I found Sam’s lecture on Arab Muslims and terrorism very eye-opening and that might just have been the most important and interesting part of it all: that the general American population and the general population of the Middle East have their eyes closed to the reality of each other’s culture! The whole issue feeds off of ethnocentrism and patriotism. Each country believes that their actions are “right” and that the actions they are taking are their prerogative. This creates a perfect breeding ground for seeing other nations as the bad guy. Furthermore, the information disseminated by the mass media is often the most incendiary stories, pictures and videos representative of radicals on either side of the issue. Living in the United States, it is easy to brush off the negligence of a radical few American troops (Abu Graib, the “punishment for looting” video, the Jesus camp and poor language of politicians). When we see similar occurrences with regard to Muslims and Arabs, knowing very little, we allow these radicals to shape our views and spread fear of this radical, violent outsider (the propagandist jihad video). This lecture was particularly meaningful for me in that I had watched the movie “A Crude Awakening” just before the class (btw, I would highly recommend it if you have any interest at all in these issues!). It put the class in the context of U.S. dependence on foreign oil and the support of oppressive regimes so long as they provide us the oil that our country thrives on. All very thought-provoking and eye-opening stuff – some of Sam’s best in my opinion!
I thought that Sam’s overall point of “understanding the issue from a sociologist’s perspective” was a good starting block but certainly the issue requires deeper discussions than simply this. The fact that not only the foreign policy and political agenda but also the lifestyles and culture of our country revolve so singularly around oil is a massive issue that needs to change. Technological advancement and reducing our dependence is the only way around this. Our country needs politicians who have accepted this hard truth and are willing to act in the interests of real change. The fact that Sam glossed over John McCain’s statement that we “need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil” disappointed me because this may be one aspect of the solution to the issue! Such topics may have been extraneous in the context that the class was about ethnocentrism but I mainly just disagreed with how Sam used the McCain quote. Anyone else agree??

I found Sam’s lecture on Arab Muslims and terrorism very eye-opening and that might just have been the most important and interesting part of it all: that the general American population and the general population of the Middle East have their eyes closed to the reality of each other’s culture! The whole issue feeds off of ethnocentrism and patriotism. Each country believes that their actions are “right” and that the actions they are taking are their prerogative. This creates a perfect breeding ground for seeing other nations as the bad guy. Furthermore, the information disseminated by the mass media is often the most incendiary stories, pictures and videos representative of radicals on either side of the issue. Living in the United States, it is easy to brush off the negligence of a radical few American troops (Abu Graib, the “punishment for looting” video, the Jesus camp and poor language of politicians). When we see similar occurrences with regard to Muslims and Arabs, knowing very little, we allow these radicals to shape our views and spread fear of this radical, violent outsider (the propagandist jihad video). This lecture was particularly meaningful for me in that I had watched the movie “A Crude Awakening” just before the class (btw, I would highly recommend it if you have any interest at all in these issues!). It put the class in the context of U.S. dependence on foreign oil and the support of oppressive regimes so long as they provide us the oil that our country thrives on. All very thought-provoking and eye-opening stuff – some of Sam’s best in my opinion!

I find it interesting to read and hear people complaining about the racial and ethnic stereotypes. I do think, though, that many times the effect of the wording of the census is exaggerated and has less effect than it is made out to have, I agree with Sam in that I think the people that wrote the census did do plenty of research. The conclusions they came to when deciding which categories to include and which to exclude from these particular questions came from the idea that they want to get the most accurate data by making it as clear as possible to everyone. I don’t think anyone would be confused by the term “negro” being included on this form. It may cause people to "feel a certain way about it", as Sam so often says, but I think that is better than having an older black person who only relates to the term “negro” not know which option to fill out. It ultimately is only making the census more accessible and thus more effective. So many people read that and don’t think into it that far, they just automatically call it out as being offensive. The one man stated that a woman was upset because it reminded her of her childhood in the south and the repression. I understand that, but that could have been any word that reminded someone in their childhood. I think that people being to distracted by the word negro and not focusing on the importance of the census is a bit exaggerated. I am sure there weren’t too many people refusing to fill this out because the word negro was printed on it. Regardless of the categories that they used, just because race is such an issue in this country and so many people get offended very easily, I think no matter what was printed, they would have angered someone and the media would cover it, just as they did here.

As others have said, the video Sam showed is disturbing in what it reveals about our culture. Similarly to how we live in a male-dominated culture and are uncomfortable talking about "bleeding" or accomodating women in professional and everyday life, the video reveals that we live in a culture that is controlled by the white racial majority. Just as in regards to women, people of color are still very subtly and even subconsciously subjugated and discriminated if not outright than by the views perpetuated in society and social media outlets. That these differences are prevalent at such a young age as shown starkly in the "doll experiment" is very disturbing. It is pretty telling about our society that young children of color readily call a doll of their own skin color "bad" and a doll of the skin color of the majority (white) "good" in comparison. There are certain innate ideas in our society that are continually perpetuated. Simply the fact that children of color are more "comfortable" with a white doll would be troubling. They are not only more comfortable though. The one little girl who labels the white doll "good" also struggles with the fact that this idea makes her skin color logically follow as "bad". As Sam would say, "this is deep". What is it in our culture that is perpetuating the idea that white is better or more beautiful than black? Is it simply that white skin is more prevalent? I think not and even so, representation in the media should portray a similar idea of beauty regardless of race and should be equivalent as well. Beauty and being good or bad should be developed at home as personal. Race does not define a person - a person defines a person. This is to some extent a self-image issue which must be solved in addition to the societal slant. Overall, the issue is not to be ignored because it obviously impacts the subconscious views of everyone living in this country and the plight of the racial minority. We must acknowledge the issue and try to get at its root causes to try to improve racial equality in the United States.

My initial reaction to the story was that the actions were very insensitive at worst, however, I questioned whether the media could be blowing the story out of proportion as it sometimes does. Upon seeing the picture of the noose and reading the description of the "Compton Cookout" though, I am convinced that the acts go beyond simply getting carried away with a joke or being careless with your words. Very unsettling is that let alone merely saying such things, the students did not hesitate to act out for the entire rest of the community to see. While some people may harbor racist sentiments, that is something that must be changed at an individual level. The fact that people feel comfortable enough with such sentiments to act out in these ways sends a very alarming message about the type of community that exists on the UCSD campus and probably even elsewhere. At some point the actions that you take and what you say reflect certain undercurrents running through our society and, in light of this, I have to say that these actions strike me as very unsettling. They reflect that some people truly do not grasp the gravity that race issues have in a country with such a racially charged past. Despite that we now have an African American president and African Americans now have opportunities in this country similar to other racial and ethnic groups, we still must not take race of all issues lightly. There are still many areas of drastic inequality that remain in this country and have yet to be addressed but they certainly must. Furthermore, we are not that far removed from a time when grave racial inequalities existed in many areas of our American society. The actions reveal that many people are either unaware of these facts or think that racism is gone and thus we are able to "joke" about it. Joking ceases to be fun or light-hearted however when the joke perpetuates an idea that certain stereotypes and generalizations make one racial group inferior to others. Most disturbing is that people would be fine to make reference to race-related violence! Certainly there is no fun or laughter to be had there. We must live in a society that is knowledgable about our past and thus is respectful in the present. Getting carried away is no excuse for perpetuating ideas of racial inequality of any kind and it should not be tolerated. As the two representatives in the video made clear, knowledge on the subject and a greater minority presence would effectively prevent such undercurrents and ideas from infiltrating the community. Hopefully the community will embrace the educational measures being instituted, become more sensitive and acknowledge that such acts are wrong and will not be tolerated.

Professor Richards' commentary on free will versus determinism was very interesting in that it got at the very root cause of racial differences in socio-economic status in the United States. The aspect of determinism with regard to socio-economic status relates to the situation in which an individual finds him/her self at birth. This particular viewpoint speaks to how the past shapes the present in race relations. Professor Richards' analogy of King of the Hill certainly comes to mind here. Obviously, racial and ethnic groups have very drastically different pasts and current average economic status is primarily influenced by this past. The races that have been subjugated in the past by those on top of the hill, per say, are usually the races that are still struggling economically today. Those racial groups who got to the top of that hill are still likely to be economically well of on average.
Free will is the ideology that opposes somewhat that of determinism. This ideology states that each individual has the ability and will to change his/her economic status by the choices he/she makes to avoid and overcome obstacles in the way of social and economic advancement. In my opinion, perhaps the most interesting part of Professor Richards' dialogue pertained to how racial groups themselves effect the ideology that is disseminated. The people at the top of the economic ladder support a primarily free will-based perspective within which the people along the lower rungs of society may find hope for mobility. Those who are subjected beneath other socio-economic groups at times experience a determinstic attitude toward their situation. Truly, the overall point of the lecture seemed to be to demonstrate that each of these viewpoints are certainly valid and require equal consideration at all times. There is not one definite answer to the question "how can we explain racial differences in socio-economic in our country?". Instead, we must approach the question in terms of both past position in society and current decision making.
One particular part of the discussion that struck me was that we are always seemingly progressing beyond the racial "King of the Hill" constraints. The ideas of determinism are becoming less based on racial distinctions and more and more are defined on an individual family history basis. Also, the free will perspective places a specific emphasis on the motivation and work ethic of each individual person regardless of race or ethnicity. The free will perspective is one of hope and, while determinism is an important determinant, one's initial situation can be and has been overcome. Ultimately, socio-economic status has many determinants. These determinants, however, are becoming more and more individualistic as we move away from a past of subjugation and discrimination.

The purpose of a census is not merely to come up with a number of citizens who reside in a given country but also to classify the population into proper socio-economic categories in order that the government may better serve the citizens of the nation. The article reveals this purpose by stating that "census data underpin broad stretches of society, from federal regulations to corporate marketing strategies". Furthermore, the fact that "antidiscrimination laws written in the 1960s and the affirmative-action policies that followed relied on Census data to determine if minorities were underrepresented in any number of realms, from home sales to small-business loans" shows that census data outside of the numbers is perhaps just as important as the numbers themselves. Therefore, in order to achieve the purpose of the census, sociological data and its accuracy are both of great importance. The census obviously is important in effecting physical change and mainly due to the amount and quality of information it gathers. Aside from analyzing in order to attempt to effect change, though, the article's most prominent point is that "how data are framed when collected speaks to our collective worldview (both contemporary and historical)". The census has become both a reflection and a shaper of social perspective and worldview in the United States. “We hope this will help us better understand the way people identify with these concepts,” says Nicholas Jones, chief of the Census’ racial-statistics branch. From these statements, one can derive that the United States Census has a threefold purpose: to maintain numerical data on the U.S. population, to obtain data on social characteristics and to simultaneously shape and analyze the social viewpoints of U.S. citizens.

To repeat, the Census' most pivotal role lies in determining, shaping and ultimately reflecting the changing social viewpoints of the entire country. Recently, the census is becoming more and more focused on this point. Thus, the director's of the Census have taken specific notice of how citizens of the United States wish to be characterized. Also, the creators of the Census have made options more varied and specific and are now beginning to grant full freedom in the form of "write-in" areas instead of check boxes. This is of the greatest importance in that it indicates that people are very, very unique in how they wish to be characterized and a few, simple "races" are ineffective with regard to doing so. Such a revelation is ultimately contradictory to the idea of race itself. It becomes obvious that if a person is incapable of describing themselves by checking a single race type, then certainly it is not merely race that defines people. To the contrary, people's skills and assets are individual and very specific characteristics upon which race is fast losing its effect.

At the most basic level, the topic of this post begs the question what role is government ideally supposed to play in society and how do the actions being taken here coincide (or not, for that matter) with that ideal purpose? In "The Leviathan", Thomas Hobbes states that government is a natural occurrence in society in that people choose it as an alternative to anarchy. It is established to maintain peace through security of individual possessions and to generally prevent civil unrest. Overall, people in society give up their individual freedom to gain the security and peace that comes from a governing body. Certainly this is merely the most basic purpose of government and governing bodies have developed into much larger and more significant entities in our world today. Hobbes' concept of government as a conscious, economic decision to give up freedom in favor of peace and security, however, is still extremely relevant. A government that strays too far from this native purpose is not going to be a very successful one. As psugal17 says, the French republic is founded on Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood. The point at which "Equality and Brotherhood" require a person to entirely forfeit their innate liberties and freedoms, though, is the point at which the French republic has gone too far. While the government is large, the governed are larger and they hold their personal rights dear to them. Even a minority of people should not be deprived of their freedom to practice their religion and cultural customs. The argument against burqas with regard to the security and peace of the French people is very flimsy, to say the least. Burqas themselves pose very little threat to the general peace and security of the French citizen except perhaps in mental comfort. Also, government is too advanced not to realize that this law would infringe on their rights. This is ultimately another issue (similar to that of racism in European soccer) where there is so much cultural tension that the cultural mindset of a country can be exploited to take away the rights of a minority. As Americans, it is important to realize that our racial and cultural situations are both very unique. We have overcome the oppression of two minority groups in women and people of color (to a greater extent than other countries) and we are somewhat isolated from cultural tension. Europe, on the other hand, does not have the "melting pot" societal mindset that America does and countries in Europe have strong national opposition to immigration and foreign culture, especially skin color and foreign religion. Achieving equality with regard to rights and brotherhood with regard to peace as opposed to secularism and uniformity is a high goal. Even the United States is far from perfect - just look to our southern border - but we have done a fine job as a democracy of protecting the rights of all, even minorities with foreign customs, religions and tones of skin! All in all, maintaining the rights, freedom, security and peace of all people (including cultural minorities) should be the ultimate concern of government. A republic that strives for secularism and uniformity might be achieving the goals the Hobbesian goals of security and peace for its citizens temporarily but not long term in the context of an increasingly global community. Government must make dramatic change and stop operating as a cultural island. No culture and no country is an island unto itself, or will be for long.

hey

Laurie’s original article is very intriguing in that it gives tremendous insight into the human condition. People are motivated to some extent by self-interest and their own well-being but also to a great extent by other forces outside of themselves to help others. As Laurie indicates, in the wake of a great natural disaster such as the recent devastation of Haiti, people seem to be more motivated by this mysterious secondary force than their own self-interest. Most responses have in some way defined this secondary motivation. Whether it is just a specific means of pleasing ourselves or assuaging our own guilt or a more sincere act of pity and compassion is a serious debate but is it even worth having. Since we are far removed from the crisis and certainly much better off in our situation than our Haitian brothers and sisters, I believe that either perspective can be construed to be equally as valid as the other. At some point, we simply must reconcile our actions and feelings within ourselves and realize that the way we feel about our response is an intensely personal decision. In the end, though, I feel that the most important part of the situation is that it does cause this introspection on the part of every person. This introspection usually results in a realization of just how blessed and lucky we are to be in our situation and have what we have. The introspection also brings about the sense of compassion or moral obligation and an outpouring of aid and support that is rarely seen in our world today.

The fact that many people have been quick to point out that the earthquakes can not be said to be an act of God but rather random acts of Mother Nature is also very interesting in that it is the main “fault” in Laurie’s comparison. In the grand scheme of things, though, does the source of the increased compassion and sense of brotherhood really matter? Our own guilt, the acts of a man named Jesus or the arbitrary, random forces of nature are all potential causes. The end result remains, however, that we are uniting for a greater good and compassion and brotherhood have temporarily taken precedence over self-consumption and self-interest. Now, perhaps we can just try to incorporate these ideas and feelings into our daily thoughts and actions. The world would be a much more peaceful place with far fewer sources of division if everyone practiced this type of ecumenism and attempted to ignore philosophical differences in favor of respecting goals of peace and unity. Perhaps it is naïve to think that any of this is possible but one can always hope. The ultimate question is whether we can see through philosophical and psychological divisions to find the capacity to love and have compassion for our neighbor.