I think that so many white people are against affirmative action as a result of ignorance and a lack of being privilege cognizant. I think that it would be safe to say that most white people would not know about the history of affirmative action and how it has helped them. Along with that, I think that most white people would turn a blind eye to scenarios like the one that Sam demonstrated in class, where a white person is hired over a black person with the same, if not better, credentials. I think that white people are against affirmative action because it doesn’t help them, as it once did. Which is why it is so needed now. Way back when, I read a Times Magazine article about how there would be no mixed race middle class if it were not for affirmative action. With that said, I think that it is needed, as the upper class, and middle class, should not be dominated by one race, as that leads to even more socially constructed hierarchies that ruin society. I took a philosophy class on race, and a comparative literature class on human rights, and in both classes, discussions on affirmative action took place. It seemed that most white people felt like affirmative action but them at a disadvantage, and was making them pay for consequences of their ancestors. However, like I stated earlier, that is just the case of being privilege ignorant, when those in dominant social standing are unaware. And, those who whine about paying for what their ancestors did are just as ignorant, and fail to realize how the past dictates the future and thus we cannot ignore the past, and how it put an entire race at a disadvantage for no reason. I also think that white people are against affirmative action because they exaggerate the means of the program. A lot of white people in my other race classes talked about how unfair affirmative action was, especially for college acceptances and jobs. Interesting word choice of “unfair”, since many things that happened to blacks, and are still happening are unfair. In regards to college acceptance, I feel that most people are under the notion that a black student can get into a really good school with horrible grades while a white student needs exceptional grades. FALSE. While the average GPA might differ between the different races, it does not differ by some huge margin. And, while talking about what is unfair for college acceptance, it is important to note that there are white students who pay their way into Ivy Leagues, or who get in because of who they know. How is that fair? Those who do not benefit from things will always be against it, and that is why whites are against affirmative action, because it is not in place to help them, as it once did. I also think that there are white people, or non-blacks, who can’t stand to see blacks “make it”. Meaning, that since affirmative action can aid in that process, it stands in the way of what whites want to see. It also threatens their hegemony as being the dominant group in society, and with that said, why would they be for it.

It is hard to predict what the case would be if the scandal involved only women. There are very few public cases about women raping younger boys or girls (even though it happens) and with that said, if the scandal involved only women, the scandal could be bigger, publicly, but it would not be viewed the same. Pedophilia has been in grained in society as a heinous crime between men and younger boys, or younger girls. When one thinks of pedophilia, the abuser is usually viewed as a man. So, if it were a woman, the story would be rare, thus causing more media attention, but I do not think that the woman, who would be like Sandusky, would be treated as harshly because of her gender. Although I think that the case would be blown up, I do not think that all the same implications and judgments would be made- as they have now-beyond lashing out against the abuser. Women are seen as nurtures and caregivers, who do not have the gentiles that men have that they then use to penetrate kids, while raping them. Thus, the status and type of the rape is much different, and thus would possibly not be viewed as negatively. Nonetheless, there are reporters who have said that the scandal is only as bad as it is because of the lack of women involved. One reporter has stated that in all places that lack women’s presence as figure heads, for example: the White House, the Military, and Penn State, problems are bound to arise. This is an interesting notion. Because it goes to show how women are perceived as being smarter, holding more morals, and keeping the peace. There are studies that show that women contemplate moral dilemmas differently than men. Which goes to show that if women were involved in the scandal, it may not have even been a scandal. However, if there was a scandal, I think that it would tarnish women’s image in society the way that it has tarnished Penn State’s. As opposed to society and the media accusing Penn State as a whole, as they have done now, I think that they would use the case and apply it to women as a species, instead of Penn State. I think that if the scandal involved only women, it would change the way all women are viewed—which could be detrimental to women in society. Since men are what people think of when regarding pedophiles, if women were to become the new face of pedophiles as a result of the scandal, it would be reflected upon women in general. Still, being a woman, I would like to think that if the case involved women, that it would not have gotten as out of control as it did, because I like to be optimistic and think that things would have been different.

I think that it is interesting to question when one’s morals have been tested. I’d say that people’s morals are tested everyday and people just do not realize it because the importance of morality in society is decreasing. A Notre Dame sociologist, Christian Smith, researched the role that morality plays in young adults decision-making, and wrote about it in his book “Lost in Translation”. Smith interviewed 230 young adults in America and when asked them to describe a moral dilemma that they faced, two thirds could not answer the question, nor could they describe a moral problem. Morality is a failing concept in society, proven by the scandal happening at our school. No one did what was morally correct, just because of who was involved and what was at stake. But, how many times does anyone do what is morally correct? How often do you let your friends drive drunk or high, or cheat on a test or your significant other? When dealing with the spectrum of what is morally right and what is morally wrong, there are arbitrary definitions that fit under the terms due to one’s personal moral beliefs. Which also poses a problem for morality and ethics in society, since universal claims cannot be applied to them. At the point where universal claims cannot be applied to them, how can one judge other’s morality, and vice versa? So, when asked, how would I react to my morals being tested? I would weigh the scenario based on which outcome I valued more. For instance, in light of the scandal, the Penn State football program, and image was valued over the welfare of the children. With that said, one’s values direct one’s moral decision making. Since one outcome will be valued more to fulfill a certain end, the decision is not always the most moral, but that is because we are all human, and not saints, and it is human nature to be in the wrong at times. In Christian Smith’s study, he found that most of the respondents of his study said that “moral choices are a matter of individual taste”, meaning, it is up to the individual. Which also poses a problem for morality. If morality cannot be viewed in a universal light, it is problematic to leave it on a case by case basis. In regards to Joe Paterno, a lot of people like to argue that he did not uphold his moral obligation to tell the police. According to Smith’s study, many young people in society have not been given the resources to cultivate their knowledge on moral obligations, which can be applied to society at large. So, when my morals are tested, it would be nice to say that I would do the right thing, but I cannot guarantee that because I am human, and what it right to me may not be right to others. A New York Times article reported on Smith’s study saying that “morality was once revealed, inherited, and shared but now its thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart.” I agree with that statement to some extent, because when faced with having my morals tested, I would probably do what I felt in my heart was the right thing to do.

Should Immigrants have to speak English? No. Contrary to popular belief, the United States of America DOES NOT have an official language. America is known as a melting pot, and the lack of an official language keeps the ingredients of that melting pot even. Therefore, when immigrants come to America, they should not be forced to know the language. There are many immigrants who die after living years and years in America, without being fluent in English. Therefore, I would think that it is easily empirically proven that people can thrive in society without knowing the dominant language. Sure, I’ll concede that learning the language would make immigrants lives easier, but that does not mean it is a necessity. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note the Americans who are proponents of immigrants knowing the language are hypocrites, as they one day might need to know Spanish at the rate that immigrants are coming into America. Looking around certain Areas, especially Houston where I am, literally everything is written in English and Spanish. When you buy a product or appliance, the set of instructions nine times out of ten will be written in English and Spanish. So, why force immigrants to learn English if society can be accommodating to them? Why are Americans so concerned with assimilation? I’d say it’s a little unhealthy, and runs the risk of devaluing culture, especially other cultures. Culture holds up society, so why undermine that support? Working in the service industry, I have had to serve entire tables that did not speak English, but it was possible. There are other servers who claim that it causes an unnecessary frustration, but that frustration is a fact of life, especially being a server. Forcing immigrants to learn English carries so many negative justifications. Consequently, so does the status of immigrants in America. Due to the media, and negative, ignorant and close-minded arguments made about immigrants, immigrants carry a negative connotation. Which is disheartening. My dad is an immigrant from Nigeria, who came to America for college, and got his Ph. D. To think that people would think less of my dad, or not worthy of being in America, because of where he is from causes problems for me. As mentioned in class, everyone in America was once an immigrant, so why have hatred for immigrants now? As much problems arise out of ignorance, I believe that the immigration influx in America would not be met with such hatred if people were more educated on the subject. This question is a perfect example of how America perceives immigrants, and how those who think that they should learn English might not have the most accurate view on immigration. In conclusion, whether or not immigrants learn English should be up to them, not up to societal forces.

It is sad, but I am slowly coming to believe that everyone is racist. Maybe the thought is an over generalization, but the more you think about it the easier it is to believe it. Not all racism if the same, thus the degree of prejudice may vary from person to person, but I think that racism is a part of human nature. People have preconceived notions about other races, which breed prejudice and racism. Despite tolerance and acceptance of other races, one can have a racist mindset. There’s no concrete definition of race, nor is there one for racism, but I fail to believe that racism is as taboo as it is depicted in society, as everyone is guilty of making assumptions about others based off of their race. Being guilty of racism is not something that many would admit to, however, perhaps a lot of people are inherently racist without knowing it. Despite being tolerant of other races, people still make unwarranted judgments about others based solely off what they see- their skin color. These unwarranted judgments are an aspect of human nature, and serve as the basis of racism.

I’d like to think that racism couldn’t be defined without looking at the definitions of ethnocentrism and essentialism. Essentialism groups one by certain characteristics, values and lifestyles based off of their race. And, at the point where people are classified as being a certain way, or holding certain values as a result of their race, a hierarchy is then set up against other races since those characteristics and values cannot be equal to other groups. This hierarchy is then used to support the notion of ethnocentrism. Going back to the definition about making false assumptions based on our limited experiences, what one has already experienced is the basis for “reality” or what we expect. One’s limited life experiences are the basis for interpreting new experiences, which leads to misunderstanding others. Not everyone experiences the same thing, thus when one uses his or her experiences for the rationale to understand others, this understanding can be skewed. At the point where this misunderstanding can be grounded in one’s ethnicity, it spills over to being prejudiced about certain groups of people. I define prejudice as biases, not necessarily hate, and biases are rooted in misunderstanding. Behind all racism is the “us versus them” dichotomy, which is bred through ethnocentric thinking and essentialist thinking.

For the purposes of clarity, I must note that all racisms are not the same. Since it is human nature to detect difference in someone, as opposed to similarities, biases against other races, can be subconscious. Sure, most would not admit to being racist, but that does not mean that inherently, they really are. To be racist does not mean that you have to be an outright bigot. But, can everyone be racist if there is no universal definition of racism? How can racism exist if races do not exist? It has been said that, “if there is no such thing as race, then there is no such thing as breeds of dogs or subspecies of finches on Darwin's Galapagos Island”. Consequently, then this idea of “racism” must exist.

It’s bold to state that everyone is racist, but within that statement also comes the idea that people can be racist against their own kind. There are blacks who will refuse to associate with blacks and so on with other races. Kanye West says it best in his song “Never Let Me Down” as he states that “N---- ‘s can’t make it to ballots to choose leadership but they can make it to Jacobs and to the dealership.” Being a fellow black man, this line is Kanye’s song is a stab at black people and their priorities. First he uses the N word, which can raise a lot of other questions, but aside from that, he groups black people as valuing material things over politics and things of substance. Despite this discrediting ethnocentrism and racism going hand in hand, it goes to show how racism is not necessarily “us vs. them”. Even though Kanye is calling out blacks, that does not mean that he can’t be ethnocentric at the same time.

When asked the question “what is racism”, it cannot be answered simply. In spite of this, it can still be defined. Racism is a subconscious human act where one makes unwarranted evaluations about others because of their skin color and/or race. Racism is human nature that can be better understood while analyzing ethnocentrism and essentialism. Racism does not necessarily mean extreme hate, nor does it mean that it is an intentional act. Racism includes biases, and prejudices, and initial judgments about others. Racism does not mean one is not tolerant or accepting of others. Racism involves people seeing and then believing certain things based off what they see. Despite the strides that have been made with racism throughout the years in history, racism is inevitable, since the eyes will always see color. However, racism is always changing, and never the same. Yet, at the point where it is human nature to judge, racism is an aspect of human nature that inhibits everyone.

I do not think that a black centered world would look any different than the world that we live in today. To say that a black centered world would be much different than the white world that we are currently in, is to say that with race comes a different way of life and being, which I would not agree with. I think that the major difference would be amongst the way that people feel in regards to blacks not being marginalized and whites being the minority. Therefore, sure, certain races would see the world in a different way but that does not mean that the world would necessarily be different. History could change, in regards to atrocities carried out against people solely based on their race, but with different history comes a different present, but not one in which dramatic changes would be present. Perhaps the tables would have turned in regards to racism and prejudice, but I do not think that people would live their lives in a different way. This question is just like asking what a woman dominated world would look like, and that would be a world in which woman were not oppressed and they would have power. The same correlation can be made with races, since a black dominated world would be a world in which blacks were not oppressed and had equal, if not more power than whites. The only uncertainty that I would have a about a black centered would be how other minorities would be treated. Would Asians, Hispanics, and other ethnicities be marginalized, would they be on the same level as whites, would they be grouped with blacks and be equal? I think that now, all minorities are under whites, and in a black centered world, I would hope that whites would not be equal to the other races, and that they would be equal to Blacks. I think that in a black centered world, there would be many Oprahs, many Obamas, many Halle Berry’s and Denzel Washingtons , historically white colleges and universities, a national association for the advancement of white people, and affirmative action for whites. I would hope that in a black centered world race would not be as taboo as it is now. Many people say that with the election of Obama we have entered a post-racial society, so maybe, a Black centered world would look like this idealistic post-racial world. Would race matter in a black centered world? I’m not sure, but I do know that one day whites will not be the majority, meaning that someday, colored people will be the majority, but that however does not mean that we will be in a colored centered world.

I think that my race has shaped my world because growing up I have always been reminded that I am black, and that I must remember that while trying to pursue certain goals and such. When I was young, and I would tell my parents that I wanted to be a lawyer or President when I would grow up, but, my parents, specifically my mom would tell me that I would have to work extra hard being a female, and being black. Being part of two marginalized groups, that of being a woman, and of being Black, my family, friends, and society have made it apparent that society would be working against me. Meaning, that my race has helped me view the world in a way in which the world is against me. Not saying that I think that the world is actually against me, but more so that I feel like most blacks grow up knowing that they are the minority, knowing that they are not the ones in privilege. With that said, at the point where blacks are not in privilege, they view the world in a way in which they know that is true. Being a part of a marginalized group means being part of a group who has much to prove to others. My mother is Black American, from Mississippi and my father is Nigerian, making me African-American and African. My father came here from Nigeria as an undergrad student and listening to his endeavor, it is apparent that his race has shaped the way that he views the world at the point where he was an immigrant in an unknown land that many Nigerians make assumptions about. Along with that, growing up in the Mississippi Delta, my mom has always felt as a second-class citizen. She works for FDIC, and is one of the only women in her office, and one of the only minorities, meaning that listening to her perspective shows how race has shaped her world. At the point where many people believe that the “world will always see color”, many peoples races, whether they like it or not, have to deal with being defined or judged by their skin color- what people see on the outside. What people see, constitute to the other how they are supposed to live, or dress, or act, or be, meaning that at the point where people of color know that they are supposed to be a certain way, that way that they are supposed to be has shaped how they view the world. There are those who strive to go against the norm and stereotypes of their race, or there are people who are OK with the stereotypes and live up to them, but either way, both groups of people are aware of how their race has shaped them, or how they are supposed to be, or their view of the world. One’s race shapes how they view the world because that race is what others in society define that person by. Therefore, when a person is of a certain race, they are aware of that, and thus aware of the way that others view them. Minorities know that they are minorities, they know that they are marginalized, thus they view the world in a way of which has been shaped to view them that way. One’s race will always view how they see the world because their race is supposed to correlate so many things about that person. Whether or not it does, one’s race correlates with status, and privilege, among other things. Meaning that people are aware of where they fall within that rank of status and privilege, meaning that certain people are viewing the world in a way that is a result of their race. Sure, people acknowledge that they are a certain race, but with that comes acknowledging how they have been oppressed and such, and thus taking that into account. We do not live in a post-racial society, contrary to popular belief since Obama is President, and because of that, one's race will always shape how they view the world because if one is not white, their race has set them at a disadvantage, and thus they must overcome that to thrive in society.

The status quo of society can answer this question.Women have always viewed the world from a man's perspective because we live in a patriarchal world. If we lived in a matriarchal world, the tables would have turned, and men would view the world from the woman’s perspective. However, that is not the case, and although women have been fighting for this imaginary world to emerge someday, the progression of women’s status in society changing is a slow one. Women being oppressed in society is the result of living in a world of gender inequalities, in a world where man dominates, in a world where women are objectified and treated as second class citizens just because of their gender. Women are constantly fighting for equal rights and protections. Currently, in 2011, women can be just as qualified as a male counterpart on a job, yet it is not illegal for the male to get paid more. Why is he getting paid more…because the society that we live in has set up a dichotomy between the genders. Due to this hierarchy, that is nothing more than a societal construct, women are never seen as equal to man, and thus we women live in a man’s world. At the point where we live in a man’s world, it only makes sense for women to view the world from a man’s perspective. Everything in life is for the man, and the way the society is, it is as if there are people who believe that women exist just for the man. It is argued and debated, but most would agree that women dress for the man, meaning the makeup, the hair, the nails, the heels, and the expensive, revealing, uncomfortable clothes- all for the man’s benefit. Everything that women do to change their appearance- all for the man. It is a known that women are the seen, while men are those the seeing. Which supports the previous notion that women dress for men. Everyone knows that beauty is pain. So, with that said, it is fair to make one sex suffer for the attention and pleasure of the opposite sex. The answer is no, and life is not fair, especially if you are a woman. Fairness is an interesting notion though. Those in privilege, and in power might view the world as fair, since they would be oblivious to those that are constantly marginalized for no reason. Those in privilege in regards to race are obviously whites. But, those in privilege in regards to sex are men, and men need to recognize this privilege and realize that it is an unwarranted, unjustified privilege that women are deserving of as well. To get off that tanget and answer the question about external factors being the reason why women view the world from a man’s perspective, would be because of women’s place and society, and because of males dominating every aspect of society. Which then leads to some debate about the two differing sphere, with one being respectively for men and one being for women. Although men would say that women dominate the housework, and the sphere of the home as opposed to the workplace, looking at the purpose of the work done in the home still supports the notion that we live in a male dominated world. Women are supposed to cook and clean for their husband, meaning that those who believe that women are subservient to men are recognizing that anything that a woman is good for has to benefit the man. Nonetheless, mush of what many women do is to benefit and please men. Look at advertisements; even society is out to please men. How much of our lives are consumed by watching, reading, or seeing ad, whether they be on tv, on the internet, on the side of the road, or in a book or magazine. Advertisements are a big factor in much of society’s lives since they are everywhere and in every form of media. Yet, think about how many advertisements show women in scantily clad outfits, exposing their breasts, legs, and thighs. How many advertisements objectify women for the males view and enjoyment? How many advertisements show men in scantily clad outfits, exposing their bodies, for the enjoyment of women? The advertisement industry is even shaped to please men. Event though we live in a male dominated world, we live in a world where there are more women than men. There are no factors that make women view the world from a man’s perspective. It is ingrained in society, which unjustly denies women basic civil liberties. Women view the world from a man’s perspective because we are still fighting for our rights, and until there is true equality, and the gender hierarchies and privileges are broken down, it is sad to predict that women’s perception of the world will never change.

Simply put, the best aid is aid that actually works, or no aid at all. What I mean by works, would be aid that actually helps those in need, aid that fills a need, aid that is sustainable, aid that does not risk being corrupted, aid that does not expect something in return, aid that makes the lives of those who receive it better. In high school, the resolution of my debate topic for a year was about sending foreign aid to Sub-Saharan Africa. I advocated that the U.S. should ban aid, only because there are many critics who have studied Africa and the types of aid that some countries have received, and they have concluded that Africa was better off 30 years ago than it is now. Pouring money into a developing country is not effective. Sending resources to a country that will not help the inhabitants is not effective. Allowing a country to thrive on its own, without being dependent on foreign aid, or being corrupted by foreign aid could be effective. However, if one must send aid, one should make sure that, like I stated earlier, it works. While debating, I also ran a case that advocated the U.S. increasing funding for the Water for Poor Act, which would in turn, implement different method of cleaning water in Africa different ways, whether it be by tablets, or pipe, or any other way. The purpose of this plan was to prevent many diseases that stem from people drinking contaminated water. The Water for Poor Act was a bill passed by Congress that was proven effective, but lacked adequate funding to reach its maximum capacity of success. Still, with clean water, comes healthier people, which health is important if trying to help a country thrive. Along with that, there are many NGOs, like the WHO or the UN, which also help developing countries. While also analyzing what aid is the best aid, I think that it is important to note that education is key when aiding other countries, meaning if the nation sending aid does not know what the country in need actually needs, the aid could be more of a hindrance than a help. The best aid tries to alleviate the root cause of problems, instead of indirectly trying to solve problems. Don’t send money, clean their water, build infrastructure, and provide healthcare and education. One must also realize that programs implemented in developing countries must also not infringe upon the beliefs of those who it aims to help. In Africa, many Western nations are trying to educate Africans about stopping FGM. To do so, one must realize that it is a cultural practice, and to help them realize the dangers of the practice, they cannot undermine their culture. The same goes for other programs implemented in such countries. Preserving one’s culture must be kept in mind while trying to help others.

I think that Haiti Project is a great way to help a country in need. Unfortunately, many people do not believe in helping those in developing countries, or they do not understand how to help others, thus aid and such becomes counterproductive. For instance, those who pour money into the hands of corrupt leaders who do not use that money to help their country flourish. However, I think that the Haiti project bypasses these problems. In terms of creating jobs for others in the nation, which is essential to helping the economy, I personally really like Figaro’s business. First, in order for a business to thrive, the owners must find a need, and fill it. The business must be of one that fulfills something that people are lacking. In Figaro’s case, she bakes pastries, among other things. Food is a necessity in life. And thus, Figaro’s pastry shop has much potential, as people will need to buy pastries and bread. And, if more Haitians began to work, the more Haitians will buy food and such from stores, as opposed to making it themselves. Along with that, I really like Figaro’s business as she demonstrates how powerful women can be. She is supporting her sons, and her husband, through a business that she started herself, with limited supplies, among other hardships; like the distance she travels for ingredients and such. Figaro represents the woman that most do not believe exists, but she preservers, and still has hope. I like that fact that she hopes that others will invest in Haiti, as she is investing in her children’s education. She obviously understands the value of education and investments. As opposed to looking for a handout, she wants a trade-off so to speak, she’s invests so others will invest. I think that instead of handing out money, like most do who aid developing countries, businesses and such could easily give businesses like Figaro’s the supplies needed, such as a mixer. A mixer could easily be donated to her business. Many things could easily be donated there, so that they could use the appliances for their business to actually grow. Haiti needs help, and after going through the natural catastrophe that they went through, it is nice to see people still have hope. Being from Houston, I was very affected by Hurricane Rita and Katrina. Both hit Houston, and Houston received an increase of evacuees due to the hurricane. Hearing their stories and realizing what they went through was devastating, learning that some people literally lost everything. To imagine what something similar would be like for Haitians is unimaginable, since they are in a developing country and were probably affected so much more. I am all for helping hard workers who are trying to better their lives and the lives of those around them. I think that Figaro’s business could easily thrive with better appliances, and an easier, more convenient way to get ingredients and supplies. Unfortunately, I am an outsider, who does not understand how to necessarily improve how she could get supplies and such easier, but if there’s a will there’s a way! And, Figaro deserves to have a thriving business, and they obstacles that make her business harder to run could easily be overcome, with the help of others, like us in America.