This class was probably the first time the entire semester where I could honestly stay focused the entire hour and fifteen minutes, and completely understand what Sam was trying to say. He isn't suggesting that Christians are running a crusade against all of Islam, but from a Middle Eastern college student, it sure looks that way. We look at the Middle East in the same way they look at us. We can see a few news clips on YouTube or in a Google search, and come up with our own reasoning to how they are terrorists. I never would have tried to look at it from their perspective, it is very scary. I am not a Christian, but this is definitely a Christian country. I don't believe that this war is about religion though; it is still about getting oil so the US will continue to be superior to all of the Middle East.

Another point I found very interesting about this class was it was the first time all 700 students were grouped as one unit. We might not all be Americans, but we are clearly all living here, and attending Penn State. Terrorism directly affects all of us in the room--regardless of race and color. When Sam turned the tables and told us ALL to look at it from a Middle Eastern college students perspective, we were all still a unit. I think this lecture really hit home because instead of talking about boobs and periods, we discussed something huge on a global scale. We discussed it in a way that most people in the room would have never looked at it, and I agree with Sam, I understand where they are coming from.

However, whether you are a radical Christian or a radical Muslim, it is still very frightening. The way they take religion to the most extreme point. For example, the rally against the UK teacher who had a teddy bear in class named Muhammad. There are definitely radical Christians living in the US. However, radicals do not make up the majority in either place. A lot of the videos were extremely biased, but the US media makes it look one-way as well. No matter where in the world there is war, innocent civilians are affected. We just happened to be looking at the war going on in the Middle East. Those pictures of the college students could have been from anywhere in the world. I know that if I was not an American and perceived what they were doing (based on soldiers, the government, and media) I would want to fight against them as well. This topic was extremely interesting because it was so easy for us to understand what it was like in the perspective of a Middle Eastern college student, but we still struggle to see what it is like as a White/Black college student.

This is definitely something that I have asked myself many times during this semester. If this class changed everyone's opinions so easily, we'd live in a very different world. However, most people have these opinions that are so embedded with their values and experiences. One semester of lectures with Sam Richards is not going to immediately change my opinion. This class does make me think and make me question many different issues. I have never left a lecture or discussion without having new thoughts on my head. I know that all of the outlandish statements and examples are all supposed to somehow tie together and relate to race and ethnicity. Sam purposely says things to get a rise out of us. For example, the whole period thing got very out of hand at the end of class. People were offended or weirded out and started to get up and leave. Whatever his motive was, Sam definitely got people talking about women and their periods. A few days later in my section, this whole "issue" was brought up again. Being able to sit down in a much smaller setting and speak our minds is what makes this class great. There are only two guys in my section and I think that made the whole period talk a lot more comfortable and interesting. The guys felt awkward at first because they didn't know how to approach the period situation because no matter how much they can try and empathize, they are not girls with vaginas and will never "bleed". This is exactly the same issue that whites and blacks have with talking about race and ethnicity. These topics are very sensitive and being in this class has definitely made me open up about race, and learn a lot from other people. Overall, I don't think my opinions have changed much. I have always been open and accepting of other people, but have always grown up where 99% of my friends were white. I am definitely one of those people who gets frustrated during class because some of the comments Sam makes are irritating, but I think that if you look at the big picture--he is certainly getting his point across. As a class, we cannot take everything he says so literally. All the ridiculous comments have a purpose, he wouldn't be teaching a sociology class with 30 something sections if it didn't all tie together at some point. The fact that this class makes us question ourselves and the people around us means that he is doing something right. If you leave Sam's class with a new perspective or idea that you would have never thought of without sitting through one of the lectures, then I am sure he is happy.

I think that this is a very interesting approach to eliminating "white guilt". In the majority of American school districts, we do not hear the "truth" to most historical events until high school. For example, in elementary school we celebrated Christopher Columbus and how great he was. "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." In reality, he destroyed a society in a similar way that Europeans stole land from Native Americans. I know that I have learned a lot in various upper level history courses about the oppression of Native Americans and African Americans, but it is hard to empathize with them. In an ideal world, the curriculum could somehow include a section on race relations where the "white team" would be oppressed for a day to see how it is. However, that would probably cause a lot of debate and most teachers don't have that kind of leverage, especially in public schools. It is true though that all textbooks are written from a white perspective. Learning about history from this angle for our entire lives makes it very difficult to see things in another light. That doesn't necessarily make someone unintelligent; this is how they were always taught. It is also interesting to remember what Sam said in class yesterday about how history is also written from a male's perspective. If we heard all minorities points of views on history, I think everyone would be much more open minded and accepting of what is different or unique. This is something that would need to be done from a young age. Most assemblies/speakers brought in to schools during Black History Month or some other time of the year do not happen until students are at least in middle school. The history books for elementary school students are very sheltered and provide them with a lot of false information. They glorify events that have truly destroyed others, and are mainly from the perspective of the white male. It is very difficult to make changes in a society that has these stereotypes, differences, and diversity embedded into our culture. Yet, it is our job to educate the future generations, and I believe that this is where we can make a difference.

Like many others have commented, I personally don't feel a true "white guilt". Its frustrating sitting in class and having people point fingers. My family has not been in America for more than the early 20th century, and just because I am white doesn't mean I destroyed an entire society. I guess you can also turn this around and say, "Just because I am Black/Native American doesn't mean I am angry and trying to put a blame on you." Either way, it is a huge catch 22, and I am not sure how it will ever be resolved.

It is sad that in this day and age a lesbian couple cannot enjoy going to a high school event based on their sexual orientation. It is terrible that Itawamba County Agricultural High School would cancel the prom based on one couple. Not only are they punishing this lesbian couple, but they are letting down all of the juniors and seniors at the school. This will only further alienate the couple and make people despise them. Prom is a very memorable event for the students and their dates, and is a night you will always remember. It is something you have been looking forward to for all of high school and have discussed, stressed, and fought about with your friends. By shutting down this year's prom, the students must be flipping out. The school district is just digging themselves a deep hole because what they are doing is very wrong. They are only bringing attention to their school district and their extremely old fashioned beliefs. They are clearly being prejudice against gays and lesbians and now the LGBT community is upset. Its scary that the school district would think that the best solution to this "problem" is to just cancel the prom. McMillen even asked for approval and didn't just show up to the event. The school board cannot decide who someone can bring as a date to prom or what you are allowed to wear. It is completely ridiculous that she would be banned from wearing a tuxedo. I could understand if she was wearing something obscene, but wearing a tuxedo is in no way offensive to anybody. It is also really sad that the school stated that they would ask the couple to leave if any other students felt "uncomfortable". It is disgusting that the school is this anti-gay rights and thinks what they are doing is okay. Clearly they did not realize the news coverage that this story was going to attract. I really hope that the students at this high school don't completely make McMillen and her girlfriend's lives miserable over this. It isn't fair that they are being punished for something they believe in. Bringing someone of the same sex to prom is in no way harmful or offensive to any of the other students. The school district is trying to make it seem like it is okay to leave people out if their views aren't the same as "normal people". It is frightening that people would send their kids to a school that makes it seem like it is perfectly okay to alienate a couple like this. It is a shame that the school responded by not only compromising the happiness of McMillen, but ruining the rest of the school's fun as well.

When I first think of themed parties, I would sooner be offended at the sexual connotations based on people's outfits, before I would assume they are attacking any race. This is an excuse for girls to dress extremely slutty and most parties are based around the guy being in control. For example, there are CEO and Corporate Hoe parties where the guy is in a suit and the girl is the dirty secretary, or Dirty School Girl and Naughty Professor parties. This encourages girls to dress extremely degrading to be noticed by guys at the party. These parties are obviously not made by white people to make fun of any other group of people. However, seeing white people dress up to be "thugs" or "ghetto" could be clearly offensive. I am certain that the majority of themed parties are not insulting black people at all. Some popular themed parties are CEO/Corporate Hoes, Holiday, Letter, High School Stereotypes, Anything But Clothes, Toga, etc. All of these types of parties are purely for entertainment. The only offensive thing these parties are usually doing is commenting on current pop culture, not on race. They have never been about race or ethnicity.

I do think it is interesting how she comments on these parties only being hosted and attended by white people. I do not know where that stereotype comes from, and am interested in what parties she is talking about. I don't think any of this is done in a racist way and it is ridiculous to jump to conclusions. Themed parties are a fun way to spend the night with your friends, not to make fun of different racial groups. I think this is a really big misconception because I certainly don't think a fraternity or apartment would ever host a 'thugs and gangstas' party or something that could potentially be offensive. This is never the intentions of a themed party.

I definitely agree with some of the above comments that race relation issues do not have to be brought into every type of situation. The majority of themed parties are based on some sort of social commentary, not to attack a group of people. I don’t understand why the question is directed just towards white people having these types of parties. She is stereotyping white people the same way she assumes they are stereotyping her. I think our society has a lot of miscommunications towards innocent things (ie: themed parties). I am not sure how all of these issues can be or should be addressed, but they are certainly prevalent in our daily lives.

I agree with this point that he is making on the flip camera. During the class, I kept thinking that no one in this room should be "taking the blame" for this. Whether you just immigrated here two years ago or your great-great-great-great-great-parents were white plantation owners, does not make anyone in this generation responsible for these actions. However, it is our responsibility to take action in our society to accept people and attempt to break down prejudices against people. Personally, most of my ancestors came here in the early 20th century. Some of them escaped the Holocaust, some didn't. Does that mean that anyone in the class who happens to be from Germany should "take the blame" for the actions of that genocide? I don't think it is fair in either case to try and bring these historical issues into our hands. I believe that most of the statements Sam makes in class are meant to get a rise out of people, clearly, a lot of people were upset when he was talking about this. It made the room seem even more divided. The line between who "should" take the blame is extremely fuzzy because America is such a diverse country. The majority of the people in the class probably don't even have direct ancestors who were ever in contact with Native Americans.

I watched a few of the other videos from this discussion and saw the one where the girl wanted to know what we think we can do (from a student's opinion) about this issue. I believe that all of the violence, fighting, and war that has happened to many different groups of people is something that has happened in the past. In an ideal world, it would simply stay in the past letting us all move forward. However, the problem is that we are born into all different kinds of families that have different belief systems. We all grow up living very different lives and having very different experiences that shape us into the people we are. It is extremely complicated to say that these issues will be resolved, but we have come an extremely long way. It is very unfortunate that Native Americans land was taken from them and after seeing those statistics it is scary how the average is a very low socioeconomic class. As we learned a few weeks ago, we are born into different types of lives and for some it is harder to overcome life's obstacles. I don't know how this can be resolved because I don't think there can ever be true equality. It sounds great in theory to live in a world where everyone can live comfortably, but like someone in class said about survival of the fittest. It would just happen all over again. It is hard to face the facts of the past, but I think that as a whole, we need to accept the actions of the past in order to move forward.

I believe that lesbians are more accepted in society because of how they are portrayed in the media. Many lesbians are viewed as young and attractive women. Guys are "turned on" by women engaging in sexual activities together. It is unfortunate that this is the reason why lesbians are accepted by these men. Real lesbian couples can be any type of women who are attracted to each other. A lot of the media glamourizes these couples for all of the wrong reasons. I think that guys accept lesbians and women accept gay men. They are more comfortable with people of the opposite sex who are open about their sexuality. It is interesting how the media can sway people's points of views toward sexuality. Personally, gay and lesbian couples do not bother me at all. I think a person is allowed to love or be sexually active with any person regardless of sex. No one should be offended or disturbed by these couples because as Sam said, they are not harming anybody. Just because these people are not the common couples you always see does not mean that they should not be accepted in the society. It is unfortunate that gay men are not as accepted in society, however I feel like times are changing and gay people are more accepted. However, that is in more urban areas than across the country. For instance, as Sam stated in class more corporations are open to gay people, but that is usually in bigger cities. Also, in the new TV show, Modern Family, two of the main characters are gay. We are beginning to see these people in everyday instances. Although gay couples have to deal with a lot of discrimination and problems by homophobic people, I truly believe times are changing. Gay people are widely accepted into society today and I hope that one day we can all live cohesively. In the end, this issue relates directly back to the issue between whites and blacks. Just because someone is against the "norm" does not mean that they should not be accepted into society. Hopefully, our world is moving forward rather than going a few steps backwards.

Wow. If I was listening to this politician speak and he actually used this metaphor, I would have definitely been one of many people looking around the room thinking what the hell, did he really just say that? As a politician, it is inevitable that you will at some point in your career offend some group of people and piss people off. That being said, Andre Bauer, clearly crossed the line of what is appropriate to say in regards to touchy subjects. It is clear that he is opposed to welfare, but by grouping people who need welfare as animals is a ridiculous statement. It was an unprofessional statement and extremely inappropriate. This is not an issue of political correctness, it is being completed ignorant to the fact that he has to play both cards. In order to be make his ratings stay high, he cannot make such a bad slip in a speech. Another scary thought is the fact that he must have rehearsed this Town Hall speech and no one had even stopped him from making this stupid mistake, not even himself. How could someone reread that speech in their head and think that they just came up with a great metaphor to explain the welfare issue?

On another note, this is similar to what we discussed in class today. Andre Bauer is clearly a man who is well off, and is a Southern politician. Odds are he came from a wealthy background and welfare was never even a thought to him during his childhood. As Sam said in this blog post, a lot of the people on welfare are children. Did they choose to be in this position? This was the path they were given and perhaps getting welfare is a step closer to them overcoming the obstacles in their life. It is not fair that some people have a cake walk through life while other people need to be dependent on things such as welfare. I am not sure as to where I stand on this issue--I definitely believe that welfare can definitely help people suffering from poverty. However, as Sam said in class in regards to the Oprah video about the two high schools in Illinois, the wealthy parents want their tax money to go directly to benefit their communities. Regardless of your stand on the situation, it was 100% wrong of this politician to even compare these people to animals. It was a very crude comment and extremely demeaning. If people need help and government support, they are certainly not animals. Many of these people are still contributing members of society. He publicly humiliated himself and probably hurt his career over making such a stupid statement and generalizing so many different types of people.

This article is very interesting because in the year 2010 we are still arguing about race and ethnicity, and it is still as sensitive of a topic as it was 50 years ago. It is a shame that although our culture is much more advanced and America is looked at as a "giant melting pot" we still do not know how to refer to each other. Political correctness, especially in the media, is a hard and tricky subject. We try to not offend anybody, but in the end, it is impossible to not piss off someone in an entire race. I personally do not understand what is wrong with placing "negro" on the census. Yes, the term is a little outdated, but it has been used on the past census. There are dozens and dozens of names to refer to any group of people from all over the world. I don't understand why if people are offended by the listings, they do not count themselves on it. However, I think that in a country as diverse as the United States, a census will never be close to accurate. As Sam Richards stated in class this week, you can call yourself whatever you want to be. If your mother is from Jamaica and your father is from India, you can be either of the two. You classify yourself the way you want to be classified. This is why being forced to place yourself into a group is a sensitive and potentially offending situation. Each year, more and more people descendants of mixed races which also makes this hard. If people are allowed to check off more than one option, it will still be impossible to count each person. The census is a giant catch 22. If you allow people to classify themselves they are being forced into one extremely broad category. For example, the term "negro" can classify tons of different kinds of people. You can be of African, West Indies, or African-American origin. It is hard to say if it is fair to group all of these people together. Then you have people who can have an African mother and a white father, what is the fair place to put them? If they have dark skin but were raised in a white family, what are they? No one should have to be classified into a category. By having to fill out the 2010 census, we are still creating the same race barriers that this country was established on. It is hard to classify an entire country into various different categories, every family has its own individual roots which make everyone different. Even within each broad category there are different types of people. The term “negro” is just one of the many issues that the United States government will have to debate about on this year’s census as well as in the future. This is a hard topic to tackle, and I don’t think this issue will be resolved in the near future.

I think it is completely ridiculous for a government to ban women from wearing burqas. Although it is a personal and religious choice that I still do not quite grasp, no one should stop them from wearing what they want. Many of these woman wear the burqas because of religious reasons and if the government tries to step in and stop them, it will make the line between religion and government very blurred. This reminds me of the other blog post where the boy was praying on a plane with tefillin. If he was to wear his tefillin in public, would the government try and stop him? Would they think it is wires and cables of a bomb he is planning to blow up? It is unfortunate that in our society today we are very, very cautious around unfamiliar cultures. In the video clip, the women wearing the burqas appear as outcasts in the city because every shot is of them walking alone or with one other person. It is their personal choice to wear a burqa and trying to conform these people to be more like "the French" is absurd. Trying to make them fit in and strip them of their personal beliefs is wrong, but enforcing it with the law sounds like an impossible task. Will the government stop a woman on the street and make her take off her burka and publicly humiliate her? By legally banning burquas, it will make them appear as more of a taboo and as dangerous. It is an item of clothing! Ruling it is an illegal item to wear publicly shines a very negative light on Muslim culture. It is sad that in such an advanced society, people immediately get nervous when they see a woman in a burqua. They are not bad people and they are wearing their burquas as a choice. Stopping them from wearing the burquas is oppressing these women and their culture. I don't understand what makes the French government believe that they can regulate and know what people should and shouldn't wear. How does a government determine what is right from wrong? All people should be free to present themselves however they want, especially if it is for their own religious purposes. However, if the French people were living in a Muslim country, they would be treated differently because of what they wear and how they appear in public. The people who are from the country would be judging them and stereotyping them the same way the French people are. It is very hard for people to break the barrier now when it comes to stereotypes and stop looking at what people appear on the outside. No matter where you are in the world, you will encounter very different cultures. Instead of trying to ban something that is different, we should embrace it.