I want to say it was a pleasure being a part of your class, and I've learned so much from you guys and the others. I hope that you change other student’s life, like you did mine in the future. So, what I have taken from this class? Gender, race, and ethnicity affect the way we behave and think. First, because humans are social animals and have an inbuilt desire to conform. Second, we have an evolutionary predisposition to behave in the manner that has been most successful in whatever society we are born in. Third, although there are always exceptions to the observation, peer/parental pressure that is related to all three traits plays an important role in self-development. Examples? Patience and Intelligence is a trait that is highly prized in Asian cultures. Whereas domination and violent reaction is the most admired in the West. Systematic methodologies for solving problems are the standard in the West, and Holistic approaches to solving problems are the standard in the Far East. Nudity taboos exist in America, whereas it does not exist in many parts of Northern Europe, Japan, and Korea. There are far too many to conjure up, but I will end this answer with the fact that our environment seems to have a much more permanent effect on our development than any of the traits mentioned. - No matter where you were born, if you grew up watching the same popular media, we have much in common with each other.

After this class, I believe that there is only one race. The human race. The differences that emerged resulting in variations of skin color, cultural development, religious creation, increased ability to understand their environment, the development of language, writing, and survival skills largely resulted because of the specialization required for survival. I was raised in the Middle East. My father always said we, no one, had a choice of their parents. As well, he always believed that if everyone had equal opportunity, ethnic hostility would not exist. He says we all bleed blood, that intellectual ability was equal. So, a part of our social group included several ethnic families. I went to school in a one-room schoolhouse with one teacher that taught all 8 grades. My high school graduating class had 34 members. Color differences were never an issue. And I cannot understand how so many of our global population discriminate against those different from them. I also believe that the differences in people’s physical appearance are all based on climate and diet. The similarities that people share are because we are all human. We all have a head, a face, etc. And everyone has religion, a culture, familial systems, and social institutions.

There are many reasons, but most of them track back to people being close-minded and/or bigoted. Many people worry that people of other races are "stealing" potential mates (i.e. To invoke a common stereotype: black men "stealing" white women away from the white men or white women "stealing" black men away from black women), others worry that interracial dating will lead to the dilution of "pure" genes. In general, when it comes to race, reasons for keeping them separate are rarely rational, and seldom make much sense. It depends upon the individuals involved and their families and cultures. Unfortunately, people who are NOT supposed to be involved also come into play with their judgments. These are the people who have nothing to do directly with the couple, their family, or any of the dynamics of such. Also, it’s harder because everyone judges the man, but that's just for the beginning. Like there is an initial shock, but it wears off after the first month or two. With family it’s a little bit longer, but it also wears off. You are definitely going to have to be prepared. No relationship is easy, but interracial dating is even harder. People will criticize you and her. But that is human nature. When you go out, people will stare. But you do get used to it. The best thing to do with those kinds of people is have a sense of humor and laugh it off, because it is them that are ignorant, not you. Also be prepared for family problems from both sides. Not everyone in her/your family will agree. I think the world would be more interesting if there was more interracial mixing, as it results in individuals being more different from each other. Preserving different breeds is what will make us look all the same; mixing them is more interesting and enriching. Also, by saying that, you are considering physical appearance more important than love. If a black person loves a white one, or vice versa, should they marry someone of their own race in order to keep it pure? I don't think looks are THAT important to me. Focus on deeper things, and you'll be happier. Some people try to push their preferences off on others. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it, but I would never try and make someone else who may have a problem with it, date inter-racially. Most people, who say it is wrong, and try to discourage others, might have issues with racism themselves. Personal preference is one thing, but to try and make someone else act and feel the way you think they should is something different. The only problem is the way people think and perceive what they believe to be right or wrong. That then makes it their problem. Prejudice people are ignorant people and do not know otherwise.

All US asks is that you come to this country legally, is that really too much to ask for Mexicans that want to come here to do it the legal way? I guess so. Very sad. BTW, your simpleton views on immigration shows just how little you know about the issues. Every successful modernized nation/country on earth as borders. If people like you were in charge of the USA, we wouldn't make it a week for the country would be in the crapper.
The fact is that US had an open border with Mexico for several centuries, and "illegal immigration" was never a serious problem. Before Reagan's presidency, an estimated million or so people a year came into the US from Mexico - and the same number, more or less, left the US for Mexico at the end of the agricultural harvest season. Very few stayed, because there weren't jobs for them. Non-citizens didn't have access to the non-agricultural US job market, in large part because of the power of US labor unions (before Reagan 25% of the workforce was unionized; today the private workforce is about 7% unionized), and because companies were unwilling to risk having non-tax-deductible labor expenses on their books by hiring undocumented workers without valid Social Security numbers. But Reagan put an end to that. His 1986 amnesty program, combined with his aggressive war on organized labor (begun in 1981), in effect told both employers and non-citizens that there would be few penalties and many rewards to increasing the US labor pool (and thus driving down wages) with undocumented immigrants. A million people a year continued to come across US southern border, but they stopped returning to Latin America every fall because instead of seasonal work they were able to find permanent jobs. The magnet drawing them? Illegal Employers. If Congress were to pass a law that said, quite simply, that the CEO of any business that was caught employing illegal immigrants went to jail for a year - no exceptions - then within a month there would be twenty million (more or less) people lined up at the Mexican border trying to get out of the United States. The US unemployment rate would drop close to zero, and wages would begin to rise. The American middle class would begin to return to viability, as would the union movement in this nation. Start HARSHLY penalizing "Illegal Employers" and non-citizens without a Social Security number will leave the country on their own. Easy, simple, cheap, painless, No Reform, no Amnesty , no Fence to build, no Accusations of Racism, No Mass Deportations Necessary, No Need For Homeland Security To Get Involved. When Jobs and Public Resources are not available most undocumented workers will simply leave the country

I'm not going to stereotype here, there are all kinds of people in different societies, but for the type of Asians we are speaking about, I would argue that they are privileged. I have a friend that goes to Berkeley, and I've mingled with him and some of his "A" student Asian friends. Some of them are nice, but I would also argue that book intelligence and common sense don't go hand in hand. They understand the terms, but they don't really have any personal solutions for the problems. Like in politics for example, they would know all about the process and the people involved in those processes, but they wouldn't be able to provide a solution for certain problems in society. Like I said already, I'm not trying to stereotype, but that is what I got from mingling with them. To me, it feels like even though Americans are not as disciplined as Asians in the art of studying, we make up for it with common sense and real life "problem-solving" skills. But yes, I would say it is more that they are "privileged". They are raised in strict households, and many of the Asians that move to the US come from families of professionals. Of course a child that is raised with discipline and the money to provide them with the tutoring he/she needs is going to do better than your average American student. That being said, not all of them fit into that category, because I have a Japanese friend with an average IQ and an awesome hilarious personality. Fitting in that category myself, I have to say it all boils down to the work ethic that's passed down from the parents. I'm a Middle Eastern born in the UAE and I'd say I'm mediocre+ at best since I'm not "wildly successful" but I'm doing alright to make it and survive given the state of our economy/country. There's a report somewhere on the web that shows that Indian children and Asian children spend more time studying at school than children in the US. An example is when the weekend used to roll around on campus, I remember the students (that fit this category) buckling down and studying their brains out... whereas other students would go out and spend their weekend on leisure time, aka partying, games, hanging out, etc. Which is what I did. In the long run those students are doing between good<->great. Some are still in school, and others have ventured to travel the world and learn even more. Some of us "slackers" stayed behind and wrapped our higher education into a 9-5 job. So I wouldn't necessarily say smart/privileged, but taking up a strong work ethic would lead towards what 'seems' like smart/privileged.

Prejudice is the belief that one group is better or worse than another on the basis of sex, gender, social class, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, belief or culture. It doesn't matter who you are, if you are honest with yourself you will have to admit that you have some prejudices. Whether it is through our upbringing in our family's, or through social conditioning as we are growing up, or because of some personal experiences we have encountered through our lives, we all have some prejudices about one group of people or another. We may hold an opinion that all people who drive a certain type of car, or who paint their street doors green or red, are a certain type of people (perhaps stupid or aggressive or some such label). In either case it is of course a ridiculous assumption with no basis in fact. The fact that we do all hold such nonsense opinions does not however mean, that we use that information to discriminate against other people, whether that be individuals or groups of individuals. Most of us are too intelligent to allow that to happen. Regrettably there are some who will allow such opinions to affect their judgment. That however is down to ignorance and/or stupidity. If we are aware of our prejudices, and intelligent and mature enough to be conscious of their potential to affect our thinking and decision making (whether they might be considered justifiable or not), then their effect should not be discriminatory. There are of course some situations or processes that are actually meant to be discriminatory, recruitment for example, and really there should be no objection to that providing that any discrimination that occurs is legitimate. i.e. to find the best person for the job in question. Regrettably, in my opinion at least, Equal Opportunities legislation (or at least the often politically correct application of the legislation), has caused immense damage to the management of businesses and public organizations (particularly Local Government), through the use of quota systems or direct positive discrimination over the past twenty years or so. In the wake of this we have had thousands of people put into jobs that they were profoundly unqualified and inexperienced for. The result of this is that they will never want to employ anyone who has more experience or superior knowledge as this would show them up to be incompetent. Just look around you to see the evidence. They don't apply logic or commonsense born of experience or sound long established work methods. They create change simply for the sake of change on the basis that once things have changed no one will know what's going on, so no one will know more than they do. And there you have, EQUALITY AT LAST.

What are my thoughts on affirmative action? Well, I personally against most types of Affirmative action especially the ones where people get turned down for a job or college position because of their race. I know it is becoming more and more coming these days and I hate it when people try to give me certain privileges because of my race because later on when I actually earn them people will start think of it as affirmative action not me working hard. Although Affirmative action started from a good place, as far as trying to level the playing field, it's gotten corrupted and no longer works. And, yeah, if you're a minority, and you're perceived as having gotten a job unfairly because of it, the hostility is enormous (key word there being perceived). I can think one gig I got where, in one circle of people it's widely believed that I was hired because I'm brown, not because I earned it. Nothing but backbiting and sniping from those folks ever since (it was no small gig). I don't know what the answer is though. If you allow people to discriminate without penalty, they will do so with impunity. OTOH, you can't legislate morality. You can't pass a law to make people play fair, in my opinion, and expect it to work. They will find ways to violate that law just out of resentment. Let’s say it this way: the grass is always greener on the other side. Minorities feel it's fair because they don't get to be the majority in the US, and don't get the luxuries that the white majority does. White people think it's unfair because they don't get the benefit of this. i don't really know what to believe, honestly. In one hand, I feel like in general it is advantageous to be white (most of the united states is white. it takes less time on average for a white person to find a job, white people have the highest college acceptance) but on the other hand, I don't believe that it's fair to give extra benefits to someone because of something they can't control. I can see an argument for both sides. Even though I’m a minority, I firmly believe that the past is in the past and if I want to make a life for myself, I’m going to have to work hard to get there. I don't want things handed to me because people feel sorry for me. I guess if I had to choose, I’d rule against affirmative action. Affirmative action goes to far at times but it’s also done much good for other people. I don't agree with all of it but what came before was worse.

Free will is a subject of debate, I believe, in large because of religion and it's question as to whether some divine being has already predestined everything that happens, or if our free will allows us the freedom to determine our own fate. I believe free will is multifaceted, and a multidimensional concept that can be speculated upon, even defined; however, not to the degree that understanding it would mean controlling it so that all conscious choices would result in the best possible outcomes. Uncertainty; doubt; wisdom; lack of any real conscious or unconscious underpinnings; unconscious and conscious mechanisms that dictate or at least affect what our choices/decisions/opinions/actions etc. are (what we believe and how we try to align ourselves to those beliefs/guidelines/dictums, etc.), are as reliable and as unpredictable as the moment in time we make them. I think that we have free will in the vein of "Free and independent choice; voluntary decision" but only to a certain extent. As humans we are bound to the constraints of our mind, intelligence, creativity, and decisions are all mental constructs and as such are limited by sheer cognitive ability. That said we can only have cognizance of that which we are capable of perceiving/understanding in our limited view of our surroundings. Our free will or ability to choose from available permutations of action/response is severely limited both by our intellectual and analytic skills as well as our ability to perceive said permutations or courses of action. Imagine a situation in which a person, let's call him John, comes across a relatively simple fork in his path. The fork has two visible branches, neither, of which have any indication as to their destination or quality. John thinks that he has only two choices (technically all choices are available but they do not pertain to this example. i.e.: John decides to do the Macarena) if he wishes to proceed: the left fork, or the right. However there is an alternative, which he cannot observe: an underground path leading directly to his destination. Does his lack of perception mean that he is fated to choose from only a fraction of the possible paths? Does his hand preference make him lean towards the side of his favored hand (as it do most) thus making him slave to innate bias from birth? Certainly both factors play a part but let's exclude the perception factor, as that is somewhat more abstract. In the case of subconscious bias, either innate or learned, we are subservient. As people, we are automatically preferred our race to other races (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1PDYB1G1U) no matter what we do to consciously counteract it, we have an unconscious preference. So, to a very real extent, we have a default leaning, which may supersede any conscious decision, thus voiding "free will".

When Sam brought up the question weather being successful is more about working hard and have connections, it made me think about my status as a person living in the Middle East. To me, I disagree with that statement because almost everyone has been brainwashed to accept (and pay lip service to) the fallacious premise that hard work is necessary in order to be successful. But the overwhelming evidence suggests the contrary, that hard work has nothing to do with success and is actually counterproductive. If hard work is supposed to produce success, then it would stand to reason that everyone who works hard should be successful. But that is far from the case. Most people who work hard never come close to being successful. In fact, most hard workers have a much higher incidence of non-success than they have success. Financial strain, stress-related disease, and lack personal fulfillment are at epidemic proportions, while wealth, health, and happiness are rare in comparison. In my country, instead of success resulting from hard work, the opposite is true, that success is inversely proportional to hard work. In other words, more success comes the less you work. The catch is in finding the proper way of avoiding work. When you find that proper way, you are able to do less and accomplish more. Now, as a student I make a lot of money in a year because of my scholarship salary that they give me each month. It is true that in order to get that money I have to study and work hard, but to me I love what I do and do not consider myself as hard worker because I am just doing what I want to do and that’s making me satisfied. So, I don’t think that statement is always true. I think it depends on how each one defines “hard work”. Also, I think that if someone thinks that something is out of their range they consider it as hard work. For example, if you stick two people in a room with two totally different jobs, you’ll get the same reaction. Say for example, one is a lawyer and another is a computer programmer. The lawyer will look at the programmer and conclude that what the programmer does is hard work. Why? Because it would be hard work for the lawyer to do what the computer programmer does. Chances are the lawyer has no idea whatsoever on how to write subroutines, modules, functions, etc. The computer programmer will look at the lawyer and think the same thing. Why? The computer programmer knows nothing about writing briefs, arguing a case, jury selection, etc. What’s happening is that each person is creating their own meaning of “hard work” based on their own range of knowledge and experience, and since everyone’s knowledge and experience is limited, anything outside of their scope of that is construed as “hard work.” If the lawyer asks the programmer if his work is hard, the programmer will shrug it off, saying that “It’s just work”, the same thing with the lawyer. So whenever you hear somebody harping about how “hard work” is the key to success, don’t let that faze you. Yes, you do need to work hard in order to succeed in achieving your goal, but it’s all in the eye of the worker. It’s all relative. If you have that drive within you, you’ll do the things that people on the outside will view as “hard work”, but to you, it’ll just be "work".

We cannot judge people because of their skin color, religion, nationality or race. To my mind, the main criteria are to be well behaved, well-tempered, honest and respectful to people. Eventually, we can describe this person as righteous. We should know that everybody is equal and deserves to live under good conditions in the world. I think there is a difference between what we do and what we should do. Many of us know that we must not judge people by appearance but in the real life it is not so easy. When you've met someone for the first time and that person was truly unpleasant or annoying, if you meet someone (really nice but you don't know it yet) who looks like him/her (skin color, nationality or something else) I think it's very difficult not to let your brain make a link between him/her. But if you can prevent your mind to do so, it means that you don't judge people by appearances, but only once you know them. Most of us do that even that we know the appearance is not always reflecting the persons’ characters! However, it is still the key of knowing the person's character/nationality/behavior etc. I do believe that we fascinated by appearance but still the way of talking is the most important thing to ME. As I could like that person because she/he is well addressed and attractive but it might be her/his personality is not that much good and may that person be a narrow minded or silly! One of the principles of judging someone could be never to judge someone for of against something that they cannot have, or by nature or circumstance cannot get rid of. One cannot blame the insane for instance for acting insanely, or children behaving in a childlike manner. One cannot be blamed either, or as it were, judged against for being poor, less intelligent or physically challenged. I believe people, as we use the word people, should be judged fairly, for something they are in their person responsible. I believe people should be judged for things that are most common among all people. And the most common among all people is human character that we all bear along to conduct ourselves through life, as in our dealing with other people, and also with ourselves. I think people should be judge, quite rightly as in the words of Martin Luther King, “where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. The same holds true for people belonging to a certain age, race, culture, ethnicity or religion, or simply by being in a certain personal way of appearance, or temperament. They should not be judge but for the definition of their character.

The lecture was very interesting. Omar is one of a kind, he really worked his way and dedicate his time and power to make an influence on the world. He used Hip-hop as a platform to send his message to the people and express his feelings by singing rap music. Hip-hop is a very effective way to bridge between the west and the east, knowing that his roots are from Middle Eastern country and lived through a lot of experience in his life that motivated him and made him what he is now. Omar has made Hip-hop as a communication method to let people know about his culture in the Middle East and what he went through while he was a student in the United States. Also, as an Arab American, he has the ability to interact with a wide range of audience from both sides knowing that he is a bilingual, which can offer different perspectives to other Americans on the issues concerning the gabs between east and west because he lived in both sides and gained knowledge to support him to make this songs wisely. Music is universal and it’s a good way to deliver your message for the people. Omar used this method to deliver his message about Islam and let the people know what Islam is really about. Hip-hop is a great form of expression and helps to create a type of understanding and peace between both sides. There are of lot of people who live in the west do not have any idea about Middle East and when they hear that a person is An Arab, Muslim or from the Middle East they automatically thinks that person is a “terrorist” or violent. Where in reality, people from the Middle East and west share a lot of similarities and we all are humans. So, Omar here is trying to connect between these two sides and share the same believes by mixing the two languages, Arabic and English as he said that he is an intermediate between two mountains. People would appreciate what he is trying to say and listen to his story through music. Omar wants both sides to get along because he knows from his experience in the Middle East and the United States that people are the same despite the cultural differences. Also, his message can inspire different group of ages because Hip-hop has played a big role in both sides in these days. So, a lot of people might change their perspectives as a result of listening to such kind of songs. A lot of young people are not interested about media and news but they are interested in music, so this method can plays a big role in changing the thoughts and believes of this category of people and spread peace, love and hope among them.