I feel like prison must be such an interesting place. There are people there who have committed unspeakable crimes. Yet, they are all forced to interact with others life them. I would imagine that life could be pretty rough behind bars having to deal with people like that everyday. But apparently that’s not the case.

I guess I should have known that though. I should have figured that not all convicts are degenerate ingrates. They are just people who may have lost their way at some point and done something rah and unforgivable. But does that necessarily make these people bad? I’m not so sure.

I know that people in prisons have families. They are fathers, mothers, friends, and lovers. But even with those passions in their lives, the still found the capacity to murder. And I’m sure that for most of them, it is a decision they have regretted ever since.

The biggest question I have about compassion behind bars though is why. Why are these men so compassionate with each other? Is is just their natural demeanor? Or maybe is it a subconscious effort to redeem themselves from a darker past?

Maybe these men are willing to donate money to a just cause or give blood to save lives in order to attempt to compensate for the life they took from someone else. And I don’t find fault in those actions at all. I think it is commendable for these people to give back to society, especially since they took something so precious from it.

Or maybe these men are so compassionate with each other because no one else is willing to be. It is acceptable to believe that the majority of society does not want to be involved with criminals let alone be empathetic towards their situations. Naturally these convicts would turn to each other for support because of the common status that they share.

I hope I am not coming off as condescending, because that is not my aim. I just find it awfully intriguing that people that are capable of committing crimes worthy of life in prison are also very capable of great acts of kindness. It seems like quite the oxymoron. So I am inclined to delve deeper into their motives.

Did this compassion come later in life upon reflection of the actions that lead to a life in prison? Because if a convict was always so compassionate, how did he or she commit the crime that landed them a life sentence in the first place? These are just questions that I am having trouble wrapping my mind around.

I do believe that all people have the ability for compassion and empathy. It’s just interesting to know it can be found in a place that is always labelled as cruel and unforgiving.

I never really supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That statement is not to be confused with “I do not support the troops.” Because I do support and appreciate all that those men and women do for this country. I more have an issue with the head honchos making all the decisions about the wars this country chooses to fight.

I can understand vengeance. I can understand wanting to get even with those who stole the lives of thousands and thousands of American citizens during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. But I do not necessarily understand that as a great diplomatic decision. Go after those who did the wrong doing, not after the entire country.

But most importantly, our leaders and our country as a whole should never forget the “reason” that our soldiers have gone abroad. We went to catch and destroy the organization that reeked havoc on our nation, not to gain control of oil fields or to force and instill our democracy and American way of life into those country’s cultures.

This war on terror has become a war over oil. And I believe that America has completely overstepped its bounds as a world superpower. Nothing gives us the right to be an imperialistic nation. Nothing gives us the right to go in and take resources that do not belong to us. That is what the free market is for.

Based on all this, I found Thursday’s lecture to be awesome. I always said we should not be in the Middle East, but I never really equated it to having foreign forces in the United States. I feel like comparison opened my eyes even further. If that were my oil and my land and my religion, I would also understand the need for vengeance on the side of those people in Afghanistan and Iraq. So now this whole war seems to be operating under the eye-for-an-eye theory.

What is even sadder than that military strategy, is that fact that the majority of people on both sides want peace. They are good people who want to live their own lives. The war is not made up of crazy suicide bombers or ruthless American torturers. Those people are random and by no way represent the entire military population. That is important to keep in mind because the media likes to show the most dramatic scenes and stories which mostly involve rogue characters of some type. So that just feeds even further into the hatred and violence between our cultures.

No one is right in this war. Too many acts of violence have been committed by both sides. And while these acts can be understood from a certain view, they can never be justified.

I think that my view of the Census is probably a bit more skewed than the views of people of color and or mixed origins. I am white, through and through. So questions eight and nine really do not have much of an effect on me. I put an x in the white box and just move on. But that does not mean that I cannot understand the confusion and frustration that this year’s Census is causing many Americans.
I think the biggest problem with the Census is the lack of options for people of color and those of mixed or Latin descent. It is rare that many people have the same or even similar life experiences. A person could be “white” but be raised in a black family, and therefore identify as black, but society would see that person as white purely based on his or her skin color. I think situations like this are what are causing the biggest issue on the Census. People are confused because their skin or their features do not necessarily match the features that have been assigned to the race they choose to identify with.
This issue brings up an even larger issue though. People, especially the government, are always so curious and concerned as to who people really are and where they come from. And that is all fine and well except for the fact that race is not real. It is a social construct that is constantly changing and evolving. Although it seems like a great way to group each other, it is just not that simple. The human race is a complicated one. We as people are always changing, evolving, and mixing. There is no possible way to classify us into a set amount of predetermined groups. There will never be a way to organize the human race into a subset of classifications that both satisfy the organizers and those who are being organized. There will always be confusion and offense because people do not like being told who they are when they believe they are truly someone else.
Do racial classifications even mean anything? Obviously it does to our society or else these questions would never be on the Census. But what if upper-class white people never exploited skin color for the benefit of cheap labor and power? Because if people of color were never exploited then there would be no race. There would be no reason for us to classify each other on what we see. Maybe we would instead be classified by our IQs or by our incomes or other characteristics that can be justified in having a profound effect on our lives. But the fact that race that has the greatest effect and the fact that it is a prominent judging point in our society is unfortunate. And that is evident in the Census.

I’ve seen this video in some of my other classes, yet it still shocked me when I saw it the other day in class. Videos that convey and confront such a strong, deep-rooted, and disturbing message never seem to lose their zing.

I just find it so difficult to grasp this idea that dolls can be good and bad based on their color. I don’t mean that I think the video or the study isn’t real. Because I do, and I find that fact truly upsetting. But what I mean is that in today’s world, we’re obviously still passing rash judgments about skin color and stereotypes so blatantly that children are even picking up on it. That idea is the one I am struggling with.

Aren’t we beyond all this? Isn’t it finally time for everyone to be equally good and equally bad and equally beautiful? I just don’t understand what it’s going to take for everyone to truly and fully accept who they are and who others around them are without question or judgement. A world like that, rid of all bigotry, would be a beautiful place.

Maybe I can’t fully grasp this issue because I am a white girl who grew up in a middle class family. I didn’t have to think about dark beauty because there was no one darker than the Italian family down the street in my entire town. The first time I saw a person of color, I was four. And I remember proclaiming to her, “You’re brown!” I don’t remember having any judgement of her being bad or ugly. She was just brown.

I don’t know if my parents just never addressed race because there were no people of color around us or if because we are white. All I know is that I never ever thought about the fact that I was white. I never thought about being better or prettier or anything like that. I was just me.

Maybe I have trouble grasping the idea this study presents because I was only ever given white dolls. I never had the option of picking a doll of color. And even if I was given that choice, I am inclined to believe that I would have picked the doll that looks more like me. And I don’t think that makes me a horrible person. I believe that humans naturally are attracted to the likeness of themselves in others. But that is why a little black child choosing a white doll is so baffling. They don’t look alike. To me, that’s almost like playing with a stranger. What would ever compel that black child to pick a white doll over a black one?

But that brings me back to the original question. And I’m still stuck with this notion of unknowing.

I am absolutely appalled by the actions taken by the Itawamba County Agricultural High School. Not allowing McMillen to wear a tuxedo nor allowing her to attend the event with her girlfriend is a blatant and ignorant infringement of her rights as a student, as a citizen, and as a human being.

Schools preach acceptance and equality and tolerance of all people, including minorities and those with disabilities. I’m sure that none of those kinds of people would be barred from attending a school dance. I’m sure a white and a black student could be dates at the dance. It is ridiculously prejudice to not allow a two girls, or even two boys if that was the case, to attend the dance together.

I can understand not allowing a student to go to the prom because of disciplinary reasons. That is completely acceptable. However, that is not the case in this issue. McMillen could not attend because she is a lesbian. So when the school not only didn’t allow her and her girlfriend to go, but cancelled the entire prom, they are pretty much punishing McMillen for not being straight. What kind of messages is that sending to the lesbian and gay community? The action taken by the high school is saying that the queer community is not accepted and that it is on par with other disciplinary issues that warrant some sort of punishment.

Aside from all this, there are two points to this issue that really bother me. The first is the fact that the entire prom was cancelled on account of the school’s inability to accept and understand one lesbian couple. It is incredibly wrong to discriminate against these girls, but it was a horrible idea to cancel prom. Does the school realize the repercussions of this action? By blaming McMillen, the school has given right for all the students to do so. I know a lot of high school students really look forward to their junio/senior prom. And to be deprived of that can be extremely disappointing. I think the school is lucky that they haven’t had to report any instances of gay bashing yet because it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that students had begun to take their anger out on McMillen. I can only hope that the rest of the student body will be disappointed and upset with the real trouble-maker: the school.

The second point I take issue with is the fact that because McMillen is a lesbian, she cannot go to prom with a girl. What if she just wanted to go with a friend that just happened to be a girl because she couldn’t find a date? Would the school still cancel prom for everyone? Because if that’s the case, then the whole school is ridden with bigotry. It’s quite insensitive to expect everyone to have a date. And it’s even worse to deny people who are able to find dates, regardless of sex, entrance into the dance.

I would like to know what kind of theme parties you have been hearing of because most of this question has come as a shock to me. I don’t consider myself a huge partier, but I do enjoy going out on the weekends and I always find theme parties to be especially fun. But in now way would I ever say that throwing a themed party is a white thing. I have been at plenty of parties where people of color are participating in whatever the theme may be that night.

That being said, I have never thrown or gone to a themed party that I (nor anybody I know) would ever consider to be racist in anyway, especially towards black people. At best parties may poke fun at different social classes or cultural sub groups, but that in now way reflects race. I honestly cannot even think of a single theme that would be racist. Most of the time, a theme is just an excuse to dress silly and act like a slut. For example, some of the themed parties I’ve heard of are stoplight parties which reflects your dating status (wear red for taken, yellow for complicated, green for single), pimps and hoes which holds no racial connotations because prostitute and their pimps can be of any racial background, and toga parties which I guess you could say makes fun of Greeks, but I have a hard time believing that anyone would be offended by a toga party.

A themed party can really be anything the host wants it to be. It can be something completely random to an inside joke between friends. So I can see how themed parties have the potential to be racist in nature, but to me that just signifies that those specific people may be racist. I do not believe that that reflects all themed parties everywhere.

Another issue I have with this question is that there seems to be a problem with making fun of stereotypes. But isn’t that a good thing? To me, making fun of a stereotype is a way of combatting it. If you make fun of something you more than likely don’t believe in it. And most of the time, you make fun of the stereotype for your own racial group, not others. So I fail to see how themed parties can be offensive (most of the time).

And to finally answer the question, the purpose of themed parties is just to have fun. It adds that extra element to a party. It adds to the conversation and the atmosphere. To me it’s just like Halloween. Why do people dress up then? I think it’s plain and simple: it’s fun.

For me, the real issue isn’t about Sam’s point not being driven home. I fully understand that the situation in which these Native Americans are living is dire and tragic. And I also understand that is due to our ancestors and our government that they are living that way. The issue I have though, is when do Native Americans have to start shouldering some of the blame. Where does free will come into this deterministic-wrought argument?

Now I am not fully on either end of the spectrum when it comes to determinism versus free will. Nor do I believe that any logical person can be. To me, the best explanations for a specific situation come from a combination of the two. Although surroundings and resources play a major role in shaping who you are, who you become, and what you accomplish, I believe that having the will and the desire to push forward and strive for what you want plays an equally as important role.

Based on this, I have issues with taking all the blame for the ways Native Americans live today. Granted we took their land and we stuck them on reservations. But we did not take everything. We did not take their will to succeed. If they truly wanted to get off the reservation, I believe that the could. Instead of buying alcohol and drugs, they could save enough of their money to move off and get a real job.

Now I understand that the situation they are all in makes this idea hard to fathom. They have low incomes and low levels of education. But it’s not impossible. I truly believe that if you work hard enough you can achieve your goals. Regardless of level playing ground and other factors. They are only obstacles that need to be navigated. They are only walls if you let them prevent you from succeeding.

Another argument I’ve heard is that Native Americans do not want to move off the reservation because they do not want to lose their culture. I understand this concern, but just because you leave that doesn’t mean you can’t take your culture and your heritage with you. Italians in my neighborhood still celebrate their Italian family traditions even though they aren’t in Italy. It’s the same basic concept.

I know that it is a shame that their lands were taken from them and that they suffered great losses. But great people and cultures learn to adjust. I’m not saying that what was done will ever be justified because I don’t think it can be. Nothing gave my ancestors the right to kill you and take your home. But I also can’t justify the self pity. Move on and take your culture with you. Make amends and move towards a better life.

I think this question opens up a whole can of worms. The institution of marriage is, by nature, a religious sanction of unity. It is a celebration and contract made before God of a man’s commitment to a woman. Or so says the Bible.
But the bigger question here is why do all heterosexual couples get to participate in marriage when in fact many heterosexual couples do not practice any of the other laws laid down in the Bible. I’d like to meet the couple that has abstained from alcohol and sex during their courtship because in this day and age I have a hard time believing that many exist.
A bigger question still is why do most of us want to even get married in the first place? Is it because that is what society expects us to do? Grow up, get educated and then get married seems to be the general consensus on how life stages progress today. But why? It’s because marriage is a social construct. A religious group of people made it the norm and now virtually everyone agrees that marriage, regardless of whether the parties involved are religious or not, is necessary in life. In fact, many people are shocked when a person does not want to get married or never does get married in their lifetime. Granted, I understand that the lifelong companionship and love is something to be treasured and appreciated, but who says that marriage is the only way to fulfill those this step in life?
Now here is where I stand with LGBT rights. I believe that heterosexual and homosexual and any other type of sexualities are equal. No one love is greater than any other. Love is love. So if as a society and a culture, we deem that lifelong companionship should be represented through marriage, then I believe that all couples should have the right to enjoy that institution. However, like I previously stated, the fact that marriage is a religious institution I do not understand why everyone wants to be married.
I suggest that we create a new term. Maybe all couples should be should enter into civil unions. Honestly, what is the point of an actual marriage anyway? There is no natural or incessant need for a “marriage.” If you want to celebrate your commitment to one another then throw a party. If the government needs to know about it then sign the marriage license, which should honestly not be named that considering the separation of church and state.
To summarize, everyone complains that gays should have the right to marry. I agree. Every couple should have the right to proclaim their love for one another and have the claim respected by all other people and government. Every couple should get the same perks for making the same commitment.

I do believe that racial conversations will ultimately always find there ways back to black versus white. But I don’t necessarily find that fact to be a horrible occurrence. I’m not saying that other groups should be ignored in this discussion or that they don’t play an important role in society and it’s run, but I will say it can be much easier to accept people once you’ve accepted someone who “differs” the most from you.
Now I say “differ” like this because in all reality there are no inherent differences between white people and black people. We are all just people with very intricately intertwined histories. They histories of whites and blacks are so entangled that it is impossible to talk about one without the other. The fact of the matter is that these two pasts are much more extended and deeper than an other histories either blacks or whites has with any other group. So it is only natural that racial discussions would come back to the white-black discussion.
Now because of these long, intertwined histories, these two groups of people have not come together, but they’ve fallen further apart. The relationship started off in slavery; not the best way to create an everlasting friendship. And then throughout the years, blacks became more and more oppressed due to their lack of resources dating all the way back to slavery. Then in the 1960s and 1970s, the Civil Rights Movement came into being. And as Laurie said, as white people, we only saw the plight of blacks. We did not see any others struggling in the way that they had. These two major events in the histories of blacks and whites builds an unhealthy foundation for an interracial community in the world.
This is how I see it. Because blacks and whites have been involved with each other for so long, especially in a negative light, discussion is much more prone to find its way back to this issue in discussion rather than finding issue with another group of people. I think a metaphor for this situation is like meeting new people. For instance, if you meet a complete stranger on the road, you know nothing of them, you may find it easier to accept them as a person at first because you know nothing about them. You cannot find immediate issue with them. That is like whites and blacks finding issues with other groups besides themselves. Because they don’t know the other groups as well, they may be more willing to accept each other. However, if you meet someone on the road and it is someone that your best friend has told you all about. You know everything they do, all their dirty secrets, you are more likely to reject this person and have issues. This is how blacks and whites are. We know each others dirty secrets and our histories together. Therefore it is natural that we take issue up with each other just from learning about each other through our cultures.
The only way to solve this is to move beyond our pasts. We can learn from each other today and begin to accept one another for the humans that we are.

I think that the fact that the American Census will be including various racial terms for blacks is a great idea. There is nothing wrong with identifying as a Negro as opposed to black or African American. It all depends on your own perception of yourself and your heritage. If more than 56,000 people described themselves as that, than it clearly isn’t as widely offensive as it once was. But blacks are not the only group to have ever reclaimed a term that was once offensive. For example, many homosexual people now identify as queer even though that in the 1960s and 1970s this term was considered to be horrible offensive. The gay community took the word back and redefined it to meet their own perceptions. The same was done for Italians and the term guido. These basic definition changes signify the ever changing and evolving science of race.
The fact that the Census Bureau is putting the racial term Negro back into the census shows their respect and understanding that definitions of race are always changing. If they had chosen to leave out this term and ignore the tens of thousands of those who identify as Negro, that would have been discriminatory. By having this as an option for blacks to check, the Census Bureau can discover more about the boundaries and characteristics that race and people’s perceptions of race have on other statistical data.
However, I think the greatest improvement the Census made was adding a fill in the blank section so that people could further describe their race and heritage. There are far too many different combinations to believe that the Census can include every single racial description of every single person in the United States. It is unlikely to even think that the generalizations are enough to get a clear understanding. But by providing a fill in the blank after the general race options the Census can see what people believe is included in each race. They can see what people consider themselves to be. It allows people the opportunity to classify themselves instead of being forced into a single box that they don’t necessarily feel comfortable in.
What I think will be most interesting to see after this Census is complete is the way people in the country respond to the race questionnaire. Maybe we will see new classifications of race. Maybe all our perceptions of race will be rearranged. The consequences of this Census could be great. It has the potential to change so much from our everyday lives to the actions of the government to even how we associate with each other. I think the greatest thing we can gain from this Census though is the realization that race serves no real purpose. It is nothing but a way to separate humankind.