I’ve spoken with several people in greek life about the fate of Chi Omega after this incident and though probation is the only apparent consequence there is also talk of them losing their chapter accreditation. This is a topic that I’ve heard a large variety of opinions on and it seems that all of them seem to focus on the same thing and pin point one specific thing: the signs.
Here’s my friend’s opinion: “Is it not their right to dress how they please? While it does possibly offend another group of people, I find it equally disturbing that they can't express their freedom to choose what they wear.”
Though I can agree that there is a degree to which people should have the right to express their opinion and wear what they choose, the issue as Sam stated in class in the mimicking of a stereotypical caricature. Even then I believe the picture wouldn’t pose as much of an issue compared to the incorporation of the signs.
Why is the picture a problem and not merely just stating an opinion? For the same reason it’s not acceptable for the president to use derogatory terms when referring to immigrants or Muslims. He’s the guy that represents our country, just as Chi-O represents their sorority on a national level and even Penn State to an extent. So, naturally probation is deserved in my mind.
So why are the signs themselves offensive? “Will mow lawn for weed and beer” in combination with “I don’t cut grass, I smoke it” allows me to deduce the following: Mexicans are known for cutting grass, smoking weed, and drinking beer. First off, the references to drugs and alcohol are only mildly offensive as they make a false blanket statement. Second, from personal experience I know that landscaping a position that is prime for someone who can’t legally work in the US, and considering the controversy surrounding illegal immigration it’s not difficult to fill in the gaps. The signs poke at the idea that Mexicans are known for being here illegally, smoking weed, and drinking beer. Because they are depicted in this way as unproductive illegal immigrants, it upsets the legal immigrants who are legitimate heard workers. All it really takes to make any racial or cultural group angry is to throw a stereotype in the mix.
It’s one thing to tell a racist joke to your friends, but to publicly represent yourself as insensitively stereotyping is where the ice gets thinner. On top of that, the idea that a group representing a larger faction would openly make such a bold move is a sure way to get a whole lot of negative attention. Biggest mistake here: taking the picture and having the audacity to post it. If they do remain a chapter, I suggest they get rid of their publicist/historian.

To take the life of an innocent person is considered by society to be one of the worst crimes someone can commit. However, the definition of “innocent” can really differ from person to person… Let’s take a look at any war, a situation in which we are threatened as a nation. We welcome the defeat of our opponents which, more often than not, involves the taking of innocent lives. In reality there’s no personal quarrel between any two individuals in war, just the idea that our current livelihood is at risk because of the enemy. I wouldn’t consider bashing any faction of our armed forces, as I am thankful as ever that they’re willing to put their lives on the line and fight for our livelihood. So what can I gather from this: I support the murder of individuals that threaten the way in which I live my life. Though I can’t see myself as being on the front line, it does make me wonder what it would take for me to take the life of another.
We can rightly justify many actions as being defensive, but what is it exactly that we’re defending? I define my life as not just living in itself, but all things surrounding how I live my life and what makes it possible. Food and shelter are what we need by definition, but there are a few other components that people are much more willing to kill for.
Money is the root of all evil, but it makes the world go round. We always want more, but can’t stand to have less. More money means our standard of living increases, whereas less means a decrease: an unfamiliar discomfort that many people can’t stand to weather. Sure, you can always work harder and try and get more money, but just look at the ease associated with theft, extortion, corruption, etc. Sure they’re illegal, but look at the payout in successful cases! Of course, then there’s the case of the person who is being robbed or extorted. Their livelihood is being threatened just as well, and murder is just another law to break. I, personally have no desire to end the life of another person, unless mine is threatened and it’s my life vs. theirs. If there were no other options and the way in which I live my live is at risk of being drastically and irreparably changed for the worse, I may consider murder as an option.
Love can be as toxic as it can be beautiful, and it is exponentially more likely to drive people to murder than money. Pitting lovers against spouses is deathly as is, but some people deem it necessary to simply kill one or the other quietly other than directly confronting the actual situation. Then there is the much more practical situation, in which someone you love’s life is at risk. Personally, I could see myself killing for the second reason, but absolutely not the first.

Thursday’s lecture was eye-opening as usual. Though I do understand the entirety of Sam’s argument, and can agree with it simply based on his less extreme methods for describing topics that aren’t so hot. However, as much as I would like to fully side with Sam and say I understand the position of the Middle East, I can’t. I can’t bring myself to have this argument with anyone and side with the victimized Arab Muslims. I for some reason cannot bring myself to say the same bias which fuels the war hatred for Muslims also pits Muslims against Christians. It may be religion, it may be patriotism, but I don’t feel comfortable saying the playing field is level. On a logical level it makes sense, two countries are pitted against each other over natural resources and justify it using religion.
Just as we see the evil of al-Qaida and Jihad embodied in the radical Muslims who proclaim “death to America”, they see the evil of capitalist greed and missionaries embodied in Evangelical Christians who claim the Muslims worship a false God. Whenever these hate-filled statements are made I see no immediate backing. I hear no facts or reasons because they don’t need to be. The reasons are implied: innocent people have died. We can say that since we have occupied their territory, they are mad; since we are taking their oil, they are mad; because we are killing their people, they are mad. Now that’s fine and dandy and justifies anger and insurgency now, but 9/11? How can you attempt to look any mildly patriotic American in the eye and tell them “well, we had it coming.” Now, I have no doubt that Sam has the audacity to do such a thing, but I personally can’t do it. I cannot look at what damage they’ve done and say we’ve done the same. At this point, I’m almost certain that the cause of this is bias in the sense that I live here and I don’t witness what’s happening in the Middle East the way Arab Muslims do.
So let’s take a step back; completely ignore the implications of the bias and hate, but look at the bias and hate itself again. Extremists fuel the bias, soldiers fuel the disdain. On one hand we have nut-jobs saying they want to kill someone, and on the other we have nut-jobs actually killing someone. This was the generalization that I got from Sam’s lecture. In this sense, it was eye-opening as I had never viewed Christianity as being as extreme as it can be seen from the eyes of a Muslim. To reiterate: the parts of the lecture that I just couldn’t get were the victimization of Muslims while parties on their end had also victimized us. By emphasizing the play of oil (and its relative location) in the conflict I felt that Sam was trying to make us the bad guys. Whether this was his intention or not, I didn’t like it.

Religion is the number one reason why people believe being gay is wrong. It’s a sin. Homosexuality will guarantee you a spot in hell. Well… so will most things in life that are mildly enjoyable. So the other really logical argument is simple biology. As my Mom puts is “guys have the outie, women have the innie.” We are literally built to mate with the opposite sex. We are designed to copulate and populate. So what could possibly cause someone to be attracted to the same sex if it will both get you sent to hell and you won’t have children. However, as a converse to the biology logic: despite biological design and purpose, there are hundreds abnormalities and diseases that aren’t included in the blueprint. Research has claimed to show that there is a correlation between genetics and homosexuality as well. So whether it’s demons, or disease the evidence seems to be stacked against the odds of people choosing to be gay.
So why do people still think being gay is a choice? Lack of empathy. If you are strongly attracted to the opposite sex, then how the hell can you empathize with someone who is attracted to the same sex? For those hardcore heterosexual Christians out there (present!); you can say claim that you have no opposition or prejudice against gays but that doesn’t mean you understand them. I do not find men attractive. I sometimes even find it difficult to tell how attractive one male is to another. I simply don’t know what to look for. I don’t know see anything in a man that I am attracted to or aroused by, so I simply lack the capacity to tell what about a male is attractive. I do however, see vast amounts of attractive features in women, enough in fact that my state of mind becomes “what the hell do you see in men that you like better than women!?” I can say that I choose to like women, but if I find women exponentially more attractive than men, how can I possibly choose men? But why do I find women attractive? Was it taught? Was it in my genetic coding? For the majority of heterosexuals in the world, both cases apply. So from this, we can imply that gay behavior can be either taught or genetic. However, the taught scenario may lead to the conclusion that gay behavior can still be a choice. To counter that, let’s look at other bizarre attractions: fetishes. As someone who has a fetish, I can easily say that it sure as hell isn’t a choice. I would find the most accurate description to be how Sam presented it in class: it just happens. You see something, and you become aroused. It is not something you choose to be aroused by, it simply just happens. Some theorize that these attractions are caused by some experience at an early age, but even if this is true it is not something that is a choice.

Empathy is key in making any valid argument. There are a countless number of people who will take one side of an argument based strictly on their beliefs and their experiences, but when asked a situational question their argument either falls apart or they come off as unfeeling and cruel. As Sam briefly argued in class, abortion is a great example of such an argument. The idea of pro-life is one that anyone can argue UNTIL they look at things from case to case. I recall in my discussion group we once had a discussion regarding abortion and crime rates. In particular; the presented question as whether or not people who are seemingly unfit to act as parents should be parents. In a pro-life world, there would be no alternative option and there would be children raised in an unfit environment. This may eventually lead to the ill-development of children into criminals and law breakers. To support this, it was mentioned that statistics proved that there is an inverse correlation between abortion rates and crime rates. Yes, it’s weird to think about, but there may be truth behind it. And though there are situations in which people would propagate regardless of their ability to care for their offspring, there are also cases in which people are hesitant to bring a life into this world knowing there are unfit to care for it.
To take this even further, imagine the case in which the mother to be was raped. Out of context, in a world where everyone is fit to care for their child, we may be able to agree that the child should be born. However, this is without taking into account the means by which conception occurred let alone numerous other factors. Since this was already discussed in class I’m going to move onto another argument: gay marriage.
Why do people fight against gay marriage? I’ve had the discussion with several people who are against gay marriage and what it strictly comes down to is religion and set beliefs. Marriage is thought to be a very intimate legal and personal binding of two persons who care for each other more than themselves. God and the bible tell us that it should only be between a man and a woman. Simple biology tells us it should only be between a man and a woman. What should really be asked is what is the absolute negative consequence of allowing two persons of the same sex get married? First answer and probably the most widely accepted because of its logic: because they can’t have children. Not to state the obvious, but I believe that if two persons of the same sex are in a relationship they, and the rest of the world, realize that they cannot have children. To look at it from their standpoint: we are discriminating against homosexuals ad denying them the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple based solely on the fact that they cannot have children. A specific case would be euthanasia of one member of a homosexual relationship. Suppose one partner had told another to pull the plug when the time comes, but low and behold they are denied the right because they are not a next of kin or spouse. All because they’re the same sex, and certain members of society have publicly labeled their relationship as wrong. Seems kind of messed up, especially if you’re unable to step outside of your personal beliefs (which may or may not hold any solid or logical backing) and attempt to empathize with anyone in such a situation.

First off; I’m glad Sam finally introduced the idea that everyone is subconsciously racist, as I’ve been thinking this since the class first began. Second; the total effect of latent racism on life as we know it is larger than most people, even myself, can grasp.
The main point that I believe Sam drilled on class Thursday was the idea that we identify best with people who are most like us. Because we cannot simply meet and know everyone we come in contact with on a personal level, this starts first with people who look like us. So, naturally white people will “side” with the white guy over the black guy. Though this is a rather profound statement that doesn’t account for several variables, just think about Sam’s example of the white shop-lifter who used his black friends as a distraction. It’s as if we are subconsciously taught that black people are more likely to be criminals than whites. This again goes back to my post last week, which refers to our educators on this matter as none other than the media and the general populace. Even going back to the video shown last week: when a black guy seen committing the same crime as a white guy has the cops called on him while the white guy slides. So we’re racist… oops. Now what does that do besides sabotage our first impression of every person of color that we’ll ever meet?
On the social level blacks are viewed as more violent and prone to crime. From my perspective, this creates a barrier of uneasiness and hesitation in interacting with black people which leads to a whole other mess of issues. Leading into economics: if black people aren’t viewed as equals to white people, then they’re likely to miss out on opportunities such as jobs, college, etc. which would lead to the decline in social class for many black people. Which would then, in turn lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotype of lazy back people on welfare (I’m only trying to make an example, this isn’t a generalization). This could then be brought back to Sam’s king of the mountain and staircase metaphor. We can stand on top, and tell black people to work harder and make it to the top, but in reality we’re going to either be a step ahead or kick them back down. Politically, the idea of latent racism makes more of a mess than racism itself. People try to correct for latent racism pre-emptively through programs and racial handicaps which are used as cushion whenever someone finds it necessary to pull the race card. Affirmative action would be the greatest example of this. Does it make sense? No. Can we openly say it doesn’t make sense and criticize the fact that people of color get the advantage? No, that would make us racist. Though this isn’t exactly an example, I also recall during Obama’s election campaign I had heard several people claim that they were voting for Obama because if they didn’t it would be racist. When it comes to the point that we’re so afraid of latent prejudice, that we start to change our line of thinking based strictly on trying to not be racist, there’s a problem.

Though the events in the video were terribly stereotypical, I’m still somewhat surprised that people acted the way they did. The idea that two people can commit the same crime, but one is ignored while the other is caught is an anomaly in itself. Considering how many factors were controlled in this experiment, it would be a stretch to consider other smaller variables. What it really comes down to is: does it make us racist? While those who called out the black thief claim that race didn’t make a difference in their decision, nor do the ones who gave the white thief the benefit of the doubt. Considering ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WERE WHITE, it really makes me wonder if all Caucasians are racists and brilliant liars, or if our “racism” is the result of years of subconscious exposure to racial stereotyping. What I found even more interesting is the fact that the ONLY BLACK PEOPLE that were interviewed admitted that race would have made a difference in their decision. This certainly doesn’t help our case, as the video not only makes the white community look racist, but the fact that we are completely negligent to our racism. However, the flip side of that would be a white person admitting the idea that if they had seen a white guy stealing the bike they would not have been as alarmed as they would have with the black guy. Bottom line: damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Before it looks like I’m defending the seemingly racist nature of the white persons depicted in the film, it has to be questioned if this truly does constitute racism. If blacks are constantly presented as wrong-doers and criminals, then we will project that stereotype unto all black people regardless of their personality or actions. In turn, what this comes down to is statistics and the media, which in turn again may eventually come down to racism… To skip a few steps: from what I gather, we can trace our racism all the way back to slavery and our self-proclaimed superiority over Africans. Was it taught? Was it passed down? Was it something we just couldn’t shake regardless of those who tried to change our opinion? I think that our subconscious nature which leads us to these views may be just that: subconscious. So my conclusion is… inconclusive. Are we racist? – Define Racism.
So if our prejudice towards African Americans is actually “subconsciously” rooted back to slavery and Jim Crow, are we to blame? Or is it simply a stereotype that we grew up with and pass on in the vicious “racism” cycle? As a final note, what I find more shocking is the idea brought up in class that blacks are aware of racism and not only have learned to accept it, but are encouraged to work harder because of it. Does this mean that everyone is simply accommodating racism? Are we adapting to prejudice? Too many strange questions…

I completely disagree with the idea that you cannot control your life and the way you live. Determinism is simply a belief system that eases the burden of personal responsibility for one’s self and their actions. Another problem with determinism and is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case it becomes unarguable that everything is predetermined. I personally do not like the idea of determinism because it leads many to a “que sera, sera” mentality which leads to a vicious cycle of not taking responsibility for one’s actions, and then accepting that the consequence was simply predetermined and inevitable. I believe that everyone is in control of their life and can work to make any changes that they wish. Of course, after class the annex to this statement becomes: “with the proper resources”. I had always overlooked the idea that lacking proper resources could completely hinder any changes. There are many factors beyond my control that led to my being where I am today. As much as I would like to believe that I could have personally put myself on the track to be where I am, regardless of where I started, it’s just not possible. There are more factors than I can account for that allowed me to be at Penn State alone, so to look over my entire life at what is (and was) beyond my control leaves me to conclude that there is a mix of determinism and free will that goes in to… well life. I can’t try to argue one anymore that the other simply because they are reliant on each other. In order to make a change yourself you have to have the proper resources, but in order to obtain some resources you have to make a change. So how does something become predetermined and beyond your control? My answer to this is the idea that everything that we cannot control ourselves is either in the hands of someone else or beyond anyone entirely. For example: I grew up where and how I did because my parents made decisions which put me there. If they had decided to become raging alcoholics earlier in life and were both factory workers, then the chances of my actions leading to me eventually being a Penn State student become very very slim. Alternatively, my parents could have made themselves millionaires, and regardless of my path of actions I may be able to ride their success and riches all the way to Penn State. Being that I initially walked into this class believing that the only person responsible for your fate is you, I find it pretty impressive that Sam was able to convince me that there are some barriers we cannot get past and some things are simply beyond our control.

This question is one of the most famous double edged-swords you can present anyone with. Agree and you can be called a communist, disagree and you’re cruel and heartless. When I first hear this question presented the key phrase is “less fortunate”. This can mean anything from starving children in Haiti to the people living in the projects down the road. The question is too open-ended to begin with so people either answer personally or politically. If you realize how vague the question is, you can try to avoid answering the question entirely (politically) or take whatever personal experience you’ve had with people you consider “less fortunate” and apply that to your thinking (personally). Being that I grew up down the street from low-income housing I was raised with a skewed view of the “less fortunate”. About once a week you could watch a few small children and their mother begin the pilgrimage from the top of the street to the mini-mart at the end of it, food stamps in hand. You may guess that they’d walk back with milk, bread, eggs, and other food essentials just necessary to get by on. In reality the two most popular items were Funions and Skittles. Each child usually walked out with a candy bar and sometimes an Icee or Drumstick cone. If you asked me this question at this point in my life, I would say no. I can’t agree with helping people who will openly waste the aid that they are already given on nonsense. I was a big believer in Social Darwinism in high school, believing that those who work will continue to be rewarded and those who do not shall remain in poverty until they change their behavior. Now that I realize that there are more people out there that are truly less fortunate and cannot change their condition without aid, I would have to agree. Though even this definition is funny and has to be taken from a case-to-case basis, I believe that we should have some obligation to those who are incapable of helping themselves due to lack of proper resources. However, as far as in-class discussions go about this topic, I’m not sure the “less fortunate” in America need be helped. The idea of king of the mountain seems to explain the numbers, but what will happen if you pull everyone up on the table with you? The problem with distributing the wealth in America is we can’t be sure if the table will hold everyone, or just collapse. If we were to properly distribute the wealth and level the playing field, how much would things change? If Sam’s thinking is correct in believing that the people on top control everything, then we may as well print more money and distribute that. My point being: if the people on top run the show, how can we assure that they still won’t be once they bring everyone up with them? On that note, I believe that if we really wanted to help those who are less fortunate, we need to look deep into what we consider the less fortunate: those brought up without two televisions, or those born in a tent where their house used to be.

The fact that what we consider normal and acceptable varies from culture to culture boggles me. As Americans who generally share the same social norms, we find it incredible that female hair or eating with your hands is acceptable elsewhere. However after reading the quiz materials, I realized that I never questioned how strange some of the things we consider normal are. A great example would be from the travel guide book reading which goes on to describe which forms of cooked potatoes are and aren’t acceptable to eat with your hands. Though something like this is second nature to us, it’s nearly absurd to foreigners. Another great outside view is offered by the Nacirema Body Ritual. These people are willing to put themselves through such intense torture and self-mutilation in order to simply retain an appealing appearance to those in their tribe. When I first read this article my mind was blown when someone pointed out that Nacirema is American backwards. If everyone were presented with such an extremist view of their own cultural traditions, perhaps we would begin to see eye-to-eye. I can understand why it seems ridiculous that we find natural body and facial hair unappealing, but in being brought up believing just that leaves me questioning why. As a straight male, I find myself repulsed by hair on a woman anywhere but her head. If I had been raised as a Sikh I may see things very differently, and I believe that the failure of people to view BOTH sides of this story are what causes such negative comments. Though there are those few that claim she is “strong” or “courageous” they are accused by others of being blind to the social side of the argument. The question and central argument surrounding this woman and her appearance has become “what’s more important: appearance or faith?” Is this even the central argument? I believe that this could be interpreted as the argument to those who are so focused on the interpretation of her actions in American social context that they completely ignore the context in another culture. Let’s reverse the situation for a moment: American girl who is completely shaved lives in a Sikh community and is judged harshly for her beliefs in what looks appropriate in her culture versus the religious beliefs of the surrounding community. How big of a deal is facial hair in her culture anyway? Do we become the strange ones for shaving in her view? To summarize: I believe that the commenters are both right and wrong in their assumptions and conclusions. We can’t assume that she agrees in seeing facial hair on women the same way that we do, so can we call her strong and courageous? She seems very comfortable in replying to the situation as a whole which leads me to believe that she does not. However, to tie in with my theme, I don’t think I can appropriately make this assumption which would leave many commenters to be correct. Right or wrong, I believe that everyone needs to consider this as a possibility before they jump to conclusions and assume she shares our cultural beliefs on women’s facial hair.
I know this is a rather round-about way to respond to the posed question, but I thought that a simple “the commenters are shallow minded and can’t see the bigger picture” wouldn’t quite be as interesting of a read.