Quite frankly, affirmative action is misinterpreted and seen in a different light in various people's perspectives. Factors that affect this are numerous, with race and socioeconomic standing being the most prominent. Affirmative action was implemented with the idea of keeping equality with minorities. Although it helps white people, it is not seen in such a way, but rather seems like it is taking away from their opportunities. The reason for this misunderstanding is that affirmative action is usually known about completely, and as a result, people misunderstand its effects and falsely speculate on how their lives are affected by it. In fact, I know people who don't even know anything about affirmative action, and are completely oblivious to it. It really makes me wonder how people are neutral to things that affect their lives greatly.
Coming from someone who starts their post with "Quite frankly" may put me under scrutiny, but I really do believe that some people make decisions and assumptions too quickly, without understanding a full concept.
As Sam mentioned in class, the group that benefits the most by affirmative action is white women, merely because the female gender is viewed as subordinate to the male; in addition, this group adds benefits to white males—which sounds like a sort of conspiracy to me, but it makes sense when the “king of the mountain” metaphor comes into view. Now disregarding people who don’t know about affirmative action completely (which I assume is the majority of the people who dislike affirmative action, even though it benefits them), another subclass of people that are opposed to this are the ones who think with the “king of the mountain” ideal, in which keeping minorities from getting as little benefits as possible will keep the “kings” on top. Very few people probably see it this way, but it wouldn’t be surprising if I found out I knew someone like that. In a show once (I don’t recall which), a black student gets a scholarship at an awards ceremony, and a white man stood up, basically saying “Where are my benefits? I see all these minorities receiving scholarships just by the fact that they are a minority.” Now this situation is all too common (probably mostly in people’s heads), and I would feel the same way if that was me. Under the pressure of the economy and personal needs, seeing other people benefit solely from something they are born with can be frustrating. This all goes back to freedom and determinism, in which certain people just have to be more ambitious than others. But we shouldn’t take it out on others; a point that Sam has made numerous times is that we have to look up at the people in control of everything, and ponder on what really needs to be done in order to make this nation, as well as the world, a better place.

To broaden the grasp of the question, I would consider how this whole scandal would be different if Sandusky was a minority in general. Reading some of the comments already posted in response to this question, I disagree with the fact that he would be treated any harsher. The judicial system does not work through prejudice and the extent of which Sandusky is already being punished complies with the crimes he is charged with. In the eyes of civilians (staff, students, and non-students) though, I feel like he would be seen differently. If Sandusky was a minority, his status might be seen as more stigmatized due to the fact that his race is just another way of people to release their scorn on. A situation like this entices hatred, naturally, and it would not be surprising that some people would use his race as just another way of expressing their hatred.
Another speculation that could be made if Sandusky was a minority is how Penn State is seen as a whole. In the past couple of weeks, Penn State has been criticized by the media and non-Penn Staters. Being a university comprised of mostly Caucasians, a minority committing this offense would seem a little more distant to the Penn State body, since race is another thing (although not significantly) that can define Penn State. Not many figureheads (actually none that I can think of from the top of my head) are a minority at Penn State, so if Sandusky was a minority, it might not affect the university as greatly; although Sandusky’s reputation was really the factor that caused all the censure rather than his race or association with being part of Penn State. Unlike Joe Paterno, Sandusky was merely part of the sports program and not something that a student would say defined the university they went to.
Going back to a previous comment, I feel that students and non-students alike would see the scandal a bit differently. Most of the rage is focused on the firing of Joe Paterno, so perhaps Sandusky’s status, reputation, race, etc. really doesn’t matter, at least not to those who are focused solely on the firing of Joe Paterno. Seeing through the eyes of one who cares greatly about the welfare of the victims (which everyone should, naturally) Sandusky’s race probably would change how they would see the situation. Despite this, hatred should not be focused on the criminal but rather support should be given to the victims. In other words, Sandusky shouldn’t matter since he’s already dealt with by the judicial system; the only ones that matter now are the victims and how to give them support and help them recuperate from this crisis.

"Innocent until proven guilty" has been repeated countless times within our society, but does this statement really reflect how our judicial system works? I am no law major, nor even interested in law, but from what I have informed myself about cases brought up in the news and media, I believe that there are always times where loopholes could be exploited in order to bypass laws. As mentioned in a previous lecture, our legal system has a seemingly odd structure in which there is a prosecution that basically condemns an individual for their crimes, then there's the defense that protects the individual at all costs. This setup ultimately neglects senses of morality from either side, and we have to basically just trust the court to make the right decision. This whole argument is paradoxical almost in that doing the "right" thing implies a certain moral ideal regarding the individual, and one person's idea of "right" could be completely different from another's. Relating this to Penn State’s current situation, it is understandable why the people outside of Penn State are basically looking at us in disgust, and how we as a collective is trying to fight back. A majority of this scorn and ridicule stems from the way the media conveys the news to others, while we, as Penn Staters, see the bigger picture. This ultimately leads those people to pass judgment based on what they hear in the news and media and they jump to conclusions. They are giving into the media’s wants and it is hurting our reputation even more. As mentioned in lecture, our society tends to point fingers to try to figure out who to blame. This ends up fogging up the actual problem and makes the situation unclear, confusing, and complex. I believe that everyone is really to blame, in all sorts of degrees regarding the situation; this includes the higher-ups involved in the lawsuit, the students’ reactions to the results of the allegations, as well as the nation’s reaction to the media. This whole passing of hatred is detrimental not only to Penn State, but to the country as a whole. Most of the nation is looking down on us, but at the same time we are looking down on them. These two sides are conflicting, even though there is only one problem that needs to be solved, but we lose sight of it and focus on each other. People’s morals and ethics come into play, and with hundreds of thousands of people participating, the mixed reactions are chaotic to some extent. Our society has caused a dichotomy of right and wrong, and makes us believe that everything is black and white, while in fact, it is much more complex than anyone can imagine.

To start off, I think it is relevant for me to talk about my background as a first generation Filipino-American. When I was 2 years old, my mom headed over to America in order to basically get a head start for my family (my dad, my brother and I) as a nurse, since they were planning on moving our whole family there in the future. When I was 5 years old, my dad and my brother went over, and basically lived a normal American lifestyle. Since I came here at a young age, I have little, if any, connection with any sort of concrete memories from the Philippines. In our household, my parents pretty much always spoke Tagalog (the language of the Philippines), and that is probably the only reason why I had any faint adherence to the language. But as I grew older, I clearly started forgetting the language since I barely ever used it, and ultimately, I could no longer speak it at all. This was due to the fact that the only time I heard it was from my parents, and with school and other activities, English, obviously, flooded my ears. Even though it is technically my second language, I am a lot more fluent in English than I am in Tagalog. But of course, having a language embedded in your mind will never truly go away, so even though my parents speak Tagalog almost all the time in our household, I understand most all of it (probably 95%). To start answering the question (with regards to my parents), initially, I do not feel uncomfortable when they speak a language other than English. In fact, when I don't understand a word (which, usually I figure out using the context of the situation), I usually asked them what that particular word means, followed by a puzzled look on my face. Sometimes, though, they have a hard time translating it into English because, as in almost every language, there are words that are impossible to translate to another language. In addition, my parents (mostly my dad), usually speak English (pretty fluently, actually) when they direct something towards me or my brothers, since they know we understand that a lot better. My point is that around our household, being bilingual is second nature to us, and in all honesty, I sometimes don’t realize which language my parents are speaking to me. Now when they choose to speak Tagalog in public, such as a mall, I feel a little discomfort. But it’s not enough for me to shy away; I actually talk as I would, but it’s just that it stands out. I hear other families speak different languages from time to time, and being from a family with a similar situation, I feel that I understand where they’re coming from more than most people, and just shows how diverse our nation really is.

When Sam brought up the topic on Native Americans, and how the Europeans basically stole their land from them, my first thought was, of course, it rightfully belongs to them (the original peoples) and we, as modern United States residents, immorally believe we own this land. When the first example was presented (with the 'European' kicking out the 'Native American' from the chair), naturally, I agreed with the fact that it didn't belong to the immigrant, and it he should have given it back. The only thought process going on in this example, (and what Sam was basically implying when he was forcing some students to change their answer) was that there was actually no reason to disagree. It was based solely on morality and values, emphasizing on the fact that a land is rightfully owned by the current residents. There are plenty of conflicting ideas against this. The Native Americans, (and please excuse for my crude history knowledge) traveled from Asia many centuries ago, and that was when it was truly barren -- at least of humans. The point I'm trying to make is that even though this whole argument is basically the European immigrants versus the Native Americans, the Native Americans technically took the land from the animals and wildlife in the area. Now this shouldn’t be taken too critically since the Native American tribes were probably ‘closer to nature’ than our modern society, but the point is that taking over territory for personal needs is a part of this world. Another example is that in earlier centuries, imperialism was rampant, and nations took over lands nonstop. These takeovers were normal and they introduced many great nations that we read in our history books today.
Now to get back on topic, further in Sam’s example during lecture, generations of European immigrants and Native Americans passed. He asked us all the same questions again, and (I think during the great-grandchild generation) I eventually changed my answer to ‘disagree’. This wasn’t due to Sam’s manipulation really, but more from thinking about the problem. As mentioned, Native Americans are talked about a lot less than they should be, since they were the original residents of this land. As I was thinking about it, would the Native Americans be able to develop the United States as it is today? Undoubtedly, we are one of the great powers of the world (whether good or bad is a totally different topic). But would the original tribes that settled here be able to make this nation what it is today? Would cities like New York City be as popular internationally? Would it exist in the first place? These questions can really never be answered since the outcome cannot be seen by anybody. I believe we have a certain right to call this land, more importantly the resources, cities, and towns on this land, “ours” because we and our ancestors molded it into the nation it is today.

From what I have gotten from lecture, and from what I have experienced throughout my life, I believe that I am in stage five of racial identity. My prime supporting example for being in stage five is that I have friends of mixed races, including ones of my own race. Most of my friends here at Penn State are white (I would estimate around 90%), and this probably isn’t surprising since Penn state is majority white, as well as the state of Pennsylvania being a “white state”, as mentioned in class. But the thing is that I am a minority, and for some people, I would automatically stand out among my friends. This fact does not bother me, since it is expected due to physical, external differences. Being Filipino, I have dark skin (darker than many Filipinos, actually) as well as typical Asian traits such as narrower eyes and having a short height.
At a young age, I started to distinguish myself from others, realizing that I was a different race. Gradually, I was introduced to many other Filipinos since I went with my family to social gatherings with mainly people of our own race. The people I have met during this time are now lifelong friends, and during this time, I was deep into my own culture and felt fairly comfortable. Later on though, specifically middle school and high school, I started creating closer bonds to people, and started drifting away from my native culture. I realized that there were difference in cultures of different races, depending on where you are from or which generation (which affects how much into the culture you are), but people’s personalities were not to be distinguishable by race. There were friends that I shared a lot of things in common with even though they were many different races, and there were those just the opposite. This time of my life helped me see the world clearer and help me accept how everyone interacts.
Around this time, I started getting sort of angry towards my parents, probably due to teen angst in general, but also due to the fact that they saw races differently. They believe that people of other races are generally very different from our own race. I feel like this mindset is due to the fact that they spent most of their life in the Philippines, while me and my younger brother (who is, I believe, at the same stage as I am in racial identity) were brought to the United States at young ages of four and five. I believe my parents are at stage four because almost all their friends (really our family friends) are Filipino and are very close; although they have various contacts that are many other races, due to work, travel, etc. I do not see a problem with staying at a certain stage in racial identity, but I believe there is a certain satisfaction when reaching higher stages of racial identification.

To me, the usage of racial identification is mostly in the form of description in order to relay a story more accurately or to point out a person I am talking about. Looking back at the way I talk in retrospect, I would assume that I have not used these racial descriptions unnecessarily, even though I am usually not conscious about it either way. During the lecture on Thursday, when Sam enticed us to listen to ourselves as well as others around us, I found it funny that I have already experienced hearing people talk about others’ races unnecessarily. After the lecture, I tried to pay more attention to when people have used this, and apparently it occurs fairly often. Some people are blatantly racist and they know it, while others are more oblivious to the fact that they say things like that. This goes to show that you can either use unnecessary racial descriptions consciously, on purpose, possibly intending to be racist or kick out a joke; or subconsciously, being slightly ignorant to the fact that it might be offensive to people and could be avoided.
My parents, specifically my mom, are a prime example of the types of people who would use racial descriptions in order to describe certain actions or imply beliefs or morals. Personally, this annoys me to a large extent, but it is understandable since they did not grow up in America. My parents grew up in a culture where there was only one race that existed and got used to only being in an environment with no racial differences. Although knowing about other races and cultures, they have never met or interacted with a person of a different race, and therefore, did not know what a person of a different race really was like. This eventually led to a different understanding of other races since they were basically sheltered from them their whole life. Coming to what is considered the most racially and ethnically diverse nation in the world, they needed to find a way to differentiate themselves from other races. Now I would consider my parents racist, but not in a demeaning or derogatory way, but more of a cautious or vigilant way. They use racial descriptions necessarily and unnecessarily in order to convey what their beliefs are on certain races based on what they have heard, what they’ve experienced, how United States culture sees race, and how the social media depicts certain races. All these come into factor not only with my parents, but with everyone who uses racial descriptions, regardless of what race they happen to be. I believe that most people, in regards to using these racial descriptions, are being greatly affected by their surroundings and the environment in which they grew up in.

The topic of homosexuality in different races is an interesting one, since homosexuality is already seen as one subculture, and when race is put into consideration, the topic completely changes. To understand how to think about this question, first we have to dissect the cultural thoughts on how society views homosexuals as a group and races as a group individually, then somehow integrate the two. As mentioned at some point in a previous blog question, I feel like this question falls along the same thinking of interracial dating. Interracial and homosexual relationships, as mentioned in lecture, tend to attract more attention because it is out of the norm. Now this does not necessarily mean that people will have negative thoughts, since that is something one chooses. In our society, generally, a heterosexual relationship of the same race is considered “normal”. But in reality, more people are now accepting more and more heterosexual and interracial relationships. As this is happening, it seems that there are more and more heterosexual and interracial couples that are coming into view. In my opinion, this is having a positive impact in our culture because it opens up people’s minds and helps them accept them more. Now on the topic on whether certain races of homosexuals are more acceptable, I think that there is definitely a difference in ways that people see different races, just as how homosexual relationships are seen differently than homosexual ones. This may be subtle and subconscious, but it exists. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike see homosexual relationships as standing out, just because a majority of people are heterosexual. But bringing this point up, heterosexuals are more likely to be more attentive to the homosexual couple, simply because it is neither something they are used to nor something that they would do. In the topic of different races in homosexuality, I feel like one will notice a homosexual couple of a different race odder than one of their own race. For example, a white heterosexual male will be more attentive to the difference of a homosexual couple of a different race more than that of his own race. This is only natural, because people already see other races differently than their own. So overall, I do not think that certain races or homosexuality is seen differently, but rather races that are not your own are seen differently. In a culture where whites are a majority, the minorities will tend to stand out more when they are homosexual. This is due to the fact that they fall even further from the cultural norm. But as more people become more aware about accepting people, whether it be in terms of race, homosexuality, or both, society will grow towards more open-mindedness and approval towards these people who fall outside the cultural “norm”.

Naturally, when a person encounters someone of a different race, they immediately judge them by their physical and external appearance. Whether this is conscious or subconscious, everyone does it. The outward image the person has is what makes the observer realize that they are of a different race in the first place. In society now, these outward appearances can be a lot more subtle, due to the fact that many more people are multiracial, and diverge from the typical physical racial traits that they're parents or ancestors may have had. These physical traits, as mentioned in the first few lectures this semester, have been passed down through generations of that certain race in order to survive and cope with their natural environment, whether it is in the north where it is cold, or towards the equator, with warmer and drier climates. The way these traits were formed was due to their natural environments. To be clearer: physical traits are caused by natural surroundings, and it takes time for generations to adapt to a certain environment. On a different note, someone’s actions, thoughts, morals, beliefs, or anything of the sort is due mainly to their culture, upbringing, and the society around them. This is where stereotypes are formed; when physical traits unique to races get mixed in with their cultures. The United States, being the nation to have the highest amount of immigrants, is a prime area for these stereotypes to shape and people just tend to believe them. In reality, each person is an individual, unique human being, that has had a different childhood, different upbringing, and has a different lifestyle than anyone else. Of course, people or groups of people will have similar likes and dislikes, beliefs, morals, and other similarities, and to correlate these to race should have different reasons other than just race. People with similarities tend to befriend one another, and this, perhaps, is the reason why certain groups are made up of a majority of one race. Also, they feel more secure around people that would have similar interests. Personally, I feel like stereotypes have truth to some extent, but everyone should be open to exceptions. This way of thinking is personal because I, being a minority with stereotypes coming left and right, am an exception to most of these. Also as a minority, almost all my friends are white, which would probably normally make me stand out, but I am so similar to them culturally that it doesn’t make a difference what my race is. So basically, a person should never be judged before you get to know them, especially in regards to just the physical appearance. A person’s race does not define what a person is; it is one’s thoughts, morals, beliefs, and actions.

After watching a few of the videos about the entrepreneurs, I have found that my initial impression of this Haiti Project was completely different than what I see now and what will probably become of it by the end of the project. Watching how the employers perform their individual jobs really made me want to get involved even more and try to aid them in any way possible, whether it be sharing knowledge or just getting to know the different people there. As discussed in lecture the other day, regarding the situation with the Haitian rice farmers, the U.S. are affecting the lives of people just like this, in a way that may seem beneficial to individual consumers, but is detrimental to the Haitian nation in the long run. The entrepreneurs seen in the videos I have watched seemed fairly successful on their own, and they were content with the amount of success their independent job was getting. With the few, if any, employees that they have, it was impressive to see how well they were doing and how, with just some free will and hard work, they can make a successful living out of what they do. What was also impressive to me was that, in the case of Sonia, who made insulated lunch bags and luggage, that she was a lone worker with her job, and just with a sewing machine and some materials, she is able to successfully accomplish her work. With this job, she is able to support her family, whether it is her mother or siblings. This fact was very admirable and respectable, and I think that the workers who try hard, regardless of their surroundings, will be able to be successful entrepreneurs. In the videos with Yvrose (sandals and footwear) and Suze (caramelized peanuts and candies), as well as Sonia, I felt like the products they were making were more of a luxury than a necessity, which goes against my first impression of the project. Although they seem just like luxuries, they are, nonetheless, helping money to circulate within the nation which ends up helping the economy thrive. The positive impact that these workers will have on the economy is undoubtedly commendable. At first, I thought we were helping entrepreneurs struggling to accomplish their tasks. But after watching these videos, I realize it was much more than that. Our objective is to help these entrepreneurs to expand and be even more successful with the things they do. The positive outcome of this is evident. It will let more employees work with the entrepreneurs, leading to more jobs. Also, since the specific jobs will expand, it will create a more thriving economy within the communities. This, in the long run, well strengthen Haiti’s economy, and will leave a positive mark on the nation.