It ‘s interesting that things like this happen because South Park, along with many other shows like Family Guy and Everybody Hates Chris, poke fun at stereotypes. Most of it is done for humorous purposes, entertainment based. Does that give them a right to offend people? Not really. But it has kind of become the norm to accept these programs and not think too much into them. I am not saying that it’s ok to flaunt these stereotypes and convert our ways of thinking to them, but it is not something that I would waste my time getting upset about. Racist and sexist slurs are constantly being used to produce a few laughs, most times they are laughs of the very peoples they are referring too (for example, the comedians that make fun of their own race or others very closely related). There is a thin line between funny and offensive, and often times that thin line can be blurry as well. Are South Park or any of the other parallel shows going to stop doing what they are doing because someone is offended? No, probably not. I am not sure what exact episode the student is referring to, but unless it is for personal safety issues I doubt the show will be taken off the air (especially on channels like Adult Swim or anything of that nature). What most people would say to that is probably “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it.”

I think that most people naturally feel that those types of things do not affect them because they are unable to see the connections clearly. That makes everything less personal and with humans being selfish instinctively, it is not always someone’s best interest to help out a cause as far away as Haiti. Of course if it is our own family members or people that we are close to we will act upon it differently. If people felt like they would actually make a difference or be significant in some way, then more people would take action. Due to feelings of unimportance, it is crucial for people like Ian from class to come and talk to us about how you can actually make a difference. Otherwise, people—especially students and others who are very involved in their surroundings (i.e. very engaged in their careers) do not see the need or find the time to help with larger issues. People pretty much take on an “Oh, they will handle that; they don’t need me too” mentality. Until people feel needed, they won’t really respond. It might make us feel like we are “bad people” or extremely selfish when we realize that we turn our backs on these issues on a daily basis, but only momentarily. Then, we go right back to what we were doing as if nothing happened. The guilt doesn’t last long until we talk about it. And when we stop talking about it, it vanishes again.

Fortunately, prior to watching this video, I read the introduction to it and consciously had to open my mind so that I could at least accept his argument. That seemed to work because I could understand that being in a different mindset may have made changed the way I interpreted what he was saying in response to the posed question. Being open enabled me to take his points into consideration and quite frankly, it was a very logical argument. Education is often one of the prime examples of removing creativity from people, more specifically young people. When you are young, you have an abundance of questions about life in general including how and why things work the way that they do. It is natural to be curious. However, most people get to a point where they realize that most of their peers that ask too many questions are punished for doing it. In addition, questioning authority becomes absurd and looked down upon. Therefore, the less risky are the ones who jump through the hoops and become “obedient” and the ones who are bold enough to continue to question are considered rebels and / or disobedient.

I think he was right when he said that most of us have at least one experience where teachers or some other authority challenged us to question them or to present conflict in a fashionable manner. I know that I have. Before this class, one class where creativity and thinking through different perspectives were encouraged was in high school. The class was called Theory of Knowledge (or TOK). TOK is the study of how we know what we know. It was a very interesting course where we as students questioned everything that we say we “know” and how credible the source that we “learn” it from really is. I took the class for two semesters and it truly changed the value of the way and the depth at which I thought about issues and knowledge. We had to write several papers based on simple topics that we had to dig very deep into in order to come to a conclusion. Most of the class, though, consisted of discussions between students. Occasionally we would debate with the instructor, but most times he took a neutral stance in order to get us to realize all dimensions of the issue (much like Sam does in his lectures).

The irony of the United States is that as much as we need creative and innovative thinkers, we want them to be obedient. And those who are obedient are usually the ones that lack creativity skills. So what is it that we really want? Is power or productivity more important?

It is not hard to understand what this student is saying. Within every race, religious group, economic status, you name it, there are those outliers and extremists that draw all of the attention and yet have the least support within the respected groups. I think that this lesson can be applied to so many things in life simply because what you see is not always what you get. The “normal” and common, non-extreme people are not going to be the ones that make the news or the front page of the paper. It will more than likely always be those who have gone over the top in some way or another, that most people in that group feel is not a good representation of what they stand for. It just sucks to know that so many people don’t “get this.” They don’t take it and remember it and keep it as a tool under their belt, preparing themselves for other encounters throughout life. Some of us let it go in one ear and out the other. But the key is, the sooner we open our ears and listen, the easier it will be to appreciate others. It’s probably much harder to put the guards down than to keep them up forever. But that’s what this is all about, taking the hard way out to make the future easier.

As a lot of people have already mentioned, the end goal is going to differ upon the individual. However, I found myself asking the question “So, where do we want to end up?” a few times while reading Laurie’s book. One thing that she wrote that stuck with me was that several white people are confused because people of color are not exactly sure what they want or how to express what they want specifically. There are mixed messages that are constantly being sent back and forth between races, which makes it more difficult to understand how to resolve what problems we face. She brought up the idea that people of color want to be treated equally in many ways, but still want to be recognized as being a part of something special—a specific culture. I would imagine that it is that way for everyone. Do white people mind being clumped together as one, simply being “white people”? Or would they rather be looked at as something deeper? Maybe Irish or Italian or European? I often wonder if that preference differs when the setting is altered: a mixed crowd versus an all white crowd versus a black crowd.

I feel like the goal is not to forget about race entirely; that would defeat the purpose of the “relations.” But the general goal is to look at race differently. Don’t use it so much as an identifier, but more like a modifier.

First off, I would like to say that this trailer is awesome. Props to whoever put it all together. All the key points that were made in class are depicted perfectly. Sam really helped get people, at least some of them, to go through a thought process that many would never dream of. When you look at issues like the ones discussed in class during the Christian Invaders lecture, putting yourself in another person’s shoes is the only way to get something out of it. Talking about the controversy as an American cannot truly help understand what Muslims and Arabs are going through in their countries (especially Iraq) even if you don’t want to.

One of the things that I have come to question time and time again are the ethics of what is going on. When considered from either side, it seems that both teams are “right” in some way or another. By “right” I mean that it is understandable, logical, makes sense to the common citizen. There were a lot of images and video clips that showed a side of the U.S. military that most of us (Americans) do not see in the news or in any other types of media resources. Most people are aware that what is shown on television or on the news channels are often biased summaries of what reporters and companies want us to know and see (and it is usually the “good” stuff that we do, helping people, etc.) But something that really shocked me in class was the disturbing fact that the United States allows 29 innocent people to be killed per every 1 enemy that is brought down. As an Arab Muslim, my trust in what seem to be like phony soldiers, a phony people, a phony country has been ultimately shattered. My first instinct would probably be to say that I would want nothing to do with them. But as we become aware of what is really going on behind closed doors (and out in the open), when the good and the bad are all left to honesty, I can start to make better judgments about other people and cultures and religions. Until then, the filtered images of the media will continue to impact groups of people in negative ways, all while encouraging strong senses of ethnocentrism.

It is hard to imagine why people would be willing to serve as suicide bombers and participate in other extreme acts of violence, but when you consider the scenarios, causes, effects, and underlying issues it isn’t that difficult to grasp. There are a lot of videos (like the one showed in class about Jihad) that tend to be very powerful and have an effect on people, usually striking fear and anger in them. To go along with that there is an awful lot of ignorance being spread like wildfire, on all sides of the issue. If we could take the time out to apply this exercise of putting ourselves in other people’s shoes, we would understand a lot more about each other in all types of situations. I think that’s what this class is all about. Hopefully others are getting that too.

I thought the same thing whenever the boy next to me in class ate the chocolate. But then Sam made a really good point. If you cannot promise to not ever eat chocolate again or at least fair trade chocolate then you mind as well eat the chocolate. Honestly, after that I did not eat the candy, but half of that was just because I do not like dark chocolate. I did take the first step in that I felt something after watching that video. I even wrote one of my English papers on modern day slavery. But I am not sure about the second step or if I am even ready to take it. Quite frankly, I ate a Kit Kat today.

Nice idea. Except it probably won’t work. It kind of makes sense though theoretically; if no one bought clothes then everything would be fine, right? But what about food? And all the other products that slaves and sweatshop workers make? Are we just going to use barter for the rest of our lives? Probably not.

I can understand what the student is saying about the t-shirts because I have a similar problem (I prefer the word fetish), but it is for shoes. I have a serious collection of sneakers in my closet at home. I could only bring about one-sixth of the collection to school with me. They simply would not fit here if I tried. But as I got older I started to give shoes that I no longer wear to my grandmother’s church for kids that cannot afford them or could just use a second pair. I guess deep down inside I feel like I am helping someone, doing good. But really, when I look at it from a different perspective, maybe I am just doing it to reassure myself that I am not a bad person and do not support slavery. But I do not feel like I am necessarily helping the people that made the many pairs of shoes that I bought or will buy in the future. I have definitely slowed down my shoe buying, but I don’t know if it is because that is truly what I want to do or if it is because I am now a part of the rest of the broke college community.

I am glad that this student put his question on the flip camera because I wondered about others that are in his place. He is obviously caught between two identities and he feels obligated to choose between the two because of the pressures in society. I do not believe that it is fair, yet it happens every day to countless people. Why should people have to choose? Why should they have to be internally divided? We discussed earlier in the semester that most mixed or multicultural people identify with one side over the other. This happens because of where they grew up or who they grew up with. What is interesting is that this student says that he grew up with his mother’s side of the family but he thinks that others see him as white because he has “white skin.” When I look at him, I do not think of him as white. I definitely see some other ethnicity at first glance. In addition, it seems like most people that are mixed with white and some other culture choose whichever side is “non-white.” Why is that? Is being white, and all the ethnicities that make up that extremely vague genre, just not satisfying enough? I have always wondered why that is.

But back to the original question: what team should he be on? Only he can decide that, and that is if he wants to be on either of the teams presented in class. If you do not allow yourself to be categorized by everyone else, then I feel as though you won’t be for the most part. There of course will be those people who place others in an initial category when they do not know them. But we all do that. It is natural to us as humans. There really is nothing you can do about judging at first glance. We have to learn to look past that. What we have to focus on are the more important things like how well the people we care about understand us. Everyone’s definition of how they are identified is different because everyone has their own feelings about the situation, or they may even be indifferent about all of this.

See now, this is different than what was going on in class. This is Laurie, A WOMAN, talking about her life and her experiences as…well, A WOMAN. What was going on in class seems like a whole separate issue. It was about a man discussing private bodily functions of someone that belongs to the opposite sex. It is kind of one of those things that only women can talk about, it is ours. It might as well be our sacred secret. Men are not “allowed” to talk about it if he is not a doctor or he is not talking about it in a very private manner. I feel like this is one of the subjects where it is not a man’s place to talk about it. Not with other women anyway. It is weird, awkward, uncomfortable, and sometimes it can be perceived as disrespectful. On the other hand, it seems like Laurie is venting to other women in this performance (I am not sure if that is actually the case). Who is really her audience? Honestly, I would say she has the authority to talk about this bleeding thing however she wants to. Why? Because she is a woman and she is experiencing the things that she is talking about. She can relate to similar stories from other women, whereas Sam is unable to do this. Any guy who feels like it’s no big deal, I suggest you trade places with Laurie for 28 days and then you can feel free to talk about it however you would like.