Now, I'm not saying that since a show has a history of saying derogatory comments that we must "deal with it" and they can do whatever they want. This show been on for years; I remember watching it in 6th grade, and I'm 22 now. They had an episode of Jesus fighting Satan and Jesus whooping Satan's behind. This show address all aspects of life and culture, whether controversal or just pure comedy.

Towards the Muslism Extremists threat, I'm not really sure what to say. I haven't seen the episode where they spoke about Mohammed, so I'm not sure where to speak on this. However, I will say that, unless someone has taken a life from my family or friends, then I would not feel motivated to take someone elses life. I actually don't know another situation that anyone can feel to killing someone, but then again I can't say that I can place myself in an extremist's [any extremist, not just Muslim] shoes. I feel like since that specific groups does not watch South Park on a regular basis like others do, so they wouldn't understand it. At first instance, they see it, and the thought process goes "You're offending my creator in a derogatory way, I feel inclined to take your life". However, someone like me watching the show on a regular basis says "They said that? I'm not suprised".

South Park brings up alot of controversial topics that alot of people are afraid to address their opinions on. The show is similar in a way to Family Guy or Dave Chapelle... bringing up true situations and portraying it through comedy so that everyone enjoys it and everyone understands it. Do I believe South Park can be racist sometimes? Yes. However, you only consider someone to be racist when they discriminate against a certain race and they consider their "own race" to be higher than everyone elses. South Park isn't racist as a whole because it adresses EVERYBODY. From Muslim groups to Gay/Lesbian outbreaks, even to recent celebrity news. I remember one episode of South Park where Kanye West was called a "gay fish stick" recently after he interuppted Taylor Swift. Someone posted on here a recent episode of Tom Cruise being jabbed at in South Park as well. Although it may be distasteful at times, I believe its fair because South Park addresses everything.

It deeply saddens me to read an article and watch a video on suicide bombing. Worse than that, its crazy how they explain the reasoning to why they do it. I'm not surprised by the actions of the "enemy" or the residents of Afghanistan. Newton's Third Law even states "For every action, there's a reaction" and it just so happens that Newton's Law is dealing with force.
In war, you cannot claim what's "fair or not fair" because both sides will suffer some kinds of loss. I don't think anybody in their right mind would think that Afghanistan would welcome us with open arms especially if we destroyed most of their land & culture. It just hurts hearing the story from their side, about how we're tyrannical for attackign them, killing them, and LYING on purpose about it... that sentence about
Americans killing 100 Afghanistan civilians in an air strike and vehemently about it saying they killed Japanese soldiers" is just so horrible. I don't like war in general because of the fact that lives becomes statistics. Nothing is fair in all out war. The patriarch who lost two sons, daughters and a mother had a point. He felt as if he lost EVERYthing, and he had nothing to live for. How would you feel if you lost your parents, siblings, close relative, soulmate in marriage, or your spouse that were INNOCENT to a clip from a rifle? It makes you feel terrible inside, knowing that your 15 year old who had a bright future was lost to bullets from a gun. To add insult to injury, we consider it a statistic, a number, like its an expendable object. I agree on paying homage by giving the man two sheep for his culture, but $2,000 per life is NOTHING!!! How could anyone even think that they can pay for a life?!? That's absurd to me; they should make sure that man is WELL off, for himself and whoever his next in kin is/are.
I seen the movie "The Traitor" where Don Cheadle plays a CIA agent who is undercover and plays the role of a person who pretends to be in an Arabian gang for a massive bombing. He learns about why they are deciding to bomb innocent civilians and has a conversation with one of the leaders. The leader replied "Each and every month, thousands of lives are taken by the Americans who have nothing to do with the war. They kill our wives, children, mothers, fathers, and family, and no one takes this into account. They act as if our lives do not matter. Then when we take extreme measures and bomb American civilians and take lives, we are seen as terrorists! They've done the exact same thing to us and now its our turn to make them feel our pain, live in our world, and know what its like to lose everything". Such a powerful statement... it made me want to sympathize with the Antagonist of the movie because of that statement. Truth of the matter is, we don't realize what occurs until we put everything into perspective and say "That could happen to me".

This is definitely a legit question and it encourages to challenge students of Soc 119 to think where they stand in the class.
My thing is this: This is everyday life as we know it, and it occurs whether we think about it or not. It is very difficult to teach an unbiased course on Race Relations for everyone to understand and to "appeal" to everyone. When thinking about this question, think about what Sam said in the very first lecture for this class. It wasn't to change our minds on what we already think or believe on a subject... its to make us "think" and to participate with questions and ideas in class. He's looking forward to responses to what he has to say.
Let's go back to the basic desires of any teacher. When they teach a subject, they look forward to students asking questions or commenting on something they're currently teaching in lecture. It makes them feel as if they are not wasting their time, and students either understand or show concern in what they [the teacher] is conveying in the lecture. So just remember why he says the things he says in lecture. Do I believe EVERYthing he says is appropriate, life/thought-changing, of relevance? No. Especially the period explosion and bleeding stuff. Although Sam has his times or utter ridiculousness, its only to get us to "think" or contribute back to what we have to talk about in class.
You have to admit, a lot of the things he brings up (with the assistance of his TAs) interesting videos and pictures during class. For example, the Persian Versus Arabian video, which entails a comedian telling the difference between what a Persian looks/talks like and what an Arabian person looks/speaks like. THAT subject is pretty relevant to me because people mistake Persians for Arabians, and vice-versa everyday. The chocolate thing is more deeper when it comes to everyday thinking, but in reality, slavery still exists. Here, Sam doesn't want you to change your opinion on eating chocolate, he just encourages you to think about certain things that occur in the world.
Other things that are relevant that he brings up are deep as well. You have to be in-humane to not feel saddened or moved by the lecture where he shows Indians in poverty because their land was taken over. The things he spoke about in lecture about how Native Americans felt about their home and Christopher Colombus taking over. I mean, how would you feel if a group of people came into your home with more updated technology than you (with weapons), made their own landmark in your house, and said "this is my shit now, everybody get out". You would feel some type of way. To add insult to injury, the group of people are discussing "who claimed what" over YOUR house because some people stepped in the door first, second, third, etc. This all comes together with the "King of the Hill" lesson, and other lessons tied into it. You may not say that Sam has changed your opinion on certain subject, but at least have the audacity to say that you actively put some thought into what he's speaking about, and can say "You know what, that's deep". That's ALL he asks for, and the majority of the time, his lectures make sense.

Ah yes, eating the "2nd" piece of chocolate...
Let's begin to the first piece of chocolate. I knew that, since we are dealing with a race relations course that someway, somehow I would be feeling guilty as hell for eating a piece of chocolate. Did I eat the other chocolate anyway? Yes. Why? Not because I'm a self-centered egotistical individual who doesn't care about anyone else, but because I was hungry at the time and I had to serve my OWN needs first. It wasn't like I needed to eat the chocolate, but at that point in time I was tired as heck, and I had to muster up some energy to listen to the video.
The video was a shock: I didn't think slavery to that extent (even after the book readings). Seeing is believing, especially to the horrors that were revealed in the video. No-one wishes to support any product of slavery after witnessing the brutality in making some of these products. You would have to be in-humane to look at them in the face and say "I don't care"... especially when the only thoughts on my mind was "How come the color of the chocolate matches the exact complexion of his skin color?"
Truth is, just about everything that relies on human intervention is made through slavery. Anything, from easy three-minute macaroni and cheese to the Verizon Droid or iPhone that you're sporting in your pocket. Any and everything is made from large companies to produce large quantities of products. Therefore, you can't really say that you wish to stop supporting slavery, because its all around you. When it comes to helping other people first, you cannot help anyone else unless your basic needs are fur filled: Food, water, shelter, good mental health. These are the necessary things to survive as a human. Once those things are done on the checklist, then you can proceed to helping others in need. The way you do it is not by saying "I will not buy any product that was made by slavery" but you go out like the people in the video did, bring it to the public eye, and help stop millions of slave holders with the cruelty that they are performing. These people are doing not only the right thing, but smart and efficient thing as well: bringing this to light so that slavery could potentially end.
Now, as in eating the second piece, you initially think "oh man, I do not wanna eat this chocolate" because of what you've just witnessed. I bet every single person in Soc 119 (unless they are allergic) ate chocolate without realizing it by the next day. Why? chocolate is so embedded in our lives that although we are thankful that we have access to it, we do not realize what other people have gone through to produce chocolate for us. Its not like we are the "bad guys" because we consume it, its available for us to eat just like anything else!
To each its own I guess. Maybe if it hit closer to home (as the previous person said) then it would directly affect people. For example, if it had something to do with child cancer, it would move MASSIVE amounts of people; look at how many Penn Staters participate in THON! Its not like its in-human or anything, its because of who it directly affect, and whether or not we can do something about it.

For the LL Bean topic, you shouldn't feel offended unless you don't understand anything. Sam initially stated that he cannot teach this course full of 700 people and expect to NOT offend somebody. He put all disclaimers out there beforehand. The LL Bean issue just shed's light on one aspect of a person's culture. Sure the majority of African Americans aren't seen wearing dockers or playing with dogs or display a "bujii" attitude, but you have to realize that SOME do. Its just a generalization of what people do in general. There is not "acting black" or "acting white" because there isn't a ground rule that says so; its all based on opinion.
I agree with the response above me when Sam mentions Jessie Jackson. There was no point in mentioning a civil activist's name if this issue touches no were NEAR the intensity of what Jessie Jackson used to do as a career. Sam just blurts out random things to get people to wake up in class and actually pay attention. Nobody lingered on the "period" issue because periods have nothing to do with social injustice. Periods are not even on the same level as women's rights, its just a biological process in females. Same thing applies here when he speaks about "acting white or black" its just a stereotype. Humans can do whatever they want or feel.

The census is trying to be politically correct, that is all. All it is asking you is to fill out what you identify with. Plain and simple. They wished to include all races to make everyone happy. Evidently, I guess the media is saying you can't make everyone happy. In fact, the media is the only reason why we're posting our responses on here. They're ALWAYS turning nothing into something. One person quoted that (s)he didn't notice the "negro" option on there until it was pointed out. Sure, its questionable to place a title that people haven't used for years, maybe even back to the 1970s. Sure, maybe someone can say that having the word "negro" is potentially racist. However, you might be apart of the African American population that is an extremist and REFER to themselves as negroes, even in 2010.
Even saying that , its a reach. As far as I'm concerned, the word negro isn't something used anymore; it went extinct with the dinosaurs. That's the only thing I see there questionable. Anything else, fill out the survey and that's it; no point in making a 10 question survey a controversy. If your race isn't an option, pick other. The End.

Alright, so Sam as you can see, tangents are cool in class as long as you don't go off on them too long. I understand that the class gets boring, and using the word "bleeding" is used to capture everyone's attention, but it shouldn't be spoken about for half an hour, AND continued into the next lecture. Having "periods" isn't what people exactly have in mind when they speak about social justice issues. A rather more significant issue can be "thinking about women's roles as leaders in society today". Rather than over-exaggerating a biological process in women, or going off on a tangent to get people to think, use more videos. You should even start asking questions earlier to bring up different conversation to make up for time in lecture. That will keep more people engaged rather than periods and being blatant. Its just something I'm voicing my opinion on, I'm not upset with it or losing sleep.

Now onto the "asking questions" thing. There's always an appropriate time and place for everything. Bringing up a racial discussion up at a party or social event and expecting a good conversation? Not happening. Its not happening if you're aiming for casual talk in the lunchroom and someone overhears you either. Talk to a professor in the social department or something, or when you're in the comfort of a friend's place (that you know well) to discuss it. Its not happening at a random place or time if you really want to know the answer to these questions.

Picture it like this: who goes to a party, or out with some friends to have fun and starts talking about the chemistry problem they had to deal with? Not the MAJORITY of people... why? We're trying to have fun and you're "raining on the parade". Now if you were to get dinner with someone and ya'll were discussing it amongst you guys/girls at a table, sure. Or, just simply speak about it while at a friend's house.

When you mention that the majority of people will not question things, its because most of the time people are lazy. This generation is about doing less thinking and working to get what they want, or "instant gratification". People will not challenge something and take a situation for what it is. When people hear about a racial situation, they reply "oh that's the way it is" because nobody is willing to challenge it. Most people are either ignorant to the racial situation, or just too lazy or nonchalant to even challenge the situation.

I agree with you Sam about the "Boston Tea Party" rebellion aspect in the sense that people are becoming less and less willing to challenge their environment or for lack of better words, rebel against something. I myself cannnot even remember the last time someone protested against something... I believe the last time there was a protest was for "stopping abortion". That's just plain pathetic.

Wow, a woman coaching football! Yes I am in shock because she is the first of her kind. You don't get a lot of women who appreciate, let alone watch football. In fact, most women I know don't like football because it makes their men busy and become upset easily around a TV. As someone stated earlier, its because the majority of women do not know much about football to begin with.

I believe in the past, women did not participate in playing football primarily because it does involve a lot of contact. Females in general are physically more delicate than males because females develop more fatty tissue (i.e butt, breasts) as opposed to males who develop more muscular tissue (pectorals instead of breasts, etc.). Therefore, a simply collision that a male could take on could be detrimental to a woman. Picture it like this: has anybody seen a plastic protector for breasts like they do for jock-straps? Like a hard covering so that no sufficient damage could occur? Its not that people would exclude them, but females are basically more fragile.
Not only that, look at what's happening currently in the WNBA. Women proved that they were able to play basketball nationally just as great as males can. How many people in Soc 119 can attest that they watch the WNBA? Its not that people don't respect them, its the different rules applied to women because they must take extra precautions. I.e. no dunking or excess roughing of players. Yeah the "roughing" part was a reach but you can even see it while they play. They have to play more conservative because any subtle signs of the players being slightly more aggressive than they should be will be charged with a "foul".
Now to dive a little deeper into the pit, we can talk about performance as well. No disrespect to females, but the majority of females cannot throw as far, run as fast, or tackle as hard as males can because of physical limitations. Thus, there might result in more conservative playing on the field for women. YES, you will have females who can do all of the above, maybe even better than males, but my opinion still stands. Its not the people placing limitations on females themselves, its the level of excitement you will get from the game.

Does this mean that I'm not for her to get head football coach?!? Absolutely not! I admire the fact that she actually appreciates football, and ever so humbly accepts the position. You don't get many people who appreciate the game, they just hungry for the money. I'm actually interested in how her playing methods would work. Coaches facing her on game day should be worried because she's new blood and they wouldn't quite know how she would execute plays. Pretty cool to have a woman coach playing aggressively. To earn that title, you must know the game "inside out" like the person previously stated before me. You actually have to anticipate what the other coach is thinking; its like a game of chess. Knowing their next move and forcing them to cancel out if what makes football so interesting. That and of course the players as well. Thus, I give the female coach her props 100% straight no chaser.