The last few classes about war and Christian invaders has been extremely interesting to me because I do not know much about the situation. I don't stay as up to date on political issues as much as I would like, so I like learning about them in class. To be completely honest, I have never thought about war in the terms that Sam has set out for us. You would think that it is pretty common that people would think about the other people's perspective but it's not. I think I don't fully understand the war or take the time to find out more information on it because I don't have any friends or family members that are fighting over seas. I guess I assumed that some innocent people were being killed, but not to the extent and the actual numbers that I thought. And as Sam said in his posting, I was among the people that thought most of the suicide bombings took place by "crazy" people. I'm sure there are a few bombers that are crazy, and some of the bombers do it because of their religion or affiliation leaders tell them to. I never would have ever expected that some of the suicide bombers were blowing themselves up in retaliation to loosing someone/s close to them. After reading the article that Sam included, I am shocked to say the least. My view on war has changed a little bit due to the information this article provided. The article included a story of an elderly man (80 years old) that said his two daughters, two sons, and one grandchild were killed due to American troops. First off, this is outrageous. All five of these people were innocent civilians just continuing with their daily routine. The article continues to say that as compensation for loosing his ENTIRE family, he only received two sheep and $2,000 a person. Regardless is the sheep means something more or not, they possessions the American troops gave him will never bring his family back. As a result, this man has threatened to become a suicide bomber. What I find interesting, and shows very vividly the difference between two cultures is that the elderly man would even consider doing this. In America, if someone's entire family was killed because of invaders, most people would grieve and probably become depressed, not think of retaliation. So my point is, just like the article mentioned is that the war is only perpetuating people who have lost loved ones to do stupid things like this. To me it almost seems like it is a never ending battle. War takes place, innocent people die, their loved ones take avenge and that continues the war. It is a lose lose battle, so when will it ever stop?

When I first saw this video, I was shocked. I can not believe this guy actually thinks his ideas would work. First off, it's annoying that the guy keeps trying to advertise his business when it has nothing to do with what he is talking about. I am pretty sure that the country is loosing money due to illegal immigrants and I am not saying that this is an important issue, but honestly some immigrants can't afford to become legal citizens right away, or they have no idea how to. In no way am I condoning illegal immigrants, but it is someone's life we are talking about and possibly their only shot at a decent life. Immigrants know that it is very hard to find any type of employment if they are not a citizen so maybe it would be a good idea to have places where they can become citizens on the border. Why is this guy so passionate about not allowing illegal immigrants into the country? I mean besides the obviously, but I am wondering if the issue has ever directly affected him. His idea on having border control everywhere is stupid because not along would it isolate the United States and probably effect trade with other countries, it would also be extremely expensive. I understand that this man is just voicing his opinion on some current issues, but honestly, just leave it to the professionals. It would be great to be able to bring home all the soldiers from other countries, but a lot of those people depend on that money they are making to live. Obama wouldn't keep the troops overseas unless there was a really good reason, and I think this guy is just ignorant to the whole situation. There are issues and reasons for everything inside the government that normal civilians aren't aware of and the government is just doing the best to try and protect its people. I also disagree on his stance about citizenship. He is saying that if illegal immigrants have children that those children should not automatically receive citizenship. This guys opinions on illegal immigrants leave little room allowing illegal immigrants to prosper (and with that gaining citizenship). He talks about how a decedent of his was a legal immigrant and that is great that his family member was able to do that and strive, but what if his decedent only had the choice to be an illegal immigrant, would he still have the same stance? It is impossible to 100% put your self in someone else is shoes and understand their situation. People would do anything to protect themselves and their family, and this guy is making it impossible for them to live a decent life.

I have been asking myself this question all semester. There are some classes that are really interesting and others that I think are just common sense. Sam did tell us he's not trying to change our opinions, just open our eyes to different things. So far I think this is true. My opinions have not been changed but I am definitely more educated on a lot of different topics. When it comes to the teaching style, I think what Sam teaches are just his opinions backed up with a few facts. For example, I like seeing all the different statistics about races and knowledgeable things, but then there are other topics like the "stages" we have been going over that are definitely opinionated. I have no doubt that there are different levels of mindsets among people but the actual ones that Sam has been giving us are his made up stages that he has put together over the years. In no way am I saying this is a bad thing, I think it's very interesting but the stages are something I will probably never hear about again in my life. When I'm in class I find it really interesting to hear his points of view along with other peoples, but these points of view are only important to me if I can convey my thoughts on class to people that our outside of the class. So for example, there are many times that related class subjects come up with family members or friends and I think it is really neat that most of the time I can state my opinion and add into the conversation, but when we are taking about things such as these "stages" no one outside of class would be like, "Oh I've learned or heard of that before!" and that's when information that I have learned in class is useless to me. So basically I am saying that my opinions have not necessarily done a 360 and changed completely but there are a few things I am more aware of, or more passionate about. Before our last test we had to read a book and a half and the book on modern day slavery opened my eyes and did alter my opinion on the issue. I was not aware of the extent of slavery going on in other countries and the book was extremely interesting to me. I would rather learn about issues like that and analyze past issues then hear Sam's opinions all the time. After completing the class, I know I will definitely feel like it was a reality check for a few issues the world struggles with, I guess sometimes I would like to know what are actual facts and which facts are actually Sam's opinion. By no means do I think I haven't learned anything all year, and it has still been one of my favorite classes this year.

After watching this video, I think that the fact that black children would pick white dolls over black dolls badly reflects the education system. Children should be educated on equality early on in elementary schools. This is a huge issue and I believe that if children were taught about equality in every grade level (even if only for a short period of time) this constant reminder that everyone is equal will have more effects of the children in later years. Repetition is proven to be an effective learning method. This is a problem that should not be taken lightly and there needs to be something done about it. In the early 1900's when segregation was taking place I would expect that black children would have been more likely to pick the white doll over the black doll. I think they would be more likely because in those times it was taught that whites were better than blacks and there people were not necessarily equal. During the early 1900's this action would not have caused a problem, but we have moved a long ways away from that time period. We have had incredible black leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman and now Barak Obama. African Americans are now CEO's of large corporations, have ever right that a Caucasian have, and are able to be openly gay, and be in an interracial marriage. For a nation that has come so far, it is a reality check that a majority of the black children would still pick the white doll. I'm not saying that I have a precise method on how to fix this issue, but I think the first step would be to make this issue known and have an authority of high power try and fix it. Like I said earlier, I believe the best way to go about this issue would be through education. Another way to try and fix this problem could be to make sure toy companies (for dolls, barbies, etc.) try and incorporate a larger amount of black dolls onto their selves. For most issues it is true that the more common and more awareness the issue creates, the more that issue is likely to move from a problem to just another way of life. From the video the main problem that stuck out to me next to the doll choices is that some of the African American children actually believe that the black dolls are bad. For the United States, and any country that wants to move past racial issues, I believe it is little things like this are what actually help fuel the fire of inequality. And if a test as obvious as this was conducted by a younger African American it makes me wonder what researchers have found out about inequality and what they are doing to prevent these problems from occurring.

Before taking Sam's class, I assumed that all Asians looked the same: dark hair, light skin and Asian features. Now I am more aware that people from Asia can have all different skin tones and unique features that have to do with where they are from in Asia. Being a Caucasian female, I do agree that people of the majority do get looked at as an individual compared to the minority whereas that is not always the case. I think that the main cause of this is partially due to race but also due to the lack of knowledge of that minority and their different cultures. For example, out of fifteen grandchildren (myself being one of them) eight of my cousins are half Asian. Two of my mother's siblings married Asians from Taiwan and they had children. So for me personally, even with Asians being the minority, I feel as though I view them differently, and as a group within the minorities that I can relate to more. This isn't because of their race, it is just because I am more accustom to Asians and their culture. Every year, sometimes multiple times a year, I am treated to homemade dumplings and stories about Taiwan when I am visiting my family members. I love having this diversity within my family because I feel like it makes it easier for me to accept people are they are and not based on if they are a minority. Back to the video, I think that having this diversity helps me view minorities as individuals, especially Asians. So to answer the question, yes I actually think it is pretty easy to distinguish the difference between Asians and Asian Americans. If I can't tell just from their outward appearance, if I am able to talk to them I can almost always tell who is directly from Asia due to their accent. But because I am white, and I grew up around Asians, to me that is why I am more likely to be able to tell a difference between Asians and Asian Americans. So I can't speak for all Caucasian people, but a big reason on why I think people think of minorities as a whole are just because they aren't educated on different cultures and customs. I actually believe that this is a main reason on why there are still race issues today. If everyone were to take the time to get to know a person or a group of people outside of their comfort zone, they would see that everyone really is just the same, but no one is giving anyone the chance to prove them wrong. And because this happens, people of the majority and minority assume things about other individuals even though it is not necessarily true.

I believe that people should be allowed to act as they wish (as long as it is socially acceptable) and date whomever they want. It is not fair that these girls could not take whomever they want to their own prom. Coming from a high school where there were gay couples, and they attended prom, I think it is stupid that a high school district cares more about what is "socially acceptable" that other problems that are going on. The student’s safety should be first priority and these two girls were not putting anyone's safety in jeopardy. What was the point of working so hard for equality between people when they are going to cancel an event for everyone so that one lesbian couple will not attend? It's a giant step in the wrong direction. This is the decade where people are supposed to be able to be completely themselves and who are we to judge them? There are no laws against attending a dance with a person of the same sex, lesbian or not. The cancelling of the event is an example of complete discrimination against gays, which is something that gays and straights have been working so hard to put behind our time. This just proves it is evident that no matter how much we strive for equality, there will always be people with a primitive mindset. Times are changing and if you don’t accept the change you will become ignorant and distant from society. You will become the outcast. What type of an example is this school representing? It is unfair to the gay community and the people who were to be in attendance for the event. If you were to ask all of the students that attend the high school if they would rather have a prom or not have a prom and reject the girls of going, I’m sure their prom is more important. In today’s world, it is common to see gay couples all over and in normal day interaction. In certain states gay rights have extended so far as to have gay couples legally married, so why is it that these girls can’t go to something as simple as prom? If I was a student at that school and my prom was canceled I would be furious. I’m actually surprised that the article didn’t mention how the other students reacted or if they fought to have their prom. I’m still confused why this school in particular cared when this is something that most likely goes on at every high school. After reading the article, I’m glad that the girl is sticking up for her rights and taking the school board to court. Hopefully she will win and the school will adjust its policies. Because once schools like this accept gay rights, equality will be moving in the right direction again.

Throughout middle school and high school I shopped at many stores, including Hollister and Abercrombie and Fitch. To discriminate against someone for their culture and background is absolutely terrible, but to tell that person up front that their practices will be accepted, and then fire them for that reason is outrageous. The video clip said that the local store was not the one to fire her for her scarf, it was corporate that fired her. Obviously there was some sort of miscommunication between the two, and the video did not include if corporate spoke to the local company about the issue before firing her, but I hope they at least did that. Now a days, the Hollister and Abercrombie and Fitch that are located in my local malls have a diversity of people working on the floor and behind scenes, but when I was younger they did not. This video is very interesting to me because one of the main reasons I stopped shopping there was because of a previous discrimination case. When I was about 16, there was a lawsuit against Abercrombie and Fitch because their advertisements and posters in the stores were almost always of white people. I'm not sure if the reason for this is because Abercrombie and Fitch was created by two white men and also during the time when segregation was at its peak, but today the times have changed and so must the companies. For companies to discriminate against race, religion, and culture is only bad for them in the long run because they are loosing potential profits, and in today's economy no one can afford that. When lawsuits and cases like this pop up in any market it has a negative impact on the company, so what is the benefit of discriminating against different races? Over the years, those stores have lost a lot of business because trends have changed, so this is not helping them at all. The fact that this young girl got fired for doing what she was told to do is stupid. Corporate should have spoken to the local retailer so figure out the situation. Throughout the video, the young woman was scared to even show her face because she has been receiving death threats and other threats that she believes to cause her harm. The fact that she is receiving these threats alone is horrific! What scares me the most is that if you were to look and listen to just those two women in the video you would probably think (or at least hope) that they did not reside in the United States. If this is suppose to be "The land of the free, and the home of the brave" why is this an issue in America let alone a retail store?

As a response to this article, I think that the Native Americans deserve what they got. To enrich people's lives and create job opportunities, why not? Especially in a community where people are obviously struggling. I'm really glad that after all this time, the government is not forcing someone out of their land. These tribes that are living on the land that contains the oil, have a chance to prosper and achieve things that Native Americans have never been able to before. They can be given a proper education, and hopefully be raised in a more educated manner. They will be aware of the high poverty rates, alcoholic rates, and drug rates of Native Americans therefore, hopefully lowering them. With this economic boom comes a few downfalls: people might not adapt well to the sudden wealth, they could invest in things that won't benefit in the long run, and some people might not find the need to work. If people don't adapt well to the new found wealth, sometimes it can turn the economy right back around or lead to loss of jobs held by lower income families. If this oil had been found a hundred years ago, Native Americans would have been stripped of their right to the land and it would have been taken by the government. The fact that America has come this far, to not only let the Native American tribes own their own land (instead of fight them for it), but to also keep the oil that proves great wealth, is amazing. The United States could have forced the Native Americans off of the oil land and generated millions if not billions of dollars for the U.S. government, but instead they allowed the people that found it, benefit from the oil. Not only were most Native Americans living near the oil compensated with a portion of the profits, but by finding this oil it attracted many people to their reservation which is also causing a boom in business. It was reported in the article that the local casino there has dramatically increased its profits just in over the last year. With this extra business comes extra jobs. By the amount of job opportunities becoming available, it is allowing families in need of work the option of returning home to work and staying together as a family. I believe that in Native American tribes, where they are very culturally dependent, benefit from staying together since adaption from the modernized world may be difficult with lack of money, lack of technological use, and other factors. After reading this article, does anyone believe that the United States was more inclined to letting the Native Americans keep their land this time because the United States felt guilty for removing them from their land during the discovery years?

As a response to this article, I think that the Native Americans deserve what they got. To enrich people's lives and create job opportunities, why not? Especially in a community where people are obviously struggling. I'm really glad that after all this time, the government is not forcing someone out of their land. These tribes that are living on the land that contains the oil, have a chance to prosper and achieve things that Native Americans have never been able to before. They can be given a proper education, and hopefully be raised in a more educated manner. They will be aware of the high poverty rates, alcoholic rates, and drug rates of Native Americans therefore, hopefully lowering them. With this economic boom comes a few downfalls: people might not adapt well to the sudden wealth, they could invest in things that won't benefit in the long run, and some people might not find the need to work. If people don't adapt well to the new found wealth, sometimes it can turn the economy right back around or lead to loss of jobs held by lower income families. If this oil had been found a hundred years ago, Native Americans would have been stripped of their right to the land and it would have been taken by the government. The fact that America has come this far, to not only let the Native American tribes own their own land (instead of fight them for it), but to also keep the oil that proves great wealth, is amazing. The United States could have forced the Native Americans off of the oil land and generated millions if not billions of dollars for the U.S. government, but instead they allowed the people that found it, benefit from the oil. Not only were most Native Americans living near the oil compensated with a portion of the profits, but by finding this oil it attracted many people to their reservation which is also causing a boom in business. It was reported in the article that the local casino there has dramatically increased its profits just in over the last year. With this extra business comes extra jobs. By the amount of job opportunities becoming available, it is allowing families in need of work the option of returning home to work and staying together as a family. I believe that in Native American tribes, where they are very culturally dependent, benefit from staying together since adaption from the modernized world may be difficult with lack of money, lack of technological use, and other factors. After reading this article, does anyone believe that the United States was more inclined to letting the Native Americans keep their land this time because the United States felt guilty for removing them from their land during the discovery years?

After this week's discussion group, Sam's class, and watching this video, my thoughts on the LGBT community have greatly expanded. I am now aware of many different perspectives and a lot more comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. I am now starting to realize that people don't necessarily choose who they are attracted to, it just happens. The fact that America is coined "The land of the free" but there are still issues like this going on in our world, makes me think twice. Why can't people do what they want, without the government telling them what is right and what is wrong? Somewhere throughout the history of the earth, someone/s decided that males should be attracted to females and females should be attracted to males. But say the tables were turned and that those people decided it was also okay for people to be attracted to the same sex. If throughout history, being attracted to a male while being a male was just as common as a male being attracted to a female then the LGBT community would probably be just about as large at the straight community. It would be a very common to see these couples in everyday activity and it would be the norm. Going back to the video, with having this whole new understanding, I do not think it is fair that the mother was deported because of her sexual orientation, especially when she has a family to take care of. Once the immigration law is passed, I believe that a lot more immigrants will come out being gay. It is not fair that these people have to live in fear because of the people they are attracted to. It is not fair for anyone to judge them on their lifestyle; it would be equivalent for someone to judge my mother and father for being married. Everyone has a right to choose, a right to have a family, and a right to be happy. Who are we to judge them for that, let alone strip them of that? There are many heterosexual people in the world, young and old, that should not be creating families that already HAVE families, and there are many homosexual people in the world, that are completely qualified for creating families and not being allowed to. It all comes down to this: children are usually put up for adoption because they cannot be properly cared for. When adoption agencies and other people deny homosexual couples the chance of adoption, they are also taking away the opportunity of that child to be properly cared for. Many people believe that a child being raised by homosexual parents will be made fun of and tormented throughout life, but if you were to ask that child if they are willing to risk that chance of abuse compared to not being part of a family at all, what do you think they would choose?