Immigration is a touchy subject that I believe not many Americans know any more about than the simple words "they should not be here". We are hounded by the news media and political leaders by the negative effects of immigration and the problems illegal persons cause for our nation as a whole. It is normal that one might only see one side of the issue. Therefore, the fact that immigration is "controlled" for business purposes was news to me.
According to Sam and in class discussion, our nation moderates immigration based on business reasons (for the most part). However, they manage to keep the image that "we do not want these people here" for when there is a need to cut off immigration. Illegal individuals come into the United States looking for work and many have the intentions to help their families who are back home in their native land. They are hard working people and very determined to make a living. As Sam addressed, lazy individuals do not make it into the United States and expect to earn anything. These illegal immigrants take on jobs that many Americans themselves deem as low esteem and not very important - although they equally are. Jobs sometimes include picking strawberries from fields in order to have them shipped all over the country for American individuals. Americans will not do this job, so they rely on immigration. The ironic part about this whole situation is that these immigrants are allowed to work when our economy is doing well. However, the minute there is a down turn, the government will say "get these people out of here" and begin to try and stop immigration. The individuals picking strawberries are fine for the time being, but as things go bad, American people say "these individuals are taking our jobs!" It is a fickle situation. When these immigrants are booted out, the jobs they were doing suffer because Americans still do not want to take them. It makes no sense. Some Americans say "I am fine with immigration"; yet, the minute and immigrant starts competing with him or her for a job, they go, "woah! I did not sign up for this. I want these people out." The business decisions of Americans and the United States as a whole does not seem to make sense to me - although I can see what they are trying to do - provide Americans with jobs.
My issue with the situation is that immigrants are not lazy people and will do jobs the average American will not. Many Americans are very lazy and looking for an easy way through life. How can we get rid of the immigrants when they are only benefitting us? I see the issue that they do not pay taxes, but if that is the only problem, then let the government find a way where things will be able to work and the best of both worlds can occur. A reason I agree with the United State's use of business tactics is that it makes an attempt to keep immigration numbers in check. Large businesses want cheap labor and the minute they do take real, important positions from Americans, there appears to be an issue. With some many twist and turns, it is hard to say what the right answer is!

This is an interesting thing to think about. I can see where one would be coming from in saying that the white individuals "sugar-coated" the story when telling it to their fellow black peers. Do I agree? I would say partially yes, and partially no.
I believe that the topic of the story may have been something the white students felt awkward telling in the class. In fact, it was about an African-American student who wanted an African-American studies course - not a story from a white perspective. The African-American student pushed to have the dean provide a room for students interested in learning about the topic of African-American studies, and it was only retaliated against by other white students. The fact that the white students harassed and treated the black students unfairly over a room and course of study may be an uncomfortable story for white individuals to tell in front of other black individuals. Also, one of the white individuals in the story called the black student a name by using the n-word. I am sure this is something a white individual would not dare repeat in front of a room of seven-hundred classmates, especially with some being black. Of course the white individuals would tell the story differently to fellow white persons as opposed to a black person, but this is only natural. Black individuals, I would believe, tell things to other black individuals much differently than they would to white individuals.
The story changed down the line and became more vague as well because each student could only remember specific parts of it. It is fair to say that the white individuals "sugar-coated" it, but it must also be taken into consideration that the story was losing many of its details down the line as well. The white individuals were in between and towards the end, they could not possibly remember or clearly tell every detail when those details were not passed down the line to them previously in the conversation. In fact, maybe the lack of detail made it seem as if the white individuals were "sugar-coating". For the most part, I saw them tell bits and pieces of the story, but then jump back to sections which they had forgotten. Story parts became out of order and one might see this as skipping around to avoid the awkward sections which may have appeared as "sugar-coating". It can definitely go both ways. To be honest, I did not think that the white students "sugar-coated" anything until I had to sit and think of ways they might have after watching this question response video. I did not see race in this activity. I was more interested in seeing how a more grown up version of "whisper down the lane" would translate at the end of the conversation. The main points stayed, but many details were lost (a reason sugar-coating may have been presumed). I'm sure if this activity was done with all black to black students or all white to white students the outcome would have been the same. Due to the fact that two different colors participated in the activity, this point was brought up. Who knows, maybe these individuals were selected so a point could be proven here as well. It is unfortunate todays guest speaker ran out of time! This question was definitely good for a debate.

This was definitely one of my favorite lectures of the course and it provided me with a whole different aspect of "terrorists" that I had never thought about before. In the United States, the news media and many negative stereotypes have filled us with the idea that "terrorists", specifically those of Middle Eastern decent, are all radical and believe that the world should convert to their monotheistic religion because they worship the true and real god. They "attack" for religious reasons. After the "Christian Invaders" lecture, I have a new perspective to add to this image which I have grown up seeing. Having been told by Sam to put myself in their shoes makes "terrorist" perspective seem different. The way I feel is that there are many extremists out in the world that are true terrorists and we label them as so. The attacks in the United States and images we see on the news, for the most part, are from activities of these extremist groups. However, we blame everyone for their actions, assuming that the entire culture of these "terrorists" is exactly the same way. The news media does not help this image either because they cover stories from the "terrorist" home land and make things look as if the people are also this way. From the perspective that Sam had us look, there seem to be very few terrorists and extremists out there and less bad people than we assume. I believe that we act the way we do out of ignorance, fear, and lack of understanding - aka. putting ourselves in their shoes. If I was a Middle Eastern person, I would see the extremists in the same light that many United States citizens do - however, I would also be ashamed that the extremists are giving me and my culture a bad name and slandering our image. The problem with this is that the other side does not see it. Take things from the United States perspective. If we had extremist groups bombing other places, we would be upset with them and hate that they gave us a bad name. However, when one is the brunt of an attack or issue, it is very difficult to see both sides.
The problem with this issue is, no matter how much one puts themselves in the others shoes, it is difficult to break the image you have always known and actually believe the side you are putting yourself in the shoes of. Personally, I do not know if I will ever be able to learn or understand the others culture where we believe these terrorists stem from. I find it easy to imagine what things are like from their perspective and look at both sides - it is just that actually trusting and letting my guard down to do so would be extremely unnerving. I think many other people would feel the same way, regardless of whether they see from both sides or not. When it comes to blaming terrorists, I would blame the extremists and not the innocent people of the same culture who never intended any harm and have had their image slander by extreme individuals. However, I feel that I cannot blame the "extremists" who attack and do what they do because they are unaware of both sides of themselves and the people they are "going after" and "fighting against".

This was definitely one of my favorite lectures of the course and it provided me with a whole different aspect of "terrorists" that I had never thought about before. In the United States, the news media and many negative stereotypes have filled us with the idea that "terrorists", specifically those of Middle Eastern decent, are all radical and believe that the world should convert to their monotheistic religion because they worship the true and real god. They "attack" for religious reasons. After the "Christian Invaders" lecture, I have a new perspective to add to this image which I have grown up seeing. Having been told by Sam to put myself in their shoes makes "terrorist" perspective seem different. The way I feel is that there are many extremists out in the world that are true terrorists and we label them as so. The attacks in the United States and images we see on the news, for the most part, are from activities of these extremist groups. However, we blame everyone for their actions, assuming that the entire culture of these "terrorists" is exactly the same way. The news media does not help this image either because they cover stories from the "terrorist" home land and make things look as if the people are also this way. From the perspective that Sam had us look, there seem to be very few terrorists and extremists out there and less bad people than we assume. I believe that we act the way we do out of ignorance, fear, and lack of understanding - aka. putting ourselves in their shoes. If I was a Middle Eastern person, I would see the extremists in the same light that many United States citizens do - however, I would also be ashamed that the extremists are giving me and my culture a bad name and slandering our image. The problem with this is that the other side does not see it. Take things from the United States perspective. If we had extremist groups bombing other places, we would be upset with them and hate that they gave us a bad name. However, when one is the brunt of an attack or issue, it is very difficult to see both sides.
The problem with this issue is, no matter how much one puts themselves in the others shoes, it is difficult to break the image you have always known and actually believe the side you are putting yourself in the shoes of. Personally, I do not know if I will ever be able to learn or understand the others culture where we believe these terrorists stem from. I find it easy to imagine what things are like from their perspective and look at both sides - it is just that actually trusting and letting my guard down to do so would be extremely unnerving. I think many other people would feel the same way, regardless of whether they see from both sides or not. When it comes to blaming terrorists, I would blame the extremists and not the innocent people of the same culture who never intended any harm and have had their image slander by extreme individuals. However, I feel that I cannot blame the "extremists" who attack and do what they do because they are unaware of both sides of themselves and the people they are "going after" and "fighting against".

This is a real cool question and definitely an enlightening one to ask after today's lecture. I would have to lean both ways and say that I found the information on my own sex and the opposite sex were interesting. In fact, the relation of my sex to the opposite sex was the thing that I found interesting, it was a connection i had never made or thought about previously. In addition, Sam and his wife explained it in a very intriguing way.
I was very intrigued in the lecture right of the bat when Sam and his wife both stressed that language matters as perceived from a male and female perspective. As a male, I never thought that images and the way both sexes act are influenced by the ideology of the male dominated culture we seem to live in. I think most people would have guessed before this lecture that men are always about sex and it remains the same with "age" and most of the time, while on the other hand, women have very complicated cycles where there is more to just sex than "penetration" which both Sam and his wife stressed. The point that was brought up as new to myself was the example Sam used of girls going out in short skirts in twenty degree weather while also wearing high heels. Being a male, I never once thought that this was out of the ordinary - it is something that I have always seen. The fact that this occurs from male influence and point of view is probably why I have never questioned it much. If females do step back to take a look at these actions, I am sure they can easily justify that it is because this male imaged culture tells us to do so - however, it has become so engrained in us and the culture that it is perceived as normally and many do not think twice about acting this way. I think this is why many girls fall into the thoughts that they must be what guys perceive them to be - which is unnecessary and untrue. This point led me to find the public service announcements very important and intriguing. We hear them all the time, but the background Sam and his wife gave made them more realistic and easily understandable.
Personally, the idea that we live in a sexual society from a man's perspective is frightening to me because I have never thought about it that way. In fact, I laughed to myself when I saw large groups of girls going out tonight like the image Sam described in class. Overall, the lecture was great and I found it very interesting to myself because I could so easily relate. I have a girlfriend and I actually wish that I brought her to today's lecture! To answer this question again, I was enlightened about both sexes, learning more about myself and hearing things I never knew about the other. I had not previously thought this way and am glad today's class was so interesting.

This is definitely an interesting topic to think about. In fact, my discussion group talked about interracial dating today. I believe that there are a number of reason white guys are afraid to date black girls. Initially, I believe that we need to look at the way each of these individuals are stereotyped (in order to perceive an outside perspective). In my opinion, black women are see as very independent, confident, and often loud - characteristics that some would find intimidating. On the other hand, white men are seen as uncultured and often partially shy. In fact, I have heard that many white men are afraid to approach black women - I personally think that it comes down to an intimidation factor. Black female friends of mine say that white men will approach them when they've been drinking at a party or something along those lines, but of course alcohol makes things easier - why do people think this is the case?!
In our generation today, I feel that interracial dating is becoming a common thing - although it is slow to occur. We do not see color as much and I think everyone wants to try things outside their race because our generation is more accepting of it. However, I think people do not mix race when dating because the generations before them aren't as comfortable with them. Parents and grandparents were raised in a different error and I can only assume that they would have very different opinions. Even if our elders did accept the fact, many people will say, "Well, as long as it is not my kid, I am fine with interracial dating." Is it an external factor that white men think they're elders and friends will look at and judge them upon?
I think that white men are afraid that black culture is very different and would not know how to act in it, consequently, they do not give it a try. If they do date interracially, is it due to attraction or just because they want to try another "culture" for a short amount of time? Personally, I believe it does come down to intimidation. Not only the intimidation of what white men may perceive black women to be like, but fear of how others would feel if they dated interracially and how they would be accepted into "black" culture if they did date. White men over think the situation too much. Just because each person is a different race, does not mean that they act differently when they come to the dating culture. I have never been in this position so my opinion may be wrong, but it is an interesting topic to discuss and think about.

I would not go as far as to classify the writing on the rock wall "white supremacy". At first glance, I would be quick to suggest that it is a bunch of college kids just fooling around. Many times, I feel that much graffiti contain inappropriate writing and political incorrectness - it's the graffiti stereotype. Although I think these individuals did not mean intentional harm or have any means of starting controversy over their artwork, they did have "white supremacy" thoughts in the back of their minds - whether joking or not. Of course college students would never act on such an accusation, I just believe people think it's "funny". And who knows, they may have been intoxicated and many of us know that the subconscious speaks when in that state of mind. Although I don't believe their subconscious was "white supremacy", it was merely what they thought was funny at the time.
I personally believe that many white people are to burdened by political correctness to make such a bold claim as "white supremacy". Sam stated in class that many white people live their lives based on the way other races expect them to act, in order to please other races and be okay with themselves. Individuals focus on how people of color tell them to act as a white person and look for validation from other races. They operate in a pseudo-communitarian state and wouldn't do anything to cause turmoil or make them be seen in a more negative light then they probably feel already.
While I personally believe that college students were making a "joke", this is my opinion of how I perceive the situation. These individuals may have perceived it differently and I'm sure that many other people who read the writing on the wall will have their own perceptions as well. Some will see it as "white supremacy" and find it agreeable, although not in an extremist sense - merely an, "yeah, that's how things should be majority of the time". Some will find it extremely offensive while others will find it slightly offensive - in the sense of, "why would someone choose to write THAT? couldn't they find something better to write if trying to make a joke?" I feel that perception is everything. I would personally find it unsettling. The fact that I am white and in what Sam claims to be a majority group, I'd feel that these individuals are giving us a bad name and smearing our image - whether intended to or not. I like to be thought of as an individual in the sense of "he'd never/didn't do that", but even being near it could make others think twice.
These individuals probably felt safe writing these words on a majority white campus as well. With the fear of political correctness and many other obstacles, I doubt they'd dare do it somewhere else. It's a very interesting and touchy situation.

This video definitely gave me something to think about. It's an interesting perspective to think that white men aren't be treated as equally as other groups of people when it comes to scholarships. As the CNN reporter said, it seems like that white men have always been the ones to go to college (until more recent years) and are normally seen as the majority. However, the man providing the scholarships proclaims otherwise. Apparently, white men are a minority in the fact that they don't receive financial scholarships on the basis of race. Personally, I'd like to know where he gets his research and facts because he seems somewhat pompous towards the CNN reporter as she asks questions, and the requirements for his scholarship seem extremely vague and basic. However, the idea that white men don't receive as many scholarships as other groups is intriguing. If this is true, I think that white men aren't normally given scholarships in comparison to others because it would appear to be politically incorrect and people giving these scholarships may be accused of white supremacy and affirmative action. It's seems to treacherous of a line to cross.
However, the man's opinion was interesting. If four groups are getting scholarships and the fifth can't, where's the fairness? I can agree and see this side of the argument, and in fact, it makes sense to me. The issue is deciding how to portray this image to the public. Personally, i don't think I'd be comfortable applying for a white male scholarship, particularly because it would sound fake and I wouldn't like telling people I received a scholarship for being white. Universities have plenty of scholarships to apply for that I would feel fine receiving if I truly qualified and they weren't racially based. At the same time, on the other hand, I have good friends who are on full rides to school due to be partially of a certain race. When hearing that, it sometimes makes me wish I could get a scholarship just for being white - however, due to the fact that our society has engrained the idea that white is majority - I wouldn't want that scholarship. It's very mixed feelings and an interesting topic to contemplate.
What bothered me most about this video and the exchange between the man and the CNN reporter is the part of the dialogue about how things have changed over the past thirty years. It is clearly evident that more diverse people are going to college and it is more a mix than solely white, with minority and race scholarships being available. However, it bothers me that the man says he is only aware of what is going on at the current moment and ignorant of the past. This is why his scholarship seems to bother me. It just seems to say "White people should have scholarships too, for being white". I feel uncomfortable with that because I am white and feel not many people would be accepting of this idea.
Overall, if facts can truly support a white male scholarship due to inequality among racial scholarships and it can be conveyed to the public in a manner that would be accepted easily and quickly, I would have no problem with it. At the current moment, it seems very weird and vague for me.

I definitely can see why one would stereotype this man as "the average white guy". Also, it makes sense to have "the average white guy" advertise a gun holster. It's not every day that one sees "the average white guy" with a gun, and therefore probably wouldn't be so quick to turn off the advertisement in the cases of other races. However, what is it that makes one see him as "the average white guy"? Honestly, I'm not too sure. However, I have a few ideas.

The way the individual dresses in the video may be a reason to stereotype him as "the average white guy". He doesn't appear to have a sense of fashion, but isn't dressed terribly either. His appearance is just "kind of there" - the typical image of an average person. I am unaware of the origin of what makes an "average" person, but will continue to elaborate. He is wearing a white polo, which is tucked into his jeans. He's wearing a belt and has a watch on. This definitely gives the image of a working-class guy and I've heard people say that "the average white guy" wakes up, shaves, dresses "normally", goes to work, comes home, and does it all over again. This is a routine, yet some of these can be inferred from his appearance.

His language is another give away of the "average white guy". He uses the word "heck" instead of cursing and it comes off awkwardly because most people would be use to him saying something else. The fact that his words just systematically flow, makes him feel like an "average" person. Also, he is excited over a gun holster - an everyday invention. The average person wouldn't be excited over something so simple.

His zipper joke is also a flag of "average white guyness". He asks, "When's the last time you caught yourself staring at someone else's zipper?" It comes off as an awkward joke because he is talking so simplistically and "average" that when he tries to say this, you can tell he's not a funny type of person. He also makes a joke about wearing boxers and unbuttoning his pants, which comes off awkward as well.

At times, he comes off as a redneck - people stereotyped as "average white" on occasion. He tells audiences that they can even wear the gun holster when playing with their children. Who would suggest something like that? It comes out of nowhere and seems to appear as if he's not thinking. Do people stereotype "the average white guy" as a working individual who doesn't know much about the world except how to do his job and isn't very funny except just being present and living day to day? This description of playing with children while having it on is definitely out of left field.

Do I stereotype him as the "average white guy"? I would say yes, although it is very very difficult to describe my reasoning behind it. I feel it's one of those things that is hard to explain; yet, I have had a few reasons to support my opinion.

This is a very interesting concept to think about. Do I believe that his lighter skin will get him ahead in society? At many times, I believe it will. For example, statistics shown by Sam in class portray that white individuals are favored for jobs over colored people. Some of this is partially due to latent prejudice, which can be seen in an interview. If the employer is interviewing a colored individual, he may not sit as closely to him as he would a white person. The brown or black person, consequently, would not be able to form that bond that employers look for in an interview - due to the fact that latent prejudice keeps them apart in an office interview setting. Also, many people stereotype black individuals for crime and poor work ethic. Nevertheless, an employer may think this when seeing the individual due to his skin color and favor a lighter skinned person in the process.
I also believe that there will be times his lighter skin may not help. Many people, some more racist than others, may still see him as black. However, I think that they would act differently with him as they would with a dark black individual. When walking down the street, one wouldn't shy away from this lighter skinned individual.
Both of my opinions can't help me but think of the painting example Sam used in class. He told us the story of how he had a highly skilled black friend on his paint crew who wouldn't get jobs in white areas due to his skin. However, Sam didn't think twice about this until someone pointed it out to him. Once again, I feel this steers back to stereotypes and racial profiling. There are many negative images associated with dark skinned workers (as with many other types of races, but we are addressing dark and light skin in this specific response) and some people may still fall into them.
I find it odd that I keep falling back to "jobs" and "working" as the difference between dark and light skinned success. However, jobs are important in life and many believe that getting a good job can get you farther ahead. Outside this job idea, there are other reasons why light skin would get him farther. I feel people see light skin as a supreme thing in our society (which is unfortunate). People would be more likely to approach this person in life as opposed to a darker individual because they believe it's the image our society portrays. Personally, I don't think it makes sense. I think the color and shade of skin should not matter. Regarding jobs, if the individual is qualified, why should he or she not have the equal opportunity to obtain it? Why is there less latent prejudice against white people? It's unfortunate that it holds individuals back. To sum my opinion up one more time, I feel that his lighter skin will get him farther in life at certain times.