From the beginning of this course, we have focused on identifying literacy practices. The question that has driven most of our discussions has been less about defining what is and isn’t literacy, and more about seeing literacy in most of everything. From this frame of reference, we can definitely see hip-hop as a justified form of literacy. Hip-hop is literacy, not only because we can identify traditional literary devices within the form, but because it is recognized. People listen to hip-hop, people discuss and debate hip-hop, people love hip-hop.

Hip-hop is literacy because we can learn from it. A lot of the time, hip-hop receives a bad rep- this is typically directed towards mainstream hip-hop. But the reality of the situation is that there is much more to hip-hop than the mainstream. Underground hip-hop is where we see much more authentic displays. This is where hip-hop is communicated through poetry and rapping. The motivation is real, and the listener notices. On the other hand, mainstream “hip-pop” (as many hip-hop artists like to refer to it) is centered on the idea of maximum profit. I don’t believe this “hip-pop” form was envisioned by early hip-hop pioneers. I believe they would find “hip-pop” phony.

 

check out this underground hip-hop song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8xfWqCmc4

The book Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out is focused on the incorporation of media in youth learning. It takes a look at the educational opportunities embedded within technology, considering our youth live and die by their technologies. This book aims to reject “formal” education, and embrace the media constantly surrounding us. The problem with this is what the book calls the “intergenerational wedge,” which is the notion that previous generations are disengaged from these new forms of media and reject the belief that educational opportunities exist within these technologies.

In my assigned chapter, titled “Creative Production,” it addressed the learning opportunities in media production. It discussed how media sharing sites like YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook are places where youth have opportunities to acquire highly technical skills. For example, it mentions the “copy and paste” literacy acquired from making a MySpace page. In order to customize their site, youth learn complicated codes that they copy and paste to their page. The chapter understands that most of our youth engage in these forms of media production for social purposes, but it takes note that there are vocational skills available in these programs.

The problem I had with my chapter and the rest of the book is that it only took a look at the positives of new media and youth learning. It explained the opportunities for media self-expression, but it disregarded the deconstruction of media. My concerns are more focused on the repercussions of media usage, especially social networking sites. Sure, Facebook provides us with an opportunity to “connect” with one another, but is that truly what we use it for? I don’t think so. While too focused on the beneficial aspects of media, the book failed to address that social networking sites reduce personal privacy and encourage user vanity.

Isn’t this true? Why do we honestly use Facebook so frequently? And I don’t buy that people use it to primarily talk with their friends. Facebook has turned into a user-dependent site, where people log in to see what their own selves are up to. Hate to break it to ya Facebook junkie, but nobody cares about the 100-plus photo documentary of your Friday night at LaSalles (Comedian Jim Gaffigan puts it best, our photo-taking addiction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFV_ipnwrpc ).

I could go on, but in the event that most of you have loss interest in this post, I will shut up.

Sorry, this is the last thing I’ll say. I encourage you all to use Facebook less. See if you find that you are happier without it.

On Thursday we addressed the two articles (Street and New London group) and during the discussion, Professor Jaxon mentioned that those in power dictate what literacies are the assumed standards. It reminded me of similar content discussed in a previous politics course of mine- the reality that hidden histories exist, and what we read in the news, in textbooks, and other sources may not be as inclusive or unbiased as we once thought. In elementary/secondary school, we were told that Columbus was a great explorer (unfortunately, our textbooks forget to mention the whole rape and pillage part of his so-called legacy). As time passes and we begin to access “other” sources of information and education (non-mainstream literacies), we understand that educational agendas constantly surround us, and our once romantic notions of nonpartisan, chaste education is replaced by cynicism.

About a month ago, I found myself at my parent’s house being a couch potato, flipping through the limited channels of basic cable. It wasn’t until I came across a PBS airing of the documentary film titled “The Revisionaries” that I arose from my vegetative state. The documentary involved the Texas School Board of Education and their members advancing agendas of Creationism and other religious issues in public education and textbooks. According to the Kino Lorber Corp., the documentary “highlighted how their tactics (Texas School Board members) have had the effect of rewriting key tenets of U.S. democracy and are affecting educational policies at the national level – for generations to come.”

I would recommend this film to everyone, for it asks the viewer to consider the ethical dilemmas of the omission, addition, and re-writing of the literacies we teach.  It exposes the reality that those in power decide what the people learn, regardless of the validity of their reasoning(s). What frustrated me most about the film was that the small amount of board members (about fifteen or so) were given the authority to decide what will be administered to the masses. The film exposes what literacies the Texas School Board of Education values, while it truly asks the viewer to assess the effectiveness of the current educational decision making systems we have in place. Although it is boring at times, it is highly political and thought-provoking, and definitely worth watching (especially for this course).

You can watch the documentary on the PBS website:  http://video.pbs.org/video/2325563509/