According to the video of Noam Chomsky, “The educational system is supposed to train people to be obedient, conformist, not think too much, do what you’re told, stay passive, don’t cause any crisis of democracy, don’t raise any questions, and so on.” I completely agree. As a senior in my last month of study as an undergraduate, I have learned very few things in college that have made lasting impressions. Mostly I’ve learned how to read a rubric and fill the requirements. I’ve learned that school is a game and you just need to follow the teacher’s rules, jump through the hoops, and you’ll get the grade. During this game if I learned something that persevered the completion of the test, it was not due to the rubric but due to a personal interest that sparked questions for me to investigate.

During his talk, Chomsky referenced a book called Closing the American Mind, and said that the idea behind the book was that “a couple of smart guys will decide what the great thoughts are and every student will memorize them.” I feel that this speaks volumes about the game known as school. Who are the “smart guys” that decide what the nation’s children will be taught and what makes them capable of choosing what the future should and should not know? It seems almost negligent for teachers to share partial truths with the young minds they are responsible to cultivate. But how can teachers possibly share everything? Is it even realistic for critics such as Chomsky to expect formalized institutions such as schools to cater to all the curiosities of the next generation?

Following his opinion on the educational system I had the nagging thought that this structure of school was essentially a set up for the rules and regulations of society. Then I considered the phenomena of invention. Chomsky then addressed my concern; he said, “It’s hard to train people to be creative and challenging and so on and yet to ensure that somewhere else in their lives they’re conformists and obedient and never think.” But I imagine that – in reality – when you open your mind to the impossible it’s the only time you can discover the truth.

For the past six summers I have taken a position as a full-time instructor of karate – an art that emphasizes discipline and obedience. Considering my time at the school, there have been many times that students have either gotten out of line or questioned, “Why,” and as an instructor I have calmed their rambunctious actions and silenced their curious minds. In the context of this video, my teaching of karate has completely followed the trend of suppressing young minds. In fact if I think about the history of the martial arts, it’s all about conformity and the idea of building a tight knit troop of black belts.

Before the demonstration began, I had a feeling that eating the chocolate would make a point so I chose to not eat the first piece. After watching the video I was glad that I hadn’t eaten the chocolate chip; yet I couldn’t help but think how this one chocolate chip was meaningless in the whole big scheme of my week, year, or lifetime of chocolate consumption. As I watched the video I was pleased that I didn’t eat the first chocolate chip. The more I had the immediate consequential thoughts that I needed to completely give up chocolate, the more I second guessed myself. I realized that it was unrealistic for me to pledge I was going to change my life and stop buying and eating chocolate in order to combat the process of slavery involved in its production.

Though I think from this point on I will make a conscious decision to take advantage of the free-trade chocolate available, after thinking more about the issue I ate both of those chocolate chips. Maybe you’re shocked by this considering what I just said immediately raced through my mind in reaction to the video, however I would argue that it is worse to NOT eat the chocolate. Before you judge me completely, let me explain my reasoning. I imagine if you told that man from the video, the one that claimed eating chocolate is like eating a piece of his flesh, that you just threw the chocolate in the trash – the chocolate that he lost his funds, his family and friends, and his freedom for – it would be more disrespectful than eating a piece of his torturous, unfulfilling work.

Americans take for granted the fact that they get to experience a great number of luxuries that the rest of the world is not privy to. The man in the video admitted that he had never even tasted the product that his blood, sweat, and tears went into producing. By throwing a piece of his flesh into the trash, it’s like you are showing how ignorant you are that you could easily waste something that another human being unwillingly gave up literally everything for you to enjoy.

The treatment of the slaves involved in chocolate production is simply inhumane; the fact that chocolate manufacturers are aware of the torture and unfair treatment of these slaves yet they choose to avoid improving the conditions is – in my eyes – even worse. With the knowledge of this level of maltreatment, how can officials and individuals in power choose to close their eyes? It pains me to know that people force others to do things and treat them like material possessions against their will. With these things in mind, how could you NOT eat the second piece of chocolate?

If this were a multiple choice test and I had to answer Sam’s question posed by the heading of the blog from the point of view of Mr. Balsamico, I would have to say he is a patriot. In my mind, Mr. Balsamico is just another man with an opinion. I wouldn’t say that I agree with his points because I believe that they are generally extreme and, therefore, unrealistic. For example, Mr. Balsamico’s first statement about his ancestry makes his issues with immigration ironic; yet he is patriotic in the sense that he wants admission into this country to be more selective. He is proud of his family history and he thinks that all other families who migrate to the United States should have to jump through all the hoops that his family had to in order to gain citizenship.

From his small speech, it seems that he believes his suggestions are just the best for the country. Yes, I think that our military bases are excessive and closing some of them would be wonderful. Additionally, I think that some people take advantage of our government’s social benefits. I also agree it is very likely that if something were to affect the wages, insurance, benefits, or perks of the American politicians, they would really notice and immediately respond to correct the mistake. Though I consider these things to be true, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Balsamico’s proposes any viable answers to these concerns.

When Mr. Balsamico suggests that the military service men and women should be stationed along the border of the United States, this is a perfect illustration of an unfeasible proposal. I do think that having the soldiers back in their home country would be favorable to the alternative of being in war-ridden nations where they are not welcome. On the other hand, American troops have been stationed over seas for so many years now that they have practically become permanent fixtures in certain countries. Though this is not an excuse to keep them there, my point is that Mr. Balsamico’s expectations of immediate removal and relocation is simply impractical.

Toward the end of the speech, Mr. Balsamico tells his viewers that “…every vote counts…don’t just talk about it, make it happen.” I think this statement would have been better as the conclusion of his rant because it was a call to action. If he had stopped his statement at this point, his message would have seemed more generalizable to broader audiences. It could have been interpreted that he was sharing his opinions and then telling Americans to act on their own beliefs so they have a say in the development of their country.

I’m a white girl, so take my words with a grain of salt, but I find this video extremely disturbing. The results of the study showed that the majority of black children preferred to play with white dolls versus black dolls. Additionally, when they were asked which was the good doll they chose the black one. Specifically, the last little girl asked about the dolls clearly shows concern over the idea that she looks most like the doll that she labeled bad. The poor little girls from the video’s study are not reinforced for being who they are and embracing their individual beauty, instead they are force fed ridiculous generalizations that suggesting another girl is better because her skin is pigment-challenged.

As a little girl I remember my favorite dolls looked most like me. I’m not the typical Arian girl, so that meant Barbies with brown hair and eyes were my favorite. From this video it seems that my preferences placed me in the minority. The issue my mom had with buying me dolls with dark hair and eyes was that most of them also had darker skin. At one point I remember wanting darker skin; as I look back, I would assume my desire was rooted in the training that dolls were the ideal of beauty. Now, as a young adult, I try to buy my younger cousins and the kids I watch dolls and toys that are more culturally diverse. Unfortunately, sometimes it’s a difficult task, however I feel that every little step helps.

The young adolescent girls interviewed before and after the experiment segment verbalized the perception of beauty that they have had forced upon them by society. During the period of adolescence – with the development of the imaginary audience – adjusting to your changing body is a difficult experience. In this time girls go through some very scary shifts that alter your psychological identity and distort your body image. On top of the inward struggles, peers tend to not be very empathetic and the social pressure mounts to fit into a cookie cutter definition of good looks. Again, these are just some struggles I experienced as a white girl with the huge advantage of being part of the group that defines the American beauty standards.

In my experience, I have met many people that are very pretty on the outside; however once they opened their mouths I got the sense that they were very ugly on the inside. I know it’s difficult to ignore the human tendency to judge based on appearance, but seeing these wonderful little girls distorted conceptions makes my heart ache. From such a young age they are manipulated by the system and brainwashed to believe a particular definition of beauty without ever taking a chance to question and discover their own meaning. If they aren’t giving themselves a chance, who will?

Whether it’s the “birds and the bees” talk from your parents or the elementary school “boys and girls are different” talk, by college age all young adults know about the reproductive system. As acknowledged by books like Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, men are biologically programmed to spread their genes and procreate. Despite whatever women don’t communicate or men don’t recognize, reproduction wouldn’t be possible without the monthly cycle that men just “…really don’t want to think about.” Perhaps it’s like my Nana has always told me and men just aren’t strong enough to handle the responsibilities that come with being a woman. Though this may be the feminist-preferred perspective, I look at these biological inequalities as simply biological differences.

In response to the previous blog, I think that MRM5360 has a good point: most men “…grasp that it is a totally natural and ‘beautiful’ occurrence,” but they “…really don’t want to think about…‘Mecca’ doing things that it does every cycle.” I guess I’ve been blessed with men in my life who seem to be more sympathetic than other women during my evil-lady time. I don’t know if this is some sort of fear of the unknown or an attempt at thanking one woman at a time for sparing their gender? Either way I find that men are more accommodating than other women to issues concerning this taboo subject. In my experience, the significant man in my life has been willing to sacrifice his interests and time in order to accommodate me the best he can. Perhaps I’m unique, however, studying sociology has made me believe that what most people think are due to private decisions and experiences can be described by largely public explanations.

As Sam touched on in class, we don’t talk about our daily excrements despite the fact that they are very natural. This isn’t exactly the same as the taboo of evil-lady time because both men and women of all ages experience daily excretion. Though this is a universal occurrence, most people do not discuss or even recognize this fact. What is the explanation for this? I don’t think that white men excrete any less than white women or individuals on the black and brown teams, so it can’t be because we live in a male dominated society. It seems to me that sometimes things have secret meanings and underlying reasons; however some things are just not mentioned because they are personal business, matters of biological fact. In this case I believe – perhaps naïvely – that men respect the miracle of the female reproductive system for the amazing capacity of childbirth. Concerning the suppression of evil-lady time, it seems that men are willing to disregard their comfort level in order to console the woman who has their heart.

I heard about this story over spring break from an interview with Constance McMillen on the Wanda Sykes show. At the conclusion of the interview, the comedian invited Constance and her girlfriend to attend an award ceremony in April. Her attendance was honorary so Constance could present the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award to Wanda. According to the GLAAD website, this award is in recognition of her “fair, accurate, and inclusive representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and the issues that affect their lives.” When she extended her invitation Wanda said, “I would be honored if you could…present the award to me.” After Constance accepted, Wanda exclaimed, “I appreciate it and…I think what you’re doing truly is the epitome of what GLAAD does.”

I find it interesting how the perspective of a -- presumably heterosexual – set of school board officials can label Candace’s actions as making other students feel uncomfortable. Yet, on the other hand, a fellow homosexual labels her as a role model. If the school officials had banned prom dates altogether or had implemented a specific dress code excluding tuxedos for everyone then maybe there ruling would be more accepted? The fact that they purposefully discriminated against one young girl because she didn’t fit their cookie-cutter expectations is prejudiced and unjust.

Not only do I find it unacceptable that the school board cancelled prom due to the untraditional values of one of its students, but the fact that it is public knowledge that the cancellation was a consequence of Constance’s preferences is like hanging her out to dry. It’s hard enough being a teenager without the school board making her the poster child for the cancelled prom. I think she should be acknowledged for being secure enough to not only be “out of the closet” in the face of criticism, but also for her persistence to not surrender when challenged.

In my opinion, the school board’s decision to cancel prom was putting Constance in danger by making her the face of the problems to all of her peers. As a result, Constance is being wrongfully ostracized, essentially, for defending her lifestyle choices. It would seem that the school board’s intention is to make an example of Constance by letting her peers punish her until she surrenders. With Constance continuing to stand strong, she has a shot to be successful. With her success Constance could become the face of revolution so that the future proms at Itawamba County Agricultural School would never be the same.

According to an article written today, March 17th, Veronica Lane reported that the members of the school board did not revoke their decision on the cancelled prom. For this reason, Constance will be forced to go before a court and – unlike any other student at her school – be an advocate for her own rights. If she successful at her trial and the school reinstates prom, the only reward she will receive is the same opportunity that every other student already has: the chance to spend prom with a significant person in their life.

In response to the video, I agree that as a Penn State student, the majority of themed parties that I see are hosted by white people. Though this may be true, it also may be representative of the percent of white students on this campus. Since Penn State is predominantly comprised of white individuals, it would make sense that more parties would be thrown by white people and a percent of these would be themed parties. So far this is all logical to me. What doesn’t make sense to me is that, from my four years as a Penn State undergrad, I have seen themed parties thrown by white people making fun of white people. For instance, white trash parties in which attendees black out some teeth, rip their clothes, and lower their vocabulary in order to fit the part. To me, these parties seem ignorant; however, my guess would be that these kids just want to find another excuse to drink.

Though I don’t think that the white students at Penn State tend to discriminate particular races, I do find that themed parties tend to exploit women. This feeling comes from popular party themes such as CEOs and corporate ho’s, pirates and wenches, golf pros and tennis ho’s, bikers and babes, and GI Joes and Army ho’s, just to name a few. If you didn’t notice by the names, these parties expect the men to be the dominant role of the party theme and the women to be provocatively dressed floozies. It seems that this trend would be degrading for women, however I’ve found that a number of my fellow female students actually enjoy being objectified by cooperating with these unequal themes. Maybe it’s because alcohol is involved and their inhibitions are low? Maybe it’s because there is a part of their personality that really wants to be slutty? No matter the motivation to oblige with these degrading parties, it seems like a double standard against women, no matter their race.

If this video blog was regarding the Compton Cookout that we talked about in group this week, I do not excuse these kids in the least for being so ignorant to present that party as though it were in celebration of Black History Month. Perhaps they were just trying to have a unique party theme and they didn’t consider the possible repercussions of their idea, however I don’t think that excuses them for blatantly disrespecting black people. Another aspect of this party that shocked me was the fact that the creators limited this ghetto party to only black people. From the video we watched in class about Tammy I would think hope that it is clear that white people can also be in poverty and struggle.

First, I think that she makes a good point that probability of every judge in the court system being racist is highly unlikely. I do not doubt that there are some judges who cannot look past the color of the culprit's skin, however the belief that this could be the overall explanation is illogical.

When considering the justice system in America, we have to consider the demographic of the people in charge. Historically speaking, this country was founded by rich, white men who also formed all the rules and regulations for citizens to follow. Now we may have a little more variety than simply wealthy, gray-haired men, with television judges like Judge Judy and Joe Brown, however according to an article in Picturing Justice by Taunya Lovell Banks, only seven percent of federal judges are women and only three percent of the judges in America are black.
Based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime and Justice Data Online, in Pennsylvania for example, eighty-eight percent of the law enforcement officers are white. Since this is also a reflection of the diversity of judges in the courts, is it possible that the system is corrupt like those supporting modern slavery in Pakistan and Thailand? I would suggest that it is possible that these statistics are a reflection of the differences in family income based on race, however how would you explain the lack of women in the courts?

Though women -- without knowing anything about their individual circumstances -- may be an exception to this explanation, I do think that a lack of resources proves to be a risk factor for crime and antisocial behavior in humans. For example, consider a father trying to support his wife and children without a secure job, all he wants is the best for his kids. Without the proper funding or equal opportunities, he could feel pressured to find alternative methods to acquire these resources. I do not believe this is an excuse for committing any type of crime; however, this may describe the motivation.

Following the actual committing of the crime, it seems that due to economic hardships, or conversely privileges, individuals can work the system differently. If an impoverished person commits a crime, they have to accept the consequences when they are caught. This is because they are not in a financial situation where they can afford a proper defense. On the other hand, when a financially privileged person is caught, they can pay their way out through bail or they can afford an attorney who -- based on a hefty fee -- will fight for their best interest. Though it may be an unfortunate reality, money is a strong motivation for many individuals. Due to this unfair advantage, the judicial system is far from just and convicts individuals disproportionately based on race. Maybe a solution could be found by keeping anonymity among the culprits?

I think the purpose of this class is to simply open our minds to new possibilities and give us pathways to explore. Though I have not had the opportunity to get any primary resources to understand this issue, I would definitely say that yesterday’s lecture, today’s recitation, and this video blog have made me develop an interesting theory that I previously never considered.

First things first, I am a straight woman who has never personally asked a person who is bisexual why they were bisexual, how they know they are bisexual, or if they are just confused about their sexual preference. In the past I have been guilty of jokingly saying bisexuals were just greedy people who liked sexual encounters. Even then I knew that this comment had no basis in fact and I was unknowledgeable. Previously, I had never taken the time to put too much thought into this issue. After lecture and discussion in recitation, I realize that this is a topic I have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around.

I understand the concepts of being either a gay man or a lesbian woman. In my mind these are biological constructs that influence the sexual preferences of a particular individual. Bisexual orientation is a concept that confuses me because if sexual preference is based on a chemical reaction in the biology of a person, then how can someone possess the chemicals to be attracted to both men and women? The only explanation I can fathom is the belief that the body is just a vessel. This concept may hold no evidence to prove it as truth and I accept that what I am writing could in fact have evidence to prove me wrong.

I know it seems like something I would just say based on social desirability, but in my experience loving someone is not based on physical attraction. Honestly, my boyfriend of three and a half years was a great person that I just wanted to be friends with. Over time, I fell in love with his soul as opposed to his physical attributes which would fade over time. I am not suggesting that everyone is like this, however this would be my proposition so explain how bisexuals are not confused: they simply do not limit their love to a particular physical aspect of a person.

I think when bisexuality is put under this light, it seems very selective instead of greedy and enlightened instead of confused. If it is possible that bisexuality is simply the unbiased attraction of two persons despite their physical stature, then I think it takes a special person who is determined to receive the love they deserve to withstand the scrutinizing, judgmental people who do not even attempt to understand anything other than their own situations.

It is unfathomable for me how a language can just die. I do not comprehend fully how an individual would learn a language and then never teach it to anybody else. Since language is a communication tool that people use to connect with others, it almost seems ironic in a sense that Boa Sr was the only surviving speaker. Who did she speak with? Did nobody else show interest in speaking with her in order to learn a part of her tribe’s culture? Additionally, I wonder what the technicalities of this interview were since there is a translation, yet the premise of the blog was that nobody else in the world speaks this language.

Before reading this blog, I had never heard of Boa Sr nor did I have any knowledge of the Bo language. Though I have no inkling about what’s she was saying her laughter was universal. It’s amazing to me what we can understand – despite language barriers – about other people from their nonverbal behaviors. I wish that we could have watched video of her while she was speaking because it seems kind of clinical when you’re just listening to someone speak as opposed to experiencing all the other cues of natural communication.

On the other hand, it’s unfortunate the amount of information we think we understand without ever trying to get to know someone. I think this plays a large part in stereotypes and prejudices. For example, just looking at the pictures of Boa Sr we could assume that she was a family-oriented woman who has lived a difficult life. It would seem that despite her struggles, she expressed a generally happy demeanor. Though some of these assumptions from afar may be correct, some people would over generalize these observations and fail to listen to what she was trying to share.

Reading this story inspires me to study my family’s native language. My mother was born in Turkey and immigrated here with her father at the age of six. Since she has disassociated herself with a lot of the Muslim cultural traditions, consequently I am very “Americanized” also. Recently my friend began to bug me about learning to speak more Turkish and I kind of disregarded his nagging because it’s easy to find excuses. Now I see the importance in learning Turkish. I want to be able to better understand my grandfather and his culture by visiting his village someday. I always knew it would be difficult to go without understanding more of the language, however there was always a reason why it was the wrong time. This phenomenon of a dying within my lifetime has sparked a “there’s no better time than the present” kind of feeling within me.