I think there are several factors that go into a parent’s view and acceptance of homosexuality. I believe that how one is raised plays a big role in their view on homosexuality. If one was raised in a strict and religious family, they may not be as accepting to gays as one from a liberal or less religious background. I also feel that the age of one’s parents is a variable that must be taken into consideration. If you have relatively young parents in their mid forties they may be more up to date socially as opposed to having sixty five year old parents that are stuck in the past culturally.

Also I think it is easy for a parent to form an opinion on whether or not they would accept their child if he or she came out of the closet. For example a parent may say they would love their child no matter what their sexuality but in reality, if it came down to it they would not be so accepting. On the other hand a parent may say they would never accept their child if he or she was gay but then when the child does come out of the closet, they cannot help but help but continue to love and accept them. I feel that it is easy to speculate on how one would react but it is really hypothetical and one cannot grasp their true reaction until they are put in that situation.

My mother’s childhood friend who passed away several years ago came out of the closet to his mother, whom my mother had become very close with after his passing. Hal came out to his mother and said something along the lines of “Mom, I am gay.” Being the old fashioned person that she was, Hal’s mother responded “Oh you’re happy?! Good! I’m happy if you’re happy!” This was her response although she had known for years that Hal was gay. She would have never changed her opinion on her son and loved him just as much until the day that he passed.

I believe this would be the same way my mother would respond. My mother is a liberal person and loves me for me, regardless of my sexuality or gender. I think it takes a certain kind of person to disown their child if they find out that he or she is not straight. Often their excuse is their religion. I do not believe that in any religion it is acceptable to disown your own blood over their sexuality. If one is so caught up in their religion that they would consider removing their own child from their lives, they should have seriously reconsidered becoming a parent.

First of all I would like to start by saying there is a time and place for extra supervision to be used for your child. For example if it is a nice summer day and you live in a generally safe, suburban area, there is no reason to not let your child run around the neighborhood and hang out with his or her friends. There are underlying factors that may play a role as well such as time of day, gender, and age of the child, which must be taken into account. Now if you take that same into New York City for the day or an amusement park, a parent should keep closer supervision just based on the sheer amount of people in those areas which create a bigger risk for a situation to occur.

As far as fear goes for stranger abductions, I believe it is not the sheer volume or lack thereof that causes the fear. In class it was stated that there were only 100 stranger abductions last year but the number was thought to be way higher. I feel that this is because the severity of something such as having a young family member abducted is so serious that it almost equals 10,000 stranger children being abducted. I believe that this also has to do with the fear generated purposely or not by media stations. They pick and choose crimes that will boost ratings. They can spend a week of 24/7 coverage on a child abduction whereas a simple shoplifting can only take a couple minutes of air time. These media stations need to fill large air times and pick certain crimes to do so. This makes it seem like there are entirely more of these specific crimes than there are in reality which causes fear.

The fact that there were only 100 stranger abductions last year makes it an incredibly low chance of having you or someone you know being abducted. Now the chances are higher in such places discussed earlier such as cities or high population areas where extra care is necessary. I believe that good parenting and instilling good morals and values in a child can keep them out of most trouble. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time cannot be accounted for but teaching a child the proper things to do if such a circumstance were to arrive can help alleviate some of the repercussions that may arise.

I feel that it is important to give a child a proper amount of freedom to make their own decisions. Again this depends on age and gender but to “baby” a child up until the age of 18 can have worse effects. Once they leave for college they will not have such supervision and may then act out.

First of all I believe that fashion and what that fashion says about the person wearing it, is all relative to the society in which that person is currently as well as the specific setting within that society. To say that a woman wearing a bikini is not saying that she is disrespecting herself if she is on the beach or by the pool in America. On the other hand, where women are socially taught to cover their entire bodies in certain places in the Middle East, a woman wearing a bikini would possibly be thought to be disrespecting herself. Certain fashion only says what the greater society decides what it says about someone.
What clothing says about a person also depends on the setting within the society. For example in an office setting, a bikini would not be found appropriate. On certain days of the year such as Halloween, a sexy nun outfit would not be frowned upon whereas on any other day of the year our society would cast a negative stigma on that person.
Every society has its own norms and when visiting other countries and seeing their norms, it is easy to declare them as weird or alien. For example when people in Europe are having a conversation they tend to stand a lot closer to each other than we do here in the United States. That is completely normal in their society whereas you could be impeding on someone’s personal space if one were to stand a foot away from someone here. Another example is Europeans will kiss each other on the cheek or on both cheeks when introducing or greeting someone. That is perfectly acceptable in their society but would be out of the ordinary here. The same ideas go for clothing; our society decides what is normal and acceptable and what is not.
As far as respecting yourself or not, it also depends on the extreme to which the person takes it. If a woman is walking down the street down the shore in a normal bikini, you would not think twice about it. If that same woman is wearing a g-string bikini and pasties over her breasts, this could possibly be seen as her not having respect for herself.
The majority of our nation follows some sort of Christianity that does not have as strict rules as Muslim followers. In some cases women can not show any part of their body except for their eyes. A bikini is basically as little clothing as one can wear without being naked and to a Muslim this would be totally unacceptable. Being that this is a predominantly Christian society, we do not follow such norms.

First of all, I would like to clear the air and say that I do not find the video of the reporter asking various sports related questions to the international students offensive. I believe that this video was made as a parody, similar to one you would find on Saturday Night Live or another comic skit show. I don’t personally see things that are intended as comedy to be offensive. If, on the other hand, this was an actual new reports aired on local or national television, I would find it quite offensive. I believe that before one labels something as offensive they must first take into account the context and audience in which the video or article is intended.

Regarding whether I think it would be offensive if the same questions were asked to a white foreigner such as a Russian person, again I do not think it would be offensive if it were for the sake of comedy. If it were an actual news report labeled “Russians are Dumb” I would find it very offensive. I think it all boils down to how comfortable one is with their own race or ethnicity. For example, I have a black friend here at school that is one of my closest friends. I can say anything I want to him as far as racial jokes and he returns them right back at me. We are both comfortable with each other as well as our race. If I were to repeat the same jokes to a random black kid on campus, I am sure I would not get the same response, and similarly if some random kid on campus was telling white jokes to me, I would not respond the same as in a personal setting with my friend.

In our discussion group, an Asian student stated that he would have found this video offensive if it were right after he got to America. He went on to say now that he has been here for several years and has learned American culture; he does not find it offensive and just laughs it off. I believe that he has become more comfortable with his race and ethnicity and thus is not so easily offended by comedic videos.
If I were in an Asian country and had a similar thing happen to me, first of all I do not speak any Asian languages so I would not be able to understand them or even attempt to respond. The thing that made the Asian video humorous was the fact that they did try to respond and were not quite sure how to. Even if I did speak an Asian language, if I knew the skit of for comedy only, I would not be offended.

I believe the key to understanding this phenomenon is to first realize that power is abused everywhere. Power is abused on the American side as well as in terrorist and infidel groups. Next, in understanding this, one must grasp the fact that there are two sides to every story. We watch the video of an American tank running over a car because the owner was caught looting only to find out that the person was a cab driver and that car was their livelihood. Fine, that is an unfortunate story. Perhaps this person should not have been looting, and perhaps the American’s “solution” or revenge from this act was a little over the top, but who’s to say? If an American was caught looting, would terrorists flatten their car or just chop their head off? As Americans we are in the world spotlight and have a distinct responsibility to act with a certain degree of fairness and act in democratic ways. The same terrorists that have captured, tortured and killed our soldiers are supposed to be respected and given the dignity that prisoners of war “deserve?” War is not a nice thing. There is nothing bubbly or cute about it and often a sense of fear must be put into the hearts of our enemies and vice versa. Suicide bombings and such cause harm twofold; the physical harm and the mental harm from the fear of such attacks.

One must also keep in mind that these videos can go either way. If a video was posted of a middle easterner doing something such as running over an American car with a tank, there would be American outrage similar to the feelings brought about by the video seen in class. Returning to the video with the tank, maybe he was using this vehicle day in and day out to haul the items that he was looting back to his house. Maybe the soldiers thought that taking away his vehicle would prevent further lootings. I am not trying to make excuses for the soldiers but I am just pointing out that there may be more than what meets the eye in this video. These videos are easy mechanisms of manipulation and can be used as propaganda against certain groups. Even if this is a single case and has only happened once, it can evoke such negative feelings and connotations of Americans and feed into the frenzy of anti American acts.

I think the only way to attempt to control this is a system of checks and balances. There must be order in every aspect of war and an overseeing in prisoner detainee camps to avoid abuses of power. Abuse of power cannot be eliminated but with certain laws put into place it can be lessened.

There have been several ideas, statements, and concepts that have struck a chord with me so far in this semester. Whether it was posed by Sam or a fellow classmate of mine, I have found that I am proponent of some of these ideals while some I am vehemently opposed to and see as mere propaganda. I will discuss a concept that leans towards the side of opposition, but not quite vehemently. In Sam’s lecture discussing White Supremacy, several ideas struck me as questionable. Sam stated that everything revolves around whites and white supremacy; everything is affected by “white-ness.” I believe that while whites own a stronghold in government and other offices of power, other races affect our society in other regards. Although this effect may not be as powerful or dominating as the people who create and enforce our laws, “black-ness” undoubtedly affects our mainstream culture in this era.

Anyone who is a fan of sports gets bombarded by black culture. I’d say that such sports as professional football and professional basketball have a majority of black and brown athletes. That being said, we don’t just see their skin color on TV. We are seeing their style, taste in music, customs and language. Watch ESPN for an afternoon and see how many times you hear a white sports reporter say “swag” or “boo-yah.” Believe it or not, the phrase “bling-bling” was once cool until every white person, young and old, was throwing this slang around. Where did this slang come from? Black culture. Look at “white music.” Rock and Roll, thought to be for our white parents, grew out of Jazz. Rock and Roll is in fact a combination of Jazz and Gospel, both genres dominated and perfected by blacks. Another example that our generation can easily relate to is something as simple as blue jeans. Being white, as a child, I wore regular jeans. All I wanted when I was younger was baggy jeans. As I got a little older I was allowed to wear baggy jeans and the kids who were still wearing regular Levi’s were seen as nerdy. Where did I get this idea of baggy jeans being cool? Black culture. Baggy jeans have gone down the same road as the term “bling-bling.” White people began wearing these oversized pants and now black people have started wearing “skinny-jeans.” Slowly but surely white people are beginning to wear skinny jeans again.

Black culture is everywhere. It affects the way we think, the way we act, and the way we talk. Sam used the term White Supremacy and said that it does the before mentioned things. We do not however use the term Black Supremacy. Although whites have the power in bureaucracy, perhaps blacks are beginning to get their foot in the front door. We do have a half black president. Blacks seem to have an equal share, if not more, in today’s pop culture and with the ever-growing use and applicability of social media, maybe blacks will begin to overcome Sam’s White Supremacy, similarly to the way middle easterners have overcome their oppression.

Class and race are undoubtedly intertwined in our society and potentially more importantly, in our minds. Class and race are not entirely tangible things but ideas and beliefs that are perpetuated generation after generation. There are certain expectations, ideals and stigmas attached with each race. For example Asians are thought to be good at math and blacks are thought to be good at sports. This is an ideal example of a self fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, these supposedly “innate” talents may essentially be due to necessity rather than genetics. To expand on this idea, let us discuss blacks and their supposed superior athletic superiority. Are they born with a higher percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers that allow dominance in “black” sports such as basketball and football? Maybe. Or are there just fewer outlets to gain success and financial assets than other races?

There is no doubt that certain races have more opportunities based on race alone. I believe this is tied directly to financial factors. Whites, in general, have more money as a household than blacks do. They can afford to live in better neighborhoods, afford better schools, and pay for higher education for their children. They can then go on and get good jobs and become financially secure on their own. They can then repeat this process and afford the same opportunities to their white children. Blacks on the other hand do not necessarily have the same financial capabilities. These black children, specifically in urban areas have less educational opportunities. As a broad generalization they can escape their financial problems via a musical talent or athletic talent. These opportunities may seem more viable and obtainable to these young black children. It does not cost much to practice basketball in the park seven days or sing in church every Sunday while it may cost $10,000 a year to attend an elite high school and $120,000 to attend college. These factors perpetuate and almost trap certain races into certain classes.

To expand onto Asians, they are said to excel at math and sciences. I do not believe that they have innate, biological abilities that allow for this. Rather, I believe that hard work is the key to mastering these fields. Asians are known to be hard workers and thus gain financial security similar to the way blacks do via music or sports, but through math and science related fields. Again this is an example of a self fulfilling prophecy. Asians that were raised to work hard and master math and science will then raise their children to do the same. They can then afford to pay for their own children’s education. Again, these are broad generalizations but they clearly exemplify how race and class are intertwined and can often keep someone in a certain race from moving into a higher social class.

I believe there are several sociological factors that play a role in the sports that one is introduced to in their childhood. Essentially, whichever sports you had available to you as a child are the sports you had to choose from. Depending on geographic locations, certain sports may not be as accessible to certain groups. For example, hockey is widely played in Canada and northern United States for obvious climate factors. Another example related to geographic location could be surfing. Again, obviously states like Florida and California will have this sport more readily accessible than the “hockey” states. One can see racial/ethnic patterns using geographic data.

There is another kind of accessibility that plays a more direct role in race and prevalence in certain sports. For example, hockey is known a predominantly white sport. A full set of hockey gear, including skates, sticks, pads, etc can range upwards of $1,000 quite easily. In addition, to play on a hockey team, often there are yearly fees of several hundred dollars for rink time and travel. Now it’s safe to say that certain racial groups (whites) have higher family incomes that allow their race to participate in such expensive sports. Whereas basketball, on the other hand, is essentially free. All one needs to play this sport is a public court and a basketball (at least one friend in any given group owns a basketball). This sport can be played day or night and during much of the year, again depending on geographic location. All the way from elementary school to high school one can join a basketball team for either little or no money. This allows poorer demographics to be able to participate in these sports. Football is another sport that is often as cheap, and as relatively accessible as basketball. Could these financial factors alone contribute to domination of black and brown people in these sports?

I believe there is another factor that does in fact contribute to this phenomenon. I believe certain sports carry a certain stigma and there is a sense of pressure put on young people to play certain sports based on their race. For example black and brown athletes are pushed to be tough football and basketball players. On the other hand white athletes often go down the path of soccer and lacrosse as their dominant sports. Soccer and lacrosse also happen to be more expensive sports to participate in. These sports also carry with it a stigma of lesser sports or less-tough sports than football and basketball. People even go as far as to call these athletes “foot fairies” in the case of soccer. I don’t, however, see anyone approaching a public, urban basketball court calling the players “hand fairies.” I believe this pressure and stigma is perpetuated by parents in attempt to lead them into the same sports that they played as children. If a black parent played football through his childhood and into college, the mere exposure alone could lead his child to get involved in a sport that is heavily favored by one’s parents.

I believe that there are several sociological aspects that cause white people to beat around the “race bush.” The main thing to keep in mind in this case is that these reasons are socially constructed. White people have been sociologically trained to avoid this topic possibly because their superior position in race relations. For example if a conference was set up to discuss hardships and issues that poverty stricken families deal with, a rich man would not have much to bring to the table. He would not necessarily be aware of daily struggles that the poor must face. Similarly to discuss race from a white perspective is similar to Sam’s metaphor in class: white people at the top of the mountain kicking other races as they try to make it to the top. They will not fully understand what it is to not be white.

Another idea to wrestle with is the ability to talk about race without being ostracized. Hypothetical situation: there are a bunch of drunken Penn State students on the blue loop, late at night on a Saturday night. A drunk, white male is dancing and screaming sporadically. A black girl laughs and points at the kid and says “look at that crazy white boy” and shakes her head. Let us even go as far as to say that she calls him a cracker. This is fine. Everyone laughs and nothing is thought of this. Second hypothetical: A drunken black girl is on the same bus, screaming and dancing similarly to the white male. White male then points to this girl and says “what a crazy black girl” or even crazy (expletive). This is not OK. There is an outrage on the bus from any other black person and even many white people are offended by this “racial slur,” where as the black girl saying something similar is not even thought of as a racial slur, rather as just humor. Black people and other minorities have a wider range of freedom when talking about race because they have been persecuted for their races for millennia.

A white person quickly falls down a slippery slope when talking about race. One statement can get blown out of proportion and this person will be immediately labeled as racist. On the other hand blacks or other minorities can bluntly talk about race and not see similar repercussions.

White people shy away from the topic of race perhaps because race is not a topic that is in the forefront of their minds. They don’t wake up in the morning and walk to class thinking “I am white.” They don’t get cut in line at the grocery store and think it was because they were white. It’s a second thought to white people and perhaps the reason why the topic is rarely touched upon by white people.

When posed with the question of whether American citizens should have billions of tax dollars spent on keeping out illegal immigrants or just learn Spanish immediately raises several thoughts. First of all, why this dichotomy? Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? I believe that it is the choice of each individual American in this country. If someone lives in an area with a high population of Hispanic speaking people, illegal or not, they can choose to learn the language, if they feel fit to do so. If someone wants to make financial gains or just learn the culture of another ethnic group that is solely their choice. I am strongly opposed, however, into forcing people to learn the language. Granted there are certain requirements throughout our education that must be met as far as learning other languages, but anything beyond the basic understanding of the language and the ability to carry on short a conversation, should not be mandated.
Another issue that comes to the forefront is why just Spanish? Should the question be posed of whether we should spend billions on keeping out the Chinese or should we just learn to speak Chinese? Understandably, the question is worded as such because Mexico is our neighboring country and produces the highest volume of illegal immigrants.
An idea that is brought up by Sam Richards in this video is whether this should be an English-only speaking country. We are far from an English-only speaking country and I believe this misconception is at the root of this debate. Learning another language is often something done out of necessity. If Chinese or Mexican immigrants come to this country, it behooves them to learn this language and be able to access the various resources that this country has available, just as it benefits an American traveling to China. Personally if I were to study abroad or go to China for business it would be a top priority to learn the language and culture of my harboring country. How would one establish and maintain a healthy educational or business relationship in a country in which that person is not fluent in the language? I believe that it is necessary and beneficial for some Americans in certain areas to learn Spanish, and believe it or not, they often do. Americans are thought to be overly ethnocentric and go to other countries and expect those citizens to speak English. Granted, some do, but to over generalize our entire population is a bit unfair in my opinion.
Sam asks “whether we should stop fighting it or just teach Spanish?” I personally do not believe we are fighting it. All one has to do is call ATT or Verizon and listen to the phrase “para continuar en espanol, prensa dos.” (excuse my Spanish)