I also cannot annotate

1. Top of page 4 (page numbers in text): The differences between the styles of the 1960s and the 1990s seems to be a difference of goals. The Civil Rights movement was about gaining fundamental rights and, in a way, acceptance (though some were more militant); therefore, the music was more unifying. The music of the 1990s reflected how people were fed up with inequality to the point of just wanting to fight. As far as I know, this was reflected in the race riots and other violence of the time.

2. Page 8 (paragraph on "A Gangsta's Fairytale"): Ice Cube uses familiar imagery and subverts the typical meanings to clearly communicate his point. The characters are pretty universally known (at least in America), along with the typical connotations. By changing them, Ice Cube forms an effective connection for all types of listeners

The dominant culture works to destroy the counter culture through doing more of what caused rap to emerge as protest in the first place.

This feels like a defense of something that really should not be defended. Is blatant sexism alright just because it represents something bigger? I do not think that everyone who listens to this would even bother to consider that it might be a representation of more general problems and not just bragging about exploits.

Like the fictional gangsters mentioned here, Vito Corleone was shot when he was alone. His driver had betrayed him, and his son had left to go get the car. In this vulnerable state, Vito's enemies were able to get to him.

Gangsters became harder to identify, giving them an advantage as they were better able to avoid detection. Like Vito Corleone and other gangsters, an appearance of respectability gave gangsters an advantage.

The mindset that business are supposed to be fair is pretty modern. Many people found their success by fooling (quack medicine).

The basis for the American dream inspires criminal behavior. Why work if all of that wealth is just available for the taking.

1. Organized crime can be identified despite having been around for so long by using one of the defining characteristics mentioned by Lupsha. Organized crime is that which is done contrary to traditional American values which is also illegal.

2. No, these terms can apply in very legitimate pursuits as well. Though criminals would consider those actually working to all be suckers, the distinctions are found within business too. Someone who rises to the top by taking advantage of suckers would probably be a sharpie. Those who game their way to the top without putting in much work are the wise guys.

3. I am not entirely sure. Those caught in corporate scams who are lower down in the company are probably suckers. CEOs could be considered suckers if they worked legitimately for their money and position, but many have been shrewd and taken some short cuts, making them sharpies. Modern criminals involved in things like Ponzi schemes (Bernie Madoff) are wise guys.

4. Gatsby was a sharpy, working for his wealth but doing it illegally; Tom was more of a wise guy because he did not have to put in any work. Nick is quite apparently a sucker.

5. Hamilton works incredibly hard for his success, making him more of a sharpy or a sucker. He is accused of using illegal means for his advancement, but he makes it clear that he did not. By the end, he is a sucker because Burr, Jefferson, and Madison, acting as sharpies, have figured out a way to make Hamilton essentially self-destruct. Jefferson is also a wise guy. He doesn't have to work for his success because of his influence, and he is just offered positions like Secretary of State. He avoids the war by being the ambassador to France.

6. Because American values can be corrupted, the American dream can also be corrupted. By virtue of being a dream of success, people will do what is necessary to gain that success. Their desire goes beyond the "white picket fence" and a comfortable life, turning into a desire to gain as much wealth as is possible. The methods of achieving this dream are often contrary to what most people consider American because of this corruption.

1. Keyterms include "newcomer", "mobility", "nativism", , "assimilation", "discrimination"

2. O'Kane's argument is that the story told by Alger was impossible for many immigrants to achieve because of the many barriers they faced.

3. Immigrants adopted the culture and the language. They worked typical jobs if they could get them; they received schooling. Some accepted this participation, but most "natives" felt that the immigrants would destroy the American way of life.

4. Blatant discrimination in hiring practices was one of the methods used to prevent immigrants from being successful. Riots and gangs were means of intimidation. "Know-Nothings" used publicity campaigns to suppress the chances of immigrant groups. Those who believed outsiders would destroy the American race used methods like eugenics to try to control those they did not want.

5. Immigrants who became gangsters or got involved in other illegal activity are all examples of the "how". They chose these unconventional routes because they were denied the ability to improve themselves or capitalize on opportunities. Perhaps the quintessential gangster, Al Capone falls into this category. He was not a first generation American, but, from what I have read, he was involved with gangs for a while then decided to make honest money once he had a child. Due to situations that made this impossible where he was, including him getting into a fight, he got back into organized crime, becoming one of the most notorious gangsters of all time.

Immigrants were hated because of the results of a poor life either in their home country or in America. It was easier to point out their lack of cleanliness as proof of their inferiority than to admit that many people had been given no real opportunity, forcing them into this kind of life.

These people were only praised because they were the exception. If everyone had truly been able to achieve success, then there would not be specific heroes.

Viewing people as equally human and worthy was not the norm; people had to work to be viewed in this way.

Roadmap: The author shows how gangsters are portrayed as using brutality to gain their success, as well as how the brutality is portrayed as their success.

Roadmap: The author establishes that gangster movies are typically formulaic, while also offering evidence that the formula does not make them any less artistic.

If, like Pauly theorized, Gatsby is much more dangerous than Nick's portrayal of him, then Gatsby is precisely the type of crook being described in this quote.

With Nick, Gatsby managed how he was perceived. His behavior and, as mentioned later, his manner of talk were all used to create a certain impression. It is reasonable to assume that he acted the same way with everyone. Until he actually was faced with Daisy herself, Gatsby appeared always composed, calm, and in complete control.

Nick is everything Gatsby is trying to pretend to be, except for the lavish wealth. Nick comes from a family with "old money", he is respectable, and he was born as part of the society Gatsby had to work to enter.

This statement explains some of the debate surrounding whether or not Gatsby is truly a gangster. Concealing certain part of his past makes it particularly difficult to get a solid grasp on his true character.

Pauly's major claim is that Gatsby is significantly more devious and "dangerous" than Nick ever notices.

Some keyterms are "dandy", "status"/"social mobility", "front of respectability", and "evasiveness"/"discretion".

This can also lead to it seeming to be "okay" to be rude because the person has to be nice.

She embodies the role, to use acting terms.

This attitude translates into other workers in other areas, such as customer service agents, retail workers, and waitresses. Society has essentially normalized being rude to these people because they are the face associated with the problem.

She makes a claim that is not authentic and does not even try to be.

Precisely the kind of work you see in admissions or academic essays. What is written may be bs, but the author is often careful to make it the kind of bs that is exactly what the reader wants to see.

After another layer of background information, the author arrives at her "objective". Like before, this method helps the reader to understand and increases credibility.

After a lot of background information, the author now shifts into her argument about gangsta rap. She realized that many of her readers would need the extensive background information to even understand her argument, and her use of many sources provides more of a legitimacy to her arguments because of her extensive knowledge and research.

There is a now widely discredited sociological theory that claimed that increased play of country music lead to increased suicides. This was taught to us as an example of a spurious correlation.

Is this true? Did they make it true by pointing it out?

I am guessing this means that the nostalgic "whiteness" of country music makes it seem like current racial feelings are justified, encouraging people to act "white" because that is how it was and should be.

Though the group is far from the blues genre, twenty one pilots has songs that fit many of the characteristics for the autobiographical blues song. Tyler Joseph writes his own music and lyrics, and he is incredibly raw and real with admitting what he has experienced with his struggles with mental health and insecurities. Some of his music is also a direct social comment on the problems of suicide and related issues. The song "Migraine" is a prime example of how raw the songs of twenty one pilots. It shows the characteristics I described, except with less of an emphasis on the social comment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs92ejAGLdw

Key term - integral component of the populist perspective

Academic language - no clear definition provided

Claims for both sides. Is the general culture becoming more populist?

Source that gives an example of Populism (with no context)

Key Term

Yes we should avoid being defined by the thoughts of others, but is it terrible to gain some identity from others? I could not be identified as a daughter, friend, or girlfriend without other people. These things are a part of me no matter how hard I would try to be independent. To what extent is being independent good?

Taylor here strengthens his argument by providing clarification. He points out something he is not arguing to avoid confusion.

Mead is a sociologist. He is strongly associated with the symbolic interactionist paradigm, a view of sociology that is based off of the belief that our interactions with people and the symbols and language we use are what defines culture. This view goes against other paradigms in which society is formed by either conflict or the way social institutions are connected.

This is the word I discussed.

I find it interesting that she got her authentic information by being deceitful.

It is good to see that William Wordsworth did indeed take inspiration from what was around him and, it can be assumed, how he felt about those things. This spontaneous idea feels more authentic than taking a line from another's recollections.

With all the time Wordsworth devoted to every other part of the tale, this seems rather sudden. I am not sure why, but the quickness of it bothers me somewhat.

Wordsworth is making similar claims to those he made in the preface. He is explicitly stating that his tale is simple and everyday, but he hopes that it will still bring pleasure to his readers.

This statement, particularly this portion, illustrates that humans tend to prefer that which is familiar. All people do sometimes desire change, but such desires are typically balanced by the love of the familiar.

Wordsworth believed his poems were special and superior in a way because he believed they had "purpose". How could his ideas of himself and the quality of his own writing have colored his opinions of the value of his poems and the inferiority of the poems of others?

Donne wrote sonnets about complex ideas, often religious.

Wordsworth's motive was to defend his choice of language. He knew his style was different from that of those to which the public was accustomed, but he believed the style was necessary to accurately portray the everyday situations.

Will you make exceptions for extenuating circumstances such as prolonged illness? I know that is an unlikely situation, but I was just wondering.

Will you make sure that all arguments are treated equally, even if (or especially if), they are less popular?

What do you mean by this? How does this work?

When discussing this in class, I took the stance that "beyond fake" referred to the point where what we do becomes who we are. Essentially, we fake something for so long that we become that thing, making it real. I still feel this is true; however, the thought that one can "break free of the real/fake binary", as Turner put it, is a fascinating idea. There could definitely be a state completely separate from either realness or falseness. I do not know what that state might be.

I found Turner's thoughts about questioning your authenticity to be very interesting. If you think about what you are (real or fake), you would have to have some definition of what is real and what is fake as they pertain to you. In that case, you could in fact cause yourself to be more real by thinking about it, especially if you know that something you are doing is fake. However, I can certainly imagine instances where Turner's concerns are realized. Worrying about how authentic you are will change your attitudes and behaviors, causing you to change.