I was not that surprised to find that business played a role in shaping immigration policies, but I was surprised to find out how large of a role they did play. I think I always knew in the back of my mind that someone employed undocumented workers – and that those who employed them played a major role in more people wanting to come to America, even if that means illegally. Because if the job options were not there why would so many illegal immigrants keep coming? So from a somewhat logical standpoint, I guess I always figured that business would be such a large factor that influences the desires of immigrates wanting to come to America (regardless of how legal it may or may not be). So if businesses somewhat encourage illegal immigration through their employing illegal immigrants, then the business certainly must have a hand in the policies to make sure that things go the way they want them to. And in a lot of ways businesses are what America runs on, so it would make sense that they get a lot of say in many policies – immigration include.
This almost makes me feel bad for business because American citizens would see them as the “bad guys.” Since our general perception of illegal immigration is a negative one, we tend to have a negative impression on those who would encourage or help to continue this illegal action (I am, for this argument taking on the position that business are promoting policies that would help to make it easier to illegal immigrates to “hang out” in America). However, I think American citizens continually fail to realize how much we in some way benefit from illegal immigration. I think they continually fail to realize this because they normally just get the indirect “positive” results of illegal immigration employment (like with cheap California fruit that is sold in Pennsylvania). So it is easy for Americans to hate on businesses that maybe encourage lessening the strict immigration laws while failing to realize that they are encouraging these businesses by buying their products. So this brings me to the question, if businesses are a major factor in deciding immigration policies and customers are usually a huge factor in what a businesses’ interest are, than are not the customers (with their demands) what is actually playing the major factor in deciding immigration policies? I mean, they are probably not completely what decide the decisions and interests a company has, but they still probably play a very signification role. In general I find this whole illegal immigration issue to be very tough, I never know quite where to stand, but I must admit that I kind of like how business and general citizens tend to balance each other out in their demands regarding immigration.

EH…I probably would not actively try not to take advantage of nepotism (or at the same time, I probably would not actively try to take advantage of nepotism). It seems to be something that just “is.” “I know people, and those people know other people” – and if someone wants to help me out through those connections, why fight against it. Sure there is value that can be found in making it on “your own.” But that seems almost impossible to do, because everything in life is dependent on other things – no one is an entirely independent person. I think I can pretty confidently say that everyone who attends Penn State has in someone way relied on someone else. For example, who paid for their application fee - The government (if they qualified for some financial student aid help), their parents, or themselves? If someone says they paid for it themselves, and then the question could go further – how did they get that money? If through hard work at a job, how did they get that job? Who drove them to get the application or to their first day on the job? I feel like this might be silly to go all this way back, but I think it shows that we are as human creatures, very dependent on others from our past for everything that we have in our future today.
But honesty I did not thoroughly understand nepotism because I do not know how far back to take it in how it relates to your current reality. What I was getting from what Sam was saying in class was that, any time you get something from someone, you are inadvertently taking it from someone else. For example, if someone invests time and energy in you, they are taking away the time and energy they could be using to invest in someone else. So if that is nepotism, than I would say that it is completely inevitable, kind of like the “pick of the draw” type idea. But if this is the case than it seems that there are two types of ways that nepotism can come about – first by random, inevitable birth (like you are born into the family you are born into and either connections by default), the second type occurs through the person’s personal decisions, like through networking or by making a conscious decision to go to Penn State for the sake of the network available to them. Since I am not an overly aggressive, ambitious type of person I do not see myself going to great length to take advantage of connections but I also do not have the personal ambitious pride desire to make it on my own terms.

Calling something “the best” is definitely a huge statement. I do not think he was entirely right to say it was the best lecture of the entire year however, I do not think he was entirely wrong either. He is free to think it was the best class and others are free to disagree. I think it was really interesting how that was pretty much all he said about the lecture beforehand, besides that it was called “Christian invaders.” I was, like I am sure most other people were, intrigued by this. The lecture was definitely not what I expected. I expected it to stretch and challenge my religious views, instead it was more about stretching and challenging how i receive knowledge and how I let that knowledge impact the way I perceive and see the world around me. It definitely was one of the more impactful and practical lectures Sam has presented in class because it dealt with personal, internal understanding. It seems like a lot of his lectures in class deal with “this is how it is” kind of knowledge but the “Christian Invaders” lecture really dealt with a more “this is how we see” – “this is how information gets filtered through and misunderstood.” What is so unique about the difference is that we can actually do something really practical with the lecture because it went straight to the source of how. So as a result we can understand not only ourselves better but also our world better and have a better understanding of reality. Since this class was so practical and challenging, I found it to be one of the best classes so far.
One of the major reasons why I think this class was definitely in the top of the class so far was because of the way Sam actually presented the class. He did such a phenomenal job with presenting potentially offensive words/ideas with disclaimers in such a way that I feel I could understand what he was actually saying and not want to kill the messenger (Sam) or get angry at him. With everything that is going on in the East, or at least with what we think it is going on in the East, the topic leaves a bad taste in people’s mind so many people flee talks about the East and the people there like the plague. So Sam was bold to approach this topic, but I am very grateful he did. It is one of those things that changed the way I see the world. I am not sure yet what that will actually mean for me because I think the effects that this lecture will have on my personal interactions are one of those things that only time will tell.

In general, if I had to learn a new language for a job, well then, I would learn a new language. However, that is “in general” and “in theory.” In reality it would really depends on numerous factors. Like is this new job in another country, where the primary language is something other than English (the primary language being the new language that I need to learn)? Do I have other job options where I do not need to learn a new language? By learning the language will a get a significant increase in my pay? Will this new job be paying for my education to learn the new language? And I am sure there are many other factors that I could think up of that would sway my answer to the question either way.
But for simplicity sake, let’s say the job is in America and I would just be learning the language for work related business only. At that point in time a major factor would be my age. As people age the ability to learn a new language gets increasingly more difficult. So if I am straight out of college, I would probably seriously consider learning the new language, but if I am already in my forties, it is doubtful I would trouble with learning the new language for a job (unless there was some dire circumstance and I really needed a job).
As the world get more globalized it is probable that knowing a second language (especially Spanish or even Chinese [Mandarin or Cantonese]) will become even more in demand. As this becomes the case I think it should be become more standard for schools in America to start teaching a second language at an earlier age, like it is practiced in other countries (example: China). And with learning a new language, it is important to gain more exposure to other cultures.
The idea of learning another language for a job also brings with it the intriguing point of would it also be required to know something about the particular culture which that language is associated with? Since often time’s business meetings and transactions can occur from a “business meal” would it be not be of equal importance to know how to eat a meal using the proper cultural etiquette as it would be to talk with the individual in their particular language? So along with learning a language, as the world globalizes more and more, it seems like it will be increasingly more important that people learn about other cultures and what is and is not acceptable.
I must admit that learning another culture intrigues me more than learning a new language but it is for the sake of a job, I might just do it.

Urg, I do not think factors in my race make it difficult to date outside of my race. However, I do think that the culture that comes from my particular race makes it difficult to date outside of my race. Sam defined race as “the physical or biological characteristics of a person or group.” And maybe I am wrong but I do not think there is anything about my genetic makeup that inherently makes it difficult for me to date someone who is .01% genetically different from me. Although there is something to do be said for our inclinations to identify with someone of the same race and perhaps being more inclined to want to date someone from the same race, but as of right now I am not to convinced that inclination comes from out genetic makeup, which is what defines our race. It seems to come more from our ethnicity, “social or learned/taught characteristics of a person or group.”
So I am not sure if the women asking the question in the video truly meant “what factors in my race make it difficult to date outside of my race” or “what factors in my ethnicity/culture make it difficult to date outside of my race”? I am going to assume that she meant to imply the second question.
Although I am sure there are numerous reasons that can make interracial dating difficult I will just stick with a few for the sake of brevity. One of the reasons might be because of the idea that someone if looks different from me they must be different from me and we, as humans, seem to have a tendency of labeling difference with one as “better” and another as “worse” (for whatever reasons differences hardy ever seem to be neutral). So, since we live in an “ego-centric” society, we tend to think highly of ourselves and as a result, we think highly of our race. Then, probably very subconsciously (like latent prejudices), we think of our race as “better” or “superior” and other races as “worse” or “inferior.” Maybe this idea was more prevalent in older generations when there was a greater distinction between “us” and “them.” However, I think it still exists in many forms today.
Another many reason is that we care what others think (especially those from our race) about us and if you say “I do not care what others think about me,” generally you actually care that others think that you do not care what they think about you. So maybe you can get past the first reason I mentioned, but then you probably recognize that many people live with that type of generally mentality and so if you want to belong with your general race, you live out that type of mentality even if you do not actually buy into the superior-inferior race idea.
Like I said previously I am sure there are many other factors, but for the sake of brevity I will leave it at these two factors.

In general I have a somewhat hard time with this question (or the idea of “irrelevant racial signifiers” in general) because how do you determine whether the racial signifier is relevant or not? Maybe it seems relevant to the person telling the story but to the person hearing the story it might not have an effect. Or the opposite could happen, the story teller might not think there was any racial significance, but mention someone’s race anyways (perhaps in a desire to give a complete re-telling of the story) and then maybe that signifier changes the hearer’s entire thoughts on the story. However, I’ll put aside these uncertainties and ignorance’s I have on the subject of racial signifiers and try my best to answer the question.
The irrelevant racial signifiers probably affect racial stereotypes quite a bit, and since it is an immeasurable quantity, we will probably never know for use how deep an impact signifiers actually have. However, at the same time I think the impact irrelevant racial signifier has depends greatly upon the person telling the story and the person listening. Another factor that the impact signifiers have depends on the story and what is being said about the person whose race was mentioned.
I think that just the mention of a race changes, at least slightly, how the story is perceived by the viewer and maybe then something in the hearer’s subconscious gets added about that particular race which either reaffirms pre-set stereotypes or undermines those pre-set stereotypes. Either way it is affecting those stereotypes and thereby having an effect on racial stereotypes.
If the story teller is mentioning an individual’s or group of people’s race than does not that mean that it is significant to the story teller, since they thought it somehow worthy of their time to mention? I thought, and I could be wrong since class was a few days ago, that Sam said irrelevant racial signifiers actually say something about the person saying the racial signifiers. It reveals part of the person’s ideas about that race (and potentially stereotypes they have). So if this is right, than how that person feels towards a race (which comes across from the racial signifiers) could have an impact on the hearer ideas about racial stereotypes more than the irrelevant racial signifier which revealed the story teller’s stereotype.
From the girl’s question another question that comes to my mind is, do relevant racial signifiers affect racial stereotypes? Because for them to be relevant would not it mean that part of the stereotype is true? Then to take these questions another step forward, the question could be posed do irrelevant or relevant racial signifiers have more of an impact on racial stereotypes?

Is affirmative action being taken too far? I think it is really hard to judge. I could be taking the wrong approach to this type of question but I think before understanding if something is taking things too far, you need to recognize how far the other way things went to see how far things need to go in order balance it out. And for affirmative action I am not sure if it was put in place as a “sorry” for mistreatment of minorities in the past or to make up for white privilege or some combination or some other reason entirely.
So as far as affirmative action trying to correct past wrongs it is difficult to judge. Because how do you understand and measure the effect the past had on the present? Is it even possible? If affirmative action is in response to white privilege, it is really hard to tell where the line is because it seems almost impossible to understand that complete effects that white privilege has had on our society and continues to have. So if affirmative action counterbalances white privilege it would be impossible to tell when or if it has been balanced and when or if it has gone to much the other way.
In my own way I think affirmative action probably gone too far in some ways, but also that in other ways some sort of action still needs to be done.
Affirmative action has gone too far in certain respects because only for the sake of diversity (or to prove they are not “racist”) a company might hire or a college might accept a minority individual who perhaps is slightly less qualified while another individual who actually is more qualified for a certain position might not be accepted just because they are part of the majority.
But in other respects I feel that something needs to be done for minorities because it seems that a subconscious racism still continuous not only to exist but also to affect people’s lives. A perfect example of this comes from the experiments that were conducted where numerous applications that were identical besides from the applicants name were sent to the same employers and it turned out that the employers were significantly more likely to call back an individual who had an American sounding name as opposed to a foreign sounding name. This clearly shows that certain minorities truly still live at a disadvantage in certain respects.
So it might just be that affirmative action was taken too far because of the “action” part but if an affirmative action could be set in place to deal with the racism that still exists within people then then majority would then not be put at a disadvantage and the issues that affirmative action was set in place to deal with would be dealt with.

I liked the first part of the question “why is it that we, as society, keep thinking of people from other countries as being so different” but when the guy added “when they really are so similar” I began to dislike his approach. By adding the second part to his question he is implying that we are in fact “so similar.” I just feel that, that was a pretty bold claim, and if we really were “so similar” why is it that people tend to have culture shock whenever they rub up against another culture that comes from a different country (maybe it is because we do have some extreme differences in certain areas). Maybe I am missing what they guy in the video was saying/asking but it seemed to me that by saying “people from other countries” he was talking about “people from other cultures,” and if that is the case, than I do think they are different, in a sense. While there are a lot of universal things that are the same about people everywhere (call it human nature or whatever you want to call it) there are still things that greatly vary country to country as far as culture, views on life and how to live life, etc. The important part though, is that we do not classify those differences into categories of “better” and “worse” or “us” and “them.” The guy in the video seemed to imply that this thinking of people from different countries is wrong, but does it have to be? I admit that generally, yes, when people think of other countries as different there is the idea attached to it that it is a negative difference but that does not mean that it does not have to be this way. You can still treat them as a human even though they are different from you.
By saying that all people are really different or really similar, a person is going into an extreme, and generally that is dangerous silliness because the one extremist does not have to prove he is right, only that the other person is wrong and thereby the first extremist will seem right, even though he too is probably mistaken and could as easily be “proven to be wrong.” So the guy in the video takes the stand that “we, people are so similar” (which we are, but there is still room for many differences within our similarities). However, I still do like his first question and the potential it has to go deeper. For example, do we think countries as “so different” than ours from personal experience with other “different countries” or because there is something inbreed in our country/culture that makes us think other countries are different?

I think both – the more police in urban areas and racism play a role in why there is an over inflation in the number of other races being arrested compared to the white race when it comes to drug offences. However, I do not think there are the only two exclusive factors to explain the over inflation. Another statistic that came to my mind when we were in class was which economical bracket that the whites and the other races belong to. I would love to believe that the people who for a living enforce the laws actually obey the laws and are above bribery and certain politics but I doubt it. Sure, some of them might actually really strive to keep the laws they enforce but I am also pretty sure there are some crooked cops. Maybe I have just watched too many movies where there good cops have gone bad, but I cannot help to believe that some of it is possibly true. So since the whites, in general, are in a higher salary bracket than other races, is it not somewhat possible that whites who might get caught with drugs can bribe the cops or other law officials and thereby not be arrested. Or is there not the possibility that some of the cops are even involved in the drug world and protect those who are “their people.” Another factor that may also affect the over inflation is that there always seems to be some sort of political agenda going on in the government and since the police force is government run I do not see why they would be immune to political agendas. Maybe it is not intentionally enforced but unintentionally enforced. However there is always some boss, someone that is higher up who we are trying to please, and I image the same is true for the police. Some politicians like to look as though they are tough on crime, and therefore they might send people to jail who could really just pay a fine or do community service or some other sort of punishment (this is seen most obviously with the number of individuals who are in jail for drugs when another form of punishment could have been enforced upon them). If this is true, than could it not be possible that some politicians have an agenda for having more minority races arrested than whites? And their agenda gets enforced by the cops?
I am not overly familiar with the political structure system of the police force, so I could be totally wrong about all of this, however I still think it might worthy to consider as an explanation for the over representation of minority races serving time for drugs as opposed to whites.

I have mixed feelings about the king of the mountain example. On one side I think it was really great and insightful. And on the other side I have some unanswered questions. The basic concept of the game (if I can call King of the mountain a game) is that it is easier to stay on top when you are on top than to work your way up. I get and understand that and I think that is a pretty accurate depiction of the basic formulation of social reproduction. But it felt like Sam was saying that the people below could gather together and overthrow the person on top, and yeah I am sure they could, but what then? If we overthrow the person on top, will not someone else get on top and who is to say they will not be better or worse than the person currently on top? Plus there is the added issue if it is the gathering of a few groups of people that come together to overthrow the person on top it has been in my experience that once the top has been thrown down those people will fight each other for the position on top. It is a constant, and somewhat vicious, cycle. And it seems to me that even if you try and break the cycle it is bound to start up again sooner or later. So that means that one group will always be in control of the resources and ideology. So I guess the question to ask is, is it ok that the basic formulation of social reproduction works like the king of the mountain game? I kind of got the vibe from Sam that something should be done with this formula, like something should be done to stop the king that is on top. But even if we over throw the group on top (that seems to be white, and more especially white males) it will not really solve the problem because another group that over threw the top will now be on top. And if you do not really believe me, I think history can speak for itself – the pages history are filled with stories of how a group rose to the top, than there was a revolution, the top was over thrown and then some new group rises to the top. The cycle starts up again. And if for whatever reason the people try to make it that no one is on top, sooner or later someone will show up and get on “top of the mountain” and start setting the new rules up. So I think the question now is, is the current formula ok? And if not, should we, as a group, do something about that to change the rules of the game?