Unbelievable.
The lecture on the Native Americans really blew my mind. Not growing up here I wasn’t really aware of Native Americans, their history, their lifestyle, their difficulties. I was surprised though how many born and raised Americans were unaware of the Native Americans’ hardships too. I think this is really extremely wrong, seeing as the people are called NATIVE Americans. This land we are on right now? It belongs to them. They are native to this land, we are all imposters. ‘Immigrants’ is the word we like to use, but our ancestors and us were / are definitely not legal immigrants. No Native Americans said that we could come and, if they did, they certainly didn’t mean that we could take over the way we have done and banish them to reservations. How does that fit with the Declaration of Human Rights at all? I feel like the United Nations should sue the USA on behalf of the Native Americans for completely overtaking their land for no reason other than our ancestors had guns and they did not.
I was horrified watching the video. I think I remember the narrator saying that the reservation that we saw counted amongst the poorest reservations in the States, but it really was a depressing place. The ‘homes’ of the people in the documentary can better be described as shacks. The land looked unyielding and the weather uncompromising. I felt deep sadness and, I was a bit surprised, a lot of anger that these historically proud people who had been overtaken by greedy, self-absorbed immigrants.
My English class just finished reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, in which the protagonist, a gorilla called Ishmael, calls our society the ‘Taker’ culture and the people we call the third world the ‘Leaver’ culture. The Takers, Ishmael teaches, attempt to control everything about the world – they (read: we in the first and second worlds) believe the earth was created for our benefit and for us to rule. Instead, we are running it to the ground, like an airplane without fuel, with things like pollution. The Leaver culture, on the other hand, is nowhere near as arrogant as the Takers, and contentedly farms the land, living just as prosperously as we do. Sam’s lecture made me think of Ishmael’s teachings, because we overtook Native American land thinking that we could do it better. Instead, we committed the greatest genocide in human history. My thoughts about this were very dark, and I would like to learn more about what is actually going on with Native Americans.

To be honest, yes, I would definitely help someone illegal immigrate into the country. I find it hard to understand that people on this blog are so, so against illegal immigration. While I understand that, yes, illegal immigration is just that – illegal – there are always cases in which it is better to bend or even break rules than to follow them to the letter. A prime example of this is abortion. Even staunch pro-life activists need to understand that it is, at times, in nobody’s best interest to keep the baby. Say the mother was brutally raped and became pregnant as a consequence. She will be in no fit state to raise a child, nor will that child be loved and cherished the way it should be. In many cases, the baby will probably be maltreated, malnourished, and even grow up delinquent. In this case, one needs to be able to get over oneself and one’s beliefs and moral code and consider what is in the mother’s and baby’s and society’s best interest. Thus, the question that is being raised in this blog is not whether we would help someone illegal immigrate into the country, but rather whether it is okay to use our moral codes ‘just’ as guidelines, and not as rulebooks.
That being said, I did say I would help someone illegal immigrate into the country. That is not to say I would and will always do that. I just believe that there are always times when rules (i.e.: laws) are not always the best. Laws should be living things, capable of transforming and changing to fit society’s needs, not rulebooks that will kill us if we don’t follow them to the letter. I believe there is always a grey zone; nothing is ever as simple as black and white. Hiding behind laws is no way to go. The asylum system in the States is long-winded and outdated. It takes months or even years to move through the system. Take a woman from a very strict country who is a lesbian and outspoken about personal freedoms and rights, for example. There is a manhunt going on for her at home, and she is surely to be killed for her beliefs the second she steps back on her home country’s soil. She seeks asylum from the States but is, for some reason, denied. Can all you who are writing that you would never, ever help her settle in this country really deny her protection from her fate? Whether she is intelligent or not, she will be murdered for exercising the basic human rights explained in the Declaration of Human Rights. Not helping her is tantamount to being an accomplice in her death, in my mind. No doubt about it.
Of course, there is a grey zone in this example too. One can never be sure who to let in and who not but I believe that, if someone is facing murder or is in an even slightly similar situation at home, we do not have the right to deny her immigration. Yes, there is a system in place. No, it does not always work. And no, don’t ever think it does.

There were two points to The Needy Penis lecture that I absolutely loved and found very informational. The points revolved around the difference of how quickly men get aroused when compared to how quickly women get aroused.
The first point that I found interesting pertained to my own sex. The example used was that, when heterosexual couples kiss/engage in foreplay, the woman gets aroused much slower than a man does. The man is pretty much ready instantaneously, while the woman takes much, much longer to get into the mood. I liked how Laurie told the women in the room that it was of the utmost importance that we understood this and fully appreciated that it is really, really hard for a man to simply walk away when things get heated. She stressed the importance of knowing this because although men are taught ‘no means no’, they might be physically incapable of stopping themselves. Though not new information, it was most definitely the most helpful thing I learned in this lecture because it is really important to know.
On the flip side, I appreciated Sam grabbing the attention of the men right after Laurie talked about this. It was good that he spoke to them right after so that they did not think they now had a biological excuse to engage in non-consensual sex. Sam really pushed the fact that “no” really does mean “no”, and explained that Laurie was only mentioning this to the women so that we could fully understand that baiting men in that way was really not cool.
As a woman, I learned a lot in this lecture that I had not known or really thought about before. I had not thought about that the ultimate goal in sex, intercourse (and simultaneous orgasms through intercourse), was a completely male-centric construction and not necessarily a female’s ultimate goal. I also liked the warning that Laurie sent out to the female population of Soc 119 when she said that women should be suspicious and careful of drinking alcohol to get into a ‘male mind’ where casual sex is okay and is the norm. Ultimately, I found the information on my own sex the most enlightening because I learned the most from it. However, the idea that how we see sex nowadays is due to male wants and needs was a new and beneficial one, too.

There were two points to The Needy Penis lecture that I absolutely loved and found very informational. The points revolved around the difference of how quickly men get aroused when compared to how quickly women get aroused.
The first point that I found interesting pertained to my own sex. The example used was that, when heterosexual couples kiss/engage in foreplay, the woman gets aroused much slower than a man does. The man is pretty much ready instantaneously, while the woman takes much, much longer to get into the mood. I liked how Laurie told the women in the room that it was of the utmost importance that we understood this and fully appreciated that it is really, really hard for a man to simply walk away when things get heated. She stressed the importance of knowing this because although men are taught ‘no means no’, they might be physically incapable of stopping themselves. Though not new information, it was most definitely the most helpful thing I learned in this lecture because it is really important to know.
On the flip side, I appreciated Sam grabbing the attention of the men right after Laurie talked about this. It was good that he spoke to them right after so that they did not think they now had a biological excuse to engage in non-consensual sex. Sam really pushed the fact that “no” really does mean “no”, and explained that Laurie was only mentioning this to the women so that we could fully understand that baiting men in that way was really not cool.
As a woman, I learned a lot in this lecture that I had not known or really thought about before. I had not thought about that the ultimate goal in sex, intercourse (and simultaneous orgasms through intercourse), was a completely male-centric construction and not necessarily a female’s ultimate goal. I also liked the warning that Laurie sent out to the female population of Soc 119 when she said that women should be suspicious and careful of drinking alcohol to get into a ‘male mind’ where casual sex is okay and is the norm. Ultimately, I found the information on my own sex the most enlightening because I learned the most from it. However, the idea that how we see sex nowadays is due to male wants and needs was a new and beneficial one, too.

Although I do not identify as a dark-skinned woman, this topic really hit me hard so I would like to comment on it.
The video, as I understand the question, was of a bunch of five year old children – both male and female – who are African American. They were sat down at a table and had two plastic dolls lying in front of them: one light-skinned and one dark-skinned. The researchers asked the children who the ‘good’ doll was and who the ‘bad’ doll was. Almost every child chose the ‘white’ doll as good – especially the girls. The one boy in the group was the only one – to the best of my memory – that chose the dark-skinned doll to be the ‘good’ one. Then came the heartbreaking conclusion to the video: we saw one of the girls point that the light-skinned doll was the ‘good’ doll, saw her then pick up the dark-skinned doll when asked to show which one was the ‘bad’ doll. She was then finally asked which doll most closely resembled her own skin color. She look at the light-skinned doll, fumbled with it, wanting to pick it up, fidgeted, and then eventually angrily poked the dark-skinned doll. It was absolutely tear-jerking to see her wrestle with herself. One could really see how she yearned to pick up the light-skinned doll, her ‘good’ doll, and one could see how much distress she was in. The pain in her eyes almost shouted at the viewers as she grudgingly identified with the dark-skinned doll and one could see her crumple as she realized she had equated herself with the ‘bad’ doll.
This must have been traumatizing, to say the least. I think it is completely wrong that culture has subjected human beings – forget for a moment kids this young – to (indirect) oppression. At some point in our racial history, people decided that being dark-skinned equated with being bad. This belief has its roots at least half a millennium back, when Europeans conquered the Americas and started viewing the natives living there as second class citizens. This idea that they were second class has its own roots that could well date back to the beginning of the human race.
Why in the world did they think they had the right to do this, and why in the world are we still listening to them?!
Obviously, I can’t talk about my experiences growing up as the questioner asks, being white, but those last few seconds of the video, where the girl really struggled with her racial identity and what she had been taught consciously and subconsciously about race already, really made me hit the floor. I have a lot of reflecting still to do about this topic as I am just at the beginning of thinking about this; I know the video is going to haunt me for a while.

The biggest issue currently faced by Penn State is the lack of diversity on campus. I define ‘diversity’ as racial background, political, economic and social mindset, sexual orientation, academic and extracurricular interests, Coke vs. Pepsi, and everything in between. There is, therefore, a huge amount of diversity on campus but, given its lack of fundamental integration into student life, it principally does not exist at all. International and national students are segregated and hate crimes against students who are queer abound – as do those against minority students such as people who are African American, to name just a few examples of this ‘lack’ of diversity at Penn State. I find it incredible that these things are still happening today at a liberal institution; this needs to stop.
Diversity at Penn State is an unrealized good – most people associate mainly with people of the same ethnicity. We see this all around campus – groups of students with the same skin colour, or style of dress, etc. milling about together. We hear this all around campus – walk down Pollock on any day and I will bet you you hear at least three languages other than English. But, Americans, remember that ‘those international kids’ are not the only ones doing this – you are, too. If all the people you’re milling about with are white Pennsylvanians (assuming you are too), for example, how can you say you’re any different? I, for one, can’t say I’m any different: I am lucky to have a good friend of mine from Austria here who is also a freshman. Since I don’t see him every day, every time we meet up we talk German a mile a minute, joke about our friends from home, reminisce about the good ole times, discuss Austrian and central European news with concern all while enjoying our favourite dishes from home at Herwig’s Austrian Bistro.
As you can see, I’m not trying to preach from a soap box here. All I’m saying is that we, as students, can do so much more for the diversity on campus. Yes, it’s there. But who uses it, learns from it, celebrates it? I didn’t choose to come to Penn State for its diversity percentage. While I did make sure that there was a typical 6-10% of students from an outside country, it wasn’t my main reason for coming here. And frankly, the lack of integration between the virtually infinite different groups on campus makes it seem like there is no diversity since no one individual is being diverse.

This topic is really interesting to me, especially lately.
In summer camp as a child I learned that saying the word ‘retard’ was not OK. This confused me because it seemed like everyone else was constantly using it. The r-word was not a word that was used at my home, so I only came across it at summer camp. I didn’t understand why campers got angry at other campers for saying it, but then said it themselves only a while later.
I eventually figured out that it wasn’t OK to say retard or retarded in a derogatory sense, but was so ingrained in popular culture that the habit of saying it was hard to kick. The issue reminds me now of a similar issue I faced at Kindergarten: at school I learned the catchphrase “easy peasy, Japanesey” from my classmates. My parents, upon hearing that, sat me down and gave me quite a talking to because they felt the reference was in very bad taste. I asked my parents what I should say instead to indicate how easy and doable something was (keep in mind I was maybe four years old) and they came up “easy peasy, lemon squeezy”. I still remember this episode quite often because, although I can’t remember what my parents said or anything, I have a dim memory of how earnest they were and that they really meant it seriously. When I came across the r-word issue I thought of the easy peasy phrase because it shows how quickly an inappropriate saying can become popular culture.
The general topic has also hit home lately much more than normal. I haven’t been calling anyone the r-word lately – it’s just not a word I use; I didn’t grow up with it – and no one has been using it to describe me either, but I have broken my leg recently and now spend most of my time around campus sitting in a scooter. I find it interesting how people treat me differently – doors get held open for me all the time, which is nice, but I still catch all these stolen side-glances in my direction. I find it interesting that a simple broken leg garners this reaction. Although people aren’t calling me names to my face, the looks are most important because they show what people are really thinking. Changing the use of a word is the first step, but changing the words the inner voice uses is the final step.

PS: Sorry for the late post! I honestly thought today was Friday. Shows what the holidays do to me…

My eyes were opened to the white lower classes this lecture. I never paid much attention to the issue – I knew a lot of people lived below the poverty line in destitution in the United States of America, but I never thought that there were so many or that their chances in life seemed so bleak. Like Woody9 said, “it never occurred to me until I took this course that the poor white society practically is the only group of people that is ridiculed and made fun of without consequence”. I did not realize that calling someone a ‘redneck’ denoted a group of people below the poverty line; I always just thought that it was more of a ‘country bumpkin’ with creative decorations and a cool accent.
I agree with Woody9’s statement at this beginning of his / her blog post because of ‘racism’. It is not alright to make fun of people of color about their (low) socioeconomic status simply because that would be branded has hardcore racism. It does seem ok, however, to make fun of white people if they are poor. This is probably so because the majority of the population is white, and it is socially acceptable to poke fun at one’s own kind. I say this as a white person, I have no idea whether a black or brown or whatever non-white person would agree with me at all on this point.
In the lecture the question was raised about why these ‘rednecks’ seem to flaunt being ‘redneck’ with their fairs, picnics, festivals, et cetera. This question holds implicit animosity towards this group as the questioner obviously resents this group of people for being themselves. I personally feel for the poor whites of the modern society – whether pity or compassion though, I cannot tell.
The question of who I am most likely to help is a difficult one to answer. It is hard simply because of the answer involved. I would want to help black, brown, et cetera people more. This, I think, is because I have been conditioned to think that they have undergone, dealt with and survived so many types of oppression. The answer is hard to give though because I am pulling a different ethnicity over my own, which certainly will not make me the most popular person around. However, just in writing this, I am feeling ever more compassion for poor white people, because they really do seem to have had the brunt of everything, with people not even recognizing the dire situations they are in simply because – what a recurring theme! – they do not have the right skin color.

In a way, I completely agree with the man’s statement that we are “‘eating [his] flesh’”. This man has toiled away for weeks, months, years – whatever the case may be – for absolutely no pay. He has done hard labour in extremely poor conditions, with the threat of physical violence hanging over his head. I thus believe he is completely justified in calling us chocolate-eaters in the so-called ‘first world’ out. Without his hard labour, we would not be able to satisfy our sweet tooth and / or chocolate cravings. Cocoa handling companies, chocolate manufacturers, chocolate academies, companies that produce machinery for chocolate manufacturing, etc. would cease to exist, as would their gargantuan profits. The world would be a worse place for the lack of chocolate, the lack of jobs, and the loss of profit. Frankly, without him the world as we know it would not exist – just think of all the chocolate doled out at Halloween and all the chocolate given as a present to a beloved for St. Valentine’s Day / Happy Single’s Awareness Day!
On the other hand, I do not feel guilty. Yes, Sam saying that the second piece of chocolate “‘taste[d] differently’” after watching the video had some truth to it: the taste and texture seemed off. However, no matter how much chocolate I buy I am not the person to be held accountable for this man’s extreme misfortune. I did not introduce the product, start trade, set up farms and factories, employ and enslave workers, etc. I furthermore make no point to advocate for chocolate production.
I feel it would be supremely unfair to blame consumers for consuming. Maybe if I went around the world and bought every last piece of chocolate to be had, thus causing farmers to produce more to meet the rest of the world’s demand, then one could (easily) argue I was a cause of slavery. However, I have not done that and do not plan to. If something is on the market, somebody will buy it. They cannot be judged because of that because, if they were, why would anyone want to buy anything leading to why would anyone ever want to produce something?

“I think that all the silence is worse than all violence.”
These are powerful words that I think really relate to what we are talking about in the lectures and in our discussion groups. There are so many things in the world where the tension would be relieved if we could only open up and talk about them and/or talk about what is bothering us. Most problems in the world have been caused by a lack of communication – things as small as a minor fight between a couple to things as massive and destructive as world wars, genocides and bombings. I believe that talking through the issues that caused such heavy reactions would have been solved, or at least ameliorated, by simply talking openly and honestly, with each side saying everything that is on their mind and the other side listening open-mindedly, not interrupting, until the speaking side has finished, and then calmly stating their own stance and opinions.
Lupe Fiasco thus hinted at a very important factor in making the world the violent place it is today. In our discussion groups we talked about not being able to talk about things, and what that means. I believe that the biggest step forward is making us talk things through. Like the discussion we held about political correctness in my discussion group, where we decided that political correctness is like doing a dainty little side-stepping dance around the topic we are trying to get at, silence is not getting us anywhere. In my Parliamentary Procedure class, we have learned that “silence is consent”. Yes, protests, like the one in Egypt, do sometimes achieve their intent, but generally violence, or acting out in a large group, does not usually get anyone anywhere. Oftentimes, protests just escalate into full-scale violence. Like the ‘silence is consent’ mantra, Lupe Fiasco’s lyrics point out how silence, or no opinion at all (at least, no spoken one), is much more dangerous than flat-out, in-your-face violence. There is no way to hide from violence, but silence is sneaky, like slipping through the back entrance, instead of parading in through the front; like the proverb, ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’.