I think this "teams" issue is a really big deal, especially in this class. Even before this was brought up, I had thought about a friend that sits with e in class. He is Cuban but acts very "white". He claims himself to be white, even though his name CLEARLY says that he is not of European heritage, but rather he is Hispanic. Obviously, I have never asked him about which he identifies with because I have always seen him as white. He has lighter skin, dresses preppy, has no ounce of an accent, and acts white. This is a direct relation to the race team issue that has been addressed.

I am a clear member of the white team. I am Irish, German, and Polish. I am Roman Catholic, dress trendy, preppy, and sporty. I am in a sorority and am the upper middle class. I am probably one of the whitest people out there. I have no contest to whether or not I belong to the white team. Similarly, there are people in this class that clearly identify with the black team and brown team. This is because they express and exercise their heritage, their skin is easily identifiable with their race, their ethnicities are purebred, their parents are both the same ethnicities.

Overall, I think that in order to identify with a racial group to general as white black brown without any hesitation, one must relate back the the old saying, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." I have found that usually if everyone else perceives someone as white, black, or brown, they also perceive themselves as that same racial identity. It is the mixed colored/religion individuals that really have a tough time identifying with a particular team.

In my opinion, the team to which these type of people belong depends first and foremost on what heritage they celebrate and embrace most. If a Puerto Rican-Italian has never visited Italy, never talked about it at all, or met any relatives native to that area, but contrarily has been to Puerto Rico to visit family and actively participates the PR Pride Club in their town, then my good guess is is that that person has stronger emotional ties to their Puerto Rican side of their heritage, and may consider themselves brown. I think that a person's team is determined by what they truly identify themselves with. And what they identify themselves with depends on how strongly connected they are with that aspect of their heritage. It may even relate back to Sam's levels of immersion into race relations issues. If people have issues in class picking a team, what they really need to look at is why they haven't expressed any true pride in some part of their background, because that's where it all starts from.

When colored people posted their thoughts on white people, it was a stereotype-filled board. Responses saying that we are rich, over privileged, do not work hard for our status, given everything in life, etc. To me, that is pretty offending. I may have been given a head start by being an upper-middle class white, but I'm sure as hell not resting on my laurels waiting for the rest of the world, colored or not, to pass me. There are many white people that start high and work their way up MUCH higher than what they were given. And on the other side, not every person is rich; I mean we did just watch a video a couple of classes ago about a very poor white family. It's just baffling to me how colored people can say these very harsh and non always so real comments and no one gives a second glance, whereas whites are called racist if they accidently mutter an opinion of theirs in front of a person of color.

When the white people were asked to comment about white people, it seemed to me (and apparently contrary to Sam) that only the surface of issues were scratched. We did not bash up our own race; we said things like 'we are natually better off", "its just my skin color, it doesn't mean anything", "we are the majority", and "nothing". But then there are subtle responses like "less scholarships for us", "we're seen as ignorant of the race issue", and "we have a bad stereotype by colored people, but we're not all bad". Now, these are not direct quotations, so don't crucify me if they are slightly inaccurate. But overall, whites only barely touched the surface of what I would think many colored people in the class would assume we would cram that wall with. There was no serious comment saying that we are superior or harder working or richer or anything of that sort. There was not much said that represented the stereotypical whites' perception of the white, but rather what whites thought colored people thought of them. I thought that was interesting.

This is a very interesting topic he just brought up. The issue of whether or not there is a difference in how people react to difference races saying rude or controversial things. I think that in class, the texting to the board activity is interesting in itself (disregarding the inappropriate comments from immature people). It shows us how people can have the valor to say one thing when it is completely anonymous, but we all know that if that person was in front of our class of 700 people, not a negative word such as those they posted would come out of their mouth. I am not referring to irrelevant comments, I am only referring to those comments which, when reading them, makes everyone in the classroom shift in their seat a little. Such comments that everyone knows are thoughts but have rarely become words between different racial groups.

This is an odd issue that almost reverses segregation yet again. I see where this coach is coming from, though, seeing as traditionally we see black americans on the basketball court and fewer white americans. To the eyes of the unknowing and easily persuaded public, black people in the NBA and even below tend to jump higher, move quicker, pass harder, dunk crazier, and basically do everything better than the white people playing the same game. This is a huge stereotype that is fulfilled by a lot black americans in the league, and therefore could be considered to be mostly truth by the majority of the public.

That being said, this is a question of racism. Is this a racist league? Is it racist to exclude black people from a sport that they currently dominate? In my opinion, yes. This is racist. The name itself lends itself to scrutiny; the All-American Basketball Alliance. They cannot be serious with this name. If they were going to have any shot and arguing that this all-white league was not at all an issue of segregation or racism, they should have picked a better title. By saying that it is All-American, they are implying that since it is entirely black, that this perfectly white team is the representation of Americans in basketball. It is ridiculous that something with a subjective name like that could even be formed in the first place and exist more than a couple of days.

This type of league is a bit too reminiscent of the time of segregation when there were no teams of mixed color, and that blacks are not worthy of lets say, "having nice things". This man literally created another league and basing its players first and foremostly off of skin color, and secondarily on talent. The only difference between this current league and the types of segregation back in the day, is the view of black people in the matter. The reason a separate league used to be formed in the times of racism was because white people thought black people were not worthy of the same level of things as them, and that the are lesser of people. In this current situation, this league, although not technically stated by the creator, was probably created because we all know that for some reason in the game of basketball, the majority of black people have had a slight advantage over some white people in the game, and these white people were tired of their race getting cut from predominantly black teams. These opposing predominately black teams do not have white people on them almost always because of talent-related reasons. But I have a feeling that this all white league exists today because they want to create an even playing field, and by that I mean completely separate the field in half. Have the great white players on one side, and the great black players on the other. That way the white players' talents won't be overshadowed by the even better black players. That, in my opinion, is what the real issue is here. And for that reason, I cannot blame the coach for wanting to create this league. But at the same time, it doesn't make it any better that is so closely mirrors the bad times back in the day.

Personally, if I looked at him walking into class on a daily basis I would just think that he is a well dressed black man. He carries himself well so I would not automatically think that he is a thug or a rapper. If maybe he walked in with a ghetto limp or something using improper language (and I do not mean just cursing, I mean improper grammar in general), then I could possibly see people viewing him as a typical black rapper and/or thug. I do not think that people have the same automatic judgement at first glance as they used to back maybe 10 years ago. The "B.I.G.s" of the world have decreased in my opinion. I mean, you don't see Fifty Cent running around getting shot anymore. And there is increased diversity skin color-wise of people that are rappers. I know of quite a few of asian, white, spanish, etc. rappers that carry on the stereotype much more that this guy does above. That could just be my personal understanding though, seeing as I am from a very predominantly white neightborhood where the black kids are what we like to call oreos - they may be black on the outside, but we all know that on the inside they are white. The guy above I wouldn't typify him as the oreo kind, but definitely not a gangster thug rapper , that would be pushing it a little too far. I can see where he is coming from though. There is a stigma when it comes to black men with his similar body type. For Penn State at least, we have an extremely famous football team that has a lot of big black dudes on it, everyone can see that. He could easily be mistaken for one, or even for another athlete the goes to this university. If I had to drop all things that I've been taught about stereotyping prior to this class and name everything I could about this guy at first glance, I would absolutely say "this is a huge black dude that played football in high school in an inner-city area who buys is clothes from Epic and probably plays on the football team or wrestling team". That wouldn't be hard for me to say at all, and I would not think twice about it. But I have come to learn of the slight nuances of people's vibe that can help me determine what they really are. Specifically with him, he carries himself very tall, so he has a lot of confidence but not necessarily because he's trying to sell drugs on a corner, probably just because he works out quite a lot and would like to show it off. That seems pretty normal to me. I think that first quick impressions are acceptable these days, but people shouldn't jump to conclusions at a glance. I believe that if we all take a look at someone for just a bit longer than we're maybe used to, then we can determine with much more accuracy their character. This would reduce the idea of the stereotype greatly.

That was completely eye-opening. I had no idea that the immigration laws of this country even didn't accept same-sex partnerships as a reasonalbe grounds rto ask for someone to stay in this country. I am completely shocked actually, even though I really shouldn't be since the majority of issues revolving around same -sex anything are having to do with the government not accepting it. I think that what is happening to that family is tragic to say the least. They seem like a very loving family with a very strong support system within themselves. The fact taht the immigration laws in the united states sdo not appreciate a family trying to stay together and stay stong, now that just seems plain wrong.

What I am curious about though is they never specifically said that they were married. So if they are not in a legal marriage, then can the immigration department actually even gve them a change to verify and/or give the mother a green card to stay in America? Which state do they live in and does that state still have legalized gay marriages? Because if that is the case, they should have gotten married close to when they decided to have kids together and maybe the immigration department would have to give them a chance at staying together since, in the eyes of the law, they are in a legal binding marriage contract just like every other couple in this country. Those would be the only terms on which I think they could really bring this issue up as a violation of the law. But, since they are in a partnership, without legal papers verifying that this is the real deal, then the real issue at hand is the one that is actually presented - the lack of acceptance of the immigration department for same-sex relationships to apply for a visa/.green card (i am not quite sure on what grounds the mother was deported).

The immigration department should realize that the whole movement of this country is towards gay rights. There are changes that need to happen in people's attitudes towards the matter, but that change first has to come from the system. The laws and processes that holds this country together should make the effort to make the difference - make the change. I strongly believe that the laws for immigration should be extended to homosexual partnerships. They are given to gays regularly since many of the gay people do not notify the immigration department, so what is the difference for two gays. There should not be any. They are creating negative relationships within the country, turning a happy family into a broken home.

Okay, so before I get into anything about the undertones of this film, I just want to say that personally, I thought this story plot was basically horrific. Sure the graphics were cool and all, and it was the most money spent on an animated film in all of production history; but with that money they could have taken out a couple of minutes of editing and maybe rethought an actual story line or something. Just saying.

So to the actual issue, white superiority in the movies. I had not thought of this idea during the movie at all when I saw it, let alone any other movie where the protagonist is white and the poor innocent people in need of saving are black, brown, or native. I think it's really an interesting point that is made. As Sam said in his video response, I think it is very apparent that white people are naturally blind to the fact that we always want to be the hero that comes out on top. Lets face it, every big story these days involved a hunky white man who is ridiculously good looking. As a white female, it has never been fully brought to my attention, but in the back of my mind I have always notices the dominance of white protagonists in the film industry.

On one side of this argument, the superior white man, who has served his superior country, and now is involved in this crazily innovative technology, is going to save the poor innocent natives of another world. Very cliche'. But if you think about it, the natives are really in need of someone who is superior to them. They can't help themselves and then here comes along this buff white man with technology and great intelligence - here to save the day once again. He does help them, and they learn of his advanced culture, learning to accept his differences that at first separated them completely. The natives, who are black and/or brown skinned, aren't smart enough to produce a solution themselve. So in the end, it was great that the white man cam along.

One the other hand, this white guy is not perfect and does not come along to save the day immediately. He has to adapt to the culture first, being tought about the land that he disrepects becausde he has technology to serve his needs, whereas these epople only have the land and each other. He is taught the ways so that hecan save them. Also, if I recall correctly, he is a paraplegic in the real world. So he really isn't perfect after all, but when he enters this avatar world, he gains the power to walk again.

It really is an interesting paradox that should be reviewed further. I haven't truly gathered an opinion on the white superirorty in the film industry, although nowI am going to notice it more and more since it has been brought to my attention. Basically, white people are probably trying to redeem themselves for taking away and destroying all that was nature and native. So the point of these movies is to redeem the white people. Make them feel better that they may have been well intended but screwed things up on the way.

The players on the field, both black and white, have set an example for those in the stands who cannot understand the basic concept of tolerance. All that needs to happen is change. Change in security, change in policy, and change within each person in those stands.

In all, the snooty Europeans need to learn a little something about tolerance and acceptance. You don’t have to like blacks, but if someone talented enough to be on a team of that caliber, with the brain capacity to hold and intelligent conversation and come up with a commercial idea to stop discrimination, then maybe the black man who just blocked every single one of your teams shoot attempts at goal should be the one throwing bananas at you. The hooligans in the stands are the lowly monkeys that don't deserve to be in the presence of men like that.