First off, this is a great letter written by someone without a high school diploma. This mans gives a glimpse into the humanity of inmates that not a lot of people get to see. But I kind of wish the letter was a little longer and explored other areas of a “lifer’s” philosophy and thinking. Its great that even the hardest human beings often show compassion and sympathy, but it’s not a huge revelation if you think about it. As he said, the prison is their entire world, so life for everyone in there would be pretty miserable if everyone acted like a jerk all the time.

You’re not racist as far as I can tell, unless you directly think it they cannot make a difference because these people are inherently inferior to you. There is a difference between racism and truth. Depending on the country you were in, you are right. There is a much better chance you will be able to make a difference in the world than they will. But that isn’t because you are white. You probably also have more of a chance to change the world than white people in Appalachia. It’s a matter of opportunities rather than race. Color has nothing to do with it, unless you think it does. Then you’re racist.

Alright hold on a second. Avenging the lives of your father/mother/wife/child is one thing. I’ve thought about how I would react to the murders of my loved ones in a military or criminal act, and my imagination paints me as a vigilante using stealth and finesse to exact revenge solely on those responsible, ideally while wearing a cool mask. Basically turning into Batman. I would not strap a bomb on my chest and go into a subway full of innocents. It’s pretty hypocritical—murdering people’s spouses and children because someone else… murdered your spouse and children? Mindless killing of people who simply share the same nationality as your true enemies doesn’t make sense.

America characterizes its “vigilante heroes” completely differently than the portrayals of modern day terrorists. In fact, most of the time there is a foil to the hero, a character who does use fear and dirty tactics to exact their revenge. He usually is, or ultimately becomes, a bad guy.

On the other side of the coin, lets pretend America gets invaded by, oh say the Russians (been playing cod4). Straight up invaded, as in bombed into submission and then your neighborhood is occupied. Between the bombings and the occupation, your parents and one of your siblings is killed. What would you and your surviving sibling do? I doubt many of you would sit on your hands and wait for things to get better. You would do something, anything, to get even and possibly scare the Russians out of occupation. And if your neighbor was in the same boat, and he knew how to make a bomb, wouldn’t you want to plant that on the road and hope an enemy humvee runs over it?

This is also a clear example of how history is written by the victors. Hypothetically, if the terrorists “win”, you can bet that all of the martyrs and suicide bombers throughout the war would go down in history as heroes of war, and saviors of the nations. I have a friend from England who calls (half-jokingly) the Boston Tea Party a terrorist attack. But in reality, wasn’t it? But we are taught from an early age that the Boston Tea Party was a fantastic display of independence and displeasure with the British. Meanwhile, things like the Whiskey Rebellion and the secession of the South are looked on as negative things. Why? Because we won. Had we lost, it would be a different story. They wouldn’t be insurrectionists but heroes. It’s a weird, thin line that just goes to show you really need to look at an issue from all sides before you decide who is wrong and who is right. Its not always as clear as you think.

Recently there have been a lot of people like this popping up. At first, I found it easy to get riled up and angry at their opinions, calling them idiots and bigots. Then, the more news pieces and youtube videos I heard like this, it got to the point when I laughed and their apparent stupidity and thought of them as basically clowns that don’t know any better. However, I recently came to a revelation, and I think it goes along the lines of one of the larger themes of this sociology class. We talk a lot about how people are the products of their environments, for example, when Sam Richards talks about how if he were born in a different place to different parents, he would not be teaching at Penn State, for better or worse depending on his original position. It is absolutely impossible to tell how Sam, or any of us, would have turned out if we had this guys parents and upbringing, but I can say with certainty we would not be making a video of ourselves saying those things unless we were absolutely certain we were correct. This guy, and the people like him, are not saying these things because they want to be made fun of and yelled at by more “progressive” people. That man thinks, that beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is right. He is making the best decision with the information and experiences he has. Its easy to say he is ignorant, bigoted, and uneducated, but give the dude a break. We would be saying the same thing in his shoes, and if you’re saying you wouldn’t you are giving yourself too much credit.

Once we realize that they think they are right just as much as we are sure they are wrong, we can start to talk sensibly to each other and maybe make some progress. Yelling and calling each other morons doesn’t get us anywhere. That’s the biggest reason these Tea Party protests are backfiring for both sides. The tea partiers look like savages and those opposing them look like elitist wusses.

As slow as this guy sounds, he has a point. Our borders do need to be better watched. Its ridiculous that drug runners and terrorists could mosey into Texas with little problem. And there are legal immigration laws for a reason, and illegal immigration should be curbed. The guy makes a bit of sense, but his delivery and reasoning make him an easy target for ridicule by a few hundred college-educated “thinkers”. I think we should recognize that berating these people will not make them change their way of thinking. In fact it will probably solidify it.

Dude, there have always been sick people in the world, and people are no sicker than they were 20 or 2,000 years ago. This is just a modernization of the depravity that has always been around. One of the first games released was a game where you played as General Custer raping a Native American woman tied to a pole. Its messed up, but bringing media attention to it like this does no one any favors. It only legitimizes the work of some messed up game developer, who probably wanted the controversy anyway. Do you think he really didn’t expect any? From what I’ve heard this game has been around for a few years, and CNN recently just caught wind of it and wanted to create a “breaking” story out of old news.

I think this makes perfect sense. If you think about it, German and French are useless unless you’re in one of those respective countries (save a few small nations in Eastern Europe or Africa). I took about 7 years of French, can’t speak it now to save my life, and wish I had taken something applicable to business or travel such as Spanish or Chinese. Kids in other countries learn English from the get-go, Americans need to get over themselves and do the same with Chinese and Spanish. It would do wonders for international relations and globalization, a fair trade off for not being the “official” language of world business anymore.

Why does someone need to “win” at all? I don’t think its about winning, or possible to win even if you tried. I agree with Sam when he said something along the lines of, there often is no real answer. But that doesn’t mean it’s not important to ask the questions. Think about it—if race relations in general had a solution, why haven’t we used it yet? Why are there still all of the issues and tensions among racial groups in the United States, much less the entire world? I think the best we can do is work for a push, because it is impossible to win without someone else losing, and that defeats the point of meaningful race relations.

As for the LL Bean catalog, if you truly don’t think it was funny you have to admit it’s at least odd to see the people of color in the catalog. It’s like seeing a white dude doing stand up on BET. It wasn’t a bad thing, but just a little out of place, and that’s what makes it funny.

I’m split with my opinion on Jesse Jackson. I agree with the video blogger on some aspects. I think Jesse Jackson should not be excluded from the Humanitarian stage just because he helps out people of color more than white people. Sam, you say that Humitarians follow any path they are called to. How do you know Jesse Jackson’s call isn’t to his people? To say that he is a Pseudo-Communitarian ignores the fact he went to Appalachia and dwells on his return to help inner city people of color. So, if he was white and did that he would be a Humanitarian? How come it absolutely HAS to cross racial lines, even if people of your race are the ones that need help the most? I’m tempted to say that perhaps some the people who simply cross racial lines in their humanitarian efforts, do so just so they can say, “I’m a Humanitarian.” Race shouldn’t be an issue at all as long as you are helping those that need it. And it is understandable to help your own people first since you lived through it and you know what their needs and drives are. It makes it that much easier to help since you were perhaps at some point in their shoes. If a bunch of white Americans fly over to Ethopia to help out, but know only what they learned in a textbook about the country and its people, that’s not as effective as a person from Ethiopia coming back and truly making a difference using his or her experiences to have a better idea of how he or she can help.

I’m not completely sure this is as big a deal as many people think. At least not right now, anyway. There are a few countries I can think of where the minority is in power (South Africa comes to mind). What will make a difference is when Congress is representative of the fact that people of color are the majority. When the actual power shifts, rather than just the numbers, that’s when I feel a large societal change will be upon us. Fortunately with a democracy, the shift in population is a good first step in the direction of social equality.

Ok, so there may not be anything wrong about talking about periods, but lets face facts—it makes people uncomfortable. What if I talked about my moms bowel movements? That’s also natural like being hungry and sweating, but also not polite conversation, just like periods. I don’t talk about getting erections, the consistency of my feces, or what my pee smells like either, and I would not expect a girl to talk about her periods. Its just not something you bring up except to a doctor or a close friend. And even then, make sure that person really is a close friend or things will be awkward.

I find it hard to believe why this issue was never addressed until now. It just doesn’t make sense. Why would native Hawaiians not get their own government just like every other Native American in the continental states? When the US government was going through all of the tribes and granting them certain rights, did they just pass over the Hawaiians? Or was there some kind of deeper prejudice since they were located a couple hundred miles out at sea? Either way it’s about time. I don’t have a lot of strong feelings toward government policy most of the time, but the blatant disregard for the people that were here first is one thing that irks me the most.