en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/764543 Comments by KabilBlila https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/letter-from-an-inmate__trashed/#IDComment70080003 This letter really touched me and made me think, which is apparently the point of this class as Sam is always saying. I think that everyone has a preconcieved notion about people in jail, and even more of a notion about inmates in jail serving a life sentence. This letter made me change my ways of thinking, and absolutely changed my opinions on people that are serving life sentences. The preconcieved notion I had in my mind was that all people in jail for this long are the scum of the earth and belong to be there, and i bet this is the notion that almost all, or most people share. When I hear about people in jail for murder and rape and what not, I think that they are bad people and should suffer longer then anyone else should suffer. Its not really about deserving it but more about being the shitty human individual that commits such an act. That is why the letter was so eye opening. I dont have much experience with jail, as I have never been in one or had one in my neighborhood. The only memory I have with jail is my cousin being arrested a couple of years back and spending a jail in my month. My cousin was an immigrant who came over when he was fifteen and I was eleven. I looked up to him as an idol and thought of him as a role model. However, once he went to high school and got mixed in with the wrong crowd he started doing bad stuff. Eventually he got kicked out of high school and moved to another state. A couple of months later my mother got a letter from him stating that he was in jail with his blood pasted onto the letter. She cried all night and didn't fall asleep. I was still younger at the time but i felt remorse. This was the first time I guess that I felt that someone was in jail that either shouldn't be or maybe he didnt fit in with the rest of them. The main thing that the article did for me was think that men and women inmates like this need to be utilized for other things instead of just sitting around in a cell all day and going to a courtyard for an hour. Prison is meant for rehabiltaiton and once someone is rehabiltated then they should be allowed to contribute to society. Im not saying that these people need to be babysitting children, but there has to be some sort of jobs that they can take. In a society where mistakes are often looked over, we need to do a better job of allowing people to continue on with their lives and make up for their mistakes. Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:26:32 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/letter-from-an-inmate__trashed/#IDComment70080003 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459168 Men have to conform to society in a few certain ways, but not nearly in as many ways as much as women do. I feel the main reason that people have to conform is because they feel they need to be perceived as the norm. The norm is set by whats on television, whats in the movie theaters, whats on magazine covers, and etc. The women that are on all of these outlets are mainly women in show business, who are beautiful and have tremendous bodies, exemplifying the word perfect. Perfect face structure, perfect eyes, perfect smile, perfect chest, legs, everything. Guys on the other hand have more of a variety when it comes to this. Sure, there are good looking guys that are being showcased in the media, but there are all different kinds of guys. Fat guys, really skinny guys, weird looking guys, old guys, and so on. Its a big difference trying to look like Megan Fox then trying to look like Seth Rogen. This is one of the main reasons that men don't have to conform as much as women do. Another reason is that men are rarely asked to change their image or appearance. Growing up I would throw whatever clothes on, leave my hair the same way it was when I woke up, and start my day. Sure, I would get dressed up for weekends and what not but for most of the week it was just a different pair of sweatpants and a different random tee. Girls are always judged by what brand their wearing, how the colors match, do the shoes go with the outfit, and all of that. They are constantly reminded of this by other girls who are also wearing just as expensive clothes with expensive shoes, and they constantly strive to look better then each other. Guys on the other hand don't take much notice to what other guys are wearing unless its something really nice or something really dirty. It's just built into the female system to care more about what other people think about them in regards to their looks and appearance. Body issues are always prevalent whether it be face, chest, or lower body. They are constantly reminded of this by girls showing off their cleavage, wearing the shortest skirts, and so on. The only thing that men somewhat conform to is athletics. Its always embedded into a young boys way of thinking that he should be involved in sports. Thats why certain guys are always looked at as weird if they choose to sing or dance at a young age instead of playing basketball or baseball. You always want to go over to a guys place and watch the game, and not a soap opera. Other then that I can't see many other things that guys are forced to conform too. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 06:04:16 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459168 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459066 Men have to conform to society in a few certain ways, but not nearly in as many ways as much as women do. I feel the main reason that people have to conform is because they feel they need to be perceived as the norm. The norm is set by whats on television, whats in the movie theaters, whats on magazine covers, and etc. The women that are on all of these outlets are mainly women in show business, who are beautiful and have tremendous bodies, exemplifying the word perfect. Perfect face structure, perfect eyes, perfect smile, perfect chest, legs, everything. Guys on the other hand have more of a variety when it comes to this. Sure, there are good looking guys that are being showcased in the media, but there are all different kinds of guys. Fat guys, really skinny guys, weird looking guys, old guys, and so on. Its a big difference trying to look like Megan Fox then trying to look like Seth Rogen. This is one of the main reasons that men don't have to conform as much as women do. Another reason is that men are rarely asked to change their image or appearance. Growing up I would throw whatever clothes on, leave my hair the same way it was when I woke up, and start my day. Sure, I would get dressed up for weekends and what not but for most of the week it was just a different pair of sweatpants and a different random tee. Girls are always judged by what brand their wearing, how the colors match, do the shoes go with the outfit, and all of that. They are constantly reminded of this by other girls who are also wearing just as expensive clothes with expensive shoes, and they constantly strive to look better then each other. Guys on the other hand don't take much notice to what other guys are wearing unless its something really nice or something really dirty. It's just built into the female system to care more about what other people think about them in regards to their looks and appearance. Body issues are always prevalent whether it be face, chest, or lower body. They are constantly reminded of this by girls showing off their cleavage, wearing the shortest skirts, and so on. The only thing that men somewhat conform to is athletics. Its always embedded into a young boys way of thinking that he should be involved in sports. Thats why certain guys are always looked at as weird if they choose to sing or dance at a young age instead of playing basketball or baseball. You always want to go over to a guys place and watch the game, and not a soap opera. Other then that I can't see many other things that guys are forced to conform too. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 06:02:06 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459066 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459359 Men have to conform to society in a few certain ways, but not nearly in as many ways as much as women do. I feel the main reason that people have to conform is because they feel they need to be perceived as the norm. The norm is set by whats on television, whats in the movie theaters, whats on magazine covers, and etc. The women that are on all of these outlets are mainly women in show business, who are beautiful and have tremendous bodies, exemplifying the word perfect. Perfect face structure, perfect eyes, perfect smile, perfect chest, legs, everything. Guys on the other hand have more of a variety when it comes to this. Sure, there are good looking guys that are being showcased in the media, but there are all different kinds of guys. Fat guys, really skinny guys, weird looking guys, old guys, and so on. Its a big difference trying to look like Megan Fox then trying to look like Seth Rogen. This is one of the main reasons that men don't have to conform as much as women do. Another reason is that men are rarely asked to change their image or appearance. Growing up I would throw whatever clothes on, leave my hair the same way it was when I woke up, and start my day. Sure, I would get dressed up for weekends and what not but for most of the week it was just a different pair of sweatpants and a different random tee. Girls are always judged by what brand their wearing, how the colors match, do the shoes go with the outfit, and all of that. They are constantly reminded of this by other girls who are also wearing just as expensive clothes with expensive shoes, and they constantly strive to look better then each other. Guys on the other hand don't take much notice to what other guys are wearing unless its something really nice or something really dirty. It's just built into the female system to care more about what other people think about them in regards to their looks and appearance. Body issues are always prevalent whether it be face, chest, or lower body. They are constantly reminded of this by girls showing off their cleavage, wearing the shortest skirts, and so on. The only thing that men somewhat conform to is athletics. Its always embedded into a young boys way of thinking that he should be involved in sports. Thats why certain guys are always looked at as weird if they choose to sing or dance at a young age instead of playing basketball or baseball. You always want to go over to a guys place and watch the game, and not a soap opera. Other then that I can't see many other things that guys are forced to conform too. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:04:26 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459359 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459343 Men have to conform to society in a few certain ways, but not nearly in as many ways as much as women do. I feel the main reason that people have to conform is because they feel they need to be perceived as the norm. The norm is set by whats on television, whats in the movie theaters, whats on magazine covers, and etc. The women that are on all of these outlets are mainly women in show business, who are beautiful and have tremendous bodies, exemplifying the word perfect. Perfect face structure, perfect eyes, perfect smile, perfect chest, legs, everything. Guys on the other hand have more of a variety when it comes to this. Sure, there are good looking guys that are being showcased in the media, but there are all different kinds of guys. Fat guys, really skinny guys, weird looking guys, old guys, and so on. Its a big difference trying to look like Megan Fox then trying to look like Seth Rogen. This is one of the main reasons that men don't have to conform as much as women do. Another reason is that men are rarely asked to change their image or appearance. Growing up I would throw whatever clothes on, leave my hair the same way it was when I woke up, and start my day. Sure, I would get dressed up for weekends and what not but for most of the week it was just a different pair of sweatpants and a different random tee. Girls are always judged by what brand their wearing, how the colors match, do the shoes go with the outfit, and all of that. They are constantly reminded of this by other girls who are also wearing just as expensive clothes with expensive shoes, and they constantly strive to look better then each other. Guys on the other hand don't take much notice to what other guys are wearing unless its something really nice or something really dirty. It's just built into the female system to care more about what other people think about them in regards to their looks and appearance. Body issues are always prevalent whether it be face, chest, or lower body. They are constantly reminded of this by girls showing off their cleavage, wearing the shortest skirts, and so on. The only thing that men somewhat conform to is athletics. Its always embedded into a young boys way of thinking that he should be involved in sports. Thats why certain guys are always looked at as weird if they choose to sing or dance at a young age instead of playing basketball or baseball. You always want to go over to a guys place and watch the game, and not a soap opera. Other then that I can't see many other things that guys are forced to conform too. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:04:16 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459343 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459134 Men have to conform to society in a few certain ways, but not nearly in as many ways as much as women do. I feel the main reason that people have to conform is because they feel they need to be perceived as the norm. The norm is set by whats on television, whats in the movie theaters, whats on magazine covers, and etc. The women that are on all of these outlets are mainly women in show business, who are beautiful and have tremendous bodies, exemplifying the word perfect. Perfect face structure, perfect eyes, perfect smile, perfect chest, legs, everything. Guys on the other hand have more of a variety when it comes to this. Sure, there are good looking guys that are being showcased in the media, but there are all different kinds of guys. Fat guys, really skinny guys, weird looking guys, old guys, and so on. Its a big difference trying to look like Megan Fox then trying to look like Seth Rogen. This is one of the main reasons that men don't have to conform as much as women do. Another reason is that men are rarely asked to change their image or appearance. Growing up I would throw whatever clothes on, leave my hair the same way it was when I woke up, and start my day. Sure, I would get dressed up for weekends and what not but for most of the week it was just a different pair of sweatpants and a different random tee. Girls are always judged by what brand their wearing, how the colors match, do the shoes go with the outfit, and all of that. They are constantly reminded of this by other girls who are also wearing just as expensive clothes with expensive shoes, and they constantly strive to look better then each other. Guys on the other hand don't take much notice to what other guys are wearing unless its something really nice or something really dirty. It's just built into the female system to care more about what other people think about them in regards to their looks and appearance. Body issues are always prevalent whether it be face, chest, or lower body. They are constantly reminded of this by girls showing off their cleavage, wearing the shortest skirts, and so on. The only thing that men somewhat conform to is athletics. Its always embedded into a young boys way of thinking that he should be involved in sports. Thats why certain guys are always looked at as weird if they choose to sing or dance at a young age instead of playing basketball or baseball. You always want to go over to a guys place and watch the game, and not a soap opera. Other then that I can't see many other things that guys are forced to conform too. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:02:06 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459134 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459009 Men have to conform to society in a few certain ways, but not nearly in as many ways as much as women do. I feel the main reason that people have to conform is because they feel they need to be perceived as the norm. The norm is set by whats on television, whats in the movie theaters, whats on magazine covers, and etc. The women that are on all of these outlets are mainly women in show business, who are beautiful and have tremendous bodies, exemplifying the word perfect. Perfect face structure, perfect eyes, perfect smile, perfect chest, legs, everything. Guys on the other hand have more of a variety when it comes to this. Sure, there are good looking guys that are being showcased in the media, but there are all different kinds of guys. Fat guys, really skinny guys, weird looking guys, old guys, and so on. Its a big difference trying to look like Megan Fox then trying to look like Seth Rogen. This is one of the main reasons that men don't have to conform as much as women do. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:00:55 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68459009 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68458965 Men have to conform to society in a few certain ways, but not nearly in as many ways as much as women do. I feel the main reason that people have to conform is because they feel they need to be perceived as the norm. The norm is set by whats on television, whats in the movie theaters, whats on magazine covers, and etc. The women that are on all of these outlets are mainly women in show business, who are beautiful and have tremendous bodies, exemplifying the word perfect. Perfect face structure, perfect eyes, perfect smile, perfect chest, legs, everything. Guys on the other hand have more of a variety when it comes to this. Sure, there are good looking guys that are being showcased in the media, but there are all different kinds of guys. Fat guys, really skinny guys, weird looking guys, old guys, and so on. Its a big difference trying to look like Megan Fox then trying to look like Seth Rogen. This is one of the main reasons that men don't have to conform as much as women do. Another reason is that men are rarely asked to change their image or appearance. Growing up I would throw whatever clothes on, leave my hair the same way it was when I woke up, and start my day. Sure, I would get dressed up for weekends and what not but for most of the week it was just a different pair of sweatpants and a different random tee. Girls are always judged by what brand their wearing, how the colors match, do the shoes go with the outfit, and all of that. They are constantly reminded of this by other girls who are also wearing just as expensive clothes with expensive shoes, and they constantly strive to look better then each other. Guys on the other hand don't take much notice to what other guys are wearing unless its something really nice or something really dirty. It's just built into the female system to care more about what other people think about them in regards to their looks and appearance. Body issues are always prevalent whether it be face, chest, or lower body. They are constantly reminded of this by girls showing off their cleavage, wearing the shortest skirts, and so on. The only thing that men somewhat conform to is athletics. Its always embedded into a young boys way of thinking that he should be involved in sports. Thats why certain guys are always looked at as weird if they choose to sing or dance at a young age instead of playing basketball or baseball. You always want to go over to a guys place and watch the game, and not a soap opera. Other then that I can't see many other things that guys are forced to conform too. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:00:24 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68458965 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/i-really-want-to-know-also__trashed/#IDComment66108860 I think this is a great question, and one that I've pondered myself at different points in the semester. At the beginning of the spring in class, I felt as if I were learning a lot of new things, which I cant particularly say for all of my classes. The one thing that was definitely happening was that I was becoming a lot more informed, and the whole thing that Sam said about making us think was definitely true. I'm not saying that I would think about what happened in a previous class for hours, but definitely for an hour or two after class something from that class would resurface in my mind. There were also certain classes where there would be tidbits of information that I thought were either really thought-provoking or outrageous that I would share with my friends to see their opinions. I'm not exactly sure if I changed my opinion on certain issues as the question asks, but it definitely made me look at issues from different angles and from outside of the box. Recently however, the class has not been doing this for me. Ever since the return from spring break I feel that most of the classes (not all) I have attended, have been rather dull or repetitive, which has made me zone out and feel that I'm not retaining any information to make me think differently about issues or change my opinion. For example, the whole stages that we went through during class was probably the most boring things we did this year. I felt that we could have done it all in one class, but for some reason it was spread out to about what amounted to two weeks worth of classes. I've talked to other people in my discussion group about this as well and it seems that many of them had similar sentiments. This is nothing new since it happens in other classes a lot, but it's different because this is supposed to be unique stuff that should be, or at least is sold as, thought provoking. It's not about knowing what the MLA format consists of, or what happened in a certain world war, or something about cells and membranes, which are all subjects that many students would not exactly view as thought provoking. I feel like recently this is what class has become, and that a lot of what Sam is saying is being tuned out. Some of this started with the whole "bleeding" class and I assume some students just felt that after that they couldn't really look at Sam the same way anymore. I still have hope for the class as I know there's supposed to be some exciting things coming up in the near future, and I hope that it will go back to the way it is and make me think and ponder about race relations. Mon, 5 Apr 2010 21:53:01 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/i-really-want-to-know-also__trashed/#IDComment66108860 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/nothing-about-the-census-is-easy__trashed/#IDComment65055892 I understand what many people are saying that this is just people looking for controversy as always, but I can also see the other spectrum's point of view. The main point that people aren't understanding is the point of the Census. It's obviously not meant to be racist and if I were a betting man I would assume that a certain number of the people that make the census are not white. It's main purpose is to find out how many people live in a certain area, and loose affiliation of their racial and ethnic backgrounds. Many people already think that completing the census is a bitch and choose not to do it, so how many people would complete the census if it were a detailed pamphlet? I'm not sure the majority of people wants to research all their ethnic background and their percentages in each one in order to please the census. Imagine filling out a census where you said you were 27% Puerto Rican, 34% Dominican, 16% white, and on and on. Would people then be happy instead of just bubbling in Hispanic? As for the negro issue, I can see why people take issue with that. As the woman stated in the video her first thought was slave. Although many people don't think this, and I understand the willingness to get older African-Americans to complete the census, I don't think negro should still be on the census. I don't think an older African-American would refuse to complete the census because he didn't know that he was black or African-American, and refused to be called anything else but negro. This doesn't make much sense. Maybe white people don't understand this simply because they haven't been through it. I was really surprised with Sam's stance on this as I thought he would be more sympathetic to the issue. I know if I introduced my black friend as my negro friend, he would be offended. I have somewhat of a connection with this because for a long time as a kid I never knew what to bubble in on those surveys or sheets before standardized tests. I'm half-Italian, (Sicilian to be exact) and half Moroccan. I knew that my Italian roots were considered white here, even though in Italy its a whole other story, and I was unsure about my Moroccan roots. Morocco is located in Africa, so I always thought wasn't I technically African-American? Not until later did I realize that most Northern African countries are racially considered white. But for that time as a kid, it was always uncomfortable and not assuring, and I never asked anyone because I always thought I was just supposed to know. So I can understand the point of view that the woman in the video was talking about who said she was Puerto Rican of Cuban descent and was white. Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:34:56 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/nothing-about-the-census-is-easy__trashed/#IDComment65055892 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment64672572 At first when I was reading this article, I didn't think much of it, besides that it was a typical Soc 119 post and article, and that there weren't really many ways to go with it. Sure, it was interesting to see that there were eventually going to be less whites then minorities, but who didn't really see this coming? I feel like it was more a matter of when then what if. So what's the fuss about? I skimmed through the article twice and honestly saw nothing worth writing about, and especially not anything worth writing four hundred plus words on. But when I started to look at it from an angle outside of the box, I began to have a couple of questions that I didn't originally did. The first, most glaring question that ran through my mind was regardless of the demographics, and census, and population count, will whites ever be considered minorities? Sure, technically and mathematically they will be, but will anyone actually consider them full fledged minorities? For some reason I pictured a waiting room with about four black people, three brown people, and five white people. I didn't really consider the white people minorities at all, and I think the only possible way I could have is if there was a large number of black or brown people, and if they were of one of the kind. For example, if it were ten brown people and five white people, then this would have been a situation where I considered the whites to be the minorities. The second thing I thought of was the doll video we watched in class. If whites were now the minorities, would the white doll still be picked as much? Would there still be enough pre-programming going on in childrens young lives through TV, radio, toys, and any other media to make them believe that the white doll was the nicer one? Or would there be more of an even playing field and numbers from that study that would even out to a 50-50 response, or even possibly a response weighted more toward the black doll being nicer? Another thing I pondered was would this effect who held power positions in the country. Most of congress is white, as are most politicians. If there were more minorities then whites, would this lead to more minority politicians? Would elections become a white vs. everyone else race, with everyone else winning for the most part since they would know outnumber the whites? As I was considering all these things, I began to look at the whole situation from an existentialist point of view. Who really cares if since whites officially become minorities, whether more children will pick the black doll as the nice doll? Why does it matter at any exact moment depending on a quick head count who's considered the minority in the room? Does any of this really matter? Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:34:53 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment64672572 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63019067 I see this post as a double faceted response. For one, I feel inclined to have input on the early education aspect of the argument, and what can be done. On the other hand however I feel even more inclined to evaluate this whole phenomenon of "white guilt" and how I believe that it is completely absurd. To start off in regards to the early education system and its teachings on past history specifically in relation to slavery and Native Americans, its a very dicey issue. You don't want students in Kindergarten or first grade or second grade or even fourth and fifth grades to learn about the gruesome genocide that the Native Americans suffered. There is a reason why certain things are taught until a certain age, whether it be an English book which has content not suitable for children, a health class talking about inappropriate material for someone who is not a decade old, or a history lesson that teaches of torture and mass murder. The next question is when is it suitable for a student to learn these things, and when should they be taught the full truth with no sugarcoating? I believe an appropriate time is middle school, when most thoughts are beginning to form and more students begin to develop their own thoughts. Then on in high school, there should be a mandatory class to take to learn of all these travesties. If this can't be done, then more of the curriculum for US history should be dedicated to how this land was acquired, for it is only right. The other issue is the sugarcoating of material. I for one was severely uninformed when we talked about Native Americans in class one day, and later that week in my discussion group learned a lot of things that I did not previously know. If I could go out on a limb for most of my classmates, I bet many of them had the same experience. Why is this? Does our government not want us to learn about these things? How the Native Americans are living now? How they were called "red niggers"? How we treated them when we took over their land? Finally, in response to "white guilt" I know that I have offered a way to better educate young students about history in our past that we should feel guilty about, but the truth is I myself don't feel guilty at all. I don't know how many other people will admit to this since it will be deemed politically incorrect and it makes it sound as if I have no feelings or remorse for people that were victims of these actions, (which I do), but one thing I absolutely positively don't feel is guilt. None of this was my fault, my parents fault, or my grandparents fault. We were never slave owners. We never kicked the Native Americans off their land. We just showed up here after that was long done. For someone to say that we condone it simply because of the fact that we live here is foolish. I understand the plights of these people, but I don't see any reason for me to feel guilt. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:05:12 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63019067 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/whats-with-the-theme-parties__trashed/#IDComment60288046 believe this to be a completely ridiculous statement/question. It's making something completely innocent and fun and twisting it into a cruel preconceived idea that has racial undertones. For one, the idea that white people throw more themed parties is a skewed idea, because for the most part white people have more parties in general. Around campus there are more fraternities that are predominantly white, so this \\leads to more white people throwing these parties. Why is this? Simply because there are more white people on campus. Two, the main point for themed parties is just to have an extra way of fun. Most times at these parties people feel that they are not attending something normal, so they have a greater urge to be more inebriated on what to them is a "special" or "different" night, as this is a break from the usual Friday/Saturday routine. Theme parties are not all racial sterotypes, like the poster of this video asserts. Some of these parties are racially offensive, at times, like “blunts and forties” nights , but this offensive behavior is not limited to satirizing only African-Americans. “Redneck wedding”, and even themes like “would you still date me if I dressed like this?” are both examples which go to show that theme parties at Penn State don’t draw their humor from only caricatures of African-American racist stereotypes. The subtext of these themes can be offensive though, since the underlying ideas behind them are racial stereotypes. People show their true colors, so to speak, when they show what they are really thinking when they host these kind of parties. The main thing that I get from this question is the main thing I got from Dr. Mulveys book and recent video post, the fact that black vs. white always exists. This question of theme parties being racist is just an example of completely micro analyzing a situation from a racial standpoint, and turning into a racist thing. For one, if black people were throwing white and nerdy parties, this question would never be brought up. I don't understand why it always has to be like this and why the argument always has to stem back to black vs. white. It seems that every chance that anything can come up that has any slightest bit of racial undertone, it is 100x magnified. The bottom line that it comes down to is nobody attending these parties is going out with racist intentions. No one is having a Nazi party with swastikas, or a slavery party with slave owners with their slaves. Are we making fun of cowboys and Indians when we dress up like them? No, we just want a break from wearing a polo and jeans every weekend. Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:25:13 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/whats-with-the-theme-parties__trashed/#IDComment60288046 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58544771 I agree with the fact that the issue hasn't hit home for many people, as I am one of those people that it hasn't really affected. Sure, I know the genocide was bad and unfair and shouldn't have happened, but I believe that there are other more prominent things such as slavery and LGBT issues that I should be more concerned about. This may be rude and hurtful to some people, but the genocide of the Indians is one of the last things on my mind for a number of reasons. For one, neither I or my parents or grandparents or even great grandparents were involved in the genocide. I know this because neither I nor my parents lived through the genocide, my grandparents and great grandparents lived most of their lives in Italy and Morocco so it would be very doubtful that they were involved. Therefore I have no past history with this horrible event, and nothing in my family blood can be traced back to this disgraceful act. However, it is much more likely that my grandparents or great grandparents were involved in some sort of discrimination against African Americans back in their day, and could have been involved in slavery. That's why I would feel a lot stronger about that issue then this. In regards to the LGBT issues, I am currently living through what might one day be considered the heyday of the era, and my parents also have contact with it. I have met gay people and more invested in them then Native Americans. I have yet to meet an Native Americans. I also believe it has to do with education on the topic. A lot more people are informed with LGBT issues through local news, and slavery with history classes and textbooks. The only time I ever remember studying about Native Americans was middle school, talking about Navajos and Iroquois and teepees and Pocahontas. I am entering the final year of my teens and still am not informed about these issues, and with all the other things I have going on, I'm not sure that I could fit in learning about a whole peoples history and plight. However, besides my personal reasons I believe the main reason that people don't really care is that it is not a forefront issue. Society has many problems already for itself ranging from war in the world, to the down economy, to world hunger, to natural disasters, and already dealing with a new up and coming people who are fighting their own fight.(LGBT) Does society really need to bring back something that happened so long ago and make it an issue as well? Genocide is not occurring any longer as far as I'm informed, and Native Americans that are still living in the U.S. are facing problems just as everyone else is. Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:21:13 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58544771 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-six__trashed/#IDComment57717972 Lesbians and gay men are a whole different phenomenon. It's hard to pick one main reason why lesbians are generally more accepted, but its lot easier to pick on the facts why gay men are less accepted. First off men are always seen as more of a threat than women, in regards to daily day to day activities like committing crimes, or more life activities like getting top jobs or being promoted. So it shouldn't be surprising that in regards to the gay community men are considered more of a danger to society. We had an interesting conversation in our discussion class where we talked about why it had been so difficult for gays to be accepted. I brought up the fact that it was common in history and in human dynamics for there always to be a fear of the unknown. It happened with African Americans, then Latinos (predominantly illegal Mexicans), and now its gay people. So knowing that men are always more feared then women, it makes sense for society to be more negligible and ruthless to gay men then lesbians. Another reason that can be pinpointed is that when men think of lesbians, they think of two super hot females doing porn like things. This is most definitely welcome in a society where the advertising and use of sex is everywhere and the porn business makes more money then many other industries including the video game one. Its more socially acceptable for someone to watch lesbian porn then gay man porn. Just recently at my friends place there was a poster of two females in a very provocative position. It is unimaginable for a poster of two men in a sexual position to be up, or even made. This leads to another reason why lesbians are more accepted - the fantasy factor. More women fantasize about being with a woman then men fantasize about being a man. The coveted threesome with one man and two females is prevalent in almost every heterosexuals mind, while finding a women or man with the fantasy of a threesome with two men and one woman is frowned upon, and brings up thoughts of rape and being taken advantage of. Emasculation is another reason why lesbians are more accepted. As blunt as it is, no one wants to see two men making out with each other, while the thought of two females is intriguing. Womens bodies are looked at more as a piece of art, and sometimes it is interesting to see two pieces of arts. Violence can also be a reason. Certain people want to always use violence as a solution to problems, so beating up a gay man is more acceptable then beating up a woman of course. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:01:27 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-six__trashed/#IDComment57717972 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment56139214 I believe that Governor Bauer did what a lot of people do when they make racially insensitive comments, and that is not think before they speak. This does not mean that we should crucify him or call him a racist, but it does mean that we can reconsider his position in society as a governor in any sort of capacity. To talk about his comments regarding people who receive welfare as animals is pointless. There is no point to try to defend his comments and say that he just made a mistake, or to completely attack him and rip him because what he said wasn't right. It's too obvious. It's more thought provoking to talk about the general stigma around situations like this and what usually happens and what should happen. Insensitive comments happen every minute of every day, in regards to race, social class, appearance, and on and on. They are lobbed from all sides, from lower class against upper class, from black against white, from people with homes against the homeless, and vice versa. However, when someone of a higher standing with a position of power speaks like this it is considered a catastrophe that has to be argued about endlessly and this person must either be immediately fired, suspended, or disciplined in some way. This situation reminds me of a similar occurrence which I recently learned about watching a sports documentary. A man by the of Jimmy Snyder, better known as "Jimmy the Greek" , was a star sports commentator for 12 years on CBS. On one segment he crossed the racial line when talking about why blacks were much more prevalent in football then whites. This is what he had to say, "The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way — because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trading, the owner — the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid." It can be argued to great lengths if this is a complete ludicrous statement, or maybe possibly a valid one. CBS didn't care and fired him soon after. The point I'm trying to make is that with these situations its almost always better to take a step back and not make a rash decisions. Too often it is a quick decision which results in either too much scrutiny or not enough. Rarely is a good common middle ground found. Instead our civilization wants to either immediately lynch someone for making a mistake or completely downplay and ignore it. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:21:11 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment56139214 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment54982785 I don't usually go to the movies, and I don't have one solid reason for doing so. I'm not sure if its the money, low quality of recent movies, or just not wanting to take the chance and spend 2 hours of my life combined with another hour or two of traveling wasted. That being said, the only times I will go to the movies is if I have a preexisting vesting interest in the movie, say a sequel or prequel to movie I already like, or if my friends drag me out to see one with them. When avatar came out, it seemed unusual, and I looked forward to seeing it on DVD or watching it on TV in a couple of months. However, the phenomenon around it was incredible especially with all the IMAX theaters around me in the city , and all my friends went at least once. The last movie that this happened with was Dark Knight, and I thoroughly enjoyed that movie, so I actually considered going to see this film. Sadly I kept putting off going to see it until I came back from spring semester, and have yet to see it. After reading this article, I want to see it even more. I agree with many of the points that David Brooks makes. There are movies that constantly harp on the white savior. The few that he named that I was familiar with include "Last Samurai" and of course, "Pocahontas". However, I feel that he didn't delve into the movie and have a greater appreciation for it. It wouldn't surprise me if he had seen the movie after already hearing about the "White Messiah" complex that was in the movie, and deliberately looked out for it. I compare it to either a romantic comedy or a gangster flick, either the guy and girl get together in the end in the romantic comedy's end, or everyone dies or goes to jail in the gangster flick. The fact that this movie revolves around a war and there is a hero is nothing shocking, and it's not any more shocking that it is a white person doing so. If Brooks wants to bring up the issue of a white savior, then his point cannot be valid without countering his argument with talking about the stereotypical movie character of the "magical negro". Think back a second and think how many movies incorporate this character. John Coffey from the "Green Mile", immediately jumps out. A supporting character who by the use of his special insight or powers, helps the white protagonist out of his problems. Red in "Shawshank Redemption". Bagger Vance in "The legend of Bagger Vance". There are countless numbers of examples of a black character coming out of nowhere to help the white man with his or their problems. Some people were even pointing out Barack Obama as a magical negro when he was running for president. The point I'm trying to make is race is a futile thing argue about in movies. It doesn't matter if its a white man or a black man or a blue man or a red man saving someone or killing someone or kidnapping someone and on and on, its not a big deal. Successful movies play on central, successful themes and these don't change over time. Its the same repeated formula time and time again. Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:54:32 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment54982785 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/racism-looks-pretty-good-on-this-side-of-the-atlantic__trashed/#IDComment54430076 Although this video was an eye opener for me, it didn't really shock me as much as I feel it did for other people. This is not to say that I am a racist, or was have a racist family, or that I'm from a racist town. One of my good friends is black, my family is not racist, and my hometown is Brooklyn which is a very diverse place. However, I think it is completely ignorant of people to think that racism still doesn't exist and act shocked when a video like this appears. In regards to the video, it was more of an eye opener that this is prevalent in such a big thing such as professional soccer and how it may affect the World Cup. Its pretty well known that some racism still exists in certain parts of the country, and more so in other parts of the world. But when you think of this kind of racism you think of it more as a behind the closed doors, on the low kind of thing. This however is out in the open amongst a large population of people and it has to be an act that is generally considered to accepted, since it has yet to be stopped. For a part of the world that is considered culturally and socially on pace or ahead of the rest of the world, it reflects very poorly on them. If this kind of action would ever happen at an NFL or NBA game, it would be considered front page news and quickly be taken care of by league commissioners. I don't understand how a person could be at sporting event, hear the person next to them yelling out obscene racial terms, and just turn the other cheek. Same with someone bringing a sign that demeans a players race. Its just unacceptable. If there was ever a video of a coach motivating one of his own white players to try to outdo another black player simply because the player was black, the coach would either immediately face termination or be forced to resign. You have to set an example as the head authoritarian of any team, and the coach that talked about Thierry Henry like that is despicable. As for the changes proposed by the FIFA president, I'm not sure how they can work. He stated that at the World Cup if this is occurred there would be points docked off teams in the standings. However, they said that opposing teams could flip this strategy so the wrong team gets docked for points. I'm not sure what they can do besides adapt more of a security policy and stricter punishments for those who are caught doing this. For example, a repeat time offender should be put on a list to never be able to attend a sporting event for the rest of his life. For die hard soccer fans, this is something to be extremely scared of. Hopefully this problem can be solved soon, and the World Cup wont be effected with racism, as so many other things in the world are. Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:07:48 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/racism-looks-pretty-good-on-this-side-of-the-atlantic__trashed/#IDComment54430076 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-b__trashed/#IDComment54118317 Kabil Blila Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:10:19 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-b__trashed/#IDComment54118317 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/is-that-negro-or-negra-harry__trashed/#IDComment53489164 Everyone knows a Harry Reid in their immediate family. Whether it be an uncle you only see at once a year at family gatherings, or a grandparent who always tries to initiate an uncomfortable race conversation, or even in some cases one of your parents who is consistent with back handed racial insults. For the most part, these people aren't bad people but the bottom line is that they represent a world that still harbors inner racist feelings that are better off left unsaid. Racism will never die out in this world due to the simple fact that it is always being passed down from one generation to the next. Grandparents always have stories of when they were subjected to racism, or when they subjected others to racism, that they pass these stories down to their children. Their children will then tell their children of the plagues that their parents faced or why one race is simply inferior to them, and on and on it continues. Arguing about if racism exists, or why it exists, or will it continue to exist, is a fruitless dinner conversation that ultimately leads no where. However, the discussion of racism in today's society is a much more important one. In society today freedom of speech is crucified more then ever. Whether it be calling a girl overweight, or calling someone a derogatory ethnic name, the press vilifies people for the same amendment that provides them with an outlet to do their jobs. Recently, there was controversy with the MTV show "Jersey Shore", for calling the cast members "guidos and guidettes". Italian American organizations were outraged, but the cast member repeatedly said that they preferred to be called these names. A similar phenomenon occurs in almost every rap song with the use of the 'n' word. The word that brought down African-Americans for so long is now one of the most commonly used words in a huge genre of music that they excel in. However, when an old white man says the word negro and makes what can be perceived as insensitive comments, this is the spark plug to say that there is something wrong with the world and its race relations. Its ludicrous that this, or Italian Americans calling themselves Guidos, or blacks using a derogatory word to describe themselves, is even worthy news. The press could go on with this story and blow it out of proportion as they do with almost every story like this, possibly bring up the question of should this man stay in office, and all sorts of crazy things. Or they could just talk about it once to inform the public of what's going on. The more sincere solution would be the latter option, but the former option is the one that would generate more profit. What do you think they will choose to do? Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:57:08 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/is-that-negro-or-negra-harry__trashed/#IDComment53489164