Am I for illegal immigration- yes. I think that most people who come here illegally are only doing so to create a better life for their children and families. They are not trying to “invade” the United States or anything of that matter, they are just trying to make a living and give their children a great education.

I have done a lot of research on this topic. For some of my classes, I have studied and focus on the rights of illegal immigrants and how they effect the United States, and us. I feel that the United States should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become legal citizens. How can the U.S. government expect illegal immigrants to pay the very high amount to become a citizen. Most of them are poor people just trying to give their children a better life.

If illegal immigrants were to become legal citizens they would pay taxes to the government. By U.S. law, when an illegal immigrant has a child in the United States, the child is automatically a U.S. citizen. That gives them the right to education, and so forth. If these illegal families were granted citizenship, they would be able to use tax money to help pay for their children’s education. These illegal immigrants would not have to live in constant fear of being caught, and they can actually begin to live their lives.

This also helps the fact that so many companies hire illegal immigrants and pay them under the table. By making these illegal immigrants citizens, they will be on a pay roll, and the businesses will actually have to report that these immigrant/citizens are now working for them, basically giving the government more money. There are so many ways that the U.S. government will benefit from making illegal immigrants U.S. citizens, that I believe the positive aspects far outweigh the negative aspects.

And what about medical bills you may be wondering? In the state of California alone, hospitals are in millions of dollars of debt because these illegal immigrants living in California seek medical care in hospitals and then cannot pay the hospital bills. By law, any United States hospital must give medical care to all individuals whether they have health insurance, whether they are legal citizens, or whether they are illegal citizens. If these illegal immigrants become citizens, they can earn benefits and have medical insurance. This factor alone will help with the United States debt.

So in all, the U.S. government should make it cheaper and easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, because in the end they will actually make back some money from it. There are so many positive aspects, that far outweigh the costs.

I think Hollywood’s image of how women should look really changes or makes up everyone’s minds of what a woman is and how a woman should act. I would assume that 95% of all Hollywood women are very skinny, have big breasts, tall... etc. It gives both men and women that this is how all women should look and act. Not only that, but it teaches young girls and boys what women should look like. Young girls grow up thinking that if they aren’t skinny or have big breasts when they are older, they are not “beautiful.” Not only does this cause a fall sense of security, but it makes these girls become very insecure and maybe even depressed. Young girls become very self conscious, and even start getting eating disorders at a young age. I know one girl who had a eating disorder in middle school because she was trying to look like the women in Hollywood. My friend was not overweight, at all, and still she refused to eat.

I think that the first step that “Hollywood” should do is stop editing girls on the cover of magazines. Today I was actually watching “The Top 10” on E!, and they did a story on how Britney Spears was recently in a magazine and showed the before and after pictures after the photo was edited. Not only did they make her stomach look tighter and smaller, but they edited out cellulite in her legs, skimmed her hips down, and made her skin look smoother than it was. This gives people the wrong idea of what these celebrities look like and what it is like to be a woman.

To me, being a woman means having a “feminine” perspective and motherly instincts. It has nothing to do with how skinny you are, how big your boobs are, or how tall you are. And that is something that the entire world needs to find out. But until then, the media should continue to show before and after pictures of women in magazine. Right now, the media is portraying something terrible, and it is up to them to fix their mistakes.

I was quite shocked by some of the things that the black children said in the video. I feel that when the woman asked the black children which doll they would like to play with they usually chose the white doll because when you turn on TV, and movies most actors and cartoon characters are white. Therefore, both white and black children associate white dolls with characters with what they see on TV.

When she asked black children which doll do they think is the nice doll, the black children mostly picked the white doll. To me, an explanation could be that for the most part at home they interact with their families, who are black. Their teachers, people they see on TV…etc. may be the only white people that they interact with. What child says that their parents are nice when those are the people who are in charge of punishing you, telling you to eat all of your vegetables or you do not get dessert, or the ones to actually punish you? Therefore, they associate the black doll with their parents: strict, “not nice people.”

I would like to tell a personal story that has a direct correlation to this study. My cousin Renee, a five year old white girl, took a trip to Toys R Us with her parents to pick out her birthday present. She had been eying this doll house for months and was so excited to finally receive it. However, you had to purchase the people separately from doll house. There were three families to choose from: a white family, a black family, and an Asian family. To my aunt’s disbelief, she chose the black family. My aunt then proceeded to ask her why she did not want the family that looked like her (the white family). She said that she wanted this darker family instead. They proceeded to go back and forth for a little bit until my aunt gave up. When they got to the counter the cashier said to my family, “I just want to make sure that you know that you are purchasing a black family.” My aunt just said yes and purchased the black family. I found it very interesting that to my little cousin, the color of the family did not really matter to her. She saw the darker family, liked it, and wanted it even though it did not look like her. I also found it very interesting that the cashier actually clarified with my aunt to be sure that she was purchasing the “right color” family. I wondered if it was a black woman buying a white playhouse family, if she would have asked her the same question.

Honestly, I live in the continental United States, so whether these Hawaiians get their own government and budget really doesn’t make a difference to me. If I was currently living in Hawaii I would probably have a much different stance on the issue, but since I’m not directly impacted, I will vote for the Native Hawaiian’s side.

Technically, Native Americans were there first, so I think it is ok for them to get some extra funding. They have made Hawaii the cultural forum that it is. They have embraced music, religions, culture and help spread it to tourists. They add a great component to when people visit the islands.

But to say the reason why Native Hawaiian’s are “worse off” is due to the continental United States coming in to take over reigns 100 years ago is completely absurd. Yeah maybe Native Hawaiians contracted diseases a couple hundred years ago from settlers, but that is not the case today. At any rate, by the United States coming in to Hawaii, it has given Hawaii a structured government, protection, military backing, schools, any and everything. Native Hawaiians should be grateful that we came in and took the reigns.

I’m sure Native Hawaiians have lost jobs to regular American settlers, but to claim that is the reason why 28% of the Native Hawaiian population is homeless is taking it to an extreme. So yeah, I guess I feel bad for them then, which is why I am stating that it is ok for them to receive extra funding. But, just to put it out there, we all know that if President Obama was not from Hawaii, none of this legislation would even be going through the House and Senate right now.

But, if I were a white person living in Hawaii, I would be pretty angry about the new legislation. I would argue that if they are homeless it is their own fault for being lazy or caught up in negative substances/lifestyles…etc. I would argue that there are white people who are homeless in Hawaii, what is the government going to do for them? They are every bit a citizen as a Native Hawaiian, so why won’t they get help too?

I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that high schools in the United States prohibit same sax dates at school functions. I was the treasurer for my high school, and part of my duties as treasurer was to plan prom. In our code of conduct that every student had to sign before being allowed to purchase a ticket, along with rules about alcohol consumption and the use of drugs were guidelines prohibiting same-sex dates. I distinctly remember homosexual students saying that they wanted to bring their boyfriend or girlfriend from another school to the prom. Do you know what I advised them to do? With a class of 550, there were many students who were homosexual. I had a homosexual girl pair up with a homosexual boy, and have their partners also partner up. They would sit at the same table. When it came to prom, they would just “flip” dates, therefore being able to spend prom with their other. During prom, they danced together and nobody even noticed. It is very usual for heterosexual girls to dance together anyways, so that went unnoticed. It was just a pain regarding all the trouble that they had to go through in order to attend prom.

You would think that this day in age school rules regarding who students can and can’t take to prom still exist. I could understand rules such as students can’t bring a date that is over 21, or something like that, but to actually ban a student’s date because of what sex they are is completely absurd. There are states that actually allow same sex marriages, and homosexual couples can adopt children, so why can’t a homosexual couple attend a stupid high school prom together? I can’t believe the article even stated that if a homosexual couple was dancing together, and making others feel uncomfortable, they would be asked to leave. Let me tell you, I have been out at parties and even prom when heterosexual couples were dancing vulgarly, almost making me uncomfortable, and they would never be asked to leave, just because they are straight. I feel that even in the 21st century, we are still living in a world of double standards and hypocrisies.

I can’t believe that just because the school in Mississippi did not want to deal with the issue, they just simply cancelled prom. Cancelling prom is not fair to homosexual and heterosexual students. It was just a simple way for the educational higher-ups to get out of the entire situation. It was a coward’s way out. Isn’t there some sort of organization or group that can stand up for these homosexual couples? You would think that activists groups would have a field day with this situation.

I have attended MANY themed socials and parties at Penn State as well as at home. As a 22 year old, you can only imagine the number. In all of these themed parties that I have attended only one you could say resembled some sort of racial stereotype and that party was called “white trash bros and ghetto hoes.” In no way, shape, or form does that have anything to even do with black people, hence the white trash aspect. I think you are very misinformed and mistaken. Actually you are just plain wrong. I will discuss the types of themed parties that I have attended. I have attended a themed party called “life” in which you resemble each stage of life (baby, child, graduation, wedding.. etc). Another themed party that I have attended is “CEO’s and secretary hoes” in which that has absolutely anything to do with race. In fact, there are more white CEOs in the Fortune 500 companies than black CEOs, hence another example of “white” stereotypes. Another themed party included “golf pros and tennis hoes;” I could even argue that those are both predominantly “white” sports (of course there are many black people who participate and are even the best in the world, but predominately, I feel they are predominately white sports). Another social was “anything but clothes” where people were free to wear anything but clothes: wrapping paper, tin foil, anything. That had nothing to do with black people. Another social I attended was “risky business” where we dressed like the character in risky business (white shirt, long socks, sunglasses.. etc.); again, this has nothing to do with black people. I could go on and on about how many themed parties I have attended and realistically none pertained to black people.

To answer your question the reason why people have themed parties is something new and refreshing from the same old parties. Themed parties call for special music, attire, and games. It’s almost like you can pretend to be someone/something that you’re not for one night, just for fun. Yes, I’m sure there are themed parties somewhere out there that cross the boundaries for what ever reason, but it is not fair to judge that most of the themed socials that white people attend have to do with stereotyping or portraying black people because you are absolutely wrong. To be honest, if this is the opinion that you have of “white themed parties” then maybe you should attend one to see it for yourself. You may find yourself having a great time, conversing with different people, or even just dancing to 80’s music. Themed parties provide people to get away from the norms of everyday life and go “outside the box” for just the night.

I could not agree with you more. My ancestors came to the United States recently, within the last 100 years, and had absolutely nothing to do with the genocide of Native Americans in the United States. As bad as this sounds, I am going to be blunt and honest: I feel no remorse for Native Americans nor do I feel like I owe anything to them.

What I do not get is why Native Americans think it is the government’s responsibility to make their living standards better. Yes, their ancestors did live here first, but they still live on “red” land. If Europeans didn’t come to the United States 400 years ago, they would still be living in huts and hunting their own food. Yes, a genocide happened in between, but to me, I feel that if they really want to preserve their culture they can live in a hut today. Europeans made it possible to live in homes, go to schools, get food and supplies traded, so why are the Native Americans pointing fingers. They can go back to their old ways of living in huts if they want to. If they do not want to live in huts, then they have the option to modernize themselves and become apart of our (European civilization) of electricity, stable homes, and so on. It is their choice to try and modernize themselves if they want to. So why should it be at the expense of the United States government. If anything, Americans whose descendants immigrated to the United States helped the Native Americans (through inventions and trade).

Sam even said in class that not all Indians live in poverty; there are many Native Americans in the United States that are very well off. If the poorer Native American tribes really need help and money, they should ask their fellow Native Americans then if they are that desperate. It is not up to our government or citizens to aid these people whatsoever. There are so many people worse off than them. So what, their ancestors lived here for a long time, how does that prevent them from going to school and getting a job. There is no reason why they are inept to do that.

Even if my relatives didn’t immigrate here recently, I would still feel like I have anything to do with Native American suffering. You can not hold our generation accountable for something that our great-great grandparents might have participated in. Native Americans now have to take responsibility for their own actions today. Yes, I do feel sorry that their ancestors had to die the way that they did, but that does not stop them from trying to “make it” now. Yes, they are at a disadvantage, but with hard work in school, you can be able to get a decent job and make a living for yourself.

I agree and disagree with what this student has to say about gay marriage. What I feel is that if a gay couple wants to get married, whose right is it to say “no, they can’t.” To me, marriage is a very close bond, a deep love, and a deep connection between two individuals who want to spend the rest of their lives together. And in that statement, God was not mentioned once.

I am a Catholic. I do believe in God. I do believe in the Bible. I feel that the Bible is very outdated (obviously) and we still follow the same “rules” we did 2,000 years ago. Things have changed, the world has changed. And yet the Bible has not. To me, God forgives everyone who asks for forgiveness. So that means people who get drunk, people who cheat on their spouses, homosexual individuals, they will all be forgiven.

Now for gay marriage. What ever happened to a separation between church and state? There are many heterosexual couples that get married in a court house with no affiliation to religion at all. But it is ok for them to get married. Why can’t a homosexual couple get married in a court house with no affiliation to religion at all?

What does the government have to do with marriage? Well, for one they provide medical rights to couples. Why can’t homosexual couples qualify for these rights. If a gay couple buys a home together, and lives together, why can’t they share the same medical benefits? What’s the difference between a homosexual couple that has been living together for 20 years and a heterosexual couple who has been married for 20 years, besides the married factor?

If a gay couple can actually adopt a child together and raise a family, why can’t they get married? Obviously the U.S. Pediatric Organization agrees and stands behind gay couples adopting children. If they can raise a child, why can’t their relationship be taken to the next level?

I think that there is a lot of inequalities that the government is providing for gay couples. They are hypocritical and just unfair. I feel that Corporate America is moving at a faster pace than our own government. I know for a fact that many companies offer medical rights, adoption rights, and other benefits to homosexual couples, so why can’t the government make this next step as well?

Hopefully, we will be able to see some drastic changes before we are all gone. I mean just the statistics Sam showed us of the number of “gay friendly” companies have increased from 2002 to 2008 alone shows that there is some progress being made towards gay rights, but not enough. I feel that our government needs to take more proactive steps in making sure that gay couples receive the same rights that homosexual couples do.

The article argues that after the death of the last speaker of a particular language, ancient stories, myths and rituals are vanished. I do not see that to be true at all. Yes, there is some “culturalness” lost when the stories are translated into another language, such as English, but as long as the stories stay intact and original, what is the big deal? To me, language is just a means of communicating our thoughts to one another. What difference does it make whether the language that we use to communicate is modern day English or a 60,000 year old language?

I may sound arrogant, but who really cares how the Yupik of Alaska name 99 distinct sea ice formations or how the Tofa of Siberia classify reindeer. If people really care that much then they should document the language or terms used for such items. This way the language is preserved.

The article argues that many people think that there is nothing to learn from people who a generation ago were hunter-gathers and that someday that information that we never knew may some day save us. I feel that that statement is completely overdramatized. Who is to say that you can not translate any useful advice, tools, stories, etc. and pass those down in another language? What difference does it make?

Do not get me wrong, I am all about preserving culture, stories, myths, etc. but I feel that these can all continue through another language channel. Let us take our own American history for example. In elementary schools, young American children learn about the Aztecs, the Incas, and the Mayas, their traditions, beliefs, their hunting techniques, even their religion. I can only speak for myself but I feel like I have a pretty deep understanding of their ways and cultures, and I do not speak Spanish. Do I think that if I spoke Spanish I would have interpreted the stories differently, or I would have a different view on the Aztecs, the Incas, or the Mayas? Absolutely not. I would appreciate their culture just the same as I do now.

If all of these sociological and cultural groups are so concerned with loosing ancient stories, cultures, and myths then they should talk to the ancestors that are left here today, understand their ancestor’s culture, and document it. This way, these ancient languages, stories, and religions are kept and stored forever.

As I watched the video clip of the ancient language and the words that the woman was saying, I was able to understand her culture and her story through a translator. As long as they have a recording of the language, and they were one day able to translate the language, this woman could have told all of her ancient stories and had them be safe forever.

First off, why do “critics” have to look way beyond the depth and storyline to critique what they believe to be the underlying or hidden message? Movies are meant to be a relaxing, enjoyable experience where you can let your mind wonder off. I am positive that when James Cameron started creating the story of Avatar, 13 years ago, that he did not intend to make this movie a “cultural stance” and depict a white person saving a minority village.

To begin, let me just say that not once does a character in the film say that the natives are of “color.” And if Brooks wants to get specific, there were even black people as part as the science and military teams that helped out the natives; so by making a statement like it’s the white man who comes in to save the “colored” people, he is contradicting himself.

I do not agree with Brooks at all when he states that the only reasons why people enjoy this film is because it is environmentally sensitive and Academy Award voters like it because it is “multiculturally aware.” People like this film because of the main story (without any mention of race/ethnicity), the love story, and most importantly the special effects. The only reason why I personally saw this Imax 3-D film was because of the amazing effects, picture quality, and 3-D nature. The fact of environment sensitiveness or “multicultural-ness” never played a factor in my decision to purchase a ticket.

I do not agree with Brooks statement that Avatar rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. Like I previously stated, since when is the tribe explained or defined as nonwhites. I am pretty sure that the “Avatar” body of the scientists and of the natives are identical. Not only that, I believe that the main character, as Brooks refers to him as the White Messiah, could have been black, Indian, Native American, Asian, pretty much anything; it would not have mattered either way. But to Brooks, this detail makes the absolute difference in this movie. Brooks’ attitude, writings, and beliefs are the reason why these “White Messiah” stereotypes still exist today. As soon as a movie comes out with native tribes in it, Brooks is the first one to point fingers and describes what he feels is the “White Messiah” theory. And not to be blunt, but I feel that Brooks is completely talking out of his you know what when he states that the movie “rests under the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace.” How Brooks came up with this “assumption” is beyond me. Who is to say that whether one reaches “grace” is dependent on whether you can read and write or what not. I feel that Brooks is taking what is meant to be an enjoyable, exciting, love story and turning it into race and ethnic issues.