can't we all just like wine without having larger society twisting our arm to do so?

I didn't see a footnote, so according to the dictionary entry Google pulled up, ex nihilo means "out of nothing." So wine creates "out of nothing."

This piece is particularly important, since it connects to what I have called the "Donald Trump & well-done steak" short assignment...

Reminder: I've left instructions in the "Page Note" to this document!

Hence, my own suggestion of a recent "daily event": we will look at the Trump/steak episode as a way of considering whether "mythological" analysis remains relevant and practiced today...

I think it will work better if each of you adds your link to a "Donald Trump and well-done steak" article here, as a reply to this "page note".

All you are looking for is an article on that subject that makes an argumentative claim and offers some sort of evidence; you are not required to find a position with which you personally agree....

"Authentic" food is something one can eat--it not only looks like food, but also acts like food, according to Barthes.

The food of gods, which was associated with granting immortality.

Milk is for the individual, but wine is for the collective.

Barthes's goal for these essays seems to be two-fold: he's trying to demonstrate "real" French life, but he's also trying to encounter a "natural," an "authentic" sense of the present.

This nears contradiction to "Food that isn't associated with whites will be called ethnic." German and Irish people are white. Consequently, this article inadvertently interchanges the words "white" and "American" which is not entirely accurate or appropriate.

So maybe in the broadest essence, "ethnic" describes many of these cheap and inauthentic foods correctly. Taco Bell might not be authentically hispanic but it is a different taste and it is a different culture. Connotatively, Taco Bell (certainly) is an American lie, but denotatively, is it ethnic? Is ethnic marked by "difference" or by "authenticity"?

To pay for it? Or to find it? Where I am located, it is just culturally uncommon to find culturally authentic foods. I suspect that this issue is less economical for many and more geographical.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Just because I do not personally like Chinese food, does not mean I do not value their food and culture. If I decide to eat Chinese food, because of my preferences, I am unwilling to spend a large amount of money because I do not gain happiness from eating it. Why would I spend more than twenty dollars on food I do not even like that much? On the contrary, I value American culture and enjoy American food but I am also unwilling to spend more than ten dollars for a burger and fries. The price in which I am willing to pay for food is uncorrelated to how much I value a culture and I would argue this could extend to other consumers.

I think Ray jumps to this conclusion too quickly. To me, our "unwillingness to pay for a certain kind of experience" doesn't quite align with beliefs of inferiority--I find "naivety" to be a more accurate conclusion. Sometimes we aren't willing to pay for a more expensive, "authentic" dish because we don't know what an authentic experience from that culture is like. I don't think this laziness when it comes to food is exclusive to our experiences with cultural food; many people are more often inclined to buy the cheapest "American" dishes as well!

After reading this article, I've been struggling to agree with some of Ray's perspectives. While I agree that cultures are often exclusive of each other, I don't view American cuisine as a mosaic model, but as a melting pot model. Perhaps American food is cheap, fast food, taken from many different cultures. As a result, although we label some dishes "ethnic," I've always understood it to signify that the food we have gleaned from other cultures belongs more to the United States than the original location, due to our changes. Maybe it is offensive to the original culture and to Ray, but I don't find our country to intentionally be so. Our country is evolving.

Complex=/=good. In addition, wok-made "authentic" Chinese food is very heavy in oil and fat, which is not compatible with the average American diet.

This is saying that to be accepted as equal in American culture, your home country must stop transporting undesirables. While this isn't necessarily true, there are historical trends to substantiate this claim.

As a culture of people rises up the social ranks, so does their culture.

Presentation over substance?

Very true. Some people take authentic cuisine to mean created by chefs of the culture it originated from, while others take it as tasting like the culture's traditional food. It's hard to set circumstances for authenticity, even for food.

Indian food is accidentally conforming to the archetypal fatty American foods we typically consume. Our perception of it as inferior is preventing restaurants from actually producing quality cuisine, reiterating Charles Taylor's argument of mis-recognition generating conformity to these established negative stereotypes.

It's hard to specialize when you haven't yet been familiarized with the broad overview.

Sounds like a bit of a straw-man argument...

Perhaps this is part of the issue with the perceived inferiority of "ethnic food"; when its generalized to where its defining characteristic is being "not from here", there's little acknowledging how diverse and delicious it can be on its own merit.

Interesting how there can be such a blend of food cultures in one city... Is urban life truly a melting pot or simply pandering to the tourists' desire for an "experience"?

I would agree with this. but this guy is cynical about it. why pay more for some "authentic" Chinese food when I can get some fried rice from the neighbor hood restaurant for under 10$. hell if sushi were cheaper I would be doing the same thing! I have a feeling that I am particularly biased against this though as I am a college student just looking for the cheapest meal. I can see where more Americans have this prejudice against certain types of food.

I am unwilling to pay more than 10$ for most food. Actually I don't want to usually pay more than $8.50

is it wrong for them to brand a restaurant as such though? the point is to bring in customers not "be authentic" to them. if the customer is pleased what is the problem?

how else can something be authentic? by what others tell us? no I think authenticity derives from being true to the self. and if the self has a limited knowledge on the subject then why is that to blame for such an assumption?

sounds like America to me!... am I right?

we are willing to pay 10 for sushi rolls here but only pay 99 cents for a bowl of ramen. I feel you man

ethnicity has a strong tie to the word foreign.

I would argue that food that isn't associated with American is called ethnic food. Often I see the sign for German food labeled in an aisle but most people take German to mean "white". This goes back to earlier when Ferdman said what isn't americanized is considered "ethnic".

this begs the question whether or not authentic food is based on how high we put a value on it

This seems to be a near impossible task because of China's huge population and the racial component. He seems to suggest that poor people are going to stop coming but I find that hard to believe.

It seems to be suggested that most people don't and can't know what authentic food is based on limited exposure, but it's hard to do. We can't blame everything on the public if they can't pay for more expensive food.

The thing is that most Americans don't have the interest or time to know about every single nuance in every type of food which guarantees that they will have the propensity to clump categories together.

Basically, we rate foods as inferior based on how much we're willing to pay for them.

From personal experience, it seems that every Chinese buffet place I've went to has hispanic cooks and microwavable foods which does indicate that there aren't actual Chinese chefs cooking foods themselves. These places sacrifice authenticity but regardless they still draw crowds to their cheap prices.

This is extremely ironic because these ethnic foods are being made so cheap that they're not considered "authentic" any more. You can either have cheap, inauthentic food, or expensive, "real" food.(Although I would say that you could just travel abroad too).

I would argue that we aren't thoughtful about the consumption of any kinds of food. Fast food is absolutely everywhere, and there are companies (Blue Apron, as an example) that make cooking at home seem like a fad rather than the norm. The biggest reason we have a health problem (dare I say crisis) in this country is because we don't take half a second to talk ourselves out of a cheeseburger and fries and into a salad or slightly healthier option. Or take half of a second to plan our food for the day as to avoid the situation when a person is far from home or a healthy meal so they must settle for something fast and convenient.

This struck me as the first time in this article that the author(s) (the people having this conversation) said what they'd been meaning to say, without explicitly stating it. This, to me, is these people connecting the way Americans view the food of a country to how they view the people of the country.

The depth of authenticity is also an interesting thought. is something appearing authentic on the surface, and thus is accepted as authentic, enough to make the thing authentic?

Expectations factoring into authenticity is a new thought for me. The subjectivity of the word "authentic" always throws me for a loop, because I feel like there should be an "objective truth" to everything.

I have not asked for annotation on the text, but after reading Prelim #1, I will make one general comment: I strongly encourage those of you who have not submitted that Prelim to do so, and I encourage all of you to ask questions about Harrris' breakdown of different ways writers "come to terms" with their sources. Use Hypothes.is for examples, for close reading of passages, for whatever other purposes seem helpful....

Negative-impact, positive feedback loop

Does the lack of privacy prescribed by our elevated exposure to media create more or less of a division between performer and spectator? On one hand, there is more knowledge of artist's real lives and less room to hide. On the other, sensationalism and the need to entertain and excite encourages fabrication and exaggeration of celebrities' lives, effectively putting on yet another show for the designated spectators.

Being defined by one's class/social standing leads to this pursuit of a "grander" identity.

Identity and recognition have been developing and evolving with humanity/civilization.

One's true nature is not seen through action, but reaction.

A geographic location being turned into an exploitable concept for the music industry... much like the idea of the gangsta rapper.

Much like the cultural phenomena of rap itself - regional rappers intimidating and challenging one another, yet ironically embodying the same spirit and sound.

2002 doesn't seem so far away now.

Just to clarify, this is the same year the Euro was introduced, the International Criminal court was established, and Iraqi aircraft first engaged American drones.

You guys I was barely alive what is going on here

Would like to know what they mean by this here. Was this explicit stereotyping- a poster of drug use with only minorities on it, or maybe it was implicit, using ebonics, vernacular, etc. to associate drug use with minorities subliminally. Or was it an even unintended effect, maybe the author is saying that the War on Drugs made drugs profitable, much like liquor in the Prohibition Era, turning unemployed minorities in poorly policed neighborhoods to produce and distribute the drugs? Honestly, being born well after the "War" had begun, I've always seen people associate drug use with races- whites:meth, cocaine::minorities:marijuana, crack, so I don't really have any perspective here. This needs more context.

Demographic shifts, such as the 1990's East Coast to West Coast rap focus is important in recognizing a group mentality over a specific area, such as country music being centered in the south and midwest. The shift in the center of music production is important in tying in the shift in musical taste within the genre, such as with the rise of Aftermath Records, 50 Cent, Dr. Dre, etc. Here, the focus even became "Us v. Them", tying in traditionally excluded areas such as Detroit, Dallas, etc., which belong to neither East nor West Coast.

Here the author is making the claim that the authenticity of a rapper's music comes from their identity. In order to gain the "stamp of authenticity" a rapper must already possess certain qualities of urban identification and successfully represent the cultures associated with rap music.

This is an example of rap music being used to shed light on social issues such as racial profiling. Even though NWA isn't necessarily saying anything about the problem of police being racist, they are bringing it to the forefront of conversation and getting people to talk about it.

While rap music is still considered regional, we can see a shift here to a more national and unified movement to use rap music for social and political justice.

Not to be the stylistically pretentious snob that I totally am, but why would you include the "War on Drugs" in the title to this article's entirety if it's just a "brief discussion" that isn't introduced until the 12th page!!!! Just saying!!!!

Who's gonna profile the police officers though? [curious emoji]

Or, is music a product of socially constructed racial and ethnic boundaries?

Not to entirely delegitimize the validity of the article, but I would argue that only gathering information in Los Angeles would be a flaw in any scientific method based experiment. Similar to science, data is more valid when it is experimented over numerous variables. Making conclusions based solely on the African-American culture in one California city and then applying this conclusion as a poster child for all African-Americans and their relationships to rap music seems to be too assumptive.

A highly reputable source. Choosy scholars choose Daddy-O.

I like this rhetorical choice of using phrases like this in a scholarly article to shorten the distance between "scholars" and "rappers."

Although I'm not super informed about the early years of rap, I know that more recently, African-American artists seem to have a lot of freedom to write and perform music that is true to themselves. I wonder if this perception is legitimate or if I am being influenced to feel this way. With this, I am referring to Lil Wayne's record label and artists that are more unconventional in their messages, like Tyler the Creator and Kendrick.

This reminds me directly of how we were considering the "whiteness" of country music. I believe that the lack of exclusivity of music makes it fair game to express oneself or one's culture freely.

Here it is established that rap is merely a medium for already existing sentiments to be shared. However, it is established elsewhere that this representation was made into more of a caricature that ended up being (and remaining) very harmful to the African-American community.

Grant wants to make the argument that the identities in gangsta and racial boundaries work together to provide a better representation of LA, which makes sense to show how the city changed the dynamic of where black culture was constructed and how the gangsta set new boundaries.

This is a hard statement for most audiences to understand as many think the lyrics instigate violence and harm morals of listeners. The clarification seems to provide a cultural and more racially-aware reason as historical context provides reason for more authentic stories.

Very similar to country music, rap in its own way is about the stories and experiences of the singers, which seems to be a key component of what makes music authentic and popular.

It's not often that the author outright states a summary of their article, but I appreciate that I can have a preview and understand where she's placing each argument.

And now Grant is taking her argument about cultural identity to the next level. She states that hip hop gansta no longer serves as just representative, but instead as a part of the environment inherently. Claiming that this style of music is in the very "urban environment" is a strong argument to make here!

This is dancing around the idea that whether or not the image existed in the real world is irrelevant, because the fact that the police were taking real action in response to the image moves the problem from one of representation in a theoretical sense to one of weight and real-world importance.

The level of formality in the author's diction with the casual nature of the author's first person point of view makes me slightly uncomfortable. I do see that the author is attempting to create a connection with the reader while introducing his topic. That being said, that is a rhetorical choice I would not have made.

I feel like...maybe...just maybe...Congress could do something just a hair more productive. Then again, as I type this sarcastic comment, I realize that country music might mean more unto others than it does to me. County music (and all music) impacts others in different ways. I'm curious to know the correlation between country music and the Gulf War/American identity.

Okay but I actually find this quote hugely important to the ever prevalent social concept of labeling! Think about how brutally just one single word has pervaded our sociopolitical atmosphere. Not everything can be diminished to sticks and stones when we accidentally label an entire ethnicity into "niggadom."

Once again, I am in awe at these scholarly sources. Iconic.

We begin to see history not as an unraveling epic with each thread weaving into the next, but rather as a series of isolated events without proper context.

The whiteness of country music can be partially attributed to its recurring themes of perserverance through troubled times and notions of purity and absence of guilt. Country projects the idea of Americans as victims set on overthrowing their oppression.

Notice this sentence--this whole paragraph should cheer those of you who find the article grim. Do you see what Mann is challenging, in this paragraph?

Mann wants instead to to look at country not as expressing or reflecting social class (though notice he doesn't disagree with this perspective), but as a "pose" or "style", a "performance." (Notice that this language harmonizes with the language of "producing" that he uses earlier in the section...)

was William Wordsworth a country artist?

Here Mann writes a whole paragraph setting up an analysis based on social class, only to then tell us in the next paragraph that he lacks space to say more about it! Why does he do this?

....And Gramsci (another Marxist) turns out to be the most important theoretician for Mann's argument!

So many names! Did we need Althusser as well? "Yes and no", would be my answer. Mann needs both to demonstrate his knowledge of the field and to establish the distinctness of his own perspective. He's not necessarily as reader-friendly as he could be here. But remember, Mann has just told us he wants to keep an Althuserian idea and apply it from a Gramscian perspective. And his readers--you!--can draw some things from his article without necessarily taking on Mann's entire perspective....

Here Mann cites a particular source for his idea, while at the same time paraphrasing that idea again.

Step back, if you're reading here, and think about: what are the ways in which we "normally" (everyday ways) think about music as cause, rather than as "reflection" / effect / whatever....?

In this paragraph, Mann goes on to distinguish his approach from that of M & R (in whose footsteps he is following)

A BIG CLAIM--yes? An ambitious claim. Paraphrase:

Country music, in the form a capitalist society gives it, produces a certain kind of "white subject"--a way of feeling and knowing oneself as white.

And I've left out one piece: the "contradictions"--since that requires a further detour into Althusser's development of Marxist theory. (General clue: if you see "contradictions" and "over-determination", you are reading work that draws upon this particular Marxist tradition.)

Key sentence indicating shift to Mann's own perspective: he will offer a verb that contrasts with EXPRESSES or REFLECTS -- his verb will be PRODUCES. And the last sentence of this paragraph states his own claim!

This paragraph shows Mann's command of the material. He defines a particular kind of scholarship on the "ideological work" of music. (Notice that examples of "meaning" go far beyond lyrical messages....)

So, this is the really tough section! (Remember, you guys are an HONORS section....) [insert honors emojis here]

I've provided a definition of "interpellation" earlier in these annotations. I'll comment once more on each paragraph to create a roadmap for you guys

Note the diction here!

While somewhat hard to understand, it seems that the author here is trying to make a point that taking about race relations isn't developing race relations, its scrutinizing, observing, picking at them. He doesn't seem to take issue with this, but rather disagrees that it is an adequate piece of evidence to support the concept that country is not racist.

Another great parenthetical aside. I think this helps coach the reader through his argument with some reassurance. The author reveals himself as a fan, which I believe is his way of defending the criticisms he is making. I equate this to someone criticizing my favorite football team, the Patriots. I generally don't listen to anything negative people say about the Patriots unless they tell me they are a fan. That makes me think that they are criticizing out of a caring place, rather than a malicious one.

This parenthetical aside is a great choice, in my mind, because the author has been largely separated from his argument, but he breaks that by commenting that something is strange. It takes a slightly more familiar tone, which I think helps to get his readers to "buy into" his argument.

For many of Mann's paragraphs, his argument is structured by him posing a question, offering a simplistic and expected answer, and then diving into his explanation. This presents a very clear path for the reader to follow throughout the article and helps to acknowledge the reader's preconceived notions before Mann delves into his own take on the idea.

I think this is an important point in Mann's argument, especially to his reader that might be defensive about the whiteness of country music. There are always exceptions to a rule, and by naming the "exceptions" of country music, it further proves the rule. In other genres such as pop and rap, it would be useless to name all the artists who aren't white simply because there are so many in these genres. However in country music, there are a select few which further proves Mann's argument in more objective terms.

I can agree that nostalgia plays a hand in the sound of whiteness because it's more than just saying that country music sounds white because it came from a white background. Feelings shape the way people perceive things and nostalgia is certainly one of them.

a cause or effect

Authenticity is stated as a renewable resource which means it never seems to run out. So there never seems to be a loss of ideas to sing about that relate to the self and in particular whiteness sells well. It's like the process of making a product for the market.

A very interesting claim, but I can see why. It seems the memories of the past only come from the meaning of words and the specifics of what a song is about rather than how it sounds(as is true with other genres).

basically what makes a sound unique, what makes a piano sound like a piano and not like a trumpet, or in this case what makes country music sound like country music

dominance of a social group over others

I think that the author is making a bit of a stretch here. The emotions of nostalgia or the "good 'ol days" feeling is easy for a wide variety of listeners to relate to not in reference to a certain time or in fear of social advancements, but simply because people easily relate to the feeling of "i'm getting old, i wish I were young again" not necesarily "take me back to when I was viewed superior because i'm white" The author is making country music overly complicated here as he has been in other aspects throughout this article.

the author here is saying that white culture falls into the values and lifestyle represented by country music. This assertion sums up what he has been trying to say up until this point, but it still doesn't completely support his main argument that country music is "white". To me is just seems that he is able to tie the music to the southern-working class-whites.

The author is claiming that since country songs appeal to nostalgia, they are automatically appealing to a racist past in which it was more advantageous to be white? I'm confused as to why nostalgia would be classified as white. Other genres sing of the past as well, so why would this make country "white"?

I was not aware that such a thing existed. The idea of "whiteness" as a tangible idea to be written about seems strange. The term "whiteness" also comes off as negative in someway here, although I don't think the author intends to have negative connotation in this instance.

I find this definition of nostalgia to be intriguing: I've never thought of it this way before!

Country music goes beyond mere relate-ability and becomes a definition that creates its very own meaning.

This seems to be in direct opposition to Taylor's argument--the authenticity of the genre is sometimes based on "faking it?"

It would be interesting to see the demographics of this number. Perhaps the listeners are predominately whites--but are there more males or females who listen to country? Young, middle-aged, or elderly people? I know that going into more detail here would not be following the main goals of this essay, but I also think that, by making too broad of claims about its popularity with whites, it leaves something out (at least in my mind). I guess I just worry about oversimplification in this essay's compelling overall claim.

According to Wikipedia, this word is a philosophical term, although the OED and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are sadly lacking in definitions. As I understand it from Wikipedia, interpellation refers to the idea that our identities and beliefs are not our own, but are rather produced for us by others, and we merely take them up as our own.

I think this distinction is an important one for Mann to make in this introduction. He's not necessarily claiming that country music is a reflection of "white culture"--instead, he turns that claim on its head and states that country music produces whiteness. I find the idea of production vs. reflection intriguing, and I think it's something to keep an eye on throughout the argument.

You will notice that this phrase should be surrounded by em dashes:

--and not, say, 'Punk Rock Month--

ALL em dashes are missing from the PDF upload. This is a text coding interaction problem of some kind that I can't solve: my apologies! (However, I did manage to eliminate the unreadable font of the originally uploaded copy of this article.)

Mann's article is divided into six sections.

1. intro
2. Country music as race music
3. Country music in the US: sound and story
4. Nostalgia and 'musical interpellation'
5. The sound of whiteness: a shared 'used to'
6. Why does country music sound white?

This is an essay in which the argumentative structure is quite clear (see the summary at the end of section 1.)

However, the thinking behind the argument is more difficult! The way Ward analyzes cause-and-effect logic may seem counter-intuitive. (Compare Foucault's argument that confession "produces" truth [my emphasis].)

Annotation instructions: this time around, you can stick to "informational/contextual" and "interpretive" footnotes. Let me know where the essay is difficult; do what you can to be *specific** about the source of that difficulty!

I will annotate section 4, as it's the toughest part of the article. (The keyterm in Mann's title is a signal of this difficulty...) If it thwarts you the first time through, skip it over and keep going: you can still grasp much of Mann's analysis without an understanding of that section.

An autobiographical song, and a very intense, emotional one at that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3olE6bHjBw This is the one motive out of the seven that I feel fits this song most. The whole song is like a confession for Eminem, since he's bearing his emotions about his relationship for the whole world to see.

I've opened annotations on this text for you to provide examples of songs that fit with the 7-part breakdown Barker and Taylor offer at the conclusion of their essay! (Note: you can embed video, though I haven't tried yet--links to YouTube might be easier...)

UPDATE: several of you have not yet added your texts! Also: please be more explicit about the connection you see to Barker & Taylor's 7-part breakdown (131-132)--in some of your cases the connection is obvious, but in others less so...

Enjoy the presence of students past in the annotations on this text! I have decided not to delete them, partly because of the nature of this particular text/discussion: perhaps students from the future will smile, nod, laugh or cry at your own musical selections...

Annotations weren't staying anchored here, so I've added this...