For today’s prompt, I want you to reflect on The Kentucky Cycle‘s first part. What are some of the key themes explored in the text so far? Why are they significant?

One of the major themes I saw emerging from the first part of the Kentucky Cycle is the idea that all people from Appalachia are poor, struggling white men who abuse their wives and other women. The best example is in The Courtship of MorningStar. They live in a simple cabin in the woods, and every day with Michael is a fight. Morningstar does not want to be his wife and is essentially beaten or raped everyday. It really is not a courtship. From that you can see the theme arising that women are not treated well in Appalachia through the years. I am writing my research essay on women of Appalachia and the Kentucky Cycle gives me an insight that the stereotype may be true if it is still a problem that is written about today. Today, women in the region are still considered to be struggling against violence, poor healthcare, and poverty. Though the Kentucky Cycle is fiction, it can help me to decide which stereotypes are worth discussing, especially with the themes that emerge in the first section.

For today’s prompt, identify two important passages from the text. Why are they central to the text? What might we say about these passages in relation to themes from our class so far?

The first passage I found interesting was on page 6 when Dillon mentions he does not like school because “you learn spelling rules and grammar rules and that they way you talked all your life is ignorant even though it seems to suit most people fine…” (Giardina, 6). This passage stood out to me because of the time we discussed in class how so many out of Appalachia were made to feel uneducated and ignorant because they spoke differently from other regions around them. It ties in with the theme that there is a stereotype of being uneducated and ignorant just because you are from the mountain region or that you are from a blue collar family. It has been a theme this semester that those who decide what is right and wrong and how the people of the region are described are not even from the region. They are outsiders looking in and deciding for an entire group of people.

Another passage that really stood out to me was on page 14 when Rachel talks about how her mother does not like nursing as a profession because it was seen as “a common, nasty occupation” Giardina, 14). It stood out to me because it made me recall the time that we discussed the roles of women in Appalachia. Nursing was seen as a job that was not suited for women of a certain breeding. We talked about how women of Appalachia had to be hard workers and often worked for a lot less money than men, if they worked outside the home. Most of the time women were expected to stay at home while their husbands went out and worked. They were needed to raise the next generations of workers, especially in the coal camps.

KCD

This week we have been watching the movie Deliverance, one of the most criticized films about Appalachia from our textbooks. For this week’s prompt, I want you to look at how people talk about the movie online. Find a website, social media site, blog, etc. and see how the writer discusses the movie. Do they mention the criticism of the movie from an Appalachian standpoint? Do they discuss the fact that the movie was filmed in Appalachia and that most of the time Appalachians are negative, stereotypical characters? Do they acknowledge that the movie is stereotypical in any way? Why do you think the website does/does not mention these concerns? What seem to be the most memorable parts of the movie for people? Why?

For example, I found the Wikipedia (a website that is constructed by everyday people) site for the movie, and it didn’t mention anything controversial about the depiction of Appalachians at all. This means that no one has added this to the Wikipedia site.

In the reviews that I have found of the movie, none have mentioned the stereotype of the Appalachians. Most mention the journey that the four men go through and the changes they experience. The Appalachian men are mentioned, but there is never a problem of stereotyping that is brought up. They are reviewed the same way they are depicted in the movie; as wild, poor, and almost savage beings. I think that there are not any mention of these concerns because the audiences of the movies truly believe that the depiction is close to true. Many audiences do not know that the Appalachian Region is pretty big and covers a large amount of territory. This thinking, or lack of concern, is an indicator that most audiences feel there is not diversity in the region and the typical hillbilly is truly the people who live there. In other movies, such a military movies, the stereotypes that often occur are easily spotted and discussed because of those in the population who are willing to talk about how certain personalities, actions, etc are incorrect. The Appalachian region does not appear to have these stereotype defenders. Another reason is because those who are discussing the movie are outsiders from the region and the culture and usually stereotypes are created by those same outsiders. The people who do not see a problem with it are most likely part of a group who created it.

KCD

Over the past few weeks, one of the central themes of our readings has been that although Appalachians have been seen as backwards, ignorant, and illiterate, most areas of the region have been quite open to the culture surrounding them and deeply involved with texts, commerce, and culture. In other words, most of the region is in fact not backwards at all. So, what do our chapters say about whose interests are/were being served when Appalachia is depicted this way? Why was/is it important for the media to portray the region in such as way?

I feel that the interests being served with the Appalachian stereotype are not those in the region, but those outside the region. It is human nature to want to label and have a set reason for a way of life or certain thinking. By labeling the people of Appalachia as the “hillbilly” or the poor, lazy, impoverished people, it becomes easier for those who do not understand the region or the lifestyle to accept it. Because it is different from their own, they see it as lesser or something that needs to be fixed. The truth is that most of the region is not different from those surrounding it. Appalachia is home to big cities, such as Pittsburgh, and the suburbs that surround it. It is a wealth of natural resources and the industries that surround those. The stereotype has been so impressed into the minds of those around that it is what they accept, and they do not want to do anything to change that. It is easier to accept a stereotype than it is to change one.

For this week, we have read critical responses to The Kentucky Cycle. Donesky calls the play a “drive by shooting” (285). What does he mean? Why is this important?

Donesky refers to the play as a drive by shooting because it is one work of literature, in this case a play, that exists in a long line of many. The Kentucky Cycle is another random jab or stab at the people and culture of Appalachia, like a drive-by shooting is a random act of violence. The author of The Kentucky Cycle, Robert Schenkkan, did not spend any time in the region to truly learn the culture. He stayed about two days and decided to write a history of it that was full of historical inaccuracies. Schenkkan portrayed the people as “mean, quaint, violent, brutish, and generally low-down and sorry” (Donesky, 285). This depiction of the people is contested because how could Schenkkan experience an entire region of people and culture in two days? How could he know it well enough to give an accurate description. The answer is that he is not able to accurately portray the people that live there. Schenkkan cannot describe the culture to the rest of America because he does not truly know it. His play is considered the “literary equivalent of a drive-by shooting” because it is a random and as senseless as one (Donesky, 285). He just furthers the stereotype of the Appalachian people and has little evidence to back up the claims he presents to the rest of the world.

KCD

For today’s prompt, I’d like you to write 3 questions that you have about the Appalachia Chapter 5. Please be prepared to discuss them in class today.

1. Why must all mountain regions “import capital or export people?”
2. What led to Appalachia being different that it could do both?
3. How was Appalachia specifically affected by the Great Depression?

One of the topics that is discussed in APP Chapter 4 is the role of music in labor struggles. For this writing prompt, I’d like you to discuss the role music played in the labor struggles in Appalachia in this time period. In what ways do we see music play a significant role in later struggles in the U.S.? Why do you think music plays such an important role in this kind of work?

I found this chapter very interesting because of how it showed that Appalachia is not as isolated or different from other cultures as people paint it to be. Music is something that is used across all cultures to express all different emotions and feelings of the people who create it. Music that originated in Appalachia was not any different. The music was contingent to issues they faced, such as the song about the man dying on the rail road in Grayson County West Virginia. Music has always been used as a form of expression and communication. The music that was produced in Appalachia was able to permeate all cultures and make an impression. The music connected Appalachia to other areas around it, proving they were not as isolated or different as everyone believed. Music helped with the labor struggles because it brought the emotions and feelings of the people who were in the labor unions to others around the country. They were presented in a media that many could understand. It was not a direct attack or facts. Many may not have even noticed they were being influenced by it.

Several articles during the past few class meetings, at one time or another, discuss the idea that language works in important ways to shape what we do and do not think about particular people. We have also seen that language is shaped and used by people with power or without power in important ways and in two directions. In other words, people with more social power have the ability to use language in ways that oppress people with less power. However certain words and language patterns get adopted by people with less power in ways that help them gain power and control their own identities.

For this week’s prompt, I’d like you to use your favorite search engine to search the terms “hillbilly” and “redneck.” What sorts of results come up in your search? How are these terms used both derogatorily and positively? Where do you see examples of people or groups using the terms in a mean-spirited, condescending way? What examples do you see where Appalachians have reclaimed the terms and use them as something they are proud of? Are there differences between the two terms or people that use them? Can a person be both a hillbilly and a redneck?

When I googled the word “hillbilly” the first definition that comes up is “an unsophisticated country person, associated originally with the remote regions of the Appalachians” (google definitions). It even has a graph that shows when it was first mentioned and how often it was mentioned over the decades. It first appeared in what looks like the early 1900s and continued to climb from there. The term was used to name someone who lived far from cities or towns and was uncultured and uneducated. Some use it as a humorous term, but that usage is more contemporary.

The google definition of “redneck” states “a working-class white person, especially a politically reactionary one from a rural area” (google definitions). The word origin appears to be from a little later in the 1900s, though is used around the same time as hillbilly. Other definitions list a redneck as “an uneducated white farm laborer, especially from the South” or a “bigot” (dictionary.com).

The definitions of the words are very similar, but the perceptions of the two are different. When one hear’s the word redneck, they think camouflage, four wheelers, and big trucks. The rednecks are the people who live by “Family, God, and Guns”. They spend their weekend hunting or driving their trucks through the mud. Rednecks are often sung about in country songs and portrayed as hard working Monday through Friday and hard drinking on the weekends.

Hillbillies on the other hand have a different look. They are the toothless barefoot person in overalls with a straw hat. They live on farms that are not commercial, but self sustaining. Hillbillies do not have jobs and they do not have culture. They exist in the mountains with very little contact to the outside world.

The terms “hillbilly” and “redneck” have very similar meanings, but very different visual depictions of who one is. Both are a stereotype placed on people, or that some people grow into.

KCD

Steinberg’s article begins by outlining several cultural issues in the genre form of the book of Genesis from the Bible. Why do you think the author chose this form? How does this rhetorical choice work in terms of Steinberg’s argument?

I think that Steinberg used the outline of the Book of Genesis to show just how influential Barbie is to children, especially girls, who grew up playing with her. Steinberg makes Barbie into an almost God like figure to children, citing that the only things she does not have are a train, a battleship, a rocket, or a gun. She is never portrayed in a negative way. Barbie is never the criminal or the alcoholic, nor does she take part in activities that are seen as taboo in society. Barbie has taken on a form of a perfect, asexual, non-sinning being similar to Jesus or God. She never has children of her own, though she does marry Ken at some point. Steinberg is arguing that Barbie is as influential as the word of God.  Her teachings are that of being positive and always available for adventure, learning, and shopping. Barbie has left lasting effects on girls. They have seen her as a way to dress and how, as a way to look, and as a way to act. Using the book of Genesis is comparing the creator of Barbie, Ruth Handler, to God thus making Barbie Jesus.