This story shows the earthquake in Haiti in an entirely different light. It blows my mind to see an entirely new economy being built, literally from the ground up. When thinking about the mass devastation, I have often wondered where you could even start to get back all that was lost. There is no way to bring back all of the lives and loved ones but you still have to start somewhere. Most of these people will never regain the quality of life that they had before the earthquake, but they are still managing to make the most of what they have. An economy is so complicated, with services being offered in all aspects of our life. I can't imagine living in a world with no established businesses. This video clip showed how the Haitians are starting small, and growing. One business that stood out to me was the man who they showed you bought a generator. In a city comprised of makeshift tents, he bought the ability to offer electricity. From there he recognized that he needed to offer something to be competitive with other men who bought generators; so what did he do? He offered free television to his customers. Not only was he able to make a higher profit, but he was also able to increase customer satisfaction and make local children happy. That to me is an example of entrepreneurialship at its finest. He started small, and built up. He was creative and ingenious yet practical and worked with what he had.
Often times in class we are told that it is impossible to even imagine what it is like in Haiti unless you see it yourself. I agree with this statement, because every time I see different pictures or read a news article, I am enlightened on a new aspect of the devastation. That being said, I feel as this article brought to light what is going on in Haiti in a whole new way to me. It helped me to understand the rebuilding process. There is obviously much more going on in Haiti, millions of people were affected by the earthquake, but I learned something new nonetheless. It only added to the respect I have for the Haitians who are working so hard to build their cities and towns back up and piecing their lives back together. I hope to be able to watch more articles such as this which can keep me as somewhat knowledgeable on how Haiti is recovering. This story is motivational and makes me want to help Haiti that much more. Like we learned in class, it is not by giving hand outs that we help Haiti; it is by promoting entrepreneuralship. This video highlights Haitians that we able to start businesses on their own, however many other people may not have had the opportunity to do so. By supporting the right causes, we can help Haiti to rebuild itself faster.

I actually really liked this lecture. In a lot of the recent classes I've found myself loosing concentration and missing part of Sam's point, but that didnt happen yesterday. I am a Christian and did not find his discussion or argument offensive in the least bit. Instead of defending or supporting the insurgent, Sam did a good job of helping me simply understand their point of view, which is basically the opposite of my own view. As an Christian American I already know that the majority of us are pretty normal, good people. There are however a few people that are quite different. Radical groups will exist in an society, at any time.. its inevitable and for that reason there are many radical Christan Americans. But I know that these people are the minority and are not a good representation of Christian Americans as a whole. From the outside looking in though it would be easy to get the wrong impression. If the majority of the times that i was exposed to Christian Americans was when they were fight for my oil, raiding my town, or making outlandish statements in interviews, I probably would get the wrong impressions. So I understand how many Iraqis would be hostile. Its not much different than the hostility that many Americans have towards Muslim Iraqis. When I turn on the news I don't see images of Iraqi families hanging out, going on with there day to day life not bother anyone. I see suicide bombers and terrorist threats. When this is the only impression we have of their culture, its pretty unsurprising so many people harbor negative feeling toward that group of people as a whole.
We are all very similar. It is impossible to completely understand the other sides point of view with out actually living with them, hearing their side of the story, and seeing the things they see. Very few of us have the opportunity to fully immerse our self in another culture though. So we go on watching the news and seeing the worst sides of each other. From there we develop impressions that are completely inaccurate and in no way appropriate. When we take a step back though, like we did in class, everything makes so much more sense. For one hour I focused on seeing things from the point of view of and Iraqi college student. In that hour alone, it made major issues and problems so much easier to understand. If we all reflected for a little bit every once in a while, I wonder how many of us would have completely different opinions of each other. I would imagine that it would have a major effect on many people and could seriously change the way many people feel.

Well this is interesting. It's hard to grasp the fact that before it was taken out of stores last year, a teen aged boy could walk into a Japanese video game store and buy this game. Rape is not something you want your children to see or know about, especially when presented in this light. What type of impression does it leave on a child who doesn't fully understand what is going on. I am curious if prior to being banned, if there was any type of age restriction on who could buy this game. I hope that there was but there was no mention of it in the story.
Rape is a serious issue that many women have been traumatized by. I can't imagine what it would be like if i were a rape victim and I saw this game. The fact that people were paying money to "play" would not only disgust me, but scare me as well. Its sad that the video clips from these games are still online for everyone to access, and even worse that people want to watch them. These videos have been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people on youtube. It's hard to imagine so many people wanting to watch videos that glorify raping woman and teenage girls.
Even though its so easy to take the stance that this game is disgusting and should be banned, in reality it is not too different than the violent video games that are so popular in America. Games ranging from street crime in cities to shooting enemies in war all show and promote murder. How are these games any better than a game that promotes rape. It seems like a double standard. I support the banning of the game in Japan but it makes me question why other games are allowed. Who decides which graphic and disturbing crimes should be legal to show in video games and which aren't? I don't understand how games where you shoot and stab people are considered acceptable content in our society, yet we judge Japan for allowing rape games to be sold for as long as it did. It's really not much of a stretch from what we already have here.
I think that if games promoting rape are banned then violent games promoting murder should also be banned. Or, alternatively I think that as long as long as murder video games are legal than technically rape games should as well. It makes no sense to me that they aren't treated the same way. Personally I do not like either of these games, but obviously a large part of society does, and it only makes sense for the issues to me handled in a similar matter.

The first time I watched this video I was really surprised to see that the children in the doll experiment felt this way. I cannot imagine growing up with such negative feelings towards the color of my own skin. It raises the question of what could make these children feel this way. It seems unlikely that a parent, teacher or any other adult would go around purposefully instilling these feelings in young children; so where could these feelings stem from? Is it the Media’s fault or is there no one specifically to blame, but more of a flaw in our society as a whole. This seems like an issue that would have been present 15-20 years ago, but not today. It is almost hard to believe that this video was made within the past few years and that black children of today are struggling with the color of their skin. In the United States, where all men are created equal and racial discrimination is against the law, black children are still receiving the message that black skin is inferior.
It is really hard for me to relate with this video, which is probably why I was it was so surprising to me. It really opened my eyes. I wish I could better understand this issue. This video really effectively brought to light a major problem in our society. Had someone simply told me that black children feel that white skin means your nice and black mean, or that black children feel white skin is better, I may not have even believed them. It is likely I would have written the idea off as being over exaggerated or skewed by the opinions of the researchers. To see that children in this experiment and watch their reactions to the experimenters questions really was moving. It shows the extent of the problem and the importance that it be addressed.
When this video was brought up in class it was interesting to see that the issue was not only present in black Americans but other races as well. I was surprised to hear that student of other races preferred white dolls over dolls of their own race. It brings up the question of whether they too felt inferior because of their skin. I can't imagine feeling bad about how I looked at such a young age. It really is sad, that at such a young age they harbor such negative feelings. This is an issue that must be addressed in our society but it is hard because we don't know who to hold accountable. For the most part, parents want their children to be happy and aren't intentionally instilling these negative feelings in their children, so should they really be held accountable? I wonder who can or should be.

Very few woman play or coach football at any level in the United States so I am curious to see how Natalie will do and if she will face any additional challenges. Like most girls, I have never been a part of a high school football team and have little knowledge of the dynamic if most teams. Based off of footballs movies I've scene, when I imagine a football team I think of tough coaches yelling at the guys at halftime in the locker room, motivating them for the game. This may or may not be a good depiction of high school football, but it makes me wonder how different the scene would be with a woman mixed in. I wonder if there is a reason the coach is usually a man. Often times teenage boys don't respect woman as being "tough" or "strong" and I wonder how this tendency will affect Natalie's team. To her advantage she is a teacher and a football player herself. She is well qualified for the job and I imagine she will be more than capable of avoiding or overcoming any challenges she will face with the team.
It is interesting how this story made national news in a time when women and men have equal rights. It reminds me of large number of men who coach cheerleading despite the fact the cheerleading is a predominantly female sport. Both on TV shows and in person I've seen men coaching female squads, and this is hardly noticed, and certainly not newsworthy. I wonder why it is that when a man steps in to coach girls it is almost expected, whereas a woman didnt do the same until 2010.
After seeing this interview I truly support Natalie in her decision to coach. She is focused on what a coach should be focused about; the team and its success. Had Natalie took the stance that she was choosing to accept the position because she wants equality for women, or to break sexism or any others seemingly feminist argument it is unlikely I would be in support of the choice. She is taking the position because it simply makes sense for her, as a teacher and a football player, to coach the team. She is a great example for America. Positive change can happen without civil right movements or feminist actions. By simply focusing what is important Natalie achieve something. She is an example of a great role model, with out trying to be because her actions are centered on her character and work ethic.
Overall this story was interesting and peaked my curiosity. I would like to follow this story and see how Natalie performs as a coach. I'm also interested in seeing the effect this has on women and football in general. It seems to me that football has become more popular for women in recent years and I would like to see if this encourages more women to take interest in the sport.

After reading this article I wasn’t really sure how I felt. Yes it does seem to be racist because it doesn't give other races a chance to participate in the league. But then again there are plenty of other organizations and events that exclude white people. A few people brought up the Miss Black Penn State pageant and I also feel that it is comparable. Regardless it is hard for me to take his idea serious. Creating a subpar league to accommodate for slower white players seems ridiculous and pathetic. I personally would be embarrassed to call myself a professional sports player if I were on a team in a league created only for those who couldn’t compete. I googled the word racism and this definition stuck out to me: "the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races." Forgetting everything else, this is my main reasoning that this league isn't racism; well at least not towards blacks. It does not operate on the grounds that whites are superior, but rather the opposite. If anything (even though it is being established by a white man) this league is racists towards whites. It’s claiming that whites are not and cannot be as good or fast as blacks.

In his attempt to fill the market niche Moose is simultaneously making himself look like a fool and offending many groups of people. This can be seen in his explanation for the Whites Only league. He says that current professional players are “carrying guns, attacking fans in the stands, and going through the motions of playing the game.” This reasoning for a white’s only league is extremely disrespectful and generalizes entire races based on the actions of few players. It is absurd to believe that simply because players in AABA are all white Americans that none will carry guns, and will be perfectly behaved. It doesn’t matter what race or nationality an athlete is, there is always the risk of players not being completely well-behaved. The majority of NBA players are colored and set a good example and focus on playing the game. To make the generalization that they are the cause of any problems found within the league is laughable. Yes they may be involved with the majority of incidents that occur, but they make up the majority of the league so that makes sense.

Overall this idea is simply pathetic. Moose’s argument for the league is very unconvincing because it lacks common sense and legitimacy. I can only hope that colored people aren’t under the impression that all white-Americans support this pitiable idea. Also, I’m curious how white basketball players reacted to AABA because I couldn’t imagine many being in support of a league created to showcase their “slow” speed.

One thing that bothered me about this post was that I felt like it was saying that just because Yvrose's success didn't bring her the riches that corporate America is known for, she was being gypped or cheated of something. Not having a gold card doesn't mean anything. Without personally knowing Yvrose I feel it is wrong to look at all she's accomplished and earned and say that something is missing. Prior to the earthquake she could have been happier then the majority of Americas CEOs combined and here we are blogging that it is not fair that she doesn't live in the great land of America. There is no arguing that had Yvrose been born elsewhere her life would be drastically different. And, yes she would put a lot of business people to shame with her work had there been an even playing field but that’s not the way life works. You do the best that you can with what you have. Life’s not fair; we often don’t get what we deserve or alternatively receive that which we haven’t earned. But all of this is irrelevant if you are happy. Nowhere does it say that money equals happiness, and until then we have just as much reason to be jealous of Yvrose and she has to be jealous of us.
What is unfair and devastating is the impact of the earthquake on Yvrose and the rest of the Haitians. They are being faced with something that no people should have to go through. A lot of times we say "God only gives you as much as you can handle" and things like that, and I can only hope that is true. I don't know that I would be strong enough to recover from the devastation, but I pray that the Haitians are.
More now than ever, Yvrose's "entrepreneurial spirit and a gutsy grit" will stand out as an example for all of us to follow. Life would be great if no one was faced with the challenges and obstacles that Yvrose has, but that's not an option. For now we can simply look to Yvrose as an example of the potential that may be found inside us all. As she fights to rebuild her business and her life, we can look inside ourselves and ask what can we do to be great? Maybe it will mean making a million dollars or maybe it wont but that's not what's important. If the only measure of our success is the color of our credit card then we live in a petty world. Sam was dead on when he posed the question, "How would I get on in Haiti and what might Yvrose do if she had the opportunity walk through the world wearing my shoes?" The answer to this question is important, it can make the difference of being a mediocre wash-rag or an unmatched entrepreneurial spirit.

It is baffling how a book that is regarded so highly in the Catholic religion could be so blatantly vulgar and preach such condescending ideas. The weirdest part about reading this article for me was the fact that since I went to catholic school from grades K-12 I have be reading and learning from the bible for most of my life. Additionally this article made an exceptional impression on me because of the timing of when it was presented to me. In class we read a bible passage from Corinthians listing all of the reasons why people would not be accepted into heaven. The hypocrisy found within the bible is outstanding. Supposedly actions speak louder than words, but how could a book filled with so many lewd acts preach so strongly about sin. How can Judah, ancestor of Jesus, impregnate his daughter-in-law, while Corinthians claims that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This article lessens the importance of the Bible to me. I have never been one to take the Bible too literal because I feel that the words they say aren't as important as the lessons it teaches. In reading this however, it seems that the Bible isn't all that great at teaching moral lessons either.
Overall, when it comes to religion, I have the basic belief that which religion you choose to follow or not to follow is not that important. The purpose of religion should be to better people morally and to use a cliche, "make the world a better place." For this reason I do not find any fault in completely ignoring the hypocrisies and moral pitfalls in the bible and focusing on the lessons that are virtuous and can be used to better oneself. We can use the bible as an aid or a guide to help us learn morally, while at the same time disregarding the messages that are not beneficial to humanity and society.
Personally I believe that the Corinthians verse on Love (love is patient, love is kind..) & the Beatitudes found in the Matthew can be used as a guide to be myself, and at the same time, I can ignore the bibles condemnation of homosexuals.
After reading this article I really cannot understand how oblivious so many people (including myself) are of what the bible is really saying. I know that I was unaware for two basic reasons. I have been taught that the bible is inspired by god and therefore moral. Religion classes throughout my life have not focused on these downfalls in the Bible, but rather taught me from the many good lessons found in it. Another reason is simply that I am unfamiliar with the language which the bible was written, and have no way to identify any changes that have been assumed. It is a challenge for me to understand the bible as it is written in the English versions, no less recognize how it has been altered from its original form.
Overall this article reinforces my prior beliefs about my religion. It is not perfect and in fact there is much that could be improved about it, but religion can still be used as an aid or example to help us morally at times.

This article brought to light something that hasn't ever crossed my mind. I never realized that there are still so many languages in the world today or that there is a problem with languages dying out. In reading Sam's blog my initial thought, after the surprise of finding out how many languages there are, was "If she was the last person to speak the language, then who did she talk to?" I was kind of amused by this thought and it really did make me wonder. It is sad because language was created in order to help people communicate. It enables us to connect with each other and express otherwise abstract thoughts but when it becomes so desolate, then the few people that speak that language are isolated.
The BBC article touched on the sadness of this when it quoted Johnny Hill Jr., the last speaker of Chemehuevi. He said "I have to talk to myself. There's nobody left to talk to, all the elders have passed on, so I talk to myself... that's just how it is." Its disheartening to see languages die. Ancestors developed these languages that were essential to their people of the time and shaped the culture of people today. It sad seeing all of the work and history associated with these languages lost.
On the other hand it seems almost inevitable that these languages are going to die out. In order for them to continue being used, people must speak it. The problem is that for new generations, there is little motivation to learn the languages of their ancestors. If I were to put myself in the shoes of a young member of a tribe I don't know if I would be interested in learning an old language because it is hard to see the value of the language, until it is already lost.
It becomes a question of who should take action or feel responsible for keeping the languages alive. Outside of linguists who have an apparent interest in the matter, who else should this issue be important to? I recognize that there is invaluable cultural history embedded in the languages, but they are not a part of my culture. Is it selfish to not feel a connection or obligation to the languages of people so distant from me? I like to think not, for the mere reason that there are so many cultures throughout the world that it is impossible to relate or understand all of them. At the same time, I can't help but hope that I am wrong in my thinking. I hope that others are able to relate to the cause and help the languages to remain in use and I hope that culture isn't lost in these areas that contain such a rich history.

Brooks' article is interesting in that his idea seems far-fetched and extreme with the dramatic language he uses, but his initial theory is in fact relatively basic. "The White Messiah Complex" can be found in a number of movies, many of which are classics. Brooks' argument is backed by his citing of this complex in movies ranging from "Pocahontas" to "Dances With Wolves."
There is no arguing the fact that the White Messiah theme is found widespread in movies and books. Audiences enjoy seeing men they can relate to be the hero in the story. Chances are that had the movie been produced in Asia for example, the hero would not have been a white male, but an Asian. The motivation for this is simple, movies are made to sell, and this is what Avatar's audience likes to see.
The effect of producing these works however is much more difficult to identify. Brooks may be correct when he claims that Avatar is popular because "Audiences like it because it is so environmentally sensitive. Academy Award voters like it because it is so multiculturally aware. Critics like it because the formula inevitably involves the loincloth-clad good guys sticking it to the military-industrial complex." And there is nothing wrong with any of these reasons for liking a movie. Had Brooks left his argument at this, it would have been very easy to agree with him. Yes there is a "White Messiah Complex" in American movies, and Yes people do enjoy to watch these movies.
Brooks however stretched his theory a little farther. When it comes to his more radical accusations it is a more difficult to take him serious. His claims that Avatar provides the world with the opportunity to see American soldiers killed is sad. The fact that he believes that since viewers enjoy seeing "greedy corporate tools and the bloodthirsty U.S. military types" die is relatable to seeing American troops killed is disgraceful. I personally find it offensive to compare the deaths of the troops in this purely fiction movie to the real men and women who have and are currently serving in the military.
The final two paragraphs in Brooks' article are the most loaded of his work. It is apparent that Brooks' personal feelings on the matter are extremely strong, and rather than using these feeling to convince the reader to believe, he turned his argument into a tirade. Claiming that because this movie was a success, we must support some stereotype that illiteracy is the path to grace is quite ridiculous. Claims like this not only fail to support Brooks claim, but in my opinion, actually damage the strength of his claim as a whole.
In entirety there is obvious truth to Brooks "White Messiah Complex." Whether or not this theme found in movies reflects the stereotypes and everything else that is wrong with Americans is not as clear and seems to be a quite a stretch.