Really a fascinating distinction here. It may be noted that in countries with a long history of distilling, brewing, or fermenting alcohol, alcoholism is greatly diminished. Countries like France, Germany, or Spain have lesser problems with alcohol, compared to India, America, or Native American Tribes. Viewing alcohol in a cultural way instead of medically- as a drug- allows citizens to drink younger. For example, France recently changed their drinking age to 18, from 16. But children as young as 12-13 I've seen myself walk past bouncers without showing ID. It is in many ways acceptable to drink young, which helps to normalize it and not glamorize it, preventing binge drinking.

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.

I don't think this is indicative of a disregarding of "ethnic" food, I just think americans can't taste the nuance. For example: we commonly eat burgers, as mentioned in the paragraph, but my mom never made curry when I was growing up. I have no baseline for curry, I don't know what its supposed to taste like, so all curry is equal to me. That being said, I've eaten a lot of burgers, so I can tell when a burger is good and when it isn't. I think this is an example of the inverse of Supply V. Demand, and is instead Supply V. Recognition V. Demand.

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.

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.

Might be worth looking into post-Gandhi India (@Sarah), in which the previous Caste system was done away with, but people still identify with the hierarchical system of what their caste ItalicwouldItalic be.

YOOOOOOOO is this like bbcode?

UPDATE: It is decisively not bbcode and I hate it

Presumably with reference to Rousseau's "Confession", which we previously read. Seems to be suggesting a major cultural shift to being more open, more honest, sort of in line with post enlightenment era writing, which in turn followed the Renaissance, an era of being more open, less afraid, and more scientific.

1

Wordsworth declares that the normal convention is too much restriction for poetry, and that breaking free will enhance writing to the common people, especially using simple things like country life.

2

Wordsworth uses lots of "low level" words here to signify his target audience: commoners. He starts off talking about something he's been worried about the whole time. He's worried about what is "proper". But he throws these off and instead gives worth to simple passions of life, saying instead: "The great and universal passions of men, the most general... supply endless combinations of form and imagery." This professes a belief in the intelligence of the uneducated, and their ability to feel just as the upper class do. I suppose it was something of a revolutionary concept for the time. Interesting Syntax too, the way he reverses the expectations stemming from his previous writing.

3

Straight up garbage. Punishable by death due SOLELY to the irony that is "The Solitary Reaper". I mean, he thinks assigning questionably attached emotions to poems makes them stronger? Jesus you guys back me up on this, I'm not crazy, right?

Discuss.

In reference to my lower annotation

Are these the aforementioned readings I highlighted above?