I also don’t understand why it creates such a stir at times; it’s probably because of hotbed issue race is. Another thing that is comparable to affirmative action are government benefits that are provided to such a small number of Americans and are an extremely minute portion of our overall spending. However, we have clearly seen how strongly both of these issues have been argued for as well as against. It was unfortunate to find out how small of a percentage affirmative action actually benefits; it is absolutely necessary in certain situations.
As far as nepotism goes; I find that it is almost necessary in today’s society. Even though I firmly believe in a merit-based system, I find that the ‘testing’ system in many countries is biased towards one specific type of ‘test-taker’. Just like affirmative action is necessary at times, I think nepotism is also beneficial and useful at times without being harmful.

In response to the question asked at the beginning of the lecture on how to create a more equitable system: I say create a merit-based system solely based on personal ambition and skill. This is theoretical, of course, but I believe that once we begin focusing on people’s strengths as opposed to the faults that we may see within them, it would be a start to a more equal society. This would essentially weed out the people who are ambitious and want to work hard, and allow the slackers to pretty much, slack.
The idea of affirmative action is controversial to myself as well as many others; we are acknowledging that we’re providing a group a certain advantage due to their skin color or ancestry. I feel that the government should have a limited amount of access into our personal lives, yet I understand the fact that certain groups are discriminated against and these sorts of measures are sometimes necessary.
In addition, we can also argue that white people have benefited from affirmative action throughout the course of history. We have gained so many benefits socially, economically, and more due to our skin color alone.
This is the reason that I hold strongly with creating a merit-based system where our advances in life are based off our ability to achieve.
The short-film from the Oprah show is another example as to why affirmative action is sometimes necessary. The students at one school couldn’t nearly compete with the students at the more ‘advanced’ school due to a sheer lack of resources. This also leaves the students at the poorer school less prepared for the college as well as the real world. Affirmative action is sometimes necessary in situations like this to create some form of equity.
One of the biggest issues with providing affirmative action is that it is difficult to find the funding for it. A lot of opponents to affirmative action feel that the government shouldn’t play a role in providing benefits to a given group; this makes affirmative action unfair in a sense, which is why it has become increasingly difficult to provide it.
I have experienced or have seen affirmative action at hand several times throughout my life. One of them being during my years in a private high school where there two black males in the entire graduating class; oddly enough, they both acknowledged the fact that the reason they were in the school in the first place was due to affirmative action. They didn’t have a problem with this fact because they knew they were better off attending that school as opposed to the one they were zoned for. We got a chance to go to one of the high schools they were going to attend and it was the complete opposite. The majority of the school was consisted of colored people; the school was in clear violation of capacity limits for any given classroom.

The story about Jackson was just as appalling to me. It was shocking on two different levels: firstly, the gruesome accounts were shocking to hear about from anyone when you hear about lopping of noses and taking scalps; secondly, this man was the 7th President of the United States which goes to show something about our country. Sam was absolutely right about business and landowners shaping immigration policy, but I wish he showed how relevant it was to politics. It’s absolutely relevant to elections because it is showing a very distinct standpoint for the politician; if he votes on immigration bills one or another, it will make a complete difference in whether or not he will get a majority of Democratic versus Republican voters, or vice versa.

The story from Jackson’s autobiography was disturbing to say the least. It makes you wonder how the Europeans who came to settle here could call the Native Americans, ‘savages’; especially after they: cut their noses for body counts, spread smallpox, collected their scalps, murdered women and children, and more.
I would have to agree that the relationship between immigration and the United States is revolved around business. They provide labor at a time where it is needed, especially when they need cheap labor. However, it is also politically relevant; the video mentioned that every year that ended in a ‘6’ was pro-immigration. Those years in political terms are midterm elections for Congress as well as an important time for presidential elections. Politicians want to get elected or re-elected so they will become pro- ‘whichever issue provides votes’. Also, sometimes Presidents will attempt to pass landmark bills that will leave them with a presidential legacy.
Immigration is a very relevant issue due to the fact that I have parents who are immigrants. My mother was able to attain citizenship and assimilate into the general culture here even though she holds on strongly to Russian culture as well. My dad, in contrast, was never able to do the same; he always saw himself as a Russian and had no desire to integrate into the society. He lived here for over 15 years as an illegal alien and eventually left for Russia again. I remember around that time, immigration was a very hot topic and I finally began to understand from the perspective of Mexican immigrants.
I thought that ‘Congo’ bill was absolutely racist; it was a little surprising to hear the crazed person from the video in the lecture compare illegal immigrants to criminals. Hearing about the Congo story reminded me about a story of a friend we met in college; his uncle taught his dogs how to essentially attack and bark at people of color or people he thought were immigrants. You can imagine the awkward conversations we had the few times we went to visit him.
America will never be able to call itself a ‘melting pot’ until we relax our immigration laws. This is why the claim made in the previous lecture in regards to America being more of a ‘mixed salad’. However, I feel like the trend of America only using its immigrants for financial and economic benefits will continue for a long time. And even if we relax our border controls, they will never be on a level playing field as people who are regarded as ‘real’ Americans.
It is surprising to see many Americans complain about the cheap labor provided, but in hindsight, I’m surprised by many of the viewpoints that a vast amount of Americans have.

I have to completely agree with you on this absurd cultural war over LGBT rights. It angers me even further due to the fact that many of the people who are so against it claim to be politically ‘conservative’ and yet have no idea that the entire concept is built around staying out of people’s affairs. I understand the point that you made with comparing to a potential battle with sports fans versus ‘bookworms’; however, the reason that it isn’t an issue is because of how we culturally view race. We already see people bullying other people of whom they consider ‘nerds’ but race and gay rights are much more hotbed issues in this day and age.

The lecture on multiculturalism was by far one of the most interesting ones this semester. It made me question how much the United States was truly a ‘melting pot’; it became more evident that it is more of a ‘salad bowl’. We’re all mixed up together but the ingredients aren’t quite fully blended.
I’ve always been proud of growing up in a diverse area but the lecture made me come to the realization that we weren’t fully integrated. You want to have more of the label of being diverse and politically correct as opposed to actually putting it into practice. The majority group wants to assimilate the minority group and possibly even use that to their advantage; but they will never actually accept that minority group and allow them to be on an equal playing field (only in very rare instances).
I also enjoyed the fact that the lecture highlighted how segregated churches actually are; in my opinion, most religions have been the biggest hypocrites in the course of human history. The ‘treat thy neighbor’ notion is only applied in instances when that neighbor is like you and shares the same ideologies. However, they may not accept them or want them to be a part of their church, yet they still would want them to convert. They want them to convert because it only provides more prominence and power for that denomination.
I also wanted to make a note on the question regarding whether or not it matters which flag you wave. I feel like it shouldn’t matter at all, if anything, that sense of nationalism and pride only brews conflict. Nationalism and pride in one’s people has given rise to mass exterminations of another type of people. One of the most obvious examples of this was the Holocaust where Hitler was able to convince the majority of the German people to follow his maniacal quest through propaganda and nationalism. Therefore, I don’t think it should be an issue whatsoever and there should be an increased focus on globalization.
An interesting thing to mention is the amount a minority group can be cast out but the majority group seems to pick up on so many things from their culture. Rap is one of the most evident examples of this due to the fact that black people, who created rap, have struggled throughout the course of history; with this being said, you can hear rap music being played in any region of the world on a given radio station. And it’s not only rap, it’s the entire culture; clothes, slang, etc.
This is a true story: I came across a group of teenagers who were actually arguing about who came from the worst area, in a proud sense. These were all white teens that were trying to be ‘ghetto’ and glorifying that rap culture. In reality, they would probably never want to trade shoes with someone in a less prosperous position.

The lecture on multiculturalism was by far one of the most interesting ones this semester. It made me question how much the United States was truly a ‘melting pot’; it became more evident that it is more of a ‘salad bowl’. We’re all mixed up together but the ingredients aren’t quite fully blended.
I’ve always been proud of growing up in a diverse area but the lecture made me come to the realization that we weren’t fully integrated. You want to have more of the label of being diverse and politically correct as opposed to actually putting it into practice. The majority group wants to assimilate the minority group and possibly even use that to their advantage; but they will never actually accept that minority group and allow them to be on an equal playing field (only in very rare instances).
I also enjoyed the fact that the lecture highlighted how segregated churches actually are; in my opinion, most religions have been the biggest hypocrites in the course of human history. The ‘treat thy neighbor’ notion is only applied in instances when that neighbor is like you and shares the same ideologies. However, they may not accept them or want them to be a part of their church, yet they still would want them to convert. They want them to convert because it only provides more prominence and power for that denomination.
I also wanted to make a note on the question regarding whether or not it matters which flag you wave. I feel like it shouldn’t matter at all, if anything, that sense of nationalism and pride only brews conflict. Nationalism and pride in one’s people has given rise to mass exterminations of another type of people. One of the most obvious examples of this was the Holocaust where Hitler was able to convince the majority of the German people to follow his maniacal quest through propaganda and nationalism. Therefore, I don’t think it should be an issue whatsoever and there should be an increased focus on globalization.
An interesting thing to mention is the amount a minority group can be cast out but the majority group seems to pick up on so many things from their culture. Rap is one of the most evident examples of this due to the fact that black people, who created rap, have struggled throughout the course of history; with this being said, you can hear rap music being played in any region of the world on a given radio station. And it’s not only rap, it’s the entire culture; clothes, slang, etc. This is a true story: I came across a group of teenagers who were actually arguing about who came from the worst area, in a proud sense. These were all white teens that were trying to be ‘ghetto’ and glorifying that rap culture. In reality, they would probably never want to trade shoes with someone in a less prosperous position.

I failed to mention the point about A Girl Like Me in my blog post but I would have to say that this was also one of the most startling parts of the lecture for me. It made me feel awful to see how these children consciously identified the white dolls as being 'good' as well as identifying themselves as 'bad' for being colored. I grew up in a diverse neighborhood and have friends from a lot of different backgrounds so perhaps I can provide some insight on their reasoning. As mentioned in the lecture, people of color are the 'amphibians' who are aware of both water and land. When you are a minority you are consciously aware of this; they live in a society that constantly puts them down for the most part. After a certain amount of time you essentially develop a notion that 'they' are better.

As soon as I saw the title of this week's lecture I immediately understood what the premise of the lecture was going to be. White people when compared to the 'fish' are not aware of water due to the fact that they are submerged in it; people of color are faced to live in two worlds as the 'amphibians' that inherently are able to understand both land and water. These two very simple concepts allow you to grasp what many people seem to have trouble understanding in this present day: how we understand or see race. I thought it was interesting to note that LGBT and disabled people go through similar stages of awareness as colored people; minorities, regardless of what kind, face these kind of stages because they are 'different' than most and they come to understand this concept relatively fast.
I thought that the first point made about the pre-awakening stage was very interesting, especially the point made about Asians. The reason I say this is because I have come across many Asians in a similar situation. We have a large population of Asians in my neighborhood; I have noticed that half of them generally identify very strongly with their ancestry while others have fully integrated themselves into what most of us would call 'white' society. Furthermore, I have discussed with some of my Asian friends who have become 'integrated' as to whether or not there was any reasoning behind this (interestingly enough I had a racial awareness project during HS, I chose to interview my Asian friends) and noticed that half of them made a conscious decision to do so while the other half essentially had no idea of what I was talking about. My friends that made a conscious decision said that it was due to the fact that they were either tired of being picked on, that it was easier to move up in the world, and etc.
One of the most startling facts during the lecture was the graph indicating the black/Hispanic students who have a higher GPA tend to be less popular meanwhile the opposite effect was the result for the white students; this appears to make it extremely difficult for the colored students to integrate. In addition, colored people in the immersion stage will shun them for trying to 'fit into white culture'.
People within the immersion stage can either produce a negative or positive effect; anthological security or hypocrisy. From personal experience I have found that if people don't move through this stage quickly enough they will fall into a level of extremism. Extremist points of view in regards to someone's culture often leads to the idea of supremacy of that culture. This has led to such things as the Holocaust where people were targeted to be exterminated in order to push forward their own race.

I happened to also find this to be one of the most interesting topics of the discussion. I also mentioned the constructive versus destructive effects of guilt and believe that it can be viewed on a short-term versus long-term scale. I think that guilt can be used very effectively as an immediate fix, however, it could become destructive over time. I also believe that guilt is more harmful in extreme situations, which is kind of an obvious point.
I also feel for your situation, sometimes the worst comes out in all people. Even though he wasn’t right at all, it’s interesting to think about whether or not he could have possibly been in the reversal stage. He may have made a previous effort to come to terms with his guilt for being white but was never fully accepted (Dr. Richards mentioned that sometimes the counterpart can enjoy that sense of guilt). This could have been a possibility for his reaction, regardless of whether or not he was correct.