en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/758808 Comments by BigWillyStyle https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/tent-cities-in-haiti__trashed/#IDComment70013374 These people have such drive. They remind me of street vendors in NYC in that they have so much competition that they really try to attract you via whatever means necessary. They try very hard to please the customer so that they can attract away from the competition. I find it very amusing that many are still interested in buying luxury goods, but it makes sense that they want to live similar to before the earthquake. Sometimes luxury services like the pedicure could be a stress reliever where the customer can do more than simply get a spa treatment—but actually step out of reality for a given time while in the beauty shop. It seems to me that fights could erupt in some cases where store owners from before the earthquake had their shops looted, and found someone else selling their property. I’m sure that’s a not a prevalent problem though. These tent store business owners are very motivated. Selling electronic equipment to a people who did not even have electricity before the quake is interesting. I also believe it is a very good point that people (mostly children) in these tent communities, have nothing but an excess of time to spend doing nothing. Entertainment is a great idea for business, and this cell phone charger man has the right idea. But overall what hits me most about seeing this video is that it is no longer simply water and food that is being sold, but nail-polishing and TV entertainment. This could possibly be a step forward, but I know that it really is not; It’s just a way to pass the time and deny that there is a ton of work to be done to rebuild. If the people of these communities can laugh about things and buy ‘luxury’ goods, then they definitely have the right attitude. They just need the proper assistance by outside organizations. In the video footage I saw a lot of flies around food, and what not. It made me realize that all these tents are just breeding grounds for disease with human waste and no garbage disposal, sewage, or running water. Like Ian was saying, America is excellent at creating dependency. There is some saying like, “You can give a man a fish, or teach him to fish, which will get him fish for life.” This is the exact idea Ian was talking about, and I totally believe that this situation is occurring right now. All the money that is donated to fund Haitian relief will end up back in American’s business’s pockets—not Haitian. When Ian started discussing his idea to find entrepreneurs that could invest in starting a manufacturing plant in Haiti to employ Haitians and serve Haitians I really thought that was a good idea. If I had the start up capital I would strongly consider doing that, because that is a serious way to help. Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:40:17 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/tent-cities-in-haiti__trashed/#IDComment70013374 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68441353 You obviously did not understand the lecture. Sam simply wanted us to understand ethnocentrism by putting us in someone else’s shoes. He succeeded in doing this for the most part. In the end I said that I would probably join the insurgency, given the provided point of view. We close our eyes to everything that goes against our argument like he displayed when showing the videos of the American soldiers pushing the innocent pick up truck off the road as well as crushing the civilian’s car because they looted some wood. These are innocent civilians that simply are trying to live their lives peacefully like most of us. They don’t want to be interrupted by war and invasion, just like us. His analogy of the Chinese coming and invading Pennsylvania for our coal resources hit me hard. It really made me understand their point of view. Obviously these radicals that we see on the Internet and media reach us because it is what we want to believe. We don’t want to believe that we are invading an innocent country simply to harvest resources that fuel our consumerism. Before this lecture every time I saw children holding guns like the picture that Sam displayed, I was frightened because I thought that these were people that were just irrational. Now I completely see their rationality in choosing to call to arms. They are infuriated by the US soldiers that they see as Christian invaders. These are not Christian invaders. Just as Muslims are not children with guns. It is just what we choose to see. I found it totally amusing when he showed us slides of muslim families that could easily be an American family. They are no different than us, but they each of our cultures is just a fish bowl and we cannot see the water that we’re in. We know that these soldiers are simply fathers, brothers, cousins, sister, mothers, etc. They mean no harm to civilians generally, yet there are always a few immature people in any group. A few weak links in the chain that ruin it for people. I sincerely felt terrible seeing those men watch as an American tank crushed their car and the soldier said something long the lines of, “Don’t mess around with the United States Army.” It I just sad that two different ethnicities or cultures cannot better understand each other. Looking at the US intervention from a muslim stand point really gave me a new way of thinking. Our media wants us to see people a certain way, just like theirs wants them to see us in a certain way. Sam is correct that insurgents have no right to cause harm, but we should now understand why they have their intentions. Americans invading for securing resources of another land is enough to piss anyone off. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:05:01 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68441353 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68441381 You obviously did not understand the lecture. Sam simply wanted us to understand ethnocentrism by putting us in someone else’s shoes. He succeeded in doing this for the most part. In the end I said that I would probably join the insurgency, given the provided point of view. We close our eyes to everything that goes against our argument like he displayed when showing the videos of the American soldiers pushing the innocent pick up truck off the road as well as crushing the civilian’s car because they looted some wood. These are innocent civilians that simply are trying to live their lives peacefully like most of us. They don’t want to be interrupted by war and invasion, just like us. His analogy of the Chinese coming and invading Pennsylvania for our coal resources hit me hard. It really made me understand their point of view. Obviously these radicals that we see on the Internet and media reach us because it is what we want to believe. We don’t want to believe that we are invading an innocent country simply to harvest resources that fuel our consumerism. Before this lecture every time I saw children holding guns like the picture that Sam displayed, I was frightened because I thought that these were people that were just irrational. Now I completely see their rationality in choosing to call to arms. They are infuriated by the US soldiers that they see as Christian invaders. These are not Christian invaders. Just as Muslims are not children with guns. It is just what we choose to see. I found it totally amusing when he showed us slides of muslim families that could easily be an American family. They are no different than us, but they each of our cultures is just a fish bowl and we cannot see the water that we’re in. We know that these soldiers are simply fathers, brothers, cousins, sister, mothers, etc. They mean no harm to civilians generally, yet there are always a few immature people in any group. A few weak links in the chain that ruin it for people. I sincerely felt terrible seeing those men watch as an American tank crushed their car and the soldier said something long the lines of, “Don’t mess around with the United States Army.” It I just sad that two different ethnicities or cultures cannot better understand each other. Looking at the US intervention from a muslim stand point really gave me a new way of thinking. Our media wants us to see people a certain way, just like theirs wants them to see us in a certain way. Sam is correct that insurgents have no right to cause harm, but we should now understand why they have their intentions. Americans invading for securing resources of another land is enough to piss anyone off. Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:05:01 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68441381 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68441294 You obviously did not understand the lecture. Sam simply wanted us to understand ethnocentrism by putting us in someone else’s shoes. He succeeded in doing this for the most part. In the end I said that I would probably join the insurgency, given the provided point of view. We close our eyes to everything that goes against our argument like he displayed when showing the videos of the American soldiers pushing the innocent pick up truck off the road as well as crushing the civilian’s car because they looted some wood. These are innocent civilians that simply are trying to live their lives peacefully like most of us. They don’t want to be interrupted by war and invasion, just like us. His analogy of the Chinese coming and invading Pennsylvania for our coal resources hit me hard. It really made me understand their point of view. Obviously these radicals that we see on the Internet and media reach us because it is what we want to believe. We don’t want to believe that we are invading an innocent country simply to harvest resources that fuel our consumerism. Before this lecture every time I saw children holding guns like the picture that Sam displayed, I was frightened because I thought that these were people that were just irrational. Now I completely see their rationality in choosing to call to arms. They are infuriated by the US soldiers that they see as Christian invaders. These are not Christian invaders. Just as Muslims are not children with guns. It is just what we choose to see. I found it totally amusing when he showed us slides of muslim families that could easily be an American family. They are no different than us, but they each of our cultures is just a fish bowl and we cannot see the water that we’re in. We know that these soldiers are simply fathers, brothers, cousins, sister, mothers, etc. They mean no harm to civilians generally, yet there are always a few immature people in any group. A few weak links in the chain that ruin it for people. I sincerely felt terrible seeing those men watch as an American tank crushed their car and the soldier said something long the lines of, “Don’t mess around with the United States Army.” It I just sad that two different ethnicities or cultures cannot better understand each other. Looking at the US intervention from a muslim stand point really gave me a new way of thinking. Our media wants us to see people a certain way, just like theirs wants them to see us in a certain way. Sam is correct that insurgents have no right to cause harm, but we should now understand why they have their intentions. Americans invading for securing resources of another land is enough to piss anyone off. Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:04:18 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68441294 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment65684265 Reading this article was boring for me probably because I don’t see this something profound enough to affect my life significantly. In high school I first learned that Spanish would soon be the dominant language spoken in America. I thought of how my life would change if Spanish became the official spoken language. Signs, call centers, television programs, etc. would all be geared toward Spanish speakers, and I would have to adapt accordingly. It was only chance that white people settled on this soil anyway. This would be a whole different story if Africans or Indians settled on America and Europeans were the immigrants today. Color is arbitrary, and whites shouldn’t be worried that they will lose their power positions and such. This article is saying that the total of minority births are increasing to fifty percent. This means that no single minority is growing in population, but the combined total is. Therefore whites may still have unfair advantage over any single minority (blacks, etc) but comparing total blacks and browns to total whites, the numbers will be close to equal. This is not a bad thing by any stretch, but it will change the world we live in. I try to imagine what the world would be like when minorities and whites are at a balanced level. Fashion magazines will show more people of color to advertise beauty and products, because beauty and such is only defined by society. This could also change the baby doll experiment to be more equal. I look forward to more diverse cuisine, music, and culture in American towns. This will make us a truly multicultural society. I just hope that wealth becomes more balanced as minorities increase, otherwise we will be dealing with a crime rate that is out of control. Naturally, as minority populations increase, their political representation probably will too. It could be beneficial to have a diverse representation in congress and even in corporations. As a white person, I feel that my status will not be affected by changing numbers like this because the birth rate is still mostly white, and whites have been in power positions for so long that their leadership positions are branded into the corporate and political world by nepotism. I feel no reason to be concerned as well because I doubt that minorities will revolt against whites when they finally become the majority. Strength in numbers is quite a primitive form of power to rule the United States. I feel that this is just another inevitable event in world history. The changing of the guard so to speak. The systems and functions of the world follow cycles, and growth of certain ethnicities and decrease of others is just another cycle. Sat, 3 Apr 2010 02:16:42 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment65684265 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/in-her-own-words__trashed/#IDComment64271656 In Sam’s class it’s obvious that anything is fair game for discussion, despite the size of the class. I’m a male, and whenever a girl says something about her period it doesn’t bother me at all—I never really looked at it as a disabling time for females (they want us to hold doors, etc.) but it doesn’t disgust me or anything at all. Although I am perfectly comfortable having conversations about it, I do understand why people use discretion of this sort of bodily function. Society doesn’t like to publicly discuss any bodily functions that take place above the knees and below the waist. This is probably because people could feel naturally uncomfortable because these are sexual parts of our body, which could make them feel embarrassed, excited, or vulnerable. That’s why it’s best to stay away from talking about this in casual conversation with strangers, co-workers, etc. However, I do think that women could quickly erase society’s standards and talk about their periods discretely with confidence if necessary. For instance, Sam mentioned his wife, or women in general re-scheduling meetings or calling-in sick to work because of bad cramps, with the woman claiming that she’s “not feeling well.” I think that is an acceptable way to state it without saying “bleeding.” That word doesn’t bother me, but I can easily understand if others believe it’s too graphic…because it really is. We say, “I need to use the restroom.” And not, “I need to take a massive poop.” The word “Period” is more acceptable…or else think of another term to use. I see what Sam was getting at when he said it’s like ‘art’ in the toilet, but that’s pretty gross because after all it is just blood, and I could be free-spirited and say that all things natural is art, but this isn’t something you say to strangers, or else they will judge you as a creep or something. Some other guy on this blog said, “ There is not one guy I know that wants to think about it in depth.” It’s really no big deal unless you faint from the thought of blood, and we don’t need to think about it in depth everyday, as long as we think about it in depth at least once, so that we have full understanding of it and can accept it when females in our life are going through the cycle. The same blogger called the vagina the holiest of all places, or a Mecca, therefore we don’t want to think about it being perhaps ‘tainted’ with bleeding. I agree that it could be the holiest of place because that is where a mammal’s life begins, but as for not thinking about it’s cycle… whatever man, it naturally cleans itself too, so nothing to worry about there. Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:59:46 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/in-her-own-words__trashed/#IDComment64271656 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58920878 Well, in regards to the drawing, our culture has defined an Indian as as enemy of the cowboy...almost an unreal character from myths created long ago. I remember playing with toy figures when I was young, having indians and cowboys battle, obviously not understanding that this mass murder actually occurred in America's history. Could you compare it to the holocaust? Would we ever make toy figures of Nazis and peoples? We should try to erase the cowboy versus indian tales from our culture, and replace it with the truth. The trail of tears, etc. Also, why do we as Americans allow ourselves to deny this genocide? It is illegal in Germany to deny the holocaust, but as Sam said, Reagan's speech overlooked the whole history of native american conflict, saying this land was free for the taking. America prints the history books, and we need to make ourselves look good. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:59:14 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58920878 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment58919917 I agree that the ancestors of these tribes would probably be displeased knowing that so much industry was taking over the prairie, but remember that this land is pretty baron compared to what the Three Affiliated Tribes used to live on. It sounds like these reservations are the select few spots in America that have extremely few resources-- therefore, there is not much nature to be conserving anyway. This group of Indians won the lottery suddenly, after years and years of poverty, and now everyone is 'hoodrich' and cruising in big trucks and such. These newly-rich communities could very well become worse-off because of conspicuous consumption leading to more debt. I think they are very fortunate to have this opportunity of great wealth. It will give them a chance to advance their community and society if they so choose. The leader is making a good effort to make elders aware that they should control their spending, but I still don't think people from extreme poverty will be able to get a solid list of priorities. American Indians kept to themselves and nature, and I'm sure that if today's world allowed, they would still do so. They no longer have wild buffalo and horses roaming on vast plains, therefore there is no option but to assimilate. They try to assimilate the best they can, but they have no resources...so now that they have black gold in their hands, they will spend to adapt to the quality life white people today live. Sure, they complained about the government flooding one-tenth of their land in the 50s, they should be angry about that--But when you are this poor, why would you ever complain about booming business that provides jobs to everyone. It is not like they are all trying to build wigwams and the industrialists are tearing them down. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:49:21 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment58919917 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-two__trashed/#IDComment57720761 I believe that society will soon accept gay, male couples 'flaunting' in public, but all in due time. I don't know if it's really parallel but I was trying to think of something similar in history to try to relate and to try to predict if this could ever be the norm. Black people riding in the front of the bus, or using white public facilities was probably just as stunning to see in a certain time period. It is perfectly acceptable today. This may not be the same because I think people can sexually feel uncomfortable or maybe even get aroused in some weird way when they see couples 'flaunting.' I think that there are people out there that are just so free-minded that they have no problem expressing sexuality towards people, regardless of gender. I think Sam is just very open-minded, and that's why he says he'll probably be with a man at some point in his life. I couldn't do that because I do not get that arousal, but I have no problem with others doing it. It doesn't bother me at al, and it shouldn't bother anyone that is perfectly comfortable with themselves. I feel like some of my male friends are family, just as my female friends, and I care for them all, but could never engage in sex with them. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:36:25 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-two__trashed/#IDComment57720761 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment57719888 Why are you so worried that a happy gay couple will desecrate you sacred, special word, "Marriage"?? Sure marriage was established as a religious institution, but the law recognizes it and gives married couples less taxes and other rights. Gay couples deserve the exact same advantages that a traditional marriage would grant, whether it is called by the word 'marriage' or something else doesn't matter to me. Marrying a gay couple is breaking this institution simply because it is not allowed by the Bible-- but as Sam showed us in class, many of us do not follow our religious guidelines strictly anyway. Marriage today is strictly legal. Sure people can have a religious marriage at their church and what not, but heterosexual couples can marry without involving religion. My sister got married in Massachusetts and on the form it simply had a place for 'Party A' and 'Party B.' My siblings and I were never confirmed in the catholic church or the Episcopal church, but we were baptized and had our first communion. And although we weren't very religious and didn't attend every Sunday mass, I still served on the alter occasionally. Even with that level of commitment to my church they will not marry me unless I am confirmed, but I am fine with that because I know I can find an independent party with a marriage license to marry me, just like my sister did. There should be no exception to marrying gays because this term marriage is legal and gives couples benefits under the law. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:24:43 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment57719888 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/negros-of-the-world-unite__trashed/#IDComment55552411 Although the word ‘negro’ isn’t used in polite conversation and isn’t politically correct in today’s society it should certainly be included on the U.S. Census. If a significant measure of people consider themselves to be negros, then it’d be a failure not to include it. I’m not going to lie—I am a bit surprised that so many people would consider themselves negro, an even handwrite the choice in although it was already included in the form. It’s obviously most likely that these are older black Americans that lived during the time when this term was politically correct, but those people are significant in terms of the census. Although I have a feeling that the census lacks representation for so many other niche groups or whatever—so is it really significant to include ‘negro’? I’m sure there are other names for other groups similar to the word negro that are not included on the census, so it would be interesting to see if there is further reasoning behind including this choice on the form. These are just names that fade away I believe. The only choice I have is ‘white.’ Not western European decent, English, Irish, or anything. Essentially I am the same in the eyes of the census as a white skinned person from Russian heritage. The article says the census is a very important indicator for far reaching branches of U.S. society such as corporate marketing, federal regulations, etc. If people disregard their census form or give false information because their preference is not included the information is false and can mislead. I don’t think it is racist or offensive at all to include this choice especially when the statistics from last census suggest we should maintain the choice, ‘negro’ on the form. It’s interesting that Hispanic ethnicity is a question by itself and that race and ethnicity are virtually identical everywhere except for the United States. Ann Morning’s conclusion that keeping race and ethnicity separate unintentionally could have race representing biological characteristics seems very true. It would probably be less problematic if ethnicity and race could be combined somehow as to display ancestry and origin. Anyway, like a few other people have discussed, the census should really become irrelevant soon enough because so many people are mixed. I don’t know how much of the population is 50% or more of one single race, but it seems as though so many Americans are “multi-racial.” Sat, 6 Feb 2010 01:10:48 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/negros-of-the-world-unite__trashed/#IDComment55552411 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/i-guess-it-pays-to-learn-a-bit-about-other-people__trashed/#IDComment54435262 I found this story pretty interesting. I believe that no one did anything wrong in the decision to land the plane early because it could have easily been a matter of terrorism/ safety. That is a very unusual practice to do in public, and especially on an airplane. As smart and intelligent as his rabbi says he is, he should have thought about this before doing it on a plane full of other cultures of people, or perhaps even inform the flight attendant beforehand. Although informing the attendant would automatically make him suspicious...so, it's hard to say. Anyway, the police chief was correct: People were just unfamiliar with that form of prayer. The leather box and straps look very suspicious when strapped to oneself on an aircraft. Even if everyone aboard realized it was a prayer and a ritual device, it still begs the question, "Why do this on an airplane?" It is definitely not equivalent to turning on a movie or reading a book to pass the time. I find the jewish community's reaction interesting that they are so nonchalant and understanding. It'd be great if we could live in a world where everyone had some cultural knowledge and accepted rituals as normal, but that's just not the way it is or it ever will be. There is just too much to learn, and for many people there is absolutely no reason to learn about other religions. Many christians don't even know about their own religion. Once again, it is no one's fault. It is just unusual behavior for such a regulated environment (aircraft). In times like these it seems that police go too far...raiding the plane, pointing guns in the direction of passengers . This is very dangerous seeing that the boy in question wasn't armed. Cuffing him is a bit much because at this point they probably could've found him innocent, but cuffs are just another normality in dangerous situations like these. Jews shouldn't feel offended, but this should show everyone that people need to use discretion when practicing religious rituals because many times they are very strange and outlandish to do in public. All in all I think this is just another event that needs to happen for people to understand other cultures. It may seem like we need to be called to action and learn cultural ways of every ethnicity, but I don't think that is necessary. If you don't want to learn about this, you shouldn't have to. It's just a natural slow process of integrating cultures. Now we know what a 'teffilin" is....next time we'll learn something else. Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:07:32 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/i-guess-it-pays-to-learn-a-bit-about-other-people__trashed/#IDComment54435262 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-w__trashed/#IDComment53876634 Word Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:14:56 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-w__trashed/#IDComment53876634 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53424430 That is wild that a media icon, even of low stature would say such an outlandish remark about such a serious event. A pact with the devil? Oh, so that's why all this happened. Aight. That woman next to Robertson was just agreeing with him...which shows why this is a problem that people just take a priest's word without question. Sam had a very good point about auto companies making a pact with the devil in modern times. People wouldn't buy that, but the times of french occupation of Haiti was a long mysterious time ago. Pat Robertson's job is to give spiritual advisory/ support, so why would he blame the Haitian people for their ancestry bringing a natural disaster upon themselves? Stewart's report is the most realistic. Like Jon Stewart said, Robertson could have easily made a simple statement about God giving strength to Haitians, but he decided to say something totally stupid. I obviously haven't experienced the situation in Haiti right now, so the only thing I know for sure is that it is a terrible tragedy and lots of people need help and support. Rush Limbaugh is doing nothing to help either, saying this situation is made-to-order for Obama, etc. They take such a heartless stance. Olbermann is very harsh as usual, but it's good that he puts them in their place. It is easy to see that these people in the media dwell on public reaction, and it is ashame they can't be more serious and get down to business explaining the reality of the situation and showing people what needs to be done. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:19:34 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53424430