I think that it is human nature to focus on yourself and the people that you care about or that you assimilate with. Does that seem unreasonable or weird to anyone else because it shouldn't? Every single one of us would choose to look out for "numero uno" including myself. If we consider our group to be that close or meaningful to ourselves then we will do everything we can to promote or help them because it will help us in return. This is why you don't see Latinos looking out for the rights of black people or vice versa. Helping out other groups does not make life easier for you. It is like I read in one of the class readings. Life is hard and unfair and this is the root of empathy. Everyone has a certain level of caring for other people and groups, but we must all help out ourselves before we can help others. In terms of Soc 119 class I thought it was a very thought provoking class that I enjoyed very much. I must say that the Soc 119 groups were a lot of fun the TAs were great and the kids in my class made it very funny and enjoyable. Sam is a little sketchy, but it is him that makes the class extremely entertaining. The discussion topics and lectures were really out of the ordinary and somewhat borderline, but all together very interesting. I would have to say that this class has not necessarily made me think or opened me up to a whole different personality or "world" if you will, but I would say that I definitely feel more passion towards other people and am definitely more empathetic towards others. I say that I haven't really changed because I still think in the same "racial stage" mindset that I have always thought in, I'll still eat chocolate, etc. It's probably going to take some miracle for me to totally change my thought process and evaluation, but who knows what is in store. I'm going to miss this class next year when I am taking classes, that will surely be boring, instead of listening to Sam Richards ramble on for an hour and fifteen minutes. I look forward to summer where I will relax and work for four months before starting this whole process over again. I will probably forget a lot of what I learned and it will not affect me in the slightest bit. And I will end with a quick shout out to the TA grading this post Tom, but only if he wasted the time to read all of the way through my last post.

I think that this is a great question to think about because in class we were thinking about it in such a black and white perspective. I definitely think that environment and your parents play a huge role in the "formation" if you will of a person's direction or sexuality. Based on what the people in class said about when they knew they were gay or lesbian it was at a very young age. However, doesn't most of our formation or teaching occur at a very young age? Like how we learn to speak and how we learn to act. The environment has a huge role on everything that a child learns growing up so why shouldn't the sexuality be any different. I'm not sure what it has to do with like how your parents act towards you or what they get you involved with as a kid. I'm not sure. Also, when I think about this question I tend to think back about what we said when it comes to race in sports. You might think of these two scenarios to be totally different, but I think that they have strong correlations to one another. We talked about how we think that only black people can only play basketball and how white people can only play ice hockey. We decided that it has a lot to do with your environment. One girl said that "they don't have hockey rinks in the hood" and someone else said that hockey is extremely expensive and that you need a lot of money to play it. Everyone that I have talked to has said that the kind of music that they like is the music that there parents were always listening. Like my dad would always have classic rock or like Hootie and the Blowfish playing in the car so I learned to love that music and now I listen to it all the time. And maybe a certain type of music or a certain action towards you provokes something or some action. It's hard to describe, but maybe the way your mother or father treated you as a kid, I don't know, forced one way or another on you. It sounds kind of stupid, but maybe it's something like that. Maybe what you get involved in as a kid turns you one way or another. Like growing up playing sports versus something like I don't know something like theater, not that theater is gay or anything. I think it has a lot to do with something that we called a "male-box" in our discussion group. There are limited things that are socially acceptable for each gender so we all so them. Maybe this has something to do with it. I'm not sure what to think, but I like to think environment has something to do with it.

I think that this is a pretty interesting question because of what happened in class on Thursday with the story that was told through multiple people. It turned out that the story was dramatically changed through each person. I think that your personal beliefs have the ability to skew the "results" or the story itself. Everyone has told stories to another, and I'm sure that everyone has added a little something to spice up the story. We probably have all caught ourselves saying something along the lines of " No, I didn't really say that, but can you imagine what would have happened if I did". I think that we are all likely to believe the people that we assimilate with or people that we trust. If your telling someone who believes in one thing that he is wrong and that the thing he doesn't believe in is right I can imagine that he is not going to believe you. So, yes I do think our personal beliefs have a lot to do with what we believe and in return who says them. I also believe that we believe people that we trust and don't believe people that we don't trust. If your mother were to tell you something, anything, then we would all believe it. Yet if someone that we do not know very well like Sam were to tell us something we would probably question it. Just like we do in class. We question Sam and his "so called sources" and I bet a lot of us believe that Sam probably makes up his statistics and numbers. When I think about story and belief that almost always there are two or maybe more sides to everything. It reminds me of the saying "History is written by the victors". This means that whoever "wins" rights the story or view as they see it. I think that this is kind of the same thing with the story that was passed along during Thursday's class. Each victor or storyteller wrote their "history" or part of the story. Everybody sees things differently and that affects our judgement of people. in high school there were people in our class that were well known for being "chronic liers". So everybody in our class knew not to believe anything that these people told us. I would bet that there are people out in the world that have zero credibility. People that have done something to earn them this title.

I think that Sam is probably right when he said that the whole basis of Sociology 119 is ethnocentrism and looking at things from someone else's perspective. I think a lot of our differences grow from our own perspectives even though we may not be so different. In fact when put in the same situations we often make the same decisions. Every time we talk about ethnocentrism in class I think of the old saying "Put yourself in their shoes". I think that a lot depends on perspective. Earlier this year even when Sam talked about white supremacy everyone expected to hear about the KKK and organizations like that, but in reality it was the world seeing things from a white person's perspective. Everything that is in this world/country comes from the roots of white perspective. Even though I think that this is something that will never change everyone can still make the small effort of think about how someone else feels or how you might act when put in their shoes and scenario. Sam says that this was the only class that we could have had this year and we would understand the main message of Sociology 119. However, ethnocentrism has had a behind the scenes part in every class we have had this year. Think about it. Everything we talked about from Native Americans in North America to white supremacy to the levels and stages of people has had to do with ethnocentrism. I think that this is an important message, but isn't achieved easily. It takes some time to fully open up to other people's feelings and thoughts about certain things. I think that we all pass judgements towards others myself included without consciously knowing that we do because it is such a normality in our society. We need to stop and think the next time we have a terrible thought about someone because of what they look like or how they speak. I think that a lot of how we judge people depends on physical appearance and I think that we all know that the right thing to do is look deeper. We should stop "judging books by their cover". It doesn't take a lot of effort to do this and who knows maybe you will get something out of it besides a rewarding feeling. Like maybe a friendship or some other deeper connection. It is like Freddy Fu once said, "It is rather rewarding to see the results". I know that we can all do that little something extra to make the world that much better of a place. And yes it can definitely start with you.

After watching the video in class and as an athlete/ sports fanatic I found it to be very funny. I also think that this is a great question to raise. Why were people laughing at the video or what did they find amusing about it? Was it the fact that the Asian didn't know what he was talking about? Was it because he looked awkward and uncomfortable? Was it because his accent sounded funny and that he couldn't speak English? Was it because he was Asian? I think that many different people laughed at the video for many different reasons. Personally I thought many things were funny. I thought the fact that they didn't know much about sports was funny to me because being who I am I follow sports so thoroughly. Asking me questions about...I don't know... something like art would probably be funny for art fanatics (if there are any out there). However, I also thought that the accents and broken English were comical. This doesn't mean that I am racist or hate Asians because I don't. I totally agree with what Sam said in class about when he was trying to learn Spanish and found that what he ended up saying was pretty funny. I think it is also important to note that like the video question asked I would have laughed if it was a Russian or some other ethnicity trying to speak about football or something that they had no knowledge of in broken English. In fact it is funny enough to hear someone try to B.S. their way through a conversation in which they know nothing about. It reminds me about a stand-up comedian named Brian Regan. Regan does a skit on a conversation that he has with a couple of artists. He has no idea what he is talking about and ends up butchering the conversation and making a fool out of himself. I feel like this is something that should be made lightly and laughed at. People take things like this too seriously and need to let up. Maybe its me but I like laughing at things and think that this whole "its not funny to make fun of anybody because of their differences" bull. I don't know who said that in class but I don't think that the person who said that laughs ever because that is what comedy is and I know for a fact that she herself has laughed at someone because of something stupid like that and if she tells you anything different she's lying. I think we need to be more like the Asians in our class because after all they also found the video to be quite funny.

So in the beginning of the semester Sam did a demonstration about the chair and the three different generations of Native Americans and White people. The class said that the first generation should give up the chair, but the next two generations should not have to give it up. This scenario kind of reminds me of the saying "The Sins of the Father". The question is that do the sons bear the sins of their father? If you answer yes to the question then you feel that the second and third generations should give up the chair to the Native Americans. I however feel that the sons should not be blamed for that of their previous generation, but sometimes are. I believe that every person starts "fresh" if you will. The second and third generations should not have to give up their seats, but that doesn't mean that they can disregard the sins of the previous generation. They should acknowledge what has occurred and do something about it. Maybe they should offer half of their seat to share with the Native Americans. However, this is not the case all of the time because there are some people in this world that feel they are better than others or are more superior. But my question is, does this have anything to do with color? Did the white people tell the Native Americans to get out of their land because they had darker skin or did they tell them to get out because they wanted the land? I think that they ejected the Native Americans for the land. So I cannot say that this has anything to do with race. Therefore I cannot say that the information that I have learned over the past weeks has changed my thoughts on this subject because of the lack of "color" or "skin" aspect. I'm curious to see what other people think and if I'm the only one that feels that it has nothing to do with discrimination. The whites would have told people of any color or nationality to get out because they wanted the land. Black, brown, blue, orange, yellow. It doesn't matter. It was about the land and not about the skin. Do I feel sorry for what happened to the Native Americans back in the day? Sure, I feel awful that they were treated so poorly, but at some point we need to move past it. And if not with the second or third generations then when will we. We are on like the 20th generation since and it seems like we are still having trouble moving past what happened a long time ago.

After listening to Sam's speech about Christian Invaders, my view on war has not really changed. From the very beginning I have known that war is a terrible and ugly thing, but in some cases is a necessary evil. War has left broken families and broken buildings, but in our (United States of America) history never has there been a war that wasn't necessary. A few may disagree with me about one or two, but for the most part all would agree with me. When I think about the wars in Irag and Afghanistan I think that much like the Cold War it is a positive war meant to enhance the lives of those who fall under autocratic and destructive governments. These wars are about terrorism. The Middle East is a very troubled part of the world and the United States is trying to help sort it out. We as a nation want these people to be free and have the option to live under democracy. So coming back to Sam's lecture, I would not be unhappy if someone came into my troubled country and took care of the government and individuals who were being so suppressive and killing hundreds of people every day. This is why soldiers are being high-fived and being treated with happiness and hope by the individuals living in these areas. I feel that most of the soldiers serving over in the Middle East would agree with me. This lecture was not given to change people's view on war because everyone can agree that war is a horrific thing. It is about empathy and feeling for other people. I feel for the Iraqis and the Afghanis and sure we both have our radicals on both sides, but you can't deny that what we are trying to do is the right cause. And if you want to talk about oil then fine. The sooner you start realizing that the world is about resources, the better. Why do you think Japan went to war in World War II. They had to conquer land in the Pacific with good natural resources because they had none. They didn't have any oil because of the embargo and so they had to do something. The example is a little different, but the concept is the same. If you want to keep evolving in this world, you need resources. Overall, I thought the message of Sam's lecture is the right idea, but I think he presented it in a cloudy and wrong way similar to the way he presented the "one soldier to thirty civilians" ratio. I agree that it is possible to show empathy towards others and that we need to disregard the radicals in each group that do not represent the whole. There are radical Muslims who falsely interpret the Koran and take to violence (9/11/2001). However, we cannot let this make us feel that all Muslims are terrorists because they aren't. There are radicals for everything in this world. We need to understand that and that is the key to empathy.

Yeah, wow, I'm not really sure what to say about this one. I not really sure how someone could have such a strong sense of smell to relate what white people smell like when they sweat to that of a wet dog. Like how do you come to that conclusion? Haha, I have no idea. For example everyone smells different when they sweat, but I wouldn't be able to relate their "signature" smell to a specific smell like a wet dog. I would probably just hold my breath when i walked by them. Some people think that Asian people smell bad and to be honest I have caught a whiff of some pretty potent Asian people, but at the same time I'm sure I would smell bad to them too. The main thing that I think about when talking about how certain people smell different ways is diet. I think that the aura or stench that we give off has a lot to do with what we consume or where we live. Asians, black, and white people do not all have the same diet. It is perfectly fair to say that we don't eat the same things. Asians eat there own certain food whether it be Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, etc. Blacks all eat there own certain food and whites all eat there certain food. Two people will always smell differently because of their natural make-up. However, if one person eats Chinese every day and the other eats cheeseburgers and hot dogs every day they will smell drastically different. A question that I also think of is whether or not what you eat attracts you to one smell and away from the other? Who knows? In class though we talked about the oils your body secretes and how that gives you a natural smell and I strongly agree that it does, but I also thought about the substances that one might put on their body. For black people, I think of lotion. Lotions all have a certain scent to them. That might contribute to each individual's smell. I don't really know if white people put substances on their skin, girls might, but I think that for the most part guys don't. I can't really speak for Asians either. I would also say that environment contributes to how you smell as well as society, but for the most part smell is individual. I saw something about a couple of scientists that ran test or something and they said that each individual person is attracted to one other "natural" scent. In other words someone else in the world is attracted to your BO and vice versa. Kinda sick. I haven't found any comforting BO yet.

It's kind of funny talking in class about how discriminatory people can be towards others just based on simple things such as a name, how they look, etc. I never would have thought that someone could be rejected applying for a job because of an odd name eve though they may have better qualities, intelligence, experience, etc. It bothers me that people would choose employees like that. I understand that people tend to pick people that are similar to them and like the same things that they like. I get that, but are we all so different that there is such a difference between Amanda and Laquisha just because of our name difference. I think that is a load. If you can visually see the person (physical appearance) and base your judgement on tattoos and piercings (like the guy that Sam showed on his PowerPoint in class) and deem him inappropriate for a certain job because his physical appearance will hurt your company then fine. However, to say that you choose to hire Amanda over Laquisha for the same reasons I think that is wrong. Laquisha's physical appearance of being a woman of color would not or should not hurt your company or business in a way that someone with tattoos and piercings would. Yet I think it comes down to who society or who you most relate to and unfortunately Amanda is still the winner for this scenario because she is your average white woman. Just like Chad would get the job over Dejuan. It is not right but it is the world that we live in right now and unless we change something it is also going to be the world that we will continue to live in. I am not sure what we could do to change this. Maybe we could start to see each other, but most importantly ourselves in a new light. If we assimilate with each other and start to move outside of the box it won't seem weird or uncommon to hear the name Laquisha or it won't trigger anything in our heads that marks it as unusual. After all isn't it just a name? Does a name tell how someone acts or does it tell you how much they know? The answer is no it doesn't. You cannot judge someone based on their name, but we do it every day. You cannot tell who someone is until you take the chance and opportunity to get to know them.

Thinking back on what Sam said today in class about certain races dominating certain groups is pretty interesting. There are so many different ways to view this and think about it. In my opinion there are certain aspects that affect each sport as a whole. For example, ice hockey. Very rarely do you see black or brown people playing in the NHL or even just playing not as a professional. Sure you have your Jerome Iginla's and your Donald Breshear's, but for the most part the whites outnumber the blacks by like 97%. This doesn't mean that black people aren't necessarily good at hockey. One thing that I like to think plays a role in this specific example is location. There is not much ice in Africa or warm places that black or brown people come from. The countries that dominate hockey are all cold climates. For example Canada, the Eastern United States, Russia, Sweden, Czech Republic, etc. Black and brown people don't really live in these parts of the world, with an exception to the Eastern United States, where hockey is so prevalent. I don't know maybe there is more to this than I know. Maybe there are certain traits and abilities that come with each race. Maybe white people have really good balance and hand-eye coordination, while black people are faster and have the ability to jump higher. However, I don't think that things like race abilities are the main reason behind the race separation in sports. I think it has to do with what you grow up with and what is the "norm: or what is acceptable to participate in. It seems like every black person wants to have basketball skills or wants to participate in basketball because that is what they know. For the few (Jerome Iginla, Evander Kane, etc.) who don't know basketball and instead know hockey, they tend to participate in hockey. I think it is less about the abilities of certain races and more about the location and or will/want to play a certain sport that drives certain races towards certain sports and activities.