This is one of Sam's lectures that I enjoyed the most because it really probed me to think. Based on the controversial nature of what he was talking about, I'm not sure how anyone could have left that lecture without feeling like he really caused them to think. As always, he wasn't trying to get us to change our beliefs, but just to think about those beliefs in a different way.

He kept saying what he was saying from the perspective of Muslims, specifically Iraqis. I think that too many times we only hear the perspective of people who are just like us. And with that tainted perspective, it's hard for us to understand the perspective of others. But Sam kept talking about things like the insurgency and specific actions that we do as if he was one of the people living there. By him doing this, I was able to put myself in their shoes a little bit better.

I definitely agree that the war in Iraq was not declared or fought for the right reasons. The sole reason for starting that war was because Bush and his administration suspected that Saddam Hussein was housing "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Therefore, once these were not found, and official reports declared that it was likely that they weren't there, all troops should have been withdrawn. However, they weren't, and they still aren't today. Based on this, the war must be taking place for some different reason, and it is being fought at the expense of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians. I really do not think that that is right.

The one thing I disagree with is this Christian Invasion. I understand what it must look like to the Iraqis, but it's much more of an "American Invasion" than a Christian one. Yes, many of these soldiers are Christian, but they all are not. Therefore, this is Americans pushing their beliefs and ideas on the Iraqis, not Christians. This is a great example of the American way, us thinking that our way is better than other peoples, and not settling for people disagreeing with our way. I'm not trying to defend the actions of Christians here, just saying that it's more America as a whole than one particular religion as a whole.

It is things like this war in the Middle East that makes the United States hated by so many people. We are not content being one of the most powerful nations in the world, we must have more, and fight more to attain that power. It's also things like this that should help us to understand why other nations do not like us. I think that once our country starts to see more from the view of others that we'll finally be able to make some concrete changes to better our nation's image, and in turn, the nation itself. Until then, we will continue to be a hated nation that is seen as oppressive and power hungry in the eyes of almost every other nation in the world.

Really, before even getting offended, I have to think that this is so freaking weird. Who seriously thinks of something like this, and then goes on to make a lot of money for doing so? It's sort of like modern day musicians who make a killing with lyrics such as "Shawty wanna lick me like a lollipop". It just goes to show that you can make money for just about anything now.

After watching that clip, I went onto youtube to see just how offensive the game actually was...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54Pu9dTJfQ. After hearing how the Chinese make the characters censored and all that, I don't think I was expecting it to be as graphic as it was. As you can see, you can grab their body, lift up their clothes and take off their clothes. And I have a feeling that you can do much more but it just wasn't show. I guess the big question I have is why would you want to do that? I mean, I think porn is weird enough, but really- a cartoon character?

Something that really struck me was the girls playing up the stereotype of Asian women being sexual deviants. They started by praying and looking very sad whenever they were attacked. But as the "play" continued, their expressions changed, insinuating that they liked it. Additionally, they started flaunting their chest and backside. Something else that struck me was how disproportionate the characters were. Almost every Asian girl that I've met is thin, flat chested, and has a small butt. However, these characters had huge boobs and butts, something very uncharacteristic of the women in real life. I'm sure that this could be manipulated, but I wonder why they were created in this manner. It was almost like they were created in the Western view of beauty, which I thought was really strange.

Now when it comes to the effect of a video game like so, I don't really know the outcome. I know that many people are outraged by violent video games, but do they really create monsters? I think that they may unleash something in someone who is already prone to be violence, but I have to believe that if a video game could release it just about anything could. So maybe violent video games are a catalyst, but I don't think they are the cause. Of course their is research to both prove and disprove the effect of violent video games on there players.

I think it was the right move for the Chinese government to pull this game off the shelves, but the responsibility can't really lie with them. As was shown in the clip, if people want to play it, they will continue to find it. As a population, we need to ask ourselves why it is that people even WANT to play this game. Clearly, something is being done wrong, whether it's parenting, or media, or schooling, or probably a mixture of all of these. I just wonder how much farther things like this will go until real changes start to be made.

There are two very different issues that I want to address with this post: what Laurie said and what Sam said.

On the topic of Laurie's monologue, I found it very compelling. She speaks of something that women, across the world, experience on a monthly basis. Something that is stigmatized, for what reason I am not sure? Yes, I've been just like her, suffering through terrible cramps and uncomfortableness, yet unable to discuss it with many people. Over the past 4 years, my boyfriend has learned to be pretty understanding...yet no where near the level of Sam's "understanding". Although he'll talk about my cramps and uncomfortableness, he is in no way comfortable talking about the act of "bleeding". And for his sake, I keep those details to myself, or share them with girlfriends that can relate and sympathize.

I experience my period every month, so it's not something uncomfortable for me to talk about. However, I don't like talking about blood in general. So whenever someone starts to talk about blood, out of an arm or something, I feel queasy and uncomfortable. For that reason, I don't find it that unreasonable that boys are uncomfortable talking about periods. It's something that they can't experience, so it probably seems a lot worse than it actually is... just like how I imagine excessive arm bleeding of someone else. That being said, I understand where Laurie is coming from, and don’t find it fair that the male dominated world does nothing to help us mediate this problem.

And now on the topic of what Sam in class. The issue wasn't with the topic he was presenting, but with the way he did it. Talking about your wife's period, specifically the flow of her period, is not called for. I'm not saying this to be crude, but to present the opposite side- how would he react to Laurie sharing the size of his penis or the length of time before he ejaculates? Note, these are both very natural processes/occurrences which was the basis of his argument for sharing that information. If he says he wouldn't care at all- bullshit.

Him talking about her in that way almost seemed like a way for him to exert power over her. Basically saying, "This is my wife, so I have the knowledge (right) to comment on this." Regardless of the relationship that they may share, her body is not his to share with 700 people. That is as oppressive as all of the things that he preaches about on a daily basis. Surely, I don't think he meant it to come of in this way, and do not think that he feels this way, but I think that a lot of people read it in that way. I understand the educational value of pushing the boundaries, causing us to think in new ways, but when doing so verges on inappropriateness it's not going to have the same educational effect. In being controversial, it's important to take the message that is going to be conveyed into account--grossing people out vs illustrating the oppression. In this case, I think he conveyed the wrong impression, as was clearly shown by the reaction of the class.

The texting polls are a great idea in theory, but did you all really think that college students were mature enough to use them in the proper manner. I mean, I guess that you did, because it's something pretty fair to assume, but it was clearly shown that this is not the case. I'm not sure if it's because it's anonymous, or because people are bored in class, or they want to impress their friends, but this got out of control so fast. I just think it's a shame that Sam tried to do something fun and interesting for us in class, and it was tainted by people acting like idiots... Not like Donny, or whatever his name is video guy, helped out the situation...
Luckily, after a few weeks of trying this out, it seems that Sam has figured it out. I think there's more to be controlled with the close ended responses, but unfortunately there isn't as much value in what is being said. With close ended responses, you're forced to agree with one of 5 options, but with an open ended response we can see how people really think. And when used properly, it sparks good controversy, controversy that can help us think in a different way about race and the topics associated with it. Honestly, I don't even know if the closed ended questions are worth asking because people are going to be more politically correct, but it is a nice break from lecture.
Answering the proposed question, I think that the rudeness does go both ways. Although I noticed black people going crazy at white people's rudeness, I also noticed white people upset by black people's rudeness. Both sides of the argument were relatively heated, and it started to seem like more of a competition to "roast" the other race than to actually text in honest, appropriate answers. Why is that in a class that is supposed to foster better relations? I don't know? Maybe because people are still going to side with and feel the need to defend their race, regardless of what they've been taught. Or maybe people's views, or at least those on the extremes, are impossible to be changed.
Whatever it is, in class polling showed that we still have a long way to go. We all clearly still have HUGE strides to make when it comes to understanding each other, in even wanting to understand each other. But what this activity did show me is that people of both races, really of all races, are discriminatory and prejudice against races that are not their own. Therefore, it isn't just white people that are "racist". In fact, is anyone not racist? Sure, racist is a strong word, but is there really anyone that isn't partial to their own race? I think we'd be hard pressed to find many people, that if given the chance, would be interested and follow through with changing their race. This goes back to a belief that we all accepted, whether we want to admit it or not, at an early age of "I'm better than you."

I think it’s pretty ridiculous that in 2010 a school would cancel a prom to prevent a lesbian couple from attending. Schools are supposed to be a safe haven for students, not a place that they have to hide. If people cannot express themselves, then how are they supposed to grow and become an individual?
I don’t understand how the school could ever think that they could make this ruling. As American’s, we’re all given the freedom of speech, and expressing your love is exactly that. Of course I agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to make others feel uncomfortable, but wouldn’t it be uncomfortable if a straight couple was dancing closely and touching a lot? I think yes. What this school did was very suppressing, and completely illegal. Just think about the phrase “a distraction to the educational process”… What about prom isn’t a distraction? The expensive dresses, time spent coming up with plans, most likely drinking. The whole thing is one big distraction. And cancelling it all together is only to create more of a distraction, but this time an angry one. Their actions did not fix the problem, but exacerbate it.
Now this poor girl is going to be even more discriminated against because it was her fault that the prom was cancelled. Schools should never ostracize people based on their differences. That is fundamentally wrong. I would hope that parents would provide backlash to this decision, but I’m sure many parents were happy because then they don’t have to worry about their children being exposed to homosexuality at prom. I’m honestly not sure how other people in my high school would take something like that happening. As much as I’d like to think that they would be disappointed in their school, high schoolers are selfish and only care about themselves.
Two years ago, my best guy friend came out to me and my friends. Before I knew about him, I really didn’t know anyone who was gay. Therefore, I didn’t understand and it was very unfamiliar to me. Maybe this girl’s hometown was like that, with little sexual diversity. Without understanding, it can make you feel uncomfortable, but that’s always the case with things that you don’t understand. I can’t imagine if my school had discriminated against my friend. Not only would it make me mad, but it would force me to lose faith in my school. I wonder if her friends are supporting her, or if they’re just as mortified as the other students in her grade. My guess is that they’ve abandoned her because they don’t want to be associated with the cancellation of prom. Hopefully the ACLU can help Constance win her case, but I’m not even sure how much that is going to help. Sure she’ll win money, but she’ll never get her prom experience back, and most likely she’ll never get the experience of her senior year back. This high school did much more than cancel prom, it really changed the course of this girl’s life.

I'm sorry to come off as harsh, but I think that this is a really dumb comment. I've seen themed parties thrown by people of all races. For example, I'm in a sorority, and we have paired up ith multi-cultural fraternities/sororities for weeklongs. To explain, a weeklong is a week of celebrating and drinking in the Greek community. Typically, each night has a different theme. The multi-cultural fraternity/sorority was just as gung ho about the themes as the white fraternity and sorority members. In fact, they were sometimes even more into the themes, sporting crazy outfits and taking it to the next level. I know though, that this had nothing to do with their race, but more to do with how that particular group of people were. I think to say that they only dressed up because they were black is pretty ignorant.

When you take drinking out of the mix, look at 4th of July parties, or New Years, or St. Patrick's Day. Everyone dresses a certain way for these parties, certain foods are served, and certain music is played. This, essentially is a theme. And I know for sure that it's not only white people who go to and throw these parties. Ever since we're little theme parties are thrown, and give us more of a reason to celebrate.

In addition, when white people do throw theme parties, I don't think that they're racist. More than anything, these parties are linked to popular culture. For example, a popular theme right now is Jersey Shore. Jersey Shore, as I'm sure you know, is a MTV show that highlights white people who live in Jersey Shore over the summer. ALL of these people are white, and many white, black, brown people participate in this theme. So how is this not racist to white people?

The only theme that I've heard of that could be considered "racist" to black people is CMT (Country Music Television) vs BET (Black Entertainment Television). But as I said, this isn't against a certain race, it's poking fun at popular culture. Most black people do not wear big fur jackets and clocks around their necks. People poke fun at things like this because they're ridiculous, regardless of race. You figure the other half of the theme is music traditionally listened to by white people. So if this is the case, how can these themes be considered racist?

I think it's pretty annoying that this would even be said into the video camera. If a white person said that about people of color they would freak out, without a doubt. So I don't think it's fair to say something/prejudice against a certain group if you would be upset if it was said about you. More than anything, themed parties are a part of college culture. We can drink any night of the week, and that gets boring. Therefore, people create themes to make these parties more exciting. It's not like every party thrown by a white person is a themed party, just like not every party thrown by a black person is a themeless party.

This is definitely a question that makes you think. When I look at you, I don't think I automatically group you into a group. Well, at least not one of those that you mentioned. Honestly, for me it's more the way that people talk than the way you look. If you weren't speaking properly, yes, I might think you were a thug or a rapper. But you speak intelligently, so that isn't what comes to mind. More than anything, I look at you as a college student.

As I'm sitting in my room typing this, you aren't a threat to me. But I sure as hell believe that if you were walking towards me or behind me late at night that I'd be scared. I wouldn't be scared because you were black though. I'd be scared because you are a big male and I'm a small female. So for me at least, it's more about size and sex than race. Any guy- black, white, brown, yellow- could rape a girl, and that's a scary thing. Being a girl at Penn State, I've learned to fear men, not just black men as other places socialize you to do.

Although I see where Isaac is coming from, and what he's getting at, every single group is stereotyped- no race is unsubject. If you looked at a white guy wearing Ralph Lauren you'd think he was rich. If you looked at an Indian guy you'd assume he was Muslim. If you see a girl wearing sorority letters you think she's a tramp. No one is free from this stereotyping. And although stereotyping is wrong, it does have a social function. It helps us to group people to remember them and classify them.

Sure we're all our own person, but we are all also part of groups. These groups define us and help us to better understand our surroundings. Even if all groups were removed, we'd still belong to the group of human beings. You see these groups won't, and really can't, be completely erased.

I wonder if Isaac resents people thinking he belongs in these groups. Or what group he thinks that he belongs in? Many of the groups that he questioned about have negative stigmas, but then again, almost every group does. Every group has positive and negative beliefs about them by people outside of those groups. Even if he was white, people would have negative things to say about him.

I've learned to just brush off these stereotypes. Regardless of what I do or how I look someone will have something to say about it. But who are these people, and what do they mean to me? Nothing, so why let them effect me? Most times I think that stereotypes are okay, unless they cause discrimination. If Isaac wouldn't be hired post-college because he looked like a thug then it's wrong. The problem is that everyone stereotypes, and as much as we try it may never fully be erased. I think that our generation is much more accepting than those of the past, so maybe by the time that we're holding leadership positions this won't be such a prevalent occurence.

This is definitely something that I've experienced as well. It just always seems that lesbians are more socially acceptable than gay men. I mean look at the popular media, women touching each other and showing affection for each other are everywhere. However, you almost never see ads or posters with two men doing the same thing. Honestly, I think we, our generation at least, has been socialized to believe that lesbians are okay, but gay men are taboo.

As early as my teenage years, I was exposed to girls experimenting with each other. I remember that many girls would kiss each other in front of guys. Although I think it was more for attention than out of desire, the boys' reactions showed that it was okay to do this. In addition, other girls didn't react too much if they saw girls do this. If anything, we thought they were being annoying because they were craving attention, but no one was repulsed. However, if these were boys, I don't think that girls would "like" it, and boys would freak out. I'm not totally sure why this is, but like I said, I think it has something to do with socialization.

I wonder if from an early age that boys did this if people would react how they do with girls? Maybe since girls are already affectionate, please don't see it as weird. I mean, I honestly think that if boys did that people would still act as they do now, shocked.

Or maybe it has something to do with experience? This summer, my guy best friend came out to all of us. Before he came out, I really didn't know anyone that was gay, or at least they weren't close to me. Because I didn't know anyone, and since it was so foreign to me, I used to not be very accepting of gay men. I think that I just didn't understand. Now that I have experience with a gay man, I feel much more accepting. Sure it will still be weird to see Mike kissing a guy, but I think once I see it a few times it will become completely normal to me. Just having him in my life has opened my eyes so much, and I'm so grateful for that. So I guess this goes back to what I've been saying the whole time, once you see something, and become socialized to it, it's no longer abnormal or weird.

In my opinion, I think that everyone should be able to live the life that they want to live. As long as people are happy, who are you to judge? I think that the absolutely worst thing is to live a life that you don't want to be living, and I would hate for prejudice to do this to people. I think that most people are becoming less prejudice, and with this, gays, both men and women, are becoming much more accepted. Hopefully the people that live those lives are seeing those changes as well.

To be 100% honest, this doesn't stir an overwhelming amount of emotion for me... maybe it's because I'm tired, but I really don't feel one particular way about it. Don't get me wrong, it's upsetting, but how is it much more upsetting than the truths we face everyday? As Sam tells us at least once a class- we're all going to die. So how are languages any different?

What I think is sad is the dying of a culture. Surely language is an integral part of that, but language is always growing and developing, tradition doesn't change much. Unfortunately, this culture and tradition will never be lived again, outside of a textbook that is. No longer will people cook the native food of this tribe, or tell a story in the same way, or live by the exact same beliefs. This is what is really sad to me.

In addition, I mourn the loss of Boa Sr's life. She surely lived a wonderful life, but in the above picture, it looks like something is missing. She looks sad. Is it true sadness, a sense of unfulfilment, or simply me wrongly interpretting her facial expression through my tainted cultural lens? Regardless, it is the person I feel for more than the language. That probably sounds very unscholarly, but I've learned to value people more than material things. Sure people die, but as this article highlights- so do things.

In today's world, especially with the current events in Haiti, it's hard to not be brutally aware of death. Every day thousands of innocent people die. As an example, 7 children die per day from pediatric cancer in the United States. If I compare this to all of the people in the world it's an insignificant percentage, but for their families, it's everything. This, this is why a language bearing doesn't have much impact on me. Because in the time that this 65,000 year old language died, thousands of people, who mean something to someone, died.

You're probably wondering why I'm going off on this tangent. No, it's not a matter of language versus a person... I get that. What it is for me is what is more important. If I mourned the loss of everything on this planet, I'd be one chronically depressed person. However, I can't help but to be sad when I hear about some of the things that happen in our world today. For this reason, I try not to sweat the small stuff. A language dying isn't small, but it just really doesn't have any significance to me. The original language of our ancestors has surely been wiped out, and how has that affected us? We still talk, we still read, we are still intelligent. So although I thank my ancestors for developing our language, I know I wouldn't be able to converse with them today. In the case of the Bo tribe, it's highly unlikely that their language had no bearing on any other language. Therefore, a version will continue to live on, and that is all that REALLY matters. Actually, does that even really matter?

What I think is ridiculous is that we, as Westerners think that we know what is best. Who are we to govern these women? I feel that many times, actually most times, we are ethnocentric and believe that we are right. No questions asked. However, we don't understand the real reason why these women are wearing burqas. This is part of their religious belief, a religion that many of us do not even understand.

Take for example female circumcision. We are repulsed by different tribes in Africa removing the clitoris of women. We believe that this is a form of female mutilation, but that's not why it's done. They do this because they feel that it's sanitary and gives the girls the status of woman. These are age old traditions, and many women are honored to be circumsized. We, however, march in and create all these groups to stop these practices. Again, I ask, who are we to know what's best? Personally I believe that it's terrible, but did anyone ask these women how they feel about it? Not only are their language barriers, but their are cultural barriers too. There is no way for us to possibly know what they're feeling.

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that we do that other cultures do not agree with. For example, females in the United States shave off all body hair. If you visit a European country, people would think it was extremely strange to see you without body hair. This is one of many examples to illustrate how others view us as weird.

But in showing this example, it shows that we are not the only culture that is ethnocentric. I feel like we're taught to think that we have an extremely ethnocentric culture, but so do others. Every single person believes that their culture is best, whether they want to admit it or not. That's their way of life, what they know, and so in turn what they practice. It's evolutionary effective to go with the flow, or you'll become an outcast.

Personally, I do not agree with burqas. I do feel that they oppress women, but I also know that's because it's what I've been taught to believe. I know that I wouldn't want a man, or a government, telling me how to dress and how to behave. Especially if it was to prove a point of superiority. However, isn't that exactly what the French government did? They decided that they didn't like something, and therefore controlled it. Many muslim women probably feel most comfortable burqas. Just like I grew up without burqas, this is all that they know. Let women do what they want, and make decisions for themselves. Women have faced this type of oppression forever, and I don't know if it will ever completely go away. I know that sounds depressing, but I do think it's an unfortunate truth. I hope there's a day that women are treated like equals, but with news of laws like this, I'm just not sure...