This idea that homosexual individuals would be much more accepting of other homosexual individuals makes sense in every aspect possible. People of like minded thinking often sympathize with one another and obviously if an individual is homosexual, they would not have a problem with their kids interacting with other homosexual individuals unless they want their kids to grow up “traditionally.” Homosexual parents also most likely increase the likelihood of their children becoming homosexual or becoming friends with other homosexual individuals due to the mere exposure to the occurrence and background their unique life situation has given them. Since these kids have grown up in an environment where homosexuality is not frowned upon, but somewhat encouraged regardless of the parents’ attitudes towards their child’s sexual orientation, they are more likely to be involved in the homosexual community in one way or another. The homosexual practices of the parents also play a major role in how the children react in response to homosexuality.

“Traditional” parents are much less prone to homosexuality due to their upbringing and the general views of society. Homosexuality for the most part has been frowned upon throughout the world. Back in much earlier times, homosexuals were treated as heretics and often burner at the stake or tortured and executed in many other extremely horrific ways. Now we have become much more civilized and most of those who object to homosexuality only protest, but some violent acts still occur. During our parents’ childhoods, homosexuality was looked at almost the same as during mid evil times. They said they were “heretics” or they had mental conditions that caused them to engage in the “deviant” behavior. With this extreme view of homosexuality forced down our parents’ throats as children, they developed a very bias view against all homosexuality and in turn jam the same type of intolerance down the next generations’ throats.

On top of societal views against homosexuality, religion plays a major role in the unaccepting tendencies of heterosexual parents. The bible specifically states “Thou shall not lie with another man,” and this idea is very strictly followed by religious parents and children alike. The parents may force the idea that homosexuality is a sin and that their children will end up in hell if they participate. Religion has always played a big role in views of homosexuality and the movement against it. It is also very important to many parents for their children to have children so that they can be grandparents and the family name will be carried on. If a child becomes a homosexual, they will not be able to reproduce with their partner, making it impossible to ensure future generations. They could adopt, but to most parents, adopting is just not the same as continuing the family blood line.

The idea that child abductions are so prevalent and that children are not safe to even walk to school by themselves is a product of the media. The media blows everything way out of proportion, reporting only negative stories and magnifying the very uncommon instances that everyone is afraid of. When we subscribe to this absurd propaganda that our society is so evil that young children can not even walk to school on their own without being abducted, the media has won. They keep us shrouded away in fear, watching for the next devastating event to exploit and send the public into a frenzy. I myself have a hard time watching the news due to its strong negative connotation. It seems that every time a news channel is turned on, there is a story about a murder, abduction, or something of the sort being broadcasted as if it is a common occurrence in our society and that is all anyone wants to hear about. Violent crime is much less common then the media portrays it to be. The media engages in over reporting, leading to wide spread disinformation, and ultimately a society in which everyone is afraid at all times.

The idea that everyone is so afraid of child abduction in today’s world is crazy compared to the views of individuals only one generation before us. In our parents’ generation, no one thought twice about kids walking around by themselves, or someone committing serious offenses against them. Kids used to play outside everyday with no fear of any negative consequences except maybe a baseball breaking a window. It’s amazing how society has become so much les trusting and so much more self-centered. Back during our parents’ generation the community used to be simple and regarded as a whole, where as today it seems that each man is for himself. I have friends who don’t even know their next door neighbors. As I have been told by my parents and grandparents, growing up they did not even have to lock their doors. They trusted the people around them so much that they didn’t even bother taking precautions to secure their homes or valuables. This practice is unheard of in today’s society. People today take extra and beyond necessary steps to secure their belongings. Home security systems are common place in American homes and homes around the world. Commercials on tv about obtaining such security systems are very common. Has our country come to a point where we can no longer trust out fellow man enough that we must secure our homes and belongings with extravagant security systems? If this is the case, something needs to change so that we can go back to a more simple time where comradery was a strong value of the American society.

The difference in dress between women of different cultures across the world reflects their views and ideas about appearance and the way they would like to be viewed. Yes modesty is definitely a great thing, but if someone wants to show off his or her body I feel that there is no problem with that as long as it is in a tasteful way. The degree of modesty to which people exhibit depends greatly on their culture, religion, and their own personal views. Many women of the Muslim faith cover their hair and the rest of their body because Allah tells them that it is more important to be modest and keep the importance their physical appearance low on their list of priorities. They do not try to show off their bodies or prance around in skimpy clothing because it is very frowned upon in their culture. Not only do Muslim women participate in this very covering dress, but also, as Sam said, orthodox Jewish women dress very similarly. Jewish women wear the same types of long dresses that cover their entire bodies, and shawls that cover their hair. It is important in many different cultures for women, and men, to show modesty in their attire, and I believe that this is not a bad thing at all.
In western society, physical appearance is emphasized greatly. We are always told that we need to be fit and have the perfect bodies. We are shown pictures of skinny models, bodybuilders, and athletes and expected to strive for similar attributes. The western world is not only encouraged to perfect their bodies, but also to show off what they have achieved. The west is a very individualized society in which every person is trying to one up the next, so when someone feels they have the best body, they are going to show it off. Women in western society are expected to dress a certain way to attract men. Rather then personality and trait characteristics that actually matter, we look for the most attractive and physically appealing individual. In the west modesty is not stressed what so ever, rather it seems to take a back burner to looking “sexy” or “strong”.
Along with the emphasis on appearance rather than values, western society is much more open then many Middle Eastern and Muslim societies. America was founded by a government that separated church and state. Because of this separation, the governing of ideas and the religious values of individuals in America have divided and continues down two very separate paths. Many societies where women dress in this clothing are governed by religion and put a strong emphasis on these religious values. As a result women and men of more religious societies are more likely to dress modestly then those of societies that promote free will and individuality.

It really doesn’t matter which group of foreigners they were interviewing, when people feel that a group of people are being singled out it can be found offensive. With that being said, that video was very funny and people who are offended by it are very close minded and do not have a good sense of humor. Regardless of the group of people being interviewed, it is usually funny when people are clueless. I don’t think the video was meant to be serious, it was intended to be a comedy skit. If the video was made to be serious, they would not have gone around interviewing people who obviously had no idea about the topic at hand. If people are offended by this, they should be offended when foreign white people are singled out, which I doubt is the case. American, and almost all other types of humor revolve around the mistakes of others and the hijinks that their mistakes get them into. When people are completely confused and have no idea about a generally unimportant topic of which they are asked it is usually funny to hear their answers. When people don’t understand a language very well and say things that make absolutely no sense to those who speak the language it is generally funny. As Sam said, it was even funny hearing himself back when he was first learning Spanish. He was saying thing that made no sense to the people he was talking to and looking back and hearing himself saying these ridiculous thing was funny. If you can’t laugh at yourself you should probably loosen up a bit and open up your mind.
Exaggerating the shortcomings of others is the main point of comedy. What else is funny to us? Would the video have been funny if the reporter went up to people who were very educated on the subject of the PAC 12? No, the video would have been another boring ESPN type report. It is ridiculous to be offended by this video, the man was not being mean or even using any type of racial slurs. He was asking these college students, who obviously didn’t know anything about the PAC 12, and allowing them to just say anything they could think of even if it didn’t make any sense at all. These international Asian students are not here to learn about college basketball, they are here for a better education. It was not mandatory for these men and women to answer the questions or ever participate in the interviews. They chose to answer questions about subjects that they did not understand. The fact that they do not know much about PAC 12 is not a very bad thing either. It probably means that they are sticking to their goals and focusing more on schoolwork then unimportant American values such as sports.

Although this is a very accurate statement / question, it is slightly flawed. In pre-school and early education we are most definitely taught to notice differences and commend people for their own unique talents and appearances, but I don’t believe that this practice has anything to do with race. At an early age we begin to learn about the differences in everything around us, and this practice allows us to practice our skills of free association. It is very common for toddlers to experience an animal such as a dog and then classify all other animals with four legs and a tail as a dog. By putting an emphasis on noticing differences at a young age, children are able to better develop their grouping and recognition skills. If we were not trained to notice differences, we would still be grouping dogs and cats into the same category and treating them as if they were the same animal. In regards to race, at that age, we do not even consider that there is a difference between black, white, yellow, or brown because we are so young and naïve. At a young age we are not as judgmental on a basis of appearance but rather personality and actions towards us. Little kids are very egocentric and do not care about anyone but themselves, so noticing differences in others is a great way for them to understand that there are others in the world who have their own features, are unique in their own way, and are just as important as themselves. The practice of teaching young children to notice and acknowledge differences is a great practice, in contrast to the statement, preventing racism by teaching them that differences are a good thing.
Moving on about six to ten years, when we are in high school, we are taught to respect difference and not comment on any difference that may seem strange to us. Most do not acknowledge these differences in fear of offending others. This ignorance of differences is more out of respect of others feelings then fear of personal harm or becoming a social outcast. Once again our early education dominated our mindsets although we don’t realize it. The old saying we heard over and over again as young children resonates as we decide whether to comment on differences or just pretend they are not there. “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” This statement is the reason we rarely comment on differences in this stage of our lives. If you ever think about it, when we comment on a difference, the comment is usually a compliment. Teenagers are very judgmental and go through a lot of changes while growing into an adult. By molding teens’ brains to be unbiased to differences, we are slowly suppressing racism and any other prejudice views from being spoken until one day the idea of inferiority won’t even cross people’s minds.

No matter what we do or how we try to overcome racism, it will always exist and hold certain groups of people down. In the business world of America, this gives a great advantage to white people, no doubt. This goes back to the white supremacy issue that has arisen in so many lectures as a main and important topic. Regardless if some one is “impartial” or “says they provide “equal opportunity” they do not. Most businesses judge individuals not only on their qualifications, but also on their appearance, and up bringing. That being said the area someone grows up in could play a major role in the businesses that extend job offers to said individuals. Although the area is such a major influence on hiring decisions, an even greater influence would be the ability to overcome challenging situations and defeat a pattern of low income living. I think when anyone, even a person of color, raises above the influence of a crime ridden neighborhood and becomes a productive member of society, their chances of gaining a job are much better. Also their resume would be very impressive to any employer and show their hard work and commitment making them a prime candidate for whatever job it is they are try to acquire.
Now lets talk about racism. Racism is a natural part of human life and the human experience. We are all conscious being who are able to determine differences in the world surrounding us. As long as we are able to visibly, audibly, and sense differences, we are going to show a preference for one. People tend to stick to people that are similar to them because it is a natural unconscious response in order to survive. In this case the situation might not be as extreme as the survival of groups of humans, but it could determine the survival of the company or business. Ask yourself, would you want someone who is similar to you in looks and attitude to run your company or would you want someone from a different background and culture? People tend to gravitate towards people of similar values and ideals rather then those of very different upbringings.
We can all sit around and talk about how racism is so bad and everyone wants it to stop, but inevitably it will never stop because of the threat it poses to the people benefiting from the practice. They are too scared of other groups moving up their social status and stealing their power. Racism will always be around regardless of the vigorous effort to curb it, because of its strong advantageous nature and the fear instilled in white individuals of losing power.

Linsanity not only causes a direct confliction with most previously held Asian stereotypes, but also contradicts the views of many individuals on people of great intelligence. Graduating from Harvard, Lin has become one of the very few to go on and play in the NBA. Just the thought that a Harvard graduate could go on the play basketball in the NBA is amazing. All of the time and effort spent on such a challenging school, while still managing to enhance his skills and develop them to a professional level is a feat not many could pull off. While Lin reinforces the stereotype that Asians are smart, he also tears down the stereotype that they are short and not suited for western sports. Lin has become an idol for not only Asian children and adults, but also basketball fans glad to see their favorite team doing well and winning games.

Although Lin is a clear contradiction to popular belief about Asians in America, the reason for all of the hype surrounding Linsanity is because of his story and his skills. Yes, the fact that he is Asian changes the way he is hyped up and might add a little extra flare to his popularity, but it is most certainly not the main reason why he has become so popular. Lin, an off the bench player for the New York Knicks, scoring 38 points in his first game is an amazingly talented individual. Lin has showed his skill against some of the most highly regarded players, such as Kobe Bryant, in the NBA. Regardless of race or ethnic background, when an athlete shows this kinds of promise and talent in the arena, there is going to be a huge uproar of followers. The fans in New York City do not care who is leading their team to victory, as long as there is someone who is able to take the reins and lead them where they want to be, an NBA championship.

That being said, this hype is also about the business aspect of the sports industry. All players of professional sports are entertainers, in an entertainment industry. Its almost as if they are putting on a play for the audience to watch, although this play has no script and the players are competing against each other. In the entertainment industry, one of the most important factors in succeeding and making profit is advertisement. Why not promote the most exciting player on the team, fans will buy jerseys, buy tickets to see him play, and buy memorabilia to remember how great of a game he played. On top of the fact that he is an amazing individual, he is a contradiction to public beliefs, making silly, and sometimes racist, catch phrases and shirts more appealing to fans and individuals caught in the hype. Linsanity is a marketing scheme being milked for every dollar its worth, and fairly well. In the previous weeks I have seen various shirts and mentions of Lin everywhere, not to mention the huge influx of Lin jerseys in Madison Square Garden. Linsanity is a great marketing technique and has the potential to rival that of the Jordan franchise, although in my opinion, no basketball player has even come close to rivaling Michael Jordan.

To address your first question of why some individuals with dark skin do not characterize themselves as black, I would like to point out the groups used as examples. Such groups as Dominicans, which were mentioned, are Latino and probably would like to be characterized by their current culture and geographical location rather then their distant genetic history. Dominicans typically speak some form of Spanish as a first language, which would lead me to believe they’re culture is more greatly influence by Hispanic values then black values. When individuals say black, they are most commonly speaking of some sort of African decent. Although African genetics may be largely responsible for the color of a Dominican’s skin, their culture does not promote African ideals nearly as much as Hispanic ideas. This could definitely be argued by pointing out the many Americans with African genetics who classify themselves as black, but I feel that darker individuals of South American or Central American decent are more in touch with Hispanic values then African values. Lastly in regards to appearance, there is definitely a very noticeably difference between the features “black” people and Dominicans or individuals of any other Latino country. To sum up these idea, I think the word “black” has been predominantly used to describe people of African decent, with dark skin, who have been immersed in white Euro-American society and continue to live in that society and by those values, individuals whose culture is predominantly influenced by African values, and native Africans.
Next I would like to give my thoughts on the comment made about Asians not wanting to be characterized by a nationality to which they do not belong. It was implied that some Asians would be offended if they were characterized as Chinese, but belonged to a different culture. I completely understand how this could be offensive to an Asian individual. Asia is an extremely large continent full of a variety of countries and cultures, each very unique. Although the physical features and customs of Asians may seem similar or even the same to those not very learned in Asian culture, in reality, citizens of each Asian country have unique physical characteristics easily distinguishable to individuals of said Asian cultures. China is one of the largest and most well known countries in Asia for sure, but that does not mean every Asian person is from China. As it was pointed out in class, the Korean and Japanese cultures are very proud, almost never reproducing with individuals outside of their culture, so to call one of these proud individuals Chinese would probably be extremely insulting. Each Asian country holds different values and practices their own customs. In my opinion, it is very easy to sometimes confuse the nationality of various Asian groups, but I’m sure Asians feel the same way about white people. The reason for this is the lack of exposure and understanding of the different groups of people.
Regardless of race, nationality, or culture, I think characterizing an individual in a group they do not belong to could potentially be offensive. Whether the intent of the characterization was derogatory or just simply a product of ignorance, individuals may become very defensive about their cultural background and how they are viewed by individuals of other cultures.

I agree for the most part with the assertion that white people are generally more reserved in regards to their opinion. I think it has to do with upbringing and cultural values associated with white communities. I know as a white child of a small suburban town I was always taught to treat everyone with respect and if any of my opinions may be offensive, it’s best to just keep them to myself. I never had to speak up or be extremely assertive to have my voice be heard as a young child, which is typical of residents of urban areas, where the population of minorities is generally higher.
In regards to adopting a baby of a different ethnicity, it is very possible that these white students truly don’t find anything wrong with these types of adoption. College students are typically very liberal. If by chance there was one individual who was strongly apposed to the institution, I’m sure they would not want to volunteer their thoughts in our huge soc 119 class to be judged by hundred of their peers. The decision of whether to adopt a baby of the same ethnicity is more of a personal matter and doesn’t need to be shared with the whole world.
The assertion that white people who won’t adopt a black baby are racists but if a black person does not want to adopt a white baby, is completely ridiculous. I’m not sure where the idea that black people cannot be racist came from, but it is extremely wrong. For example the girl in our class the other day said “White people are evil.” If you do not think that is racist, your basic reasoning is certainly skewed. Now I’m not saying that all black people are racist, but just because they are more vocal about race issues, does not mean that the things they say are not racist. As a white suburban kid who attended a large inner city school, where whites were the minority, I experienced my fair share of racism from black people. We generalize whites as being racist because of oppression in the past, and rightly so, but this definitely does not generalize whites as a whole, and especially not the mindset of today’s youth. Now this is a sweeping generalization, but white people generally are not afraid of offending black people, but are trying to be courteous and keep from subjecting anyone to offensive comments that might cause them to become uncomfortable. If you say that black people do not have that common courtesy, which is very untrue, then your basically belittling your own race. Congratulations!

Throughout the whole scandal surrounding Penn State, I have seen many different opinions and ideas about how to handle such a tragic event. I have also seen reactions, mostly negative and in no way constructive or meant to help anyone or allow profound reasoning on the subject. While many have criticized and joked about the school, the faculty, and the previous athletic employees, no one has really taken a good look into the facts and actual incidents that caused this whole scandal, other then the Penn State community of course. I guess according to these insights I can say I have learned that the people most ignorant of a given situation seem to be the most apt to speak out and draw striking conclusions. I have experienced teasing to a certain degree, which does not bother me at all, but the fact that the people expressing their negative and factually incorrect jokes have not even taken the time to delve into to actual facts and developments in the situation before making their wise cracks annoys me to a degree. Religious extremists have protested with signs depicting Joe Pattern as the man responsible for the horrible atrocities brought upon the children when in fact he played no direct role in their abuse. Although he might not have reported thoroughly enough for the majority of the population, who would probably have done the same thing if in that position, he did report to the proper authorities according to the policies of the university and his job. Now not only have these ignorant people been the most vocal about their opinions, but they have also been the most brutal in their slanderous campaigns. This brings me to another important thing I have learned, people are ruthless. If you give someone an inch, they will take a yard. People have taken the idea that the school itself is responsible for the child abuse when in fact it was one individual. Tens of thousands of innocent students are being blamed for the acts of one man, and feeling the repercussions themselves. Aside from the brutal attacks on the school from the media and peers, businesses are also showing some disdain for Penn State students, preventing hard working college graduates from pursuing careers. Although I have learned many life lessons during the scandal, I think one stand out much more then the others. You cannot even begin to understand the feelings or reasoning of a persecuted group until you yourself have experienced that treatment.