I thought Sam's example of a straight couple in public versus a gay couple in public was an important point as well. As someone who has always supported gay rights, I admit that I stare when I see a same sex couple holding hands in public. I feel guilty for doing it and as a supporter, it baffles me that I feel a need to stare. I guess it is because being open about a same sex relationship is still somewhat taboo. It's just not something you see everyday, so it catches your attention when you do see it.

Immigration is a polarizing topic in our country. I liked that part of the lecture presented immigration from the objective view of its effect on business. It is hard for me to define my opinion on illegal immigration. As Sam pointed out, it has definitely become an essential part of our economy. People who are for illegal immigration argue that illegal immigrants perform jobs that American citizens are unwilling to perform. I agree with this point as well. Conversely, I do think it is unfair for taxpayers to take on the burden of people who are not even citizens. It is a complicated situation, and one that I have never been able to form a clear opinion of.

This lecture reminded me of a debate project I did my junior year of high school. My English teacher split the class into teams and every two teams were given a dueling topic to debate about. Both the topic and the position your team took were assigned. My team got assigned the topic of illegal immigration with the position that it is wrong. At first, I was annoyed to get assigned the “Republican” position. Even though I was conflicted about illegal immigration, as I am today, I did not like feeling pigeon-holed in an ideology I did not subscribe to. In the end, the debate project gave me a new outlook on the immigration issue. My research uncovered surprising information. For example, I learned that George W. Bush formulated a guest/worker program as an answer to illegal immigration. As someone who thinks that Bush is a moron, I was surprised to learn that I actually agreed with an initiative he came up with. In the end, maybe Bush’s idea embodies my stance on illegal immigration. The plan recognizes the profound need for such workers while acknowledging that the current system of illegal immigration is not fair to taxpayers.

People who tout the idea that “damn foreigners should learn to speak English” have always irritated me. I would think it is common knowledge that learning a foreign language as an adult is incredibly difficult, but apparently it is not. I liked Sam’s example of the person who said they were living in Sweden and did not bother to learn the language but they think that people coming to the United States must learn English. It really does boil down to hypocrisy. I’m certain that most of the people who think that immigrants need to learn English would not themselves learn another language if they moved to another country. Sam pointed out that second generation immigrants do learn the native language and culture, so it really is just a matter of the age you are introduced to a new culture.

I am glad that Sam did a lecture on the LGBT relations. I think there is an obvious parallel between racial subjugation and sexual orientation subjugation. I have often thought that the fight for gay rights is like the second coming of the civil rights movement. Sometimes when I think these sorts of things to myself, I wonder if I am being a bit melodramatic. Because of this, I felt validated when Sam said that he too considered gay rights an offshoot of people of color fighting for civil rights in the 1960s.

I have always supported gay rights. I can understand why religious people dislike homosexuality, but I do not think it gives them the right to try and deny fellow human beings the right to marry. I prescribe to the notion, if you do not agree with something, then don’t do it. If you are against drugs, don’t do them. Likewise, if you disagree with homosexuality, don’t engage in a homosexual relationship. People should express their opinion through their own actions, not by policing those around them. Beliefs should be conveyed through one’s own behavior and personal accountability. As an animal rights advocate, I express my belief through vegetarianism. I don’t think that everyone should be a vegetarian like me, because I think it is up to an individual to decide what they should and should not eat. It is not my place to monitor people’s diet. Similarly, people who are against gay marriage should not deny the gay community the right to marry. Such people can express their opinions by not getting a gay marriage, by not attending gay pride events, and by not associating with gay people. I just think it’s incredibly inflated for a person to think that their individual opinion should be the guiding beacon for the rest of the world to live by.

Sam’s point about how gay parents are almost guaranteed to foster a loving environment for their children reminded me of one of the main pillars in the argument against gay marriage: allowing gays to marry will ruin the institution of marriage, along with the family structure in the United States. This argument always struck me as ludicrous. How could a law that allows more people who are in love with each other to marry ruin the “institution of marriage?” Aren’t two people sharing a deep love the centerpiece of marriage? Sam’s point addresses the latter insinuation, that gay marriage would ruin the family structure. I don’t see how giving a (most likely orphaned) child two loving parents is ruining family values. I know there is more to the opposition than the following argument, but my awesomely cynical uncle once pointed out to me that allowing gay people to marry leads to greater tax breaks for the population, which could be one of the reasons the government does not wish to legalize gay marriage.

I thought Sam's talk about how adoptive parents incorporate their child's culture into their upbringing was interesting as well. Even though I am not interested in having kids of my own, adoption is a topic that really interests me. I've hypothetically wondered on many occasions how I would raise an adopted child to appreciate their culture.

It's amazing that your grandma has had the generosity to help so many desolate children. I can imagine how tense being an adoptive parent must be in the teen years, when adoptees naturally start to wonder about their biological origins.

Culturally speaking, we often do not approach race issues with in depth discussions about a single race’s experience with society. As a white person, learning about the Racial Identity Stages for people of color was enlightening. Initially, I did not know how engaged I would be with this topic. I thought that it might be too difficult for me to relate to, so I would just feel lost and disinterested. I was pleasantly surprised when the lecture got underway and I found it even more interesting than the lecture about white culture. I especially liked the lecture title. Referring to non-white people in a white culture as metaphorical amphibians created a striking introduction to the topic. Immersion seems like the most confusing stage. It is interesting how one’s own culture is the only one considered truly important, with other non-white cultures considered allies. Anyone who deviates from the collective vision of what it means to be a member of a certain culture is ridiculed. The LL Bean ad was a good example of this. There is controversy amongst all cultures when members appear to take on the mantle of a different culture. It seems like a divisive and inflammatory stage, because it encourages an “us versus them” mentality. While I understand how being non-white in a white culture would lend itself to this mode of thinking, it seems like deeper understanding of race relations cannot be achieved in this stage.
One particular bulleted example for the disintegration stage caught my eye. The first statement, attributed to white people, “You make matters worse by segregating yourselves,” reminded me of a comment a white person I know recently made. They said they did not understand why minorities complain about segregation, only to socially segregate themselves by choice. I said that there is a difference between gravitating toward people you share a culture with and legally being segregated. The dialogue spiraled into a racist rant on her end, and me awkwardly avoiding eye contact on my end. I know that statement was just a minor point on the slide, but it just reminded me of the bizarre conversation I had.
Another part of the lecture that caught my attention was Sam’s brief discourse on homosexuality. I completely agree that a lot of people who express hostility toward the LGBT community are probably doing so as a decoy from their own urges. Homosexuality is considered effeminate and in my experience, men who are insecure about their masculinity are the most likely to criticize homosexuality.

The news story about the white supremacist band Prussian Blue stuck with me as well. I think it is a classic case of parents passing their ignorance to their offspring. It is good that your parents encouraged you to form your own opinions and explore your individuality. Clearly, those girls were not as fortunate as you were. It is hard to believe that these parents encourage their children to dance around a swastika. While I watched the video, part of me wondered if the girls were brainwashed. As you said, they seemed so unknowledgeable about the history behind their beliefs. It seemed like they were force-fed white supremacy from birth and never exposed to any other philosophies.

This was one of my favorite lectures due to all of the opportunities it provides for complex discourses. First of all, Prussian Blue is crazy and terrifying. I remember reading a feature on them in one of my lil teen magazines when I was a puny high schooler. I kept coming back to the article about them, because I could not believe that such a musical group could enjoy success in the United States in the 21st century. When I saw the video about them in the lecture, I thought they seemed oddly familiar. I quickly realized who they were after flashing back to the magazine story I read as a teenager. It is disgusting that politicians endorse these girls. I was particularly appalled by the sisters’ opinion on Hitler’s Holocaust, when they were all UM HITLER WAS JUST TRYING TO KEEP THE RACE PURE. ALSO, HE SOOO DIDN’T KILL THAT MANY JEWS. When the mother came on and matter-of-factly said that parents pass their beliefs onto their offspring, it made me pity those two girls. In different hands, they could have grown up to be sensitive, open-minded people.

The Red House furniture commercial as an example of the awakening stage was a favorite of mine. I still can’t decide if Red House set out to make a ridiculous commercial or if the store was being completely serious. I would like to think that they were serious about it, because it makes the ad even more hilarious.

When Sam discussed the appropriate situations to clarify a person’s race with the example of his two TAs, it reminded me of a story a white friend of mine (we’ll call her Lucy) recently told me. Lucy was purchasing a shirt when the cashier asked Lucy who helped her out in the fitting room. Lucy couldn’t remember the woman’s name, so the cashier asked for a physical description. Lucy’s fitting room attendant happened to be black, but she did not want to say so, in case she offended anyone. The cashier never figured out who helped Lucy, all due to Lucy’s attempt at political correctness. Lucy clearly meant well, but her discomfort with race led to the fitting room attendant missing out on a commission.

This lecture also taught me about the white people/washcloth conundrum. As a white person, I definitely contribute to this stereotype. I use a washcloth about 20% of the time. I’m going to try and amp up that percentage so that I don’t feed into smelly white people stories. They’re so annoying though! They don’t retain soap very well, they’re scratchy, and I always forget to take them out of the shower so then my roommates have to awkwardly navigate around my soggy washcloth when they shower. Excuses aside, I’m going to start using washcloths.

Sam’s story about helping a paralyzed man pee stuck with me as well. I kept thinking about how I would have behaved in Sam’s situation (which, as a girl, I probably never would be). If a disabled person needed help peeing, I would help because the alternative of pants wetting would suck. My ignorance concerning the standard operating procedure for guy whizzing would definitely be a hindrance though. I don’t know how firmly those bits need to be held or how to aim during urination. All in all, I think it’s safe to say that I would be super awkward about the whole thing.

This lecture came from a unique perspective in a race relations class. When speaking of race relations in the United States, most people would reference the tension between whites and non-whites. This tension is what I thought the main focus of the class would be. While I was surprised when Sam announced that from this point forward in the course we are no longer to approach racial issues under the lens of equality, I think it ultimately leads to a more well-rounded dialogue on race.

If I had to boil this course down to a cozy phrase, I would say SOC119 is about exploring the unexplored with race. White culture is rarely touched upon in discussions of race. Usually, the focus is on various minorities and their experiences in a white culture. I never considered white culture as an entity onto itself before this lecture. Now that it has been outlined for me, I am surprised that our culture tends to overlook white culture in dialogues about race. It seems like a blatant topic to disregard.

I liked the resources that Sam used for this lecture. The first time I encountered “Stuff White People Like,” I remember being affronted that someone would assume to know my personal interests based on my race. Upon closer inspection, I realized that I legitimately like about 70% of the topics outlined. Gift card to Anthropology? Awesome. Ray-Ban Wayfarers? Proud owner of a pair since age 16. Girls with bangs? I AM ONE. I am the epitome of whiteness.

The California street sign was pretty crazy too. It is insane that a sign like that is on display. Even though I think Carlos Mencia is annoying, he raised an interesting point by doing a segment on that sign. Also, how dumb is the guy being interviewed for using a racial slur after someone “said” that the camera was off?

The Robert Byrd video was such a mess. What was he even talking about? It irritates me when older people justify using racial slurs by saying that those words did not hold the same meaning in their youth that they do now. I know that no politician issues his/her own statements, but it nonetheless irked me how blatant it was that Byrd did not write the hasty apology statement himself.

I think I mainly belong in the awakening stage of racial identity. The description, “tendency to avoid racial issues,” resonated with me. On numerous occasions, I have backed out of intense conversations about race with lines like, “Racism is such a mind-fuck, I wouldn’t even know where to begin,” or, “I don’t think I really have the knowledge or authority to make informed statements about race/racism.” I like to think I am evolving past this stage, but I still feel like I would be uncomfortable engaging in race relation discussions outside of a classroom context, or amongst close friends.

I happened upon the Guyism article "The 66 Most Overrated Women of 2011" through a third party website, and I was blown away by what a bleak look it provided into our culture. As someone who normally applauds critical analysis of today's world, I had trouble supporting a list where a woman's relevance is defined, not by her intelligence, but by how physically attractive she is compared to other women. Granted, it is inevitable to question an article whose resources include Maxim and FHM. I'm sure your website would argue that the article was done in jest and should not be taken seriously. As someone known for her sense of humor, I had trouble finding the laughs in an article lamenting that Taylor Swift beat, "babes like Jessica Alba and Rihanna" on Maxim's Hot 100.

I don't know what I was expecting from a website whose Popular Tags include, "cleavage," "sexy news," and "drunkenness." I guess I just thought that in the year 2011, men would have enough going on, intellectually speaking, that judging women solely for their physical appearance would be a thing of the past. Mark me as wrong on that one!