Dealing and coping with death is a reality of life that everyone has to go through at some point. The tragedy in Haiti was absolutely devastating and 300,000 people lost is a tremendous number. But do I really need to answer the question of why it is acceptable to take some time off if an immediate family member died as opposed to all of these people abroad? Unless you personally knew someone, or multiple people, who died in Haiti, this tragedy will simply not have the same emotional toll it will bear on you if say, your mother or father died.

Please keep in mind that I am not at all saying that the lives in Haiti mean less than someone’s loved one here in the United States. But it is pretty obvious that we will be much more affected by a family member dying than thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of people dying overseas who we have never made contact with. Any help that you feel necessary to provide is very grateful. But we absolutely need to move on with our lives and not mourn these deaths by “taking off” for days or even weeks at a time. This practice, though, would be acceptable if an immediate family member were to die.

As I have said, death is a part of life that happens every second. According to the U.S. Census in 2010, a little over 150,000 people die a day worldwide. So in just two days, 300,000 people die worldwide, which is the equivalent of the Haiti death toll. And yet we do not sit around, mourning the loss of all of these lives each and every day. The Haiti earthquake was indeed more tragic due to the massive loss of people of all ages in such a small area. The point I am making is that it is, and should be, perfectly acceptable to move on with our daily lives after tragedies occur. If you feel the need to provide help, that is great. But not everyone feels that need, and it should be up to each individual whether or not they want to put the time and resources into helping those people abroad.

As for what we should do to help, this is really a personal choice. Some give just a little bit of money toward a nonprofit on site. Others feel the need to travel to Haiti and see what they can do to help. Whatever the amount of help someone gives, if any at all, is something each person should deal with on their own personal level. This also implies that no one should ridicule others for not doing anything to reach out and help these people. If you want to do something to help, go for it, but please do not yell at others if they choose to do nothing. They may be spending their time and money helping others closer to them or feeding their own family.

As I have said before, if we knew where the heart of Al Qaeda was (Osama), then this war would be a whole lot easier to fight. You make some very good points, rms, and it is evident that W may not have been right in terms of WMDs. The whole war is troubling. But I did mention oil as a reason, on top of 9/11. As Sam said, oil was a big part of it, but I do not believe it was the whole agenda. We are protecting our country against terrorist threats, so yes it was a little about 9/11. I like to think our country is doing something about that day, both to ensure justice and prevent further attacks. I understand Sam's point about what Muslims think when they see those videos, but at the end of the day, you need to decide whose side you are on and what you really want out of this whole thing. I believe most Americans, just as Iraqis, just want peace and freedom. The target is those radicals against peace, who obviously cannot be tamed simply through peace talks.

If we knew where Osama was, we would have captured him already. Nobody knows where he is. And Iraq has everything to do with oil, go to class before you respond to this.

Religion is extremely personal. It is the cause of numerous wars and battles throughout our history. But I really think that the true cause of these conflicts is the misinterpretation of religion. Just as the root of the problem in the Middle East is from radical Muslims, the root of our problem to convert the entire world to Christianity is from radical Christians. But it should also be noted that radical Muslims blow themselves to pieces, taking dozens if not hundreds of innocent lives with them, while the radical Christians are just crazy and scream their beliefs at others. So which are worse?

But that is beside the point. Sam delivered a very powerful lecture today, and in doing so he got the attention he deserved. We really do have to put ourselves in the shoes of Arab Muslim college students in Iraq to see their point of view and why they might see America as a horrible nation. But I am very, very loyal to America and believe that we are in the right. The problem with Sam’s lecture was this: it was all propaganda. Just as jihadists are very good at recruiting young men as terrorists, Sam is good at making America look like the bad guy. Anyone can take a bunch of video clips and random quotes to make one giant issue look like something simplified and undoubtedly based on one cause or reason. But this is not the case.

One example I had trouble with in class was in the video clip of the old white guy working for Rudy Giuliani’s campaign saying that we need to send the Muslims “back to their caves”. We all knew what he meant, Sam. If he had just entered the word “radical” before Muslims, everything would have been OK. This is not the first time some old white guy in the Senate, House, or any area of government has spoken incorrectly. This probably just proves that we both have wrong biases against each other’s religion. As noted earlier, the root of the problem is people misunderstanding the true meaning of Islam, Christianity, or any religion. It is the radical, crazy son-of-a-bitches who cause conflict and war. Just as Americans ignorantly say that Muslims are terrorists and trying to harm our country, Iraqis also ignorantly say that Christians are invaders who are trying to harm their country. It needs to be understood that in the majority of both religions, we all pray to God and just want peace for our family and everyone else, no matter what religion.

So the war in Iraq is not a “Christian Invasion” as Sam is calling it. Because the invasion that is going on is from radical Christians, not the majority of Christianity. Just as the hate towards America is coming from radical Muslims. I think that a lot of people in power, such as Bush and Petraeus, are really using the wrong terminology when they speak about the war. Sure it is about oil, but the big reason I support our troops over there is because I know we are fighting for our freedom. I know that every time I see pictures or video of 9/11, our country is doing something about it. We try not to sit on our asses and say uncle. We try.

Can you win? Win what exactly? As I continue to attend lecture, I find myself asking this same question constantly, without ever settling on one conclusion. It should be pretty obvious by my previous posts that I do not agree with Sam in several areas. That is not to say that I disagree with everything he says and I think he makes great discussion topics in class. But going back to the class where the gentleman asked what the end goal is, Sam’s response was lackluster at best. He first blurted out “death” and then soon corrected himself by saying “discussion, just discussion man”.
I really do not think Sam knows the answer to this question, as shown by his two complete opposite answers. But I am also not going to hold this against him because no one has a good answer to this question. As I continue through this class, I realize that everyone has their own interpretation of how race should be discussed and what is offensive or not. Just because two people are black does not automatically mean that they think the same way or think of race the same way as well. This can be shown by the LLBean example in class—not all black people are going to react the same way here. So how are we supposed to sit at the race table and put our own ideas and opinions out there before we know exactly how the person on the other side is going to react? Sam’s point that white people should not be afraid to start race discussions is good in theory, but the people on the other side of the table may be offended by anything that comes out of that white person’s mouth—and the white person can do nothing about it.
Then we are off at a worse place than where we started. So maybe it is impossible to win. There will always be at least one person in our society who is racist or prejudice against some group, and it just seems that there is no hope in changing these people’s minds. So it may seem that you are doing everything right, doing everything you can to bring all races together and then there will be some person or some group that says you are going about things all wrong. Everyone has a different idea of what the final goal is in race relations. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to please everyone at once. The most important thing, I believe, is to be true to yourself and do what you really think is morally right to do. Not everyone agreed with Jesse Jackson, but does that mean that his goals for race relations were wrong? Certainly not.
Despite what Sam says, I think that sometimes the best answer is to just keep your mouth shut. It is like when you are suddenly offending someone and are trying to justify yourself, but just keep digging deeper and deeper. The whole situation could have been avoided in the first place if you just kept quiet. Some people just want to be treated equally and respectfully without ever mentioning their race or discussing race relations in any way. Others take a lot away from discussion. But I believe it varies from person to person, and not necessarily from race to race.

With this being a Census year, this is an issue that many mixed families across America have had difficulty addressing because they simply do not know which race to pick when forced to pick one. As discussed in lecture, it was a major breakthrough when the Census began allowing citizens to choose more than one race to identify with. This is also why I believe that this guy’s friend in class should be able to answer this question for both races—if he truly cannot identify with one race over the other. But this should be allowed only if he really cannot decide which race he fits himself into the most; that is which group of people he hangs out with more, etc. I think this standard should be used because the point of Sam asking these questions in class is to get two separate views from two separate races—he doesn’t want the same opinion repeated for both questions by the same individual.
To be frank, I never thought of the 50/50 mixed raced students in the class when Sam asks about ‘white’ and ‘colored’ or ‘brown’ people. I have just assumed that all the students in class could easily identify themselves with either being white or black or brown. This is not to say that I do not think that there are plenty of racially mixed students in class—I know that several students actually are. But usually when a student is mixed, I assumed, they identified with themselves as being ‘brown’, and not particularly white. It should also be noted that most of the time a student is not completely 50/50 white and black. That is, one parent is not 100% white and the other 100% black or brown. I believe that Sam sees it this way as well. I do not think that Sam is ignorant at all when he refers to the class as the ‘white team’, ‘black team’, or ‘brown team’. He is simply referring to their race, which is pretty important when talking about race relations. I actually prefer Sam to blatantly say ‘white’ and ‘black’ and outwardly calling people this as well. It is hard to have a race relations discussion when people are scared to refer to other people as their race, because that is exactly what race relations is about.
We grow up with mentors teaching us to be “colorblind” and treat everyone equally as if we were all the same race. This is a good rule to go by, but in following it, we tend to ignore the obvious differences among ourselves due to race, and in turn refuse to discuss these differences. This is not a good thing. Sam does a good job in class in breaking these walls down, and shouting out racial groups. We cannot simply ignore the fact that different races have differing opinions about race—such as the question in class “What does it mean to be white?” I commend Sam for being able to openly talk about race, and being able to appropriately note the differences between us. This is also a culture phenomenon as much as a racial one. We grow up in different cultures, mainly around people of the same race, which accounts for these differences. Acknowledging these differences and accepting others’ cultures and races is what we as a society need to do more, and the best way is to discuss the issues head on, just as Sam is trying to do in class.

While most workplace discrimination cases are hard to determine if there was actually any fault in the employee’s claim, this is a clear example of discrimination. Not only did the young lady comply with the company’s request upon hiring her, but she had seemingly done nothing wrong and obeyed their agreement they had set forth from the beginning. We all know that in today’s society, no one can be neglected the right to work based on their sex, race, religion, heritage, or any other such traits. Abercrombie and Fitch absolutely violated this right. While shocking, I see this problem as much bigger than that one incident against this Islamic woman. One could argue that the entire company, based directly in its roots and mission statement, is prejudice. I have heard of this so-called “look policy” before, and it really is simply just a racist policy. It implies that Abercrombie and Fitch employees should be white and good looking. Of course this is not what the policy exactly states, but much of what the company is trying to get across is this idea that its employees should not look much different from one another and be attractive. They are basically saying that they only want pretty white people representing their company.

This, in a world of changing cultures and accepting everyone, creates a problem. They are trying to be diverse, right? They hired this young Muslim lady in the story, only to turn around and fire her based on her “look”, or religion. The truth is Abercrombie and Fitch does not want to be diverse. They are only trying because they have to, but based on what I heard in the story, corporate is doing everything it can to maintain its white culture in the company. The problem lies in the core of fashion companies such as Abercrombie and Fitch. As with all companies, they have a target audience to sell to and they stick with that target audience. Their audience is young, gorgeous white people. That is the image they have held for years, and everyone knows it—and c’mon, who doesn’t love gorgeous white chicks? But I digress. In essence, the company wants nothing to do with any other culture or ethnic group other than hot white people. Their ads prove this, their clothes prove this, and their “look policy” proves this.

So we as a people have to ask ourselves: Is this wrong? On the surface, it definitely seems that way. But on the other side of it, maybe not. Companies have the right to target any specific audience they want, and it is clear who Abercrombie and Fitch targets. But at the same time, it is very wrong for them to blatantly discriminate people of other races. They have to reach a middle ground somewhere. This obvious discrimination may have been able to pass when the company was still small, but since they have reached a global platform, they need to change their ways to accept all races and cultures into their company. I do not have the answer to this problem. But instead of ignoring this discrimination rooted deep in the heart of their company, Abercrombie and Fitch needs to change their ideologies to accept people of all races and cultures.

Vincent, you are right on point here. Frankly, I do not know why anyone brought up this point in class. It seems so obvious. And not just for the immigrant students out there, either. This claim that Vincent takes on this topic is a legitimate one, and one that the vast majority, if not all, of the students in class could also legitimize for themselves. The reason for this is simple. No one in class (on Earth for that matter) was alive to see or take part in the genocide against the Native Americans when Europeans first came over to this nation. So why should anyone be held responsible for these devastating acts?

Sam had some good points in class. Historians rarely look into this genocide and how terrible they actually were. Most of us can point to Hitler’s reign during World War II or the constant killings that take place in Africa today and point out examples of genocide there, but we for some reason forget what Native Americans faced here on our homeland. But Sam is very wrong in so many separate areas. Everyone in class should look back and feel sad for the terrible things that human beings had done at one point in American history. But no one should feel responsible. Why am I supposed to apologize for something I had entirely no part in. Even though I do not know all aspects of my family history, it wouldn’t surprise me if one of my ancestors had a hand in killing Native Americans centuries ago. But for the same reason that I had no part at all in the middle-class family I was born into, as Sam described in class, I also had no part in the ancestors I hold. I was always taught to take responsibility for my own actions, no one else’s, even if they are family. Even though no one made this point in class, it is nice to see that people are expressing these same ideas on the blog. Because no one, absolutely no one should feel personally responsible about these terrible events.

With that said, that still does not relieve the painful memories that Native Americans have today of their history. I stress the words memories and history because that is exactly what they are. In the same sense that no one on Earth today was alive to take part in the killings of Native Americans centuries ago, no Native American was alive as well. So they definitely do not know the real realities of this genocide as well. I am not saying that they are not affected by this genocide, because they are. But they also did not actually witness the killings themselves. So what do they deserve? Maybe an apology, as Sam noted. But it definitely will not be coming from me. Instead, a public figure in the national government (the President seems to work well) would be better giving this apology, on behalf of America as a nation. But they absolutely do not deserve any land. Despite what Sam said in class, this is definitely not Red Land that we are standing on. Oh sure, it once was. But no longer. Was the taking of that land justified? Probably not. But I know I had nothing to do with this taking, and I sure as hell am not about to just hand this land over because it is presumably “theirs”.

This is a very good question and one, like many we have discussed in class, should be taken with both sexes in mind. I believe, just as many of my peers do, that male gay sex should be interpreted on a different level than lesbian female sex. Dr. Richards discussed some interesting points in class about what it means to be gay and/or bisexual. He said that just because one may have sexual encounters or experiences with another of the same sex, it does not necessarily mean that that person is gay. I believe that this may be true for girls, but certainly not true for boys. If a male enjoyed this gay sexual experience, then they should be considered gay (or bisexual). But if a female enjoyed her gay sexual experience, she is not necessary gay or bisexual.
Society holds this double standard against the sexes more than any other factor. Sexual experiences among girls can usually be seen as a way to extend one’s friendly feelings, and everything a female can physically do to another female can also be done by a male. But the anatomy of a male enables him to make a male gay sexual experience completely different than a female gay sexual experience. Males can “invade” if you will and the act of doing so to another male is just… well gay. The vast differences in sexual experiences between two males or two females allow the sexes to be held to a different standard when determining if they are gay/bisexual or not.
This question seemed to have been asked since Dr. Richards brought up the tale of the two female roommates who one day just had sex with each other. The story was quite humorous and I think that the reaction of the class would have been vastly different if the two students were male rather than female. The thought of two males suddenly going at it and then later claiming that they are not gay is striking to say the least. Then the idea of two females going at it is just different—it’s accepted. And is this fair? Maybe not, but with the different and crazy differences in hormones between male and female, I believe that it really is different; chemically and hormonally different. Which in turn creates two different playing fields between the two sexes. So to answer the question, where is the line drawn? In the end, it just depends on the person. As much as we want to call someone gay or not based on our outside perceptions of their sexual experiences, it is not the outsider’s job to make this call. If a person—male or female—says they are gay/bisexual, then so be it. If they are not, and truly believe that they are not despite being involved in gay sexual experiences, then that is fine as well, as hard as it may be to accept for males. But this can only be determined by the individual him/herself and by no one else. It is how they really feel deep inside that matters.

PSUraven has really made some excellent points here. It took me several moments to just think about what Dr. Sam was saying (yes, the man has his PhD and don’t forget it). I wanted to be pissed off at first when he started to comment on Republicans and Democrats, since it seems like everyone has some sort of reason as to why both these groups aren’t right and they somehow have all the answers. But Sam’s real point clicked after reading this blog entry by PSUraven. It is not surprising to me at all that many people in our lecture class are from very well off families. Indeed this came from a lot of luck of being born into the right family, and it is truly hard to say that anyone born into the right family can take all the credit for making it in college. But at the same time, there is no reason at all to be ashamed or feel bad as to where we came from. Sure, I got extremely lucky to have a family that paid for everything I needed and then some—including college. But I’m also not going to say that I don’t deserve this any more than a poor person deserves this life. I just got lucky, while someone else didn’t, and THAT is something I had no control over. I feel like Sam was trying to make us “well-off people” feel a little ashamed in class on Tuesday. Oh, and as to WHY it is this way, as Sam kept asking in class—the only answer to that is that’s how LIFE is.
Which brings up the topic of freedom vs. determinism that PSUraven made some great comments on. I have heard the saying “Life isn’t fair” a lot, and I believe this saying deserves some credit. But while we can’t choose what family we are born into, or other determinist aspects of our lives, anyone, and I mean ANYONE has the ability to make their life great. I definitely believe that there is no substitute for hard work, and anyone with enough passion can make their life into what they want their life to be. As I have said before, I never feel bad having so many opportunities handed over to me in life, just grateful and lucky. I pity those who look up at me (who is essentially the white man at the top of the hill) and bitch about how much their life sucks. Well WORK for it. When times are tough, you can’t just sit around and hope that things will improve for you. It doesn’t work that way. Stop looking towards others to pull you up onto your feet, and possibly onto the hill (I know I won’t, as Sam mentioned). Because the fact is that no one will, not even Obama. So stop asking the government for handouts and work hard for what you want. Yes, I know that you have it a LOT tougher than I do, and I could probably never understand what it is like to be in your shoes. But the reality is that I never have to know what it is like to be you, and I don’t feel bad for one second because of it. That’s called life. As PSUraven said, which is exactly what was said in “The Pursuit of Happyness” by Will Smith (the real life Chris Gardner story—see this movie, it is a perfect example of hard work when everything is stacked against you)—“If you want something, you should get it, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”