Today's discussion was slightly... enlightening, I suppose.
The only major thing that I took away from all the opinions today had to be when we focused on the image of the city.
So, this begs to ask the question, "Was covering up Detroit's true colors for the Super Bowl beneficial or detrimental?"
I can see both sides of this argument, however, I still lean towards the whole thing eventually doing good for the city.
Basically, what I want to convey is the fact that if you don't act at all, how can change occur?
If slightly misleading the visitors who came during the Super Bowl was able to provoke some sort of intervention in the general consensus of the city, it has the potential to lead to some higher views. Sure, they might get pissed off the next time they come back, expecting the same highlights and falling very far from it. Maybe that short glimpse of 'what could be' may alter their opinion, giving it a more positive spin than just some ghetto where riots, murders, or muggings occur. Eliminate the detrimental presuppositions people inevitably have about the city, let them visit again with high hopes, and go from there. Doing nothing at all just leaves everything right where it is, and at this point in time, the current status is not something to be ignored.
1 comment:
I really like your response to our class discussion. I completely agree with what you said about not acting means not changing. I really enjoy your writing.
Post a Comment