Final Blog post

 Part 1: Breaking Down Barriers How AI Made Us More Comfortable with Technology

When we first approached Claude and ChatGPT, we experienced the typical researcher's dilemma, fascination mixed with skepticism. Many of us had heard conflicting reports about AI reliability, concerns about plagiarism, and questions about whether using these tools somehow diminished the authenticity of our work.

Our comfort level grew through structured experimentation. We started with low stakes tasks asking Claude to help brainstorm research questions or having ChatGPT summarize articles we'd already read thoroughly. These initial interactions revealed something crucial: AI tools weren't trying to replace our thinking but rather amplify our existing capabilities.

Building Confidence Through Gradual Integration

The turning point came when we realized these AI assistants could handle the mundane aspects of research that often bog down productivity. Claude excelled at organizing complex information into coherent structures, while ChatGPT proved invaluable for generating multiple perspectives on research problems. As our comfort grew, we began incorporating AI into more sophisticated tasks. This gradual integration approach proved essential. Rather than diving headfirst into AI dependency, we built confidence by maintaining control over the process while leveraging AI's computational power. Each successful interaction reinforced our understanding that these tools work best as collaborative partners rather than autonomous solutions.

Part 2: When to Use and When to Step Back

Developing Our Ethical Framework

Perhaps the most valuable outcome of our AI experiments was the development of a nuanced ethical framework for AI use in research. We quickly learned that the question isn't simply "Should we use AI?" but rather "how can we use AI responsibly?"

Through trial and experience, we established several key principles:

Transparency First: We committed to full disclosure when AI tools contributed to our research process. This meant documenting AI assistance in our methodology sections and being clear with collaborators and supervisors about our AI usage.

Human Oversight Always: We never allowed AI to make final decisions about research direction, interpretation of results, or conclusions. AI became our research assistant, not our research director.

Verification is Essential: Every piece of information, analysis, or suggestion from AI tools required independent verification through traditional sources and methods.

Our experiments helped us identify clear boundaries for AI use. We determined that AI should never be used for making up data or sources, Writing critical analysis without human interpretation, Making ethical decisions about research subjects, and replacing proper citation and attribution practices. Conversely, we found AI extremely valuable for tasks like organizing existing information, suggesting research directions, identifying potential gaps in literature reviews, and helping articulate complex ideas more clearly.

Part 3: How AI Supercharged Our Research Speed

Quantifiable Time Savings

The impact on our research timeline was dramatic and measurable. Tasks that previously consumed entire afternoons were completed in minutes. Literature reviews that once took weeks were condensed into days without sacrificing comprehensiveness.

Claude proved particularly effective at processing large volumes of text and identifying patterns across multiple sources. We could input dozens of research papers and receive coherent summaries highlighting key themes, contradictions, and gaps in the literature. ChatGPT excelled at rapid ideation, helping us generate research questions, hypotheses, and methodological approaches at unprecedented speed.

Streamlined Workflows

Our research process became significantly more efficient through AI integration. Initial research phases that once involved endless note taking and manual organization were streamlined through AI assisted categorization and synthesis. We developed workflows where AI tools handled the heavy lifting of information processing, freeing us to focus on higher level analysis and creative problem solving.

The time savings weren't just about speed, they were about cognitive efficiency. By offloading routine tasks to AI, we preserved our mental energy for the aspects of research that truly required human insight: interpreting findings, making connections between disparate ideas, and drawing meaningful conclusions.

Part 4: How AI Enhanced Our Research Quality

Beyond Speed: Improving Research Rigor

While the speed improvements were immediately apparent, the accuracy enhancements were more subtle but equally significant. AI tools helped us identify inconsistencies in our arguments, spot potential biases in our methodology, and ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant literature.

Claude's analytical capabilities proved invaluable for cross-referencing information across multiple sources and identifying discrepancies that might indicate errors or areas requiring further investigation. ChatGPT's ability to approach problems from multiple angles helped us identify blind spots in our research design and consider alternative interpretations of our findings.

Quality Control Through AI Assistance

We discovered that AI tools serve as excellent "first readers" for research drafts. They could identify unclear arguments, suggest stronger evidence, and highlight areas where our logic might be flawed. This didn't replace human peer review but provided an additional layer of quality control that caught issues before they reached human reviewers.

The accuracy improvements extended to mundane but critical tasks like citation formatting, consistency checking, and ensuring comprehensive coverage of research topics. AI tools helped eliminate the small errors that can undermine otherwise solid research.

Conclusion: The Future of AI-Enhanced Research

Our experiments with Claude and ChatGPT have fundamentally changed how we approach research. These tools haven't replaced human insight and creativity, they've amplified them. We've become more productive, more thorough, and more confident in our research processes while maintaining high ethical standards.

The key insight from our journey is that successful AI integration requires intentionality, ethical awareness, and a commitment to maintaining human oversight. AI tools are powerful amplifiers of human capability, but they require skilled human operators who understand both their potential and their limitations.

As we look toward the future, we see AI not as a threat to research integrity but as an opportunity to elevate the quality and impact of scholarly work. The researchers who learn to ethically and effectively integrate these tools will be better positioned to tackle complex problems, generate innovative solutions, and contribute meaningfully to their fields.

Our advice to fellow researchers considering AI integration is start small, stay ethical, maintain oversight, and prepare to be amazed by what becomes possible when human creativity meets artificial intelligence.

EOTO 2

 Going in, I thought I knew the Brown v. Board story May 17 1954, the Supreme Court says segregation is unconstitutional, schools integrate, end of story, right? Wrong. So incredibly wrong.

they opened with a simple but powerful statement Brown v. Board didn't happen in 1954. It happened over sixty years, through countless small battles, devastating defeats, and strategic victories that most people have never heard of." They had my attention immediately.

What struck me most was how she framed the negative events not as ancient history, but as a deliberately constructed system designed to crush opportunity. When she described Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, she didn't just recite facts. She painted a picture of how this one Supreme Court decision gave legal permission for an entire society to treat human beings as less than human.

The statistics she shared about school conditions hit hard. In South Carolina in 1950, the state spent $179 per white child on education and $43 per Black child. Let that sink in less than a quarter of the investment in Black children's futures. When she showed photos of the one-room schoolhouses with broken windows and no heat, compared to the brick buildings with libraries and gymnasiums for white students, the room went completely silent.

I found myself getting angry, which I think was their point. This wasn't accidental inequality this was engineered disadvantage.

green book

 

Green Book: A Journey Through America's Divided Past

When I first watched Green Book in 2018, I wasn't prepared for the emotional journey I was about to take. This road trip through the Jim Crow South weaves together humor, heartbreak, and hope in a way that left me thinking long after the credits rolled. Directed by Peter Farrelly and starring Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali, the film earned three Academy Awards, including Best Picture, though it also sparked conversations that made me reconsider what I thought I knew about race, friendship, and America's complex history.

The film tells the true story of Frank Tony Lip Vallelonga, a working-class Italian American bouncer from the Bronx, who becomes the driver and bodyguard for Dr. Don Shirley, a refined African-American classical pianist. Set in 1962, their journey takes them through the segregated South as Shirley performs at whites-only venues, relying on the Green Book a real historical guide that helped Black travelers find safe accommodations during segregation.

What struck me most was the contrast between these two men. Tony is rough around the edges, speaks his mind freely, and initially harbors casual prejudices that made me uncomfortable but felt authentic to his time and background. Shirley, meanwhile, is educated, sophisticated, and lives somewhat isolated from both Black and white communities due to his unique position as a celebrated musician in a segregated society.

As I watched the duo travel deeper into the South, the film showed me the daily humiliations and dangers that segregation imposed on African Americans, even those of prominence and talent. I found myself outraged by the cruel irony of Shirley being celebrated on stage by white audiences who wouldn't allow him to eat in their restaurants or use their restrooms. These moments provided powerful commentary on the absurdity and cruelty of Jim Crow laws that I'd only read about in history books.

The relationship between Tony and Shirley evolves from mutual suspicion to genuine friendship, and I found myself invested in their journey. Tony learns to see beyond his preconceptions, while Shirley finds someone who treats him as a person rather than a symbol. Their conversations during long drives became some of my favorite scenes a masterclass in breaking down barriers through honest dialogue.

While I thoroughly enjoyed Green Book and understood its widespread acclaim, I also recognize the valid criticisms it faced. Some argued that the film followed a familiar "white savior" narrative and oversimplified racism's complexities. Others questioned whether the story focused too heavily on Tony's transformation rather than Shirley's experience. The Shirley family's public disputes about the film's accuracy made me think more critically about whose stories get told and how.

Despite these concerns, I found the film's message of hope and human connection deeply moving. Mahershala Ali's nuanced performance as Shirley particularly impressed me, capturing both the character's dignity and vulnerability.

Green Book succeeds in making history personal and accessible. By focusing on two individuals navigating a divided America, it reminded me that progress often begins with personal relationships and the courage to challenge our own assumptions. In our era of continued racial tensions, the movie's central message that understanding grows through genuine human connection feels powerfully relevant to me.

brown v board

 

Breaking Down the Walls: Arguments Against Segregation in the Brown v. Board Era

The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education didn't emerge in a vacuum. It was the culmination of decades of carefully constructed arguments against racial segregation, built by civil rights lawyers, psychologists, educators, and activists who understood that dismantling "separate but equal" required more than moral outrage it demanded rigorous legal, scientific, and social evidence.

The Constitutional Foundation

At the heart of the legal challenge stood the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Led by Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, civil rights attorneys argued that "separate but equal" was a constitutional contradiction. Their central contention was revolutionary yet simple: separation itself created inequality, regardless of the quality of facilities provided.

This legal team boldly challenged the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, arguing that the 14th Amendment's original intent was to eliminate racial distinctions in civil rights entirely. They contended that any system of forced racial separation violated the fundamental American principle of equal treatment under law.

The Power of Psychological Evidence

Perhaps the most groundbreaking argument came from the field of psychology. The famous "doll tests" conducted by Kenneth and Mamie Clark provided devastating evidence of segregation's psychological toll on children. When presented with dolls of different races, many African American children preferred white dolls and attributed negative characteristics to Black dolls a clear indication that segregation was creating damaging feelings of inferiority.

Expert testimony revealed that segregated education inherently branded minority children as inferior, undermining their motivation to learn and stunting their overall development. This psychological argument proved pivotal in the Supreme Court's reasoning, with Chief Justice Warren ultimately writing that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."

The Reality Behind "Separate but Equal"

Civil rights advocates meticulously documented the practical impossibility of true equality under segregation. Black schools consistently received less funding, operated in inferior buildings, used outdated textbooks, and lacked basic resources. The evidence was overwhelming: despite legal mandates, segregated facilities were never actually equal.

This documentation supported a crucial argument that genuine equality was structurally impossible under segregation because the dominant group would inevitably allocate superior resources to themselves.

Moral and Democratic Imperatives

Beyond legal technicalities, many argued that segregation fundamentally contradicted American democratic values. Religious leaders and moral philosophers contended that forced racial separation violated basic principles of human dignity and prevented the development of a truly integrated democratic society.

Cold War Consequences

The international context added urgency to these arguments. During the Cold War, America's racial segregation became a significant liability in competing with communist nations for global influence, particularly among newly independent African and Asian countries. Critics argued that segregation undermined America's credibility as a leader of the free world.

The Economic Case

Economic arguments complemented moral ones, with experts contending that segregation wasted human talent and resources. Integration, they argued, would benefit society by allowing all citizens to contribute fully to economic and social progress.

These multifaceted arguments converged in the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 decision, which declared that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." The victory represented not just a legal triumph, but the successful synthesis of constitutional law, social science, moral philosophy, and practical evidence a comprehensive dismantling of segregation's intellectual foundations that would reshape American society forever.

The Rise of the KKK during the Reconstructive Era

 

The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in December 1865 in Pulaski Tennessee, initially as a social organization for former Confederate soldiers. What started as a collective that imitated their wartime brotherhood quickly transformed into a brutal underground faction focused on upholding white supremacy in the aftermath of the Civil War South.

Origins and Development

The term Ku Klux Klan comes from the Greek word kyklos, which translates to circle, combined with an alliterative Klan for emphasis. By April 1867, in its formative period, the Klan arranged a statewide convention in Nashville, establishing an official hierarchy with titles including Grand Wizard, the national head, Grand Dragon, for the state level, and local dens overseen by Grand Cyclopes. Under Nathan Bedford Forrest's leadership, a former Confederate general and the first Grand Wizard, the Klan evolved into a structured terrorist group. In 1868, Forrest journeyed through Georgia and adjacent states, urging residents to create Klan dens, frequently manned by former Confederate soldiers on horseback.

Terror Techniques as a Political Approach

Driven by the aim to reaffirm white supremacy and undermine Reconstruction administrations, the Klan employed intimidation to oppress newly enfranchised Black citizens and white Republicans. They participated in nighttime assaults, beatings, hangings, property destruction, sexual violence, and killings. Attacks frequently focused on Republican politicians, Black militia leaders, educators, and agents from the Freedmen’s Bureau. A well-known instance was the murder of Republican activist George Ashburn in Georgia on March 31, 1868. Klan violence severely affected the 1868 elections: in Georgia’s Oglethorpe County, Republican votes dropped from more than 1,100 in April to slightly over 100 by November, as Klansmen encircled polling places and threatened voters. In Alabama, Klan violence played a role in Democratic successes in 1870, including the election of Governor Robert B. Lindsay

The Government Reaction

Northern indignation over this brutal reaction triggered stronger federal involvement. Congress enacted the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Acts, which made it illegal to violate the voting rights of Black Americans and gave the President the power to deploy federal troops for enforcement. During President Ulysses S. Grant's administration, many Klansmen faced indictments; federal forces were sent to critical areas such as South Carolina, and habeas corpus was suspended in nine counties to facilitate prosecutions. By 1873, even though local “minutemen” organizations persisted, the original Klan had been largely disbanded.

Heritage and Wider Influence 

Despite being legally suppressed by the mid-1870s, the Klan's reign of terror had already caused profound damage. Thousands were killed or instilled with fear, with estimates in the lower thousands from 1865 to 1876. The organization's beliefs and tactics continued, leading to the emergence of state-level vigilante factions such as the White League, and a revival of the KKK in 1915 driven by popular media, including The Birth of a Nation. Despite legal successes like Grant's federal campaign, the enduring outcome was the solidification of Jim Crow laws throughout the South and widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans.

Conclusion

The initial Ku Klux Klan employed organized violence and intimidation to undo the progress of Reconstruction, essentially invalidating the 14th and 15th Amendments throughout much of the South. A federal crackdown through the Enforcement Acts offered a brief halt, yet the social and political impact of white supremacist violence persisted, influencing race relations and preparing the way for future revivals. Grasping this initial chapter is crucial for addressing America’s history of internal violence and structural racism. 

Disclaimer: This post has been polished by AI to enhance its professional tone and ensure accurate grammar and spelling.

GWTW movie post

 War destroys Scarlett's world, her beloved Tara is pillaged, and her hopes are dashed. But she finds meaning in that destruction. Her promise that she would never again go hungry made my heart race since it was not merely a matter of survival but also of defiance and a refusal to accept fate.

Next up is Rhett Butler, who is roguish, endearing, and unpredictable. She says, "Sir, you are no gentleman," and he responds, "And you, Miss, are no lady. "Their Atlanta dance is tense. They have a genuine dynamic that is flawed, unpolished, and explosive. I saw fragility, power struggles, and impetuous passion in them. I experienced the pain of unfulfilled love when Scarlett flirted with Ashley. As Rhett intervenes, “Scarlett! Give me a kiss! Kiss me once.” Aware of the seriousness of the situation, I held my breath.

In all of its grandeur, the movie doesn't sugarcoat unpleasant realities. The terrible reality of slavery and social hierarchy coexist uneasily with the idealized South. Mammy, played by Hattie McDaniel, said the famous remark, "What's my lamb going to wear? "You can't show your bosom before three o'clock!" highlights the limited roles of the time while delivering incisive comedy. As the first Black actor to win an Oscar, McDaniel's accomplishment both honored her talent and highlighted the prejudices still imposed on African American performers.

Throughout the narrative, Scarlett undergoes yet another transformation. Devastated yet unfazed, she goes back to Tara and swears, "Tara! At home. I'll return home and figure out a way to win him back.  Ultimately, tomorrow is a new day. I still get chills from that statement because it combines hope and persistence.  It's the instant Scarlett refuses to give up not to pain, not to loss.

But the most electric scene is the final break: Scarlett clings to Rhett, desperate, pleading, “Where shall I go? What shall I do?” And he steps back, delivers the immortal text: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” That gut-punch of finality—I felt it for Scarlett, for Rhett, and for myself. I understood what it means to hit a wall, to wake up to the truth that love isn’t always enough.

It’s more than just romance or grandeur. It’s about contingency, endurance, and transformation. Scarlett and Rhett embody contradiction, passion and pride, love and independence, vulnerability and armor. Watching them, I’m reminded that even in our darkest hours, we can choose to rise, to fight, to face tomorrow because, after all, tomorrow is another day. This movie really changed my perspective on the time period back then and how things were for African American people. It really showed me how difficult it was for them to live peacefully in the world because of all the hatred that white people had towards them. It really makes me think why couldn't they have just lived in peace and worked together, what made them think that the African Americans were inferior to them, what made them think that they were better than them? 

this post was polished by AI to check for grammar and to make the wording sound better.

reconstruction video

 This video was really interesting to me, and it really made me think, wow, this really happened in our world not that long ago. This video surprised me because I didn't know that it took so long for black people to be able to join the army or even be able to own land. I thought it was crazy that it took years for black people to be able to have rights and even just be free. I found it very sad how thousands, if not millions, of black families got separated during this horrible time, and it took months and sometimes years for them to reunite after slavery was abolished. I thought it was very crazy that black people would later have to do labor contracts with their former owners because the government made it impossible for them to be economically independent. When slavery was abolished, it took years for it to actually fully go away. When it was first abolished, many white people still treated black people like slaves and as if they still owned them, and like they didn't have rights. It was crazy to me that the government created laws only for black people, they were trying to remake slavery. If black people got arrested, their children got taken away, and someone else would raise their children, and the parents didn't have a choice. it got so bad that the KKK was created. If a black person had too much land or a black child was doing better in school, the KKK would attack them, trying to level the ground. come nightfall fall they pushed everyone into houses and boarded up the doors, they set them on fire, and if they ran out of the house to try and escape, they got shot. It took 3 days for the government to regain control, but by that time, all the black churches and schools, and their houses were burned to the ground. When reconstruction started, they made it so that anyone born in the United States would be granted citizenship, and no one could deny them that. I really enjoyed watching this video, I learned a lot of stuff from it that I didn't know before.