The second video especially is so touching; I don't think I've seen something so adorable and absolutely uncorrupted in a very long time. The look on his face!
Otherwise, I enjoyed Thursday's class. My partner and I were entirely different (race, etc) but I ended up talking to her a lot and we had a lot more in common than I ever would have thought. I went to shake her hand at the end of class and she gave me a hug instead. It was awesome.

I think most people, like me, are raised to see criminals—especially lifers—as monsters. Most people can’t even begin to comprehend the motives could make a human being kill another human being, or rape, torture, mutilate, or commit any other heinous act against someone else. I certainly can’t, and before recently I’ve always had a “no excuses” type of attitude towards them; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, you get exactly what you gave as your punishment. In general, I don’t think people change. I think drug addicts can be rehabilitated and people with anger management issues can learn to control it, but they’ll always be the same. The addicts will always be addicts; they just stay away from substances. Other people learn to manage their aggression, but it doesn’t mean they don’t think about doing something violent. In a smaller sense, even people who cheat in relationships are generally serial cheaters. They don’t actually change, but they learn ways to hide it better.
When Sam said that he and Laurie have friends who are lifers in prison, I was fascinated and horrified at the same time. Who has friends that are first-degree murderers? But after reading this I think that, given the chance, I would visit too. People are people, and although there are some bad apples, maybe they can change.
In some ways, I think that life in prison is worse than the death penalty. Life is a long time. I can’t imagine having a lapse in judgment for a minute and then spending every single minute of the rest of my life thinking about it. Talk about regret. If I was punished every single time I did something wrong or something stupid, I’d be spending a lot of my time feeling sorry for myself. Then again, I’m not going around committing crimes punishable by law. However, this man obviously has had ample time for reflect on his wrongdoing. His letter opened my eyes to the reality that lifers are capable of feeling selfless compassion and emotions that I usually associate only with “good” or “innocent” people, but truthfully, I know a lot of selfish people. I know a lot of people who will be friends with me when it’s about going out and having a good time, but they wouldn’t sit there and hug me if I was having a rough day like those inmates did for each other. Sometimes an awful situation—like life in prison—can bring out the best in people. Even their basic American privilege of freedom has been stripped away, and all they’re left with is bare humanity. It is encouraging to me to see that such acts of kindness are possible even in the darkest of places.

Love and belong is the third tier in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; only physiological necessities such as hunger and thirst and the need for safety and security are more important to a human being. We are social creatures by nature—the majority of us, at least—and we all feel some need to fit in and feel wanted by our peers. Every theory of the existence of humanity supports this. In creationism, God created Eve as a companion for Adam, and thus people were born. In evolutionary theory, even chimpanzees live and interact in groups. I don’t think this desire to be included is specific to males or females as far as our inborn instincts. Society pressures women to acquire the need to fit in more so than men, I think, mainly because it is considered more important for women to conform to a physical standard.
As much as anyone can preach “you are beautiful the way you are” to women, it doesn’t change the fact that there is still pretty much one main standard of beauty for any culture. It varies from ethnicity to ethnicity, but they are all the same in the way that they can make a girl feel inadequate if she does not “measure up” to the standard. I wouldn’t know, but I think that guys experience the same thing to some extent.
Men look up to important figures such as professional athletes or celebrities as well; these influences explain the way the majority dresses and the fact that guys will take supplements and even steroids to build their muscles. Men are also expected to act a certain way, which is generally to be unemotional and not show vulnerability in order to display how manly they are. Guys who are too feminine pose the risk of being called homosexual or some other stereotype simply because they may act slightly less macho than other men.
However, I think it is easier for guys to maintain individuality and not conform to societal pressure because men tend to be more accepting of a person’s true identity. They don’t care if their friend is overweight, has too big of a nose, isn’t built enough, or doesn’t get many girls—as long as he has some other redeeming qualities. When men fight, they usually take a few hits at each other and then let it go. Women, on the other hand, can be superficial when picking their friends in order to obtain some personal gain, and the worst of them will not even associate with another girl if she doesn’t adhere to how the rest of the group looks or acts. In addition, women tend to fight with words and can hold grudges instead of getting it over with quickly. I’m sure that guys have their challenges as well, but I doubt they face as much pressure as women do. Then again, it depends on whose perspective you’re seeing the world through.

Sam said in the beginning of the semester that he is here not so much to change our opinions and preach to us, but to at least get us to actually THINK about things. That said, I would say that Sam’s lectures haven’t changed my opinions but made me analyze and think more in-depth about what I already thought. For me, Soc 119 has brought things I think I’ve always subconsciously known and brought them to my conscious level of thinking to be delved into further. Especially in the beginning of the semester, the class would blow my mind every time. The most memorable class for me was when Sam explained the Biological, Socio-Economic, and Free Will theories of factors that affect the course of a person’s life. I already KNEW that it was a balance between all three, but I gained a further and more complete understanding of the way the world works after that class. Maybe it’s just me, because I do like sociology, philosophy, and like subjects, but I feel as though my mind has been opened and I can now see issues through prisms other than my own.
This class has made me question what I am learning in other classes, which by comparison seem dull and trivial at times. I don’t mind Sam’s left-field sort of comments and stories because at least they are something different than the straight-from-the-textbook material I learn the rest of the day. I want to be provoked; I want him to say something that evokes some sort of strong emotion in me. I’d rather Sam make me angry than any one of my other professors make me fall asleep out of boredom. The “bleeding” class discussion was definitely weird and probably made a lot of people uncomfortable, but when else is someone going to say that to a room full of 700 students? I have to give Sam some credit for going out on that limb.
Overall, I think race relation is an extremely important issue in our world; it might not be the loud, in-your-face type of issue that gets a lot of attention, but if you know what to look for it’s everywhere. This class has reaffirmed a lot of my beliefs and made me re-evaluate others. I tell my friends especially funny or weird stuff that happens in class and a lot of them can’t even believe that it’s allowed to be said. I appreciate outrageous things, like the story Sam told us when he was really stoned and almost let his paraplegic friend drown in the hot tub. Hey, it’s proof that professors are people, too. I like the change of pace it provides and I usually look forward to going to class. I do agree with the people who said that lately it hasn’t been as interesting as it was before spring break, but I am hopeful that once we get past the “stages of awakening” that it will resume its normal standard.

My late grandfather is probably rolling over in his grave due to the release of this information. I’m sure that in his small-town, white, agricultural, working-class world, the possibility of whites eventually becoming the minority was never even thought of. From his perspective, being white was one of the only privileges he had in his life; otherwise, he was a Pennsylvania dairy farmer who lacked formal education and overworked himself every single day just to provide for his large family. He was never given any special treatment and for the most part, he never achieved the “American Dream.” My grandfather was a good man, but I can say he was basically racist. I largely believe that his white pride was borne of circumstance and social norms at the time, but I’m sure he would be more than insulted to know that his descendents are of a dying majority. I’m sure there are still people who feel that strongly about it.
Personally, I don’t find it hard to believe. With the large amount of immigrants (especially Hispanics) and biracial people, it was probably going to happen sometime. I guess I’m guilty of ethnocentrism, or have been, because when I was younger—and especially before college—I thought of the United States as being a primarily “white” country, with English as the majority language, etc, etc. Since I have been exposed more closely to other races and cultures, I can see this isn’t necessarily true. At the same time, I’ve never thought of myself as being privileged or above anyone else of a different race; I simply never thought that being white might give me a natural advantage, because no one ever told me that until now, and I have never experienced anything different. If whites were to be the minority, I don’t think that we would experience discrimination or anything of the sort, because apparently we’ve always been on top. Thus, I think other races would simply become more truly equal. In such a developed society, I can’t see reverse racism becoming a true problem.
I don’t like the question for people of other races, because although I know it’s supposed to spark discussion and everything, feeling emboldened to have control defeats the purpose of race relations. I would understand if people of color feel empowered by being the majority—after all, there is “safety in numbers”—but I don’t think acting on that feeling would be beneficial to the relationship between people of color and white people. These superiority/inferiority complexes are only going to be detrimental to the progression of equality, regardless of who the minority and majority are. The point of equality is making these words only numbers; it shouldn’t matter in a societal context.

Though I know what they are, I have not been closely following the Tea Party protests. I was shocked upon seeing the image of the signs that these people were holding and appalled at the insults thrown at Democratic Party members. Politics is a tricky subject; I do not strictly identify myself as either Democrat or Republican, but rather view every political issue independently and without the lenses of a specific party. I do not necessarily agree with everything about the healthcare plan. I think universal healthcare is a great idea in theory, but just like Utopia, it just does not seem realistic without significantly detracting from other areas of this country. However, that’s another issue entirely. The Tea Party protestors were certainly exercising their free speech first amendment rights, but there is a fine line between speaking one’s mind and harassment and discrimination.
This line is quite blurry in some instances, and politics can bring out both the best and the worst in some people, but I think this is stepping out of bounds. Though I understand that big issues are being debated, calling someone the n-word or the f-word is NOT about healthcare or any other political point. They are blatant personal attacks meant to degrade and intimidate their targets--this is not the elementary school playground, and this is not fighting fair. Republicans are definitely angry about Obama being president period, thus their lash-outs are vendettas with the facades of protests about an issue dividing the country. As if that is an excuse. By all means, I believe that everyone should voice their opinions, but one would think adults who are educated enough to serve as political activists would have the decency to be diplomatic about it.
The signs with “If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can” are allusions to the gun rights movement, but the violent threats portrayed in them should not be allowed. I can see some lawsuits coming out of the names and the signs, both because their targets would have a legitimate reason to take legal action and because I am positive that Democrats would love this opportunity to tear all Republicans apart for one group’s careless stupidity.
Personally, even if I did support the Tea Party protests, I absolutely cannot advocate throwing around such derogatory names and hostile threats on a battleground where so many people’s lives could be affected. This would not be tolerated in a classroom or a workplace, where the same measure of political correctness is usually applied as in government. Members of government and politicians are supposed to represent our country, and this depicts a terrible image. I certainly do not want these people to stand for me, because I can not stand for them.

I really have to commend Natalie Randolph. By no means am I a raging feminist, but I will say this is “one small step for woman, one giant leap for womankind.” Aside from powder puff leagues, which are practically nonexistent on the high school and collegiate circuit, football is absolutely dominated by men. Every other sport usually has some kind of women’s league that is, in some cases, more followed than their male counterparts’. Think about it; women’s basketball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, etc all are considered a part of the societal norm, but when have women ever taken a serious role in football? Natalie is seriously breaking boundaries with this one, because she’s not even mixing with women—she’s coaching boys! Gender issues seem to be overshadowed by racial and sexual-orientation discrimination as of late; they might be an even bigger deal than racial issues in the sports world, though I would think that homosexuality is still more taboo in the locker room. I don’t doubt Natalie’s ability as a coach in the least, especially at the high school level, and I think that while it might not start a trend, it’s still a great thing.
What I found more impressive was how Ms. Randolph handled the whole “disparate treatment” situation; she graciously acknowledged that people will treat you unfairly in all walks of life and recognized that since she is essentially an exception to the rule, she is probably going to come across some people who don’t think she should be doing that job. Just like Sam said today in class, sometimes it isn’t fair; sometimes it just IS. I think that her acceptance of and willingness to defeat the male stereotype her position holds will help her to succeed as a coach. She has the right idea of focusing on the kids instead of herself in the spotlight, and I think that will help the community accept her even more.
Natalie Randolph also defeats the stereotype of women who play football as being “manly” or “butchy.” She is soft-spoken, sweet, and amiable, but nothing about her appearance in the interview hints at her being masculine. I like that she replied to the question “Do you feel like you have to work harder?” with “I work hard anyway…I hold very high expectations for myself, so I usually focus on that and then opportunities come.” Sometimes I think that people in her situation could be on the defensive because they feel like they have to prove themselves to other people, but Natalie has the right idea by doing what she loves for herself and not for anyone else.
I definitely don’t look for an influx of women to be coaching men’s football leagues, but I think that women becoming more involved in football could put women’s leagues on more equal footing and give women like Natalie Randolph more opportunities to pursue their passions.

I have no problem admitting that reality-romance shows like The Bachelor are somewhat of a guilty pleasure of mine. I remember the first season of the show and have watched at least a few episodes of most other seasons. At first, the big issue was a double standard of the sexes; people wondered why it was only men who got to be the “choosers” in the love game and all of the women had to vie for a fraction of their attention. Problem solved with the first season of The Bachelorette. In the seasons since, The Bachelor has pulled numerous tricks from its sleeve to keep people interested in something beyond the same-old. However, it has yet to cast a person who is not white in the starring role. I keep waiting for it to happen, but season after season the cast of the show is predominantly white. If a person of any other race happens to be among the contestants, they usually don’t last very long in the running.
As for reasons why the show is the way it is, I think it certainly has to do with the audience they are targeting. As pointed out by my peers, other networks such as MTV have similar dating shows that star people of other races, but we don’t see the same primetime slot pattern on channels like ABC that are more aimed at adults. The younger generation as a whole has been raised to be more racially accepting than our parents, so most of us will watch a show regardless of the race of its cast as long as it is interesting to us. Older adults may not be as willing to be devoted to a program like The Bachelor that does not feature people like them. I say this especially in regard to older white people, since I bet people of other races are used to major networks airing primarily Caucasian shows. For example, my mother is an avid fan of The Bachelor, but yet she takes no interest in “Flavor of Love” or “A Shot at Love.” I think this has something to do both with the fact that these shows are admittedly less classy than The Bachelor, but it could also have something to with the fact that The Bachelor features people who fall in similar racial, ethnic, and cultural categories as she does.
It would be an interesting experiment in sociology for The Bachelor to mix it up a little bit and make their next season very racially diverse, but we also have to keep in mind the goal of the program (keep your skepticism out of it). The Bachelor and Bachelorettes really do seem to want to find “love” on television, or at least a potential partner, so ABC obviously takes into consideration their preferences when selecting the candidates. In that case, if Mr. Bachelor doesn’t see himself with a woman of another race, ABC most likely won’t choose a wide variety of ethnicities. That explanation can be applied to past seasons, but as for the future seasons I would love to see a Bachelor of an unexpected race. The viewer ratings could tell us something about this country’s attitude towards interracial relationships.

The resiliency of the human spirit never ceases to amaze me. Hard times either make you or break you, and clearly Yvrose has met the challenge to survive in post-earthquake Haiti with creativity and ingenuity. I am honestly surprised at her capacity to understand the concepts of running every aspect of a business with just a 5th grade education. Yes, by 5th grade I was logically able to understand profits and losses, but even now I can’t say with confidence I could handle interest rates and currency exchanges on a complex level—and this is after 2 years of college (though I am not a business student). Then again, I think true necessity makes a person tap into reserves of their potential that they would not have otherwise discovered. Yvrose’s entire existence, and that of her children, rests on the financial bottom line of her business. This harsh reality forces her to either understand the concepts of what makes money and what does not or ultimately lose what little she has. I do not mean to lessen her potential and talent for business, but I agree with some of my peers in saying that Yvrose has important factors behind her that many Americans do not: necessity, survival instinct, and the drive borne from the two.
I think I always had a subconscious understanding that most people who are born into privileged lives would continue to rise in social class and those who are not will struggle, but I never fully thought about the impact of socioeconomic factors before Sam’s lecture. Honestly, if I think about it too much, I find it pretty depressing. It’s not even because I come from a financially unstable family—because I don’t, nor am I incredibly well-off—but just because I think some people will never be given the opportunity to truly reach their capabilities. It happens here every day, but Yvrose is a more dramatic example. The probability of her making $100 by the next morning did not seem likely, but I hope someone helped her. If I was the translator (the rich guy), I would pay her bank back myself. People like her are the type that Haiti needs to put in good positions for success if the country wants to get back on its feet.
I’m not sure how I would survive in Haiti. I would love to say that I’d definitely become some sort of entrepreneur and beat the odds, but who knows? The least I can say is that I have enough faith in myself that I believe I’d find some way to survive, whatever that may be. I have always had a cushion to fall back on; I only recently realized the extent of my parents’ financial support for me, and although they have no problem paying for things I need, I feel bad asking them for money and I never have before. A little piece of the real world just fell into place for me, and it’s sort of scary. I give a lot of credit to people like Yvrose who do not crumple under adversity but fight to succeed.

“Let’s not continue to break things. Let’s find some way to fix them.”
I don’t think I could agree more on this statement, but I’m also torn on the issue because there is no way that “fixing things” by allowing gays to have unions but not officially calling it “marriage” would make everyone happy.
On one hand, I definitely agree with the fact that homosexual people should be allowed to have the same exact rights as heterosexual people. It is inhumane and unfair to forbid two people who are in a committed and loving long term relationship to be married, both for legal and personal reasons. Essentially, not allowing gay people to be legally joined is a form of segregation. In most states, they are denied the entitlements that straight people are provided simply because society is uncomfortable with the idea. I say this as an entirely heterosexual person—but honestly, why do you and I care if gay people get married or not? They’re not hurting anyone. They’re just in the pursuit of happiness like everyone else, and if that’s what makes them happy, then let them.
On the other hand, I see religion’s side of the issue. Marriage was originally established as a religious institution, and for many people, it still is. However, I feel as if people are becoming less and less religious (as in “all or nothing” religious, as Sam said) in today’s world, and marriage is becoming torn between church and state. It floats in some vague realm where it is both legally binding and deeply tied to religion and personal values, so where does the issue of gay marriage fall? I go back and forth on the issue, and today’s class made me think of myself as a religious hypocrite anyways. I’ve gone through all the Catholic practices (baptism, conformation, etc), I go to church most Sundays, I try to stick to my morality and be a good person. But—the Corinthians passage today made me realize that I have been picking and choosing my religious values all my life. I certainly am guilty of some of those sins, as I think many people who define themselves as conservative and religious are. I support a lot of things the Catholic Church does not, gay rights included, so it makes me question where I stand in the religious spectrum. It also affirms the statement that although the institution of marriage (since 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is also condemned by the Bible) is already broken, we are not doing anything to repair it by allowing gay people to get married in the same respect as straight people as far as the church aspect goes.
I wish I could take a solid standpoint on the issue, but it’s one of those that keep coming full circle for me. I do, however, think that a compromised standpoint of gay “unions” may be the closest thing to marriage that society as a whole is willing to accept, and it’s definitely a start. We already do have something for people who are “inside the box,” and since it’s no secret that gay people are “outside the box,” we could attempt to make everyone as happy as possible by establishing something essentially the same as traditional marriage, but new.