American Studies: 1920s (12)

This article talks about how French Officials were cought illegally dowloading music, which shows how the internet is in most of our lives all the time. Bac kin the 1920s the only way to hear music would have been to listen to the radio and you certainly could not steal it. One major problem with the internet is security, it is much easier for people, even presidential officials, to steal music, while back then people were lucky just to hear their favorite songs when they want. Quesation: Do you think we are better off with being able to buy music on the internet, even if we can illegally download music, or do you think that we would be better off going back to the 1920s style selling whole CDs? Why or why not?

I think that buying music on the internet has advantages and disadvantages. It's certainly more convenient, which inspires more people to purchase music. Also, you don't need to buy an entire album, so both the company and the consumer save/make money. Selling CDs is good and bad as well, for one thing, people can't illegally buy CDs as easily as they could download music. But, buying CDs isn't always convenient and why waste the money, music, or packaging when you can buy the one song you like for 1.29? Part of coping with these problems is understanding that technology and its advancements must be dealt with so that they fulfill their role, but don't cause unnecessary trouble.

I agree with Lia. Buying music on the internet has major advantages for the consumers. They can buy one song instead of a whole bunch of songs. People also don't have to go out to the stores and pay there, they can do it in the comfort of their own home. Downloading music from the internet is also much more quick, the songs can be downloaded within seconds. It's probably also cheaper to buy on the internet since it doesnt involve buying the CD, case, and other items that go with it. People can also steal CDs from people, but nobody can steal what they downloaded from the computer. There's a few negatives for the companies since thousands of people do steal music, but the music is so overprice that it doesn't really effect them to much and will still get a lot of money. Overall, I think it's a good idea.

After the KKK dimmed down in the 1870s, the group reached their peak in the 1920s at 4 million members. Members were elected as state representatives and raised racism in the US. This relates to today because it shows the hate that can be put on minorities. Blacks had to fight for equal rights (against all of the hate such as the KKK), just like how the gay/bi/transgendered people of our today now have to fight for their rights. Why do you think so many people in the 1920s joined the KKK?

I believed that so many people joined the KKK in the 1920's because it was right after WWI. There were many people scared of immigrants, which led to more racism and prejudices. In the 1920's, people associate anyone who foreign or looked different as an enemy and someone who could be potentially dangerous. Also, there were still a lot of racism towards African Americans from previous years. As the KKK got to be more popular and started being more like a family, it drew a lot more people in. They wanted to feel apart of something special and good, and for many people the KKK was it.

This article is about the debate over if creationism should be taught along side of evolution. This debate has been going on ever since the Scopes Trial or "Monkey Trial" in 1925 when a man was found guilty for teaching evolution to his class. Some school districts are making it mandatory to teach both sides of view while other school distracts are teaching their children that some intelligent design created the world. Many parents are for teaching both sides but many scientist, teachers, and important authority figures are against it. Some critics of teaching both sides of views say it's to confusing for the students while the people for it say that evolution is a theory and not a fact. Do you think that both sides should be taught? Do you think that the battle between creationism and evolution will ever be solved? What do you think the school systems should do?

This article is about jazz music and the rise of popular music in the 20s. People flooded in to watch dance marathons and music concerts. Everyone took a liking to music as their favorite musicians would be releasing new songs in jazz . This is related to todays pop culture as people are still doing the same thing. And it remains the same today as people are still watching concerts and buying music from their favorite artists. Although the music is different today than the 20s, in the 20s the music was different to their previous style. Do you think music can ever be stopped from developing and changing?

Music will never stop developing and changing because interests change and a lot of the times music is influenced by something which impacted one's life. Every different artist has their own unique style which they will use to create their own music. Even though famous jazz composers such as Duke Ellington influenced many people, there's always going to be slight differences in the music they each create, thus changing music ever so slightly. Every now and then, there's going to be a new artist which is going to become very popular, and because interests change, people's interests will most likely change into a new artist who has created a new genre of music. The 1920s was a time of change and challenging the traditional ways, just like people do today with music.

Great question Haig. I agree with Lingene, music will never stop changing due to it's artist's diverse lives and stories. Events in their lives shape many artists music and is what makes it great, and since everyone has their own experiences, many artists have their own style of music. Political events also influence music and topics in music, the group immortal technique sometimes rap about whats going on in the world, so that also influences it. In general as things change in the world and new trends appear, music will develop in different and unique ways, as society progresses.

This article describes a recent controversy that came up in Kentucky over whether or not evolution should be taught in schools. Information about evolution is going to be on a standardized test, so teachers argue that they have to teach it. One superintendent is troubled by this because he feels that the schools are teaching evolution as a fact, when really it is a theory. Although many schools say they teach other theories of creation in addition to evolution, these theories aren't required for tests, so many students do not learn them or get to understand other ideas. This connects to popular culture in the 1920's because this debate is similar to the Scopes Trial. In the Scopes Trial, evolution was taught in schools for one of the first times. Many people thought this was biased information and that it shouldn't be taught because it went against their religious beliefs. How do you think schools should teach these concepts? Do you think people can learn from the Scopes trial when deciding what to do for the Kentucky school system?

I think that schools should teach both ideas of evolution and creation from an unbiased point of view if they want to teach kids this. If they don't want to have to teach kids both ideas, then they shouldn't teach either of the topics. I think that if people are so concerned with mixing state and church, they should just take out all factors that could be controversial. It is not fair to teach evolution to people that believe in creation, and vice versa, but it is fair to teach the general idea of both so that kids can have a general idea of both. I think that teachers need to be clear that both of these topics are theories not facts, and that they have the freedom to believe in which ever one they want. When it comes to personal beliefs of a teacher, they have to stay unbiased. I think that the Scopes trial had its rights and wrongs, and the Kentucky school system should not necessarily model after it.

I agree with Annie. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and by teaching just one belief, and not specifying that it is not necessarily a fact, may offend some who believe in something else. They should either teach both as theories, or neither at all. Teaching just one, and even specifying that it is a theory, is still unfair to the other view. Since everyones opinion is equal both should be shared. And again I agree with Annie, I believe teachers should specify that they have the freedom to believe in which they want and share it in an unbiased way, regardless of their view on the matter. This is the issue with mixing church and state, with church everyone has their own beliefs, but the law everyone has to obey the same laws.

This article explains the migration of African Americans in the 1920's from the south to the north in search of economic prosperity. After WWI, many soldiers, both black and white, had lost their lives during the war. But, because of this misfortune, jobs opened up in the north. Many Blacks moved to the north so that they could get industry jobs. Marcus Garvey organized the UNIA (Universal Negro Improvement Association) which helped to create the success of African Americans through operating grocery stores, a newspaper, restaurants, clothing factories and printing plants. How much of an impact do you think the UNIA had on African Americans to help improve them? What troubles do you think they faced during the great migration?

I dont think the the UNIA had that much of an impact on the black southerns. I think that ot was more of a helping hand to those that actually decieded to pack up everything and move to a new place, and basically start all over from scratch. The UNIA seems like it was just there as a means of support to help the migrating blacks get started on the right foot. Some of the troubles the migrating blacks faced were probably a lot of racism and a lot of business owners that didn't want to give the Jobs to African Americans. Also they probably faced a lot of hate from people criticizing their new artistic culture and new ways of living.

I think the UNIA had a large impact on black southeners. Blacks had been completely surpressed by society then suddenly there's a corporation that's going to give them reasonable jobs and means to start a solid lifestyle. I think the troubles blacks faced during the great migration was primarily racism. Obviously, most whites wouldn't want blacks to take up their jobs and leave none for them. So they must've dealt with loads of descrimination. I wonder if the UNIA was founded by blacks. It would be even more of a step if it was founded by whites because that would show whites willing to help blacks, something very rare in that time.

During the 1920's many women were begining to experiment with cosmetics, including different races. The cosmetic industry was largely built by women, even though often times they had little business experience. Several women, who made the cosmetic industry what it is today, made sells pitches that were personal by going door-to-door and home based mail orders. This transformed the industry into a productive and advertising mass market. Make-up would largley be percieved as a way for women to express individuality after this success. There was contraversy about the way advertisments were were shown, giving the impression that if you want to look beautiful, you need to buy makeup. In connection to today, makeup is a large part of the fashion industry and is used as a way of self expression. This is the same as the 1920's in the sense that during the 20's people were challenging social norms and expressing themselves. Do you think the way makeup is advertised today is overmarketed and overglorified? Why or why not.

Like the 1920's advertisers today do give people the impression that, you need make up in order to look beautiful. Since more people today go to purchase make-up, the advertising targeted towards makeup expands. People who buy make-up today consider it almost as a "must have". The advertising today opens a wide vareity of choices for different kinds of make-up, so yes industries do overmarket makeup.

This article goes into detail of whether or not women are truly making less money than men in the same job. From data that has been collected, this generalization has been proven to be true, but after further research it was found that this information may not be completely accurate. This article says that when taking part in these surveys, job titles are very general. The example used in this article was that a surgeon and a nurse could both say that they have the same job title, when in reality they have very different jobs, and therefore have different salaries. For the most part it is true that women make less than men, but it may not be nearly as bad as some people suspect it to be. During the 1920's this issue was something that people fought for. Many women spoke out against business, and their wages. The 1920's was a time period where many people worked for equality between genders and races. There are still many issues around today that were left unresolved during the 1920's. Why do you think that women, on average, make less money than men? Do you think that women made less money in the 20's for the same or similar reasons? Why?

In the 1920's women were thought to be incompetent to work in jobs outside the house. People at that time used the stereotype that women could not do the same job as a men. This stereotype also plays a big part in the world today. Buisnesses today are more likely to hire men than women, simply based on the stereotype that men can do a better job.

This article is about Tiger Woods transforming the sport of golf with his astonishing success and becoming one of America's greatest athletes. Before, golf was mostly a white game, played by white people, but Tiger Woods was the one to change it. With his huge successes, the golf audiences has grown immensely. This connects to the 1920's because in that time period, there was too a person who changed a sport, Babe Ruth. Baseball had begun to lose popularity and many people didn't attend games much, until Babe Ruth began to attract millions of fans back because of his talent and high success. Baseball once again became a extremely popular sport, which has carried through to today, just like Tiger Woods with golf. Do you think sports will stay popular forever, or do you think sometime in the future a new sort of entertainment will become the new popular culture?

I think sports will always be a part of society. They have been around since the ancient Greeks and Romans, and have only increased in worldwide popularity. Competition is what makes humans human and what helps to define American culture. Therefore I believe that the passion and drive for sports will only increase in the future because America is all about pushing limits and succeeding your potential. I do not believe any other form of entertainment will surpass the popularity of sports because if anything new sports will be invented and more people will participate in them. Also, a new revolutionary athlete could come along and change the outlook of a certain sports completely just like Tiger Woods and Babe Ruth. In addition, sports are a huge part of the economy because people buy equipment, souvenirs, attire, and major league teams sell millions of tickets a year. So unless the next big thing in entertainment can also benefit the economy this much I do not see the sports empire being overcome.

I believe that sports will stay forever. There might not be the same sports as today as there will be in 20 years, but sports will still be a big part of our society. Sports improve the economy through the income it brings in with professional sporting events. It is not like a new form of entertainment will come along a take sports place in society. Jack had a great point in saying sports have been here for thousands of years, so this has proven that they are not gonna go away any time soon.

This article talked about how women got the right to vote, which pretty much rejuvenated the women of America. Because of this feeling of power as the article describes the women started to feel powerful and felt that they deserved to live independent and not be thought of as an object that should sit around the house all day and cook and clean. The women wanted real paying jobs now along with respect for working those jobs. A group of northern urban women actually started the trend of being flappers, they started working as accountants and working in department stores on the floor helping women costumers pick out clothes. This relates to the present day because lots more women now a days are graduating college with higher degrees then some men. Also now you see more women with high positions within big businesses, also you see women doing jobs that in the 1920's would be only for men. Do you think it is good for society that women are sharing jobs with men? Do you think that men in the 1920's became discouraged when women started standing up and demanding jobs outside the house?why?

I do believe that men and women should be sharing jobs. Both women and men do equally as good a job, and it doesn't matter who's doing it. I believe that Men were stupid in the 20s and before because they believed that women were inferior, and they couldn't do the same jobs that men could. During the 20s, men were definetely discouraged with women getiing jobs. Since they were biased and didn't know better, they probably thought that women weren't doing as good a job.

This article talks about the evolution of the mastercard. The MasterCard started in 1966 when a group of banks created a member-owned association that later became MasterCard. In 1968 the company extended its presence to Mexico, Japan and Europe, marking the start of its commitment to becoming the leading global payments network. Through the 1980s, MasterCard continued to build on this trust, bringing the advantages of electronic payments to new regions and markets around the globe. The next decade saw electronic payments become even more closely integrated into peoples' lives, a behavioral shift MasterCard capitalized on by developing new technologies that improved convenience, speed and efficiency. This is relatively similar to the installments people had to pay during the 1920's. It allowed people to access extravagant things that they could not afford at a certain time, but had a broad range of time to pay of what was due. Just like the credit or installment plan, Mastercard reached out to other countries and made certain items attainable electronically, do to their new credit card. Therefore, now people have the chance to obtain things but now inconvenience since electronically. Since Mastercard is across the world, how can they make their connections greater and stronger with their customers. Also how can they reach out to other countries? - Sorry Hongsen and Mr.Corrigan, i initially posted about the history of the internet yesterday morning but evidently it didnt appear so i just did another one.

The rise of Arts in the 1920s mostly had to do with the radio. News could be sent around the world in seconds. Almost anyone could listen to music or to a sports game on the radio. Companies started to advertise on the radio to get their products known. The Jazz Age was a time of prosperity when many rose to the top and took a hold on success. The music from today's culture is very similar to what it was in the 1920s. All jazz and Christmas music is base off of what was created in the 1920s. What is the main reason why some people became extremely rich during the 1920s.

People were able to become rich for many reasons. One reason that connects to your article is the use of the radio. Big companies were able to advertise their products to many listeners all over the country through the use of the radio. Musicians, like Ryan said, gained popularity by being able to broadcast their music over millions of listeners, which then translated to more wealth. What are some strategies companies took to advertise their products on the radio/else where? What are strategies used to advertise things today in everyday life?

I think people became extremely rich during this era was because of Jazz in music. At this point in history theres a burst in entertainment, and people had to make investments in them, in order for them to be funded and occuring. Therefore, i think people got more than there money back when they invested into creative entertainment such as Jazz.

This article talks about how Vevo, a music video web site and is owned by Universal Music Group, Sony Music Enteratinment, and Abu Dhabi Media Company, is planning to create its own cable channel or make deals with existing companies. Vevo has gained huge popularity and steams 827 million videos a month to around 57 million Americans. Vevo's goal is to show music videos and other kinds of pop-culture through the TV like MTV did in the earlier days. Showing things on the television is similar to how information is passed along by radio in the 1920's. TV's is one of the many home appliances that everybody in America has, just like how homes in the 1920's all had radios. By streaming their videos, Vevo will be able to broadcast to a larger audience than ever before. How can Vevo broadcast their videos to a larger audience? How would this way of broadcasting their videos to a larger audience beneficial?

As this article talks about, Vevo's next step is to expand their broadcasting through the television. Another way they could do this is to use social networking sites to promote themselves and their songs. Because Vevo promotes Music video's I think it would be most beneficial to them on TV because of advertisements and sponsors that they could make money off of. They would also benefit because artists want their videos on Vevo so they could pay Vevo to air their video on national television and this would benefit both parties. Finally, the people would benefit off Vevo because it spreads new forms of music and songs which often spread new views on social and cultural problems in America. This visual spread of music would make it more clear, the message that artist want to send to listeners and could change many views on America. This channel could also begin new trends in pop culture if they promote a new artist or genre of music.

Well, the site seems like a creative way to stream music, and its accessing over millions of day through the internet but in order for it to be very popular, i think the next step is to broadcast it on television. Although the web is the primary source of videos and what not, if they approached television channel that would give them that extra publicity and exposure needed to gain popularity. Also rather than just streaming videos they could broadcast just music for example maybe on radio (xm radio). This will increase their audience by a tremendous amount because your approaching all users of technology (radio, T.V. and internet).

This article's focus is how more and more children between the ages of 9 and 11 are being taught about the power and influence of advertisers. In this day and age, ads are almost everywhere in our lives. These children are being taught how to tell what the advertiser wants and what is being advertised; basically the advertiser's motives. In doing this, people hope that they will later be better able to resist the temptation of advertisements and be less likely to succumb to the allure of the ads. There is now a media literacy course at many schools, intent on teaching the children how to analyze different methods of persuasion that ads use. It is really interesting to see that the way advertisers try and sell you something you didn't think you needed the basis for almost all advertisements today, can be traced back to the 1920s when Otto Rohwedder invented a bread slicer. He began to speculate how to make someone desire something they did not need. Soon, advertising would become huge, using both persuasiveness and buyer anxiety and fear to sell the prduct. Do you think that we as a society are too easily influenced by advertising? Have there been instances when you have bought something because you thought you needed it, but then later after buying it realized it was useless?

Yes America is defiantly very easily influenced by advertisment. But it isn't necessarily a bad thing because without people giving into ads they wouldn't spend their money and the economy would have no circulation. An example is infomercials, they always make products look so easy to use and such a nessecisty for daily life, and that's why people buy cause Americans will do anything to make their lives easier. Yes I have bought an item before because I thought it was a necessary item and because all my friends had it. But now that there are so many new models of it, I look back on it and notice I really didn't have to have it when it first came out.

I think that are very easily influenced by ads, but I think that people have definitely become more resistant than most people think. I think there are certain types of ads that we subconsciously just filter out and say that it is unnecessary, like most infomercials. I think that commercials and ads in person have much more of an influence on people. I think that people are the biggest advertisers like wearing a certain brand of clothing or listening to a certain type of music. People conform without knowing it, they buy what they are comfortable with and what they know. There have been times where I have bought something because "everyone" had it, and I felt the need to conform, but after buying the product it wasn't all it cracked up to be. I think that people are too used to conforming and going with what we see.

This article talks about how Facebook is revolutionizing politics and being used as propaganda and advertisement to help build support. For instance, Egypt used it to form a labor strike and Saudi Arabia used Facebook to organize a group of hunger strikers to fight the imprisonment of political opponents. In America, Facebook foreshadowed the presidential election because Barack Obama gained over 3 million Facebook followers which was more than anyone else. He used Facebook to reach out and educate these people about the election which motivated more people especially young voters to vote. In addition the Italian president made a racial remark about Obama on Facebook which caused an uproar and actually gave Obama more supporters due to the unprecedented remarks. in addition, Obama gave himself an edge by making a Facebook page before anyone else. This meant that he could gain supporters earlier and they would be less likely to change their minds because they already have incentive to vote for him. Facebook has a huge influence on society and especially politics. Similarly, in the 1920's new inventions such as the radio became comparably as popular as Facebook because they revolutionized how people heard news, sports, music, and learned about advertisements. People all across America listened to the radio and were told about who won what election instantly. People could learn about politics and presidential candidates just by listening to the radio. It revolutionized how people acquired and opinionated about the news because they could directly learn about it rather than from an unreliable neighbor or someone else. This also got more people voting because they became more involved and connected to the elections. How would the election of 1920 have been different if they had the same technology we do today? What do you think the best way for acquiring information and forming an opinion about politics is? why?

The radio already impacted how elections a lot by allowing information to spread quickly, but if in the 1920s they had the internet, elections would have been easily turned around. No longer will any candidates have to spend a lot of time going to a certain place and talking in front of everybody, they can actually keep their followers updated all the time in order to keep followers from voting for another candidate. I think the best way to obtain information about politics is actually be where it's taking place. When things are said over the internet, radio or news, information can be distorted to sound good, even though things might have gone poorly. Making a wall post could be written by anyone and can to written in a way to please followers, and not actually telling them the truth. Although the 1920s are a time of prosperity and technological advancement, there are some downsides to them, which people usually tend to overlook and not notice them.

This site gives a lot of information on the 1920s and the culture back then. It talks about how the economy went through good times at the beginning, but then went into the Great Depression. It also talks about how many movements such as the Harlem Renaissance began. Also it was a period of art and entertainment such as sport outings. writing and literature was also big back then. This can relate to todays culture because even though the Economy is trying to get better, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Today also is a time of entertainment and Sports are not only seen in the stadiums, but they can also been seen on TV and heard on the radio. There are many types of writers today who were influenced by the works of the 1920s. Was pop culture today influenced by the 1920s? How?

There are many ways in which today's pop culture has been influenced by the 1920s. Current pop culture relies almost singularly on the media; that is to say technologies that allow broadcasting to people across the nation. A great number these technologies were invented and first used in the 1920s. Had these technologies not been invented, current pop culture would have an entirely new feel and would run off of an entirely new aspect of technology. The biggest influence on popular culture that the 1920s had was in music. The influence of jazz stayed strong and has carried through the decades, evolving to remain a very popular genre of music. If it had not been for the jazz musicians of the '20s, jazz would not have become the huge part of the musical world that it is today.

In the 1920's, movies began to become more enhanced. In the mid 1920's, sound began to be incorporated into movies, and soon technicolor followed. Though silent films still remained fairly dominate, by the late 20's silent films were replaced slowly with new, colorful films. This connects to our culture today, because we're going through a similar transition right now. Two-dimensional movies are still widely played throughout America, but slowly we're seeing more and more movies come out in IMAX and 3-D. We're becoming more advanced in our movie making (and in other aspects of our culture as well) and we're putting the old ways of showing film behind us, just like they did in the late 20's. I don't know if 2-D movies will be wiped out as quickly as silent films were by talkies and technicolor, but it's a definite possibility. Do you think that the two-dimensional movies will eventually be wiped out by 3-D movies like the silent films were by the talkies? Why or why not?

I don't think that 2D movies will be completely wiped out by 3D, or 4D for the matter, majorly due to the controversy behind 3D movies. 3D and 4D movies are more expensive to make, and therefore to see, give some people headaches and other medical difficulties, and change the overall experience in a theater. Some people think that the extra $3 for a 3D or 4D movie isn't worth it because often, the different dimensions don't change the movie. The biggest underlying factor though, is changing the experience. As you said Emma, movies sparked during the 1920's; that's pretty long ago! Changing something this significant about the theater experience is tweaking something that might not need tweaking. I think its also interesting that if movies were to change dimensions, some people may stop coming due to medical reasons, or not wanting to pay the extra money for a miniscule difference. Also, some people don't like the feeling of worrying about what's going to pop out at them, or if they are going to be sprayed by water. 4D should remain at amusement parks, but 3D; that's debatable.

I think there is a definite possibility of 3-D movies wiping out 2-D movies, but only if a few things change. Like Lia said, many people view the extra few dollars needed to see a movie in 3-D as too much money. I myself have turned down seeing a movie in 3-D plainly because I didn't have or was unwilling to spend the extra money. I feel like if the price went down, many more people would be inclined to see it. The other reason that people decline 3-D is because the glasses are very uncomfortable. For me anyway, they always cut into the side of my head behind my ears, and are an absolute pain to wear if I am wearing my usual prescription glasses underneath. I understand that these glasses are the only way to view the movie in 3-D and so they cannot find an alternative, but purely making the glasses more comfortable to wear would increase viewings of these movies. However even if these problems are resolved, there is no guarantee that 2-D will become obsolete. I think that some people will try and stay true to 2-D movies, while many others will jump immediately to this new technology.

This article was about the advancement of girls' hockey and some of the gender biases incorporated with it. Girls' hockey has advanced significantly from not existing thirty years ago, to becoming an olympic sport today. Along with this, girls' hockey was not as competitive as boys' hockey was because it was a belief that girls couldn't advance with hockey. But, although the sport has grown for girls, it still carries some stereotypes and expectations of the different genders. In our 1920's unit, we learned about people breaking social norms and expectations, similar to how girls changed the portrayal of hockey. Both women in the 1920's and women and girls today challenged the role of women in society by taking action and changing the role of women in society. Also, in both the 1920's and girls' hockey today, there are different opinions on how girls should be treated, and their equality with boys in the sport. Should girls' hockey be treaty as its own sport, or a branch of boys' hockey? Can genders share roles in today's society?

I think that girls hockey should be a branch off of boys hockey in some ways but not in others. First off, it is also hockey so they should be grouped together, but it should not be a branch off of boys hockey because it is still different in some ways. I think that genders can share roles because they are not "less smart" or anything that prevents them from preforming at the same level as the other, it all depends on the individual person and should not be categorized by their gender.

This article sums up some of the effects of Jazz music, which was popular in the 1920's, on various aspects of society. It was an integral part of pop culture back then, and sometimes the 1920's were referred to as the jazz age. Jazz started off sounding primitive, but as it spreads around the country it diversified greatly making it appealing to everyone in some way or another. Jazz effected the literary world, influencing poetry and writing. It also effected fashion, and elevated the status of african americans during the time period. Its distinct african american culture helped counter stereotypes and other asssumptions about african americans. It connects to pop culture today because we have many things in popculture that are just as influential. Stars such as justin Bieber and Gaga influence fashion lines and other aspects of pop culture just as jazz age. Question: Can you think of any other kinds of music/popculture that effected as many aspects of society and as importantly as jazz did?

I think it's really interesting how so many different areas of life were influenced by a new style of music! I think other styles of music have also been this influential. The creation of rock and roll or pop music must have lead to new fashion too, based on the stars, as well as new styles of dance and other things. Styles of music can be surprisingly influential on our lives. Also, this article talks about how women's role was changed by jazz since they were more able to get jobs in the music industry, which is cool.

In this link it talks about the release of "Chokers" the must-have addition to jewellery for autumn/winter 2011-2012. This link talks about how the "Chokers" are back, with new designs and patterns and etc. The article emphasizes how the "Chokers" can upgrade your outfit any time of the day. I quote "We predict that, before long, they'll be adding a glamour injection to wardrobes at every time of day." The Chokers connect back to one of the major themes of the 1920's. People in the 1920's challenged norms like style of dress, this is exactly what we are doing today. Women in the 1920's added accessories to their wardrobe like, scarfs, hats, etc...This is exactly what we are trying to do also. Both in the 1920's and today people thrive on upgrading, changing trends, trying new ideas for fashion, and making their wardrobe different. My question is: Even though we thrive on upgrading in warbrobe, accessories and so on, are we really changing the basics of fashion?