Question 1
My sister and I thought it would be a good idea to share an apartment this semester, and at the time this idea came up, I really thought this was a good idea. This was until I realized that I had no say in anything. I have found that it really is easier to just not argue than to fight a losing battle. I enjoy things like my friends and my comfort, and she would rather have the cleanest and neatest room in the entire world. So basically in this social experiment of life, I have found it best to just agree to disagree. I would rather have her not fighting with me over little detail, then to choose my battles and still lose.
Question 2
Mario Savio believes whole heartedly that the students at UC Berkley are facing the same denial of civil rights, as people of color faced in Mississippi. Although he compares issues of race to those of free speech, Savio still believes that no injustice should go unnoticed. The idea that the university being “in the world but not of the world” demonstrates that civil injustice is present, but is not the way of the rest of the world. This speech is directly intended for the ears of the administration, the deniers of the student’s civil liberties.
Question 3
Barak Obama uses his history to establish the credibility of who he is, and what makes him a fair representative of every American. Obama had to defend himself when people in the media questioned his character. Obama uses his family’s history and his story of his upbringing to present a case of what makes him who he is. Obama speaks a very positive message, opposed to Savio’s rant on the problems with the bureaucracy. Savio’s message may have been better received if he was able to draw out the good things of why civil rights are important, rather than compare the university to a dystopia, in a world not of this world.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Question One:
My YOUNGER sister and I participate in a traditional argument over who gets to drive our ten year old Ford Taurus when we come back from our respective universities on winter, spring, and summer break. If we fail to negotiate like civilized people, we both end up stranded at home, if we can’t be bothered to pay $1.25 to ride the metro, usually throwing mean looks at one another. Thank god we usually manage to come to some sort of agreement. After all, we hold the same local values, or maybe we prize them so much they’ve become global values- that of socializing and going to the beach, or even just going for a drive down PCH at sunset. Our level of conflict is certainly then the first level, a conflicting sense of certain statements. When I argue my age would allow me driving privileges, she rebuts that she can’t help that she was born two years after me. When I say that the only reason Sarah would ever succeed in attaining the car and the freedom that comes with it IS her age and THAT is unfair- of course she is the baby of the family and of course completely doted on by my parents, my bothers, and let’s face it- even I cannot always say no to my little sister, stubborn and viciously argumentative as she is. Nevertheless, we realize that sharing a car and giving each other a lift now and again is better than no car at all.
Question Two:
The allusion to Brave New World in Savio’s speech functions in a manner that highlights the fact that citizens cannot participate in a democratic society if the bureaucracy managing the society is “depersonalized [and] unresponsive”. Allowing free speech requires that someone is there is listen, and not only that, to respond as well. Power in the hands of a few threatens the citizen’s right to speak out. Saying that “impersonal bureaucracy is the efficient enemy in a ‘brave New World’” reaffirms the silent, stoic power of a government that is unfettered by the speech of its people. In order to change to take place, Savio explains, higher government officials must respond to the demands, questions, comments, concerns, etc. of the people. That is essentially what Savio is getting at with his allusion to Brave New World.
Questions Three:
In formulating his response around the stasis of cause, Obama is able to assert fact about his history with Wright in a way that explains the reasons he has been associated with the Rev. This allows Obama the opportunity to respond honestly and in a manner that answer various questions his audience might have about their relationship. He also redirects the accusations away from his character in a way- by giving a brief history that includes solid, factual explanations, he is providing claims that are irrefutable (as long as they are honest, certain FACT cannot be rebutted). His both clears his character of any malice as well as explains some of his political and social history, something that would be of interest to both his audience and his rivals.
My YOUNGER sister and I participate in a traditional argument over who gets to drive our ten year old Ford Taurus when we come back from our respective universities on winter, spring, and summer break. If we fail to negotiate like civilized people, we both end up stranded at home, if we can’t be bothered to pay $1.25 to ride the metro, usually throwing mean looks at one another. Thank god we usually manage to come to some sort of agreement. After all, we hold the same local values, or maybe we prize them so much they’ve become global values- that of socializing and going to the beach, or even just going for a drive down PCH at sunset. Our level of conflict is certainly then the first level, a conflicting sense of certain statements. When I argue my age would allow me driving privileges, she rebuts that she can’t help that she was born two years after me. When I say that the only reason Sarah would ever succeed in attaining the car and the freedom that comes with it IS her age and THAT is unfair- of course she is the baby of the family and of course completely doted on by my parents, my bothers, and let’s face it- even I cannot always say no to my little sister, stubborn and viciously argumentative as she is. Nevertheless, we realize that sharing a car and giving each other a lift now and again is better than no car at all.
Question Two:
The allusion to Brave New World in Savio’s speech functions in a manner that highlights the fact that citizens cannot participate in a democratic society if the bureaucracy managing the society is “depersonalized [and] unresponsive”. Allowing free speech requires that someone is there is listen, and not only that, to respond as well. Power in the hands of a few threatens the citizen’s right to speak out. Saying that “impersonal bureaucracy is the efficient enemy in a ‘brave New World’” reaffirms the silent, stoic power of a government that is unfettered by the speech of its people. In order to change to take place, Savio explains, higher government officials must respond to the demands, questions, comments, concerns, etc. of the people. That is essentially what Savio is getting at with his allusion to Brave New World.
Questions Three:
In formulating his response around the stasis of cause, Obama is able to assert fact about his history with Wright in a way that explains the reasons he has been associated with the Rev. This allows Obama the opportunity to respond honestly and in a manner that answer various questions his audience might have about their relationship. He also redirects the accusations away from his character in a way- by giving a brief history that includes solid, factual explanations, he is providing claims that are irrefutable (as long as they are honest, certain FACT cannot be rebutted). His both clears his character of any malice as well as explains some of his political and social history, something that would be of interest to both his audience and his rivals.
Blog Questions
1.
Ever since my younger brother, Matt, received his license, we have constantly bickered over who gets the car and when. I had my license for over two years before he got his, and it was a difficult to adapt to not being able to take the car whenever I pleased. We each think that we have more of a right than the other person to use the car. The major argument is age. I say that I'm older and I should have first choice on when I need it, so long as it doesn't interfere with his work schedule; and Matt says that I've had plenty of time to use the car since he got his license after me. Although we've been legal drivers at the same time for more than two years, we still continue to argue. I wish it were as simple as clarifying our references; however, we place a higher value on our own evidence and thus, the arguing continues. Our level of conflict is 3. We often use "statistics", as in who uses more gas, or generally puts on more miles, to try and convince our mediator (our mother) who deserves the car. We also pull from past experiences, generally negative ones, such as who has a speeding ticket, or who gets more parking tickets (we live right outside Chicago-and parking is almost as bad as Bloomington!) Our arguments will probably never stop unless we both realize how to share and make sacrifices.
2.
The issues of students' rights at Sproul Hall is compared to the issue of civil rights in Mississippi. I believe this analogy made by Savio is closely related to the allusion of Kafka. The rights for both parties are fighting for are the similar and the authorities "dealing" with each situation act similarly as well. Savio describes the universities bureaucracy as "unresponsive" and "depersonalized." This shows that the bureaucracy is suppressing the students' rights through ignoring them. Similarly, the autocrats in power in Mississippi also suppress the powerless majority. These ideas are Kafkaesque in the sense that the bureaucrats have intentionally distorted reality to justify their actions. I think the analogy worked well because it compared a small scale legal rights issue to a larger, more well-known one. I think it would be impossible for the university's administration not to recognize the lack of student rights after their oppression has been compared to that of civil rights. Savio's article would influence me to not only listen to the students, but also make policy changes on behalf of the students' rights. These changes would be made not only because they would be the just thing to do, but also because the university would have to deal with public humiliation for suppressing their students' opinions and legal rights.
3.
Obama uses history to argue for his character because it creates a clearer relationship between his argument and his background. He explains where he comes from and his personal background and how he has worked for his American dream. Jeremiah Wright is Obama's former Reverend who helped Barack grow into the person and the American he is today, despite Wright's few Anti-American slams. By giving this historical background of their relationship, Obama is creating an ethos appeal, not only for himself, but also for the Reverend. This helps the reader better connect with why this man was Obama's Reverend and how much of a positive impact Wright has had on Obama's character. I think that Wells-Barnett and Savio would have furthered the effectiveness of their arguments by constructing strong ethos appeals like Obama had. Their arguments would be questioned less since the audience would have less reason to doubt the authors' credibility or knowledge on their topics.
Ever since my younger brother, Matt, received his license, we have constantly bickered over who gets the car and when. I had my license for over two years before he got his, and it was a difficult to adapt to not being able to take the car whenever I pleased. We each think that we have more of a right than the other person to use the car. The major argument is age. I say that I'm older and I should have first choice on when I need it, so long as it doesn't interfere with his work schedule; and Matt says that I've had plenty of time to use the car since he got his license after me. Although we've been legal drivers at the same time for more than two years, we still continue to argue. I wish it were as simple as clarifying our references; however, we place a higher value on our own evidence and thus, the arguing continues. Our level of conflict is 3. We often use "statistics", as in who uses more gas, or generally puts on more miles, to try and convince our mediator (our mother) who deserves the car. We also pull from past experiences, generally negative ones, such as who has a speeding ticket, or who gets more parking tickets (we live right outside Chicago-and parking is almost as bad as Bloomington!) Our arguments will probably never stop unless we both realize how to share and make sacrifices.
2.
The issues of students' rights at Sproul Hall is compared to the issue of civil rights in Mississippi. I believe this analogy made by Savio is closely related to the allusion of Kafka. The rights for both parties are fighting for are the similar and the authorities "dealing" with each situation act similarly as well. Savio describes the universities bureaucracy as "unresponsive" and "depersonalized." This shows that the bureaucracy is suppressing the students' rights through ignoring them. Similarly, the autocrats in power in Mississippi also suppress the powerless majority. These ideas are Kafkaesque in the sense that the bureaucrats have intentionally distorted reality to justify their actions. I think the analogy worked well because it compared a small scale legal rights issue to a larger, more well-known one. I think it would be impossible for the university's administration not to recognize the lack of student rights after their oppression has been compared to that of civil rights. Savio's article would influence me to not only listen to the students, but also make policy changes on behalf of the students' rights. These changes would be made not only because they would be the just thing to do, but also because the university would have to deal with public humiliation for suppressing their students' opinions and legal rights.
3.
Obama uses history to argue for his character because it creates a clearer relationship between his argument and his background. He explains where he comes from and his personal background and how he has worked for his American dream. Jeremiah Wright is Obama's former Reverend who helped Barack grow into the person and the American he is today, despite Wright's few Anti-American slams. By giving this historical background of their relationship, Obama is creating an ethos appeal, not only for himself, but also for the Reverend. This helps the reader better connect with why this man was Obama's Reverend and how much of a positive impact Wright has had on Obama's character. I think that Wells-Barnett and Savio would have furthered the effectiveness of their arguments by constructing strong ethos appeals like Obama had. Their arguments would be questioned less since the audience would have less reason to doubt the authors' credibility or knowledge on their topics.
No Class Questions
Question 1
My dad and I always argue about his girlfriend. She is really bossy and she picks certain people that she likes on certain days but then usually the next day she picks a new person. If I was the person she liked one day then she will be my enemy the next. She is really selfish and gets upset when my dad and I do things without her and she also gets upset if she is not allowed to be the center of any family argument that we might have between one of my siblings and me or my dad and me. She will get herself into the argument someone by either being a huge bitch (sorry it’s really the only thing that describes her) or by creating a bigger argument with whomever I was originally arguing with. In this case we hold conflicting global values because we do not agree that an argument should stay between father and daughter, or between a sister and a sister—if that is where it began and all others should stay out of it unless they are affected. She holds the belief that if she if is around an argument she is automatically part of it, where I hold the belief that everyone should stay out of it unless it is their fight to fight. I hope this is clear. Possibly it comes down to the fact that she is not a member of the family and therefore she does not have the authority to act as if she were, while she believes that she should have that power. We have conflicting ideas about this, and I assume that this is a globally held belief that a new girlfriend should not put herself into family matters.
Question 2
This argument that “Sproul Hall is to students rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” is similar to the idea in paragraph eleven that the university is “in the world but not of the world” because Sproul Hall is intended to support student rights and be a place where students are able to have their ideas heard, but they are taking away the students rights. The students are trying to express themselves but their freedom is being taken away by not being allowed to protest. Therefore the students can be part of the university but not agreeing with the things the university is trying to accomplish. Savio is trying to advocate for students’ rights and this allusion adds to his claim by bringing a new way of understanding how these students feel to the table. If I were the university administrator I would feel as though he was calling me a hypocrite and I would feel as though things needed to change in order for the students to feel as though they belong in the university.
Question 3
He uses cause because he needs to bring himself back from something that could possibly damage his character. I think he details his history in order for the audience to see that he does not believe in some one the things accused of him and he has the past to prove it. This same strategy could be applied to Savio’s article if he would have given a little bit more about himself and how he has been commited to the things he is giving his speech about in the past. That makes it seem like he will continue to fight for these things, as he is currently doing when he gives the speech, until they have been righted.
My dad and I always argue about his girlfriend. She is really bossy and she picks certain people that she likes on certain days but then usually the next day she picks a new person. If I was the person she liked one day then she will be my enemy the next. She is really selfish and gets upset when my dad and I do things without her and she also gets upset if she is not allowed to be the center of any family argument that we might have between one of my siblings and me or my dad and me. She will get herself into the argument someone by either being a huge bitch (sorry it’s really the only thing that describes her) or by creating a bigger argument with whomever I was originally arguing with. In this case we hold conflicting global values because we do not agree that an argument should stay between father and daughter, or between a sister and a sister—if that is where it began and all others should stay out of it unless they are affected. She holds the belief that if she if is around an argument she is automatically part of it, where I hold the belief that everyone should stay out of it unless it is their fight to fight. I hope this is clear. Possibly it comes down to the fact that she is not a member of the family and therefore she does not have the authority to act as if she were, while she believes that she should have that power. We have conflicting ideas about this, and I assume that this is a globally held belief that a new girlfriend should not put herself into family matters.
Question 2
This argument that “Sproul Hall is to students rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” is similar to the idea in paragraph eleven that the university is “in the world but not of the world” because Sproul Hall is intended to support student rights and be a place where students are able to have their ideas heard, but they are taking away the students rights. The students are trying to express themselves but their freedom is being taken away by not being allowed to protest. Therefore the students can be part of the university but not agreeing with the things the university is trying to accomplish. Savio is trying to advocate for students’ rights and this allusion adds to his claim by bringing a new way of understanding how these students feel to the table. If I were the university administrator I would feel as though he was calling me a hypocrite and I would feel as though things needed to change in order for the students to feel as though they belong in the university.
Question 3
He uses cause because he needs to bring himself back from something that could possibly damage his character. I think he details his history in order for the audience to see that he does not believe in some one the things accused of him and he has the past to prove it. This same strategy could be applied to Savio’s article if he would have given a little bit more about himself and how he has been commited to the things he is giving his speech about in the past. That makes it seem like he will continue to fight for these things, as he is currently doing when he gives the speech, until they have been righted.
3 qquestions
1. My ex-room mate (who is still my best friend) and I constantly disagreed about the upkeep of our apartment. At first the arguments centered around which tasks each of us were responsible for in terms of cleaning and organizing. For instance, if a dirty dish was left out, it was the responsibility of the person who used the dish to clean it. Or, if one person made a mess, they ought to clean it up. These initial arguments centered around the first point of policy conflict: the argument of fact. We could never quite agree on who contributed more to the mess, therefore we could never agree on who should clean what. Even when this argument was settled by doling out a legitimate division of the work, the point of conflict then became the fact that my roommate did not want to clean at all. His justification for this is that cleanliness is not necessarily important to him. He can live with a little mess as long as it doesn’t get in his way. For me, however, I feel that a clean space and clean utilities and utensils enables me to stay focused on other things like schoolwork. So, after the point of conflict between us being a confusion on the facts of who used what and who needs to clean what, the point of conflict became a difference in values. He felt very little need to clean and stay clean, whereas I felt that cleaning and staying clean is a very important factor in being productive. So, our different values on household upkeep revolved around the point of policy conflict of differing global values. The nature of this fifth point of policy conflict is such that it is very difficult to resolve it, as one or both parties must compromise their values in order to reach a solution. Therefore, our solution was to live in separate places the next year.
2. Savio’s main point in making this analogy between the civil rights movement and the students’ rights issue at Berkley is to show the universal nature of the bureaucratic mindset, which operates on the idea that everything is fine the way it is and change or push for change is a mere disruption or annoyance to the current environment. He makes an allusion to Kafka’s texts in which a common theme involves people trying to navigate through a world in which change is impossible and the status quo must be maintained. These stories often focus on a main character who is hurt by and feels the hardships of this bureaucratic environment. Thus Savio’s allusion to Kafka’s writing works on the level of relating those hopeless emotions of the burden of bureaucracy to the reader, whom he is trying to convince that bureaucracy, whether in Mississippi or Berkley, is a harmful thing. In other words, he uses Kafka’s negative portrayal of a bureaucratic and static world to frame the situation of student rights at Berkley in the same portrayal.
3. Obama’s point in discussing the cause of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, rather than the fact of the relationship, the procedure of the relationship, or the value of that relationship, is so that the reader can understand why Obama would associate with a person with such radical views. While valuing the relationship as good or bad would help Obama either distance himself from or locate himself near the reverend’s political views, explaining the cause of the relationship to the reader helps the reader understand why he had relations with him, but still allows him to distance himself from a polarized political viewpoint.
2. Savio’s main point in making this analogy between the civil rights movement and the students’ rights issue at Berkley is to show the universal nature of the bureaucratic mindset, which operates on the idea that everything is fine the way it is and change or push for change is a mere disruption or annoyance to the current environment. He makes an allusion to Kafka’s texts in which a common theme involves people trying to navigate through a world in which change is impossible and the status quo must be maintained. These stories often focus on a main character who is hurt by and feels the hardships of this bureaucratic environment. Thus Savio’s allusion to Kafka’s writing works on the level of relating those hopeless emotions of the burden of bureaucracy to the reader, whom he is trying to convince that bureaucracy, whether in Mississippi or Berkley, is a harmful thing. In other words, he uses Kafka’s negative portrayal of a bureaucratic and static world to frame the situation of student rights at Berkley in the same portrayal.
3. Obama’s point in discussing the cause of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, rather than the fact of the relationship, the procedure of the relationship, or the value of that relationship, is so that the reader can understand why Obama would associate with a person with such radical views. While valuing the relationship as good or bad would help Obama either distance himself from or locate himself near the reverend’s political views, explaining the cause of the relationship to the reader helps the reader understand why he had relations with him, but still allows him to distance himself from a polarized political viewpoint.
This was harder than I Thought it was Going to Be.
Question 1
After buying my car this summer my friend and I could not agree on whose car was better. Now these cars were very different. Mine a 1990 Volvo wagon, his a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse. We went back and forth about how his was faster and mine could carry more. Mine was more fuel efficient his looked better. We could not come to an agreement because we hold different local values about what makes a good car. He thinks what makes a good car is its looks and speed, and I think that for an everyday car practicality is the most important. We ended up agreeing to disagree on which was better. And decided that mine was better for a road trip, and his would be better in a race.
Question 2
The analogy “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” works together with the allusion to Kafkaesque to help illustrate that the situation at Berkeley is also constraining. The analogy is there to illustrate that the student’s rights are not being recognized by the Berkeley administration contained in Sproul Hall, just as civil rights were not recognized for all in Mississippi. This was a rather bold statement that was trying to show how important student rights were and also how difficult it can be to have rights be recognized by an authority. This is where Kafkaesque comes in, that difficulty with the bureaucracy to accomplish change. Kafkaesque is a term in reference to Franz Kafka, a writer who often satirized the absurdity of bureaucracy. Savio uses this term to help introduce his claim that change within a bureaucracy is nearly impossible. They work together to show how difficult change can be. If I were an administrator with authority to make policy, I would try and meet with the student leaders and discuss options.
Question 3
Arguing on the stasis of cause is a good way not to alienate most people. People in general like to get down to the bottom of things. From the little kid who asks why, to the scientists in the lab who come up with fancy ways of asking why, we all seem to want to know why. Now in this case when Reverend Wright said these things most of the media did not ask why, they mostly said that he hated America and questioned Obama’s character. Obama could not defend the statements because the fact was that they were inflammatory. But rather if he explained the cause of the frustration of African Americans and other minorities he can help everyone have a better understanding on where the other is coming from. This creates an ethos of being a mediator between the races. Showing that he is not a hateful man but one who wants to understand and work with one another.
Arguing on the stasis of cause also helped Savio seem less a disestablishment radical, and more of a person for a better functioning government. He does this by telling us the steps he has gone through with the administration and how his ideas for change were blocked by the poor functioning of bureaucracy.
After buying my car this summer my friend and I could not agree on whose car was better. Now these cars were very different. Mine a 1990 Volvo wagon, his a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse. We went back and forth about how his was faster and mine could carry more. Mine was more fuel efficient his looked better. We could not come to an agreement because we hold different local values about what makes a good car. He thinks what makes a good car is its looks and speed, and I think that for an everyday car practicality is the most important. We ended up agreeing to disagree on which was better. And decided that mine was better for a road trip, and his would be better in a race.
Question 2
The analogy “Sproul Hall is to student rights as Mississippi is to civil rights” works together with the allusion to Kafkaesque to help illustrate that the situation at Berkeley is also constraining. The analogy is there to illustrate that the student’s rights are not being recognized by the Berkeley administration contained in Sproul Hall, just as civil rights were not recognized for all in Mississippi. This was a rather bold statement that was trying to show how important student rights were and also how difficult it can be to have rights be recognized by an authority. This is where Kafkaesque comes in, that difficulty with the bureaucracy to accomplish change. Kafkaesque is a term in reference to Franz Kafka, a writer who often satirized the absurdity of bureaucracy. Savio uses this term to help introduce his claim that change within a bureaucracy is nearly impossible. They work together to show how difficult change can be. If I were an administrator with authority to make policy, I would try and meet with the student leaders and discuss options.
Question 3
Arguing on the stasis of cause is a good way not to alienate most people. People in general like to get down to the bottom of things. From the little kid who asks why, to the scientists in the lab who come up with fancy ways of asking why, we all seem to want to know why. Now in this case when Reverend Wright said these things most of the media did not ask why, they mostly said that he hated America and questioned Obama’s character. Obama could not defend the statements because the fact was that they were inflammatory. But rather if he explained the cause of the frustration of African Americans and other minorities he can help everyone have a better understanding on where the other is coming from. This creates an ethos of being a mediator between the races. Showing that he is not a hateful man but one who wants to understand and work with one another.
Arguing on the stasis of cause also helped Savio seem less a disestablishment radical, and more of a person for a better functioning government. He does this by telling us the steps he has gone through with the administration and how his ideas for change were blocked by the poor functioning of bureaucracy.
Questions
Question 1
My mom and I used to argue about a friend that I was very close to. He was someone who got himself into trouble often and my mom didn’t think that I should be associated with him. However, he had always been loyal and respectful to me and I was not going to budge when it came to our friendship. According to Kaufers levels I would have to say that this ranked at level four. My mom and I disagreed on what was more important when in came to judging friends. For her, having a good reputation and staying out of trouble was more important than my value on being a loyal and trustworthy friend. We were able to resolve the issue because she agreed that as long as I wasn’t participating in the same behavior as my friend, she could learn to accept him.
Question 2
Mario Savio’s speech argues for students to have the right to speak their minds on campus. According to Savio, the university doesn’t allow students to express their political views and it is unwilling to move with the changes taking place in the country. The analogy of Sproul Hall to Mississippi is related to the statement of “in the world, but not of the world” because like those against the civil rights movement in Mississippi, the administrators at Berkeley are resisting change. By saying that the university is in the world, but not of it is implying that although it exists, it is not an active part of a growing and changing world. The university would rather silence its students than hear their opposing ideals. If I were the administrator, I would try to allow the students a chance to have a voice, but also make them aware that there are rules that the university is obligated to follow.
Question 3
Through discussing the history of this country as well as his own history, Obama is making himself relatable to every American in one way or another. He says he is the son of a black and a white and has family from every race and hue. This is somehow connecting him racially to every person in this country. He also talks about being a grandson to a veteran and a woman who knows what it is like to have a husband away at war. This helps him relate to a country full of voters who are in the military or loved ones who have or are fighting. By using history and the stasis of cause, Obama is connecting himself to voters and building his credibility as someone who is living the American dream. The history he gives establishes him as more than simply a black American. It allows him to take the issue with Reverend Wright and turn it from an issue of black race or white race and make it an issue of the human race as a whole. This strategy could help Wells and Savio because it can make them more relatable to all audience members, not just a single race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
