Hello All I am Javon Johnson, Check out some of my writing from this semester!
​
*Keyword Essay
* Project #2
* Gun control Essay
Javon Johnson
Dr. Wallace
ENGL 102
15 March 2023
KEYWORD ESSAY: “Culture”
Language shapes and molds the world we live in and how we perceive reality, by providing a way to communicate and bringing our perceptions of reality closer together. Language gives us a powerful medium to effectively bring ideas together, from one to another. In contrast the world shapes language simply because of its innate ability to fluctuate and in different scenarios and people. The word “Culture” is a perfect example of this idea. While the proper definition of culture is static and has not changed. The meaning it represents to people and what one’s culture is almost different for everyone on this planet. Simply because a definition is known overwhelmingly does not mean that becomes the words sole purpose of being. So I would argue that the world has a larger impact on language.
As Raymond Williams said “this is not a neutral review of meanings. It is an exploration of the vocabulary of the crucial area of social and cultural discussion. (cite)
I chose a keyword with such magnitude, “culture”, because of its direct and integral part of every single person’s life on this planet.
In the mid 15th century Culture meant “the tilling of land, the act of preparing the earth for crops”. The word developed over time to present itself as a way to cultivate what is needed for the crop. The overall premise is that culture was solely used to depict crops harvesting and the consumption of food. This took a turn when it was picked up by 1940's pop culture as slang. “Culture vulture” and “culture shock” began to distort the direct and dry application to the word.(Cite)
In the notion of williams ideology, we shall not look directly at the blank meaning. We must look into the historical pretext of the matter. The word culture came from a definition of harvesting and slowly grew into a word that encompasses one's home and overall beliefs. In my opinion it was the people working the land that brought the food into their home and just began to share ideas over a meal. The magnitude of this theory may sound small. However food is how we survive and come together. Food is also a huge part of many different cultures around the world. Over time as technology grew, so did the word. Many places around the world industrialized and built cities, moving further away from an agricultural economy. To further support this point, we need to understand that the term "culture" is not just a word used in contemporary times. Its usage dates back to the Roman Empire, where it was originally used to refer to the cultivation of crops. In its modern sense, culture has taken on a broader meaning, but its origins are still evident in the use of the term.
Additionally, the term "culture" carries different connotations in different parts of the world. For instance, in the Western world, culture is often associated with high art or the appreciation of music, literature, and fine arts. In contrast, in many non-Western cultures, culture refers to the totality of social practices, customs, traditions, and values that shape people's perceptions of the world around them.
Moreover, the term culture is not just limited to people's beliefs and social practices. It also encompasses material traits such as art, music, dance, fashion, and cuisine, among
others. The food we eat, for instance, is a reflection of our culture, and it also serves as a medium through which we express our identity and connect with others. Therefore, the term culture is broad and complex, and its meaning has evolved considerably over time. It is crucial to understand the historical and cultural contexts in which the term is used to fully grasp its significance to people.
Therefore, the term culture is broad and complex, and its meaning has evolved considerably over time. It is crucial to understand the historical and cultural contexts in which the term is used to fully grasp its significance to people. Thus, when talking about culture, it is essential to consider its historical roots, its evolving meaning, and the diverse contexts in which it is used.
By doing so, we can better understand how culture shapes our perceptions of the world and how we communicate our understanding of it. Overall, Williams' ideology highlights the need for critical thinking and reflection when using language to describe social and cultural phenomena, and this is especially
crucial when talking about keywords like culture
Globalization has been a buzzword for the past few decades and has influenced nearly every aspect of our lives. Culture is no exception, and globalization has brought about significant changes in cultures worldwide. With the rise of new communication technologies and the ease of travel, people have been increasingly exposed to new ideas, cultures, and products from different parts of the world. One of the impacts of globalization on culture is the homogenization of cultural practices. The idea of the "global culture" has led to the spread of a particular way of life, fashion, music, and culture around the world. This spread of global culture has caused the loss of traditional culture and the homogenization
of cultural practices.
At the same time, globalization has also led to the mix of different cultures, creating new cultural practices that blend traditions from different parts of the world. For example, the
fusion of Eastern and Western cuisine or the blending of different musical genres. Globalization has also created a need for cultural adaptation as people migrate to
different parts of the world. The movement of people across borders has led to cultural mixing and the adoption of new cultural practices. This process of cultural adaptation
has facilitated the emergence of new cultural practices and ideas.
In conclusion, Culture is a complex, evolving, and contested term. Its meaning has changed over time, and it carries different connotations in different parts of the world. This paper has discussed the historical and cultural contexts in which culture is used, Raymond Williams' ideology on exploring keywords, and the impact of globalization on
Culture. Culture is an integral part of our lives, and it shapes our identities and perceptions of the world around us. As such, it is necessary to critically examine and reflect on our understanding of culture to appreciate and respect the diverse cultural practices and traditions that exist. This reflection requires us to acknowledge the different nuances of culture and appreciate the complexity that characterizes it.
Work Cited
-
“Culture (n.).” Etymology, https://www.etymonline.com/word/culture.
-
“Culture Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture.
-
Williams, Raymond. Keywords : a Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York :Oxford University Press, 1985.
Project #2
Creative Conversations Step #3
How did the development of the camera, and its ability to capture a moment in time, change society? Javon Johnson | ENG102-66W | 04.10.23
Bob: Hi Cara, I'm really excited to speak with you about the impact of photography on society. As a historian of photography during the Civil War, I've long been fascinated by the power of images to shape public opinion and influence politics. How do you see the role of photography during this time period?
Cara: Hi Bob, thanks for having me. I think photography during the Civil War was a pivotal moment in the development of the medium, not just because of the widespread use of photography to document the war itself, but also because of how it created new ways of seeing and understanding the world. This was a time when people were starting to use photography not just for portraits, but also as a means of documenting the war and its aftermath.
Bob: Absolutely. Photography played a critical role in shaping public opinion and influencing political decisions during the Civil War. The images of war that circulated in newspapers and magazines helped to galvanize support for the Union effort and spur public action in support of the war effort
Cara: Yes, and after the war, photography continued to impact society in many ways. One example of this is the emergence of photojournalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Photographs were used to document social conditions and to expose social inequalities, such as in Jacob Riis's photographs of slum life in New York City.
Bob: Photography also played a role in shaping public opinion and influencing political decisions during the Great Depression. Photographers like Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans used their work to bring attention to the plight of the poor and oppressed, shifting public opinion toward support for government social programs.
Cara: Exactly. Photography has the power to mobilize people and create change. It's not just a medium for documenting history, but also for shaping the course of history. This is what makes photography such a unique and powerful tool for communication and social change.
Bob: That's a great point. Photography is more than just a means of capturing the world; it's a way of interpreting and shaping it. It provides a window into the past, but also has an impact on the present and future. As photographers, we have a responsibility to use our work to create positive change in the world.
Cara: Exactly. Photography has the ability to tell stories and inspire people to take action. It's not just about documenting history, but also shaping it. I'm glad we had a chance to discuss the impact of photography on society. Thanks for the conversation, Bob.
Bob: Thank you too, Cara. It was truly an enlightening conversation.
Gun Colntrol Essay
Javon Johnson
Dr. Wallace
Engl 102
April, 30th, 2023
Research Essay: Gun Control
Gun control is a topic of debate in the United States, as the country has a long history of gun ownership, and the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. However, gun control advocates argue that the high number of gun-related deaths and injuries in the country make it necessary to regulate the sale and use of firearms. In this paper, we will examine the arguments for and against gun control, the effectiveness of gun control measures, and the implications of gun control for public safety.
The United States has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, with an estimated 393 million firearms in circulation in 2021 (Males, 2021). The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, this right has been the subject of debate, particularly in the wake of mass shootings and high rates of gun violence in the country.
Proponents of gun control argue that stricter regulations on the sale and use of firearms could reduce the number of gun-related deaths and injuries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 39,740 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2018, including suicides, homicides, and accidental shootings (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Gun control advocates argue that this high number of deaths is unacceptable and that stricter regulations on gun ownership could save lives.
Opponents of gun control argue that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and that any attempts to regulate gun ownership are a violation of that right. They also argue that gun control measures would not be effective in reducing gun violence and would only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to criminals.
One of the main arguments for gun control is that it could reduce the number of gun-related deaths and injuries in the United States. Proponents of gun control argue that stricter regulations on the sale and use of firearms could prevent dangerous individuals from obtaining guns and could reduce the number of accidental shootings.
One of the most common gun control measures proposed by advocates is universal background checks for gun buyers. Currently, federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks on buyers, but private sellers are not required to do so. Gun control advocates argue that closing this loophole could prevent people with criminal records or mental health issues from obtaining guns.
Another gun control measure proposed by advocates is a ban on assault weapons, which are designed for rapid firing and have been used in several high-profile mass shootings. Supporters of a ban on assault weapons argue that these weapons have no legitimate civilian use and that they only serve to increase the lethality of mass shootings.
Opponents of gun control argue that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and that any attempts to regulate gun ownership are a violation of that right. They also argue that gun control measures would not be effective in reducing gun violence and would only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to criminals.
One of the main arguments against universal background checks is that they would not be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns. Opponents argue that criminals would simply obtain guns through other means, such as theft or the black market, and that law-abiding citizens would be burdened with additional regulations.
Opponents of a ban on assault weapons argue that it would be a violation of the Second Amendment and that it would not be effective in reducing gun violence. They also argue that there is no clear definition of what constitutes an assault weapon and that any ban would be arbitrary and ineffective.
The second type of gun control policy is the regulation of firearms sales. This type of policy involves background checks and waiting periods to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. Background checks aim to screen potential buyers for any criminal records, domestic violence convictions, or mental health issues that may indicate that they are at high risk of committing gun violence. Waiting periods, on the other hand, impose a mandatory waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm, during which time the buyer’s background check is conducted. The purpose of waiting periods is to ensure that individuals who intend to harm themselves or others do not have immediate access to firearms.
In contrast, opponents of gun control argue that these policies infringe on their Second Amendment rights and do not necessarily reduce gun violence. They argue that criminals will still be able to obtain firearms regardless of background checks and waiting periods, and that these policies simply create obstacles for law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their right to bear arms. Additionally, they point to the fact that gun ownership is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and that any attempt to restrict access to firearms is therefore unconstitutional.
Despite these arguments, research suggests that gun control policies can have a positive impact on reducing gun violence. For example, a study by the RAND
Corporation found that laws requiring background checks for all gun sales were associated with a lower incidence of firearm fatalities in states that had implemented them (Webster et al., 2019). Another study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that laws that impose waiting periods for firearm purchases were associated with a significant reduction in firearm suicides (Kivisto & Phalen, 2018). These findings suggest that gun control policies may be an effective way to reduce gun violence.
One of the primary arguments made by proponents of gun control is that stricter laws can help reduce crime rates. Countries with strict gun laws, such as Japan and the United Kingdom, have some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world. This suggests that gun control measures could have a positive impact on crime rates in the US. In a study conducted by the Center for American Progress, researchers found that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun deaths. However, opponents of gun control argue that criminals will still find ways to obtain firearms, regardless of the laws in place. They also argue that law-abiding citizens who own guns for self-defense could be placed at a disadvantage if gun laws are too strict.
Another issue that arises in discussions about gun control is the role of mental health. Many mass shootings have been carried out by individuals with a history of mental illness. Some argue that stricter background checks could help prevent firearms from falling into the hands of those who pose a threat to public safety. Currently, federal law prohibits people with certain mental health conditions from owning guns, but these laws are not always enforced effectively. Advocates of gun control argue that additional measures, such as more rigorous background checks and the creation of a national database of individuals with a history of mental illness, could help reduce the risk of mass shootings. Opponents of gun control argue that such measures would infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens and that mental health should not be used as a scapegoat for gun violence.
Finally, a central issue in the gun control debate is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. Opponents of gun control argue that any attempts to restrict access to firearms are unconstitutional and that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as an individual right to own guns. They argue that the government has no right to infringe on this right, and that gun control measures are an attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens. Proponents of gun control argue that the Second Amendment was written in a specific historical context, and that
the government has a responsibility to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that balances the right to bear arms with the need to protect public safety. The issue of gun control remains highly controversial in the United States. While some argue that stricter laws are necessary to reduce gun violence, others contend that such measures would infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Ultimately, any efforts to address the issue of gun control will require a careful consideration of the various arguments and evidence on both sides of the debate.
Gun control is a highly contentious issue in the United States, with proponents and opponents holding deeply entrenched positions. Proponents argue that gun control policies are necessary to reduce gun violence, while opponents argue that these policies infringe on their Second Amendment rights and do not necessarily reduce gun violence. Despite these debates, research suggests that gun control policies, particularly those that regulate firearms sales, can have a positive impact on reducing gun violence. As policymakers continue to grapple with this issue, it is important to consider the evidence and make informed decisions that prioritize public safety while upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
The third argument against gun control is that it is a violation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Proponents of this argument believe that any attempt to regulate firearms in any way is an infringement of their constitutional right to bear arms. They argue that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment specifically to protect citizens' right to defend themselves against tyranny and that gun control measures would undermine this fundamental right.
However, this argument ignores the fact that the Second Amendment was written in a very different historical context. At the time the Second Amendment was drafted, the United States was still a fledgling nation and faced threats from external forces, including the possibility of invasion by European powers. The right to bear arms was seen as essential to the nation's defense. However, today, the United States is a global superpower with the world's most powerful military. The need for individual citizens to bear arms to defend the nation is no longer relevant.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment does not grant an unlimited right to bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm for self-defense within the home, but that this right is subject to reasonable regulation by the government. This means that the government can regulate firearms to protect public safety without violating the Second Amendment.
In conclusion, gun control is a contentious issue in the United States that has divided the nation. While proponents argue that gun control measures are necessary to protect public safety, opponents argue that they are ineffective, unnecessary, and a violation of the Second Amendment. However, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that gun control measures can reduce gun violence and save lives. The United States has a moral obligation to its citizens to take action to prevent gun violence, and this requires a comprehensive approach that includes both stricter gun laws and efforts to address the root causes of gun violence. It is time for the United States to put the safety and well-being of its citizens first and take meaningful action to prevent gun violence.
References:
Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. JAMA, 297(13), 1384-1391.
Kleck, G. (2009). Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. Taylor & Francis.
Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A. D. (1996). The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020 (Vol. 1). Harvard University Press.
Vittes, K. A., Sorenson, S. B., & Webster, D. W. (2013). Preventing gun violence through effective messaging. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 847-853.
Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1997). Crime is not the problem: Lethal violence in America. Oxford University Press.
Kivisto, A. J., & Phalen, P. L. (2018). Effects of Risk-Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981–2015. Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 33(9), 1382–1384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4488-7
RAND Corporation. (2019). What Policies Reduce Gun Deaths? A Review of Evidence and a Proposed Research Agenda. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html
Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & McGinty, E. E. (2019). Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging. American Journal of Public Health, 109(10), 1343–1345. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305312