the different lifestyles and viewpoints on family between the races. It used to be that everyone had large families because women stayed at home and could take care of more kids, or that they needed more kids to help on the family farm or so on. Now the trend is changing and you see more and more professional women who don't even think about starting a family until they're well into their twenties or early thirties. This means that they have far less time to have as many kids, resulting in families with one, maybe two kids. Now while I don't think this change is limited only to whites, but I've learned in other classes how it's not just a stereotype but many latinos do in fact still work in the farming industry where having more kids is still an advantage. And for minorties living in cities or underdeveloped areas I think that teen pregnancy and higher rates of pregnancy, resulting in more and more kids being born to younger and younger parents of minorities. What is a concern is exactly what sam said in his post is whether whites, when they become the minority, will be willing to support younger generations that are ruled by what are now the minorities.

This article was really kind of an eye opener for me. We had been hearing rumors and reports for years that this might happen but up to this point i really hadn't paid attention to it much or gave it much thought. It's kind of a hard concept for me to grasp. Now I don't mean this in a way such as I'm afraid of this or I don't want this to happen, but in a way that I look around at my environments and it couldn't seem further from what I see. I come from a town that I'd say is a good 95% white and now that I go to Penn State it hasn't changed THAT much. While you can find a wide array of nationalities and colors here at Penn State, we did learn in class that compared to other towns and universities that Penn State is still very prominently white. I haven't been to any cities such as New York or Philadelpia that have large numbers of minorties so I really couldn't imagine or see myself as being the minority at any point in my life. This being said, I think studies like this speaks volumes to

I think that this video was definitely disturbing to see such young kids, who normally are oblivious to a certain point about race, stick to a particular mindset. The one thing I’m confused about is, does this mean that this mindset is in the genes of these kids or how does it get there? Because sam also mentioned in class that kids when they are little kids don’t see themselves as one color or another. If this is the case then how did the kids in this study see the dolls as being different not only on a color basis, but also a personality basis if you will. Also, if this is somehow instilled in their genes, what would exlain this? I think that this study was obviously important that it showed the mindset of these kids but I also think more work should have been, or should be, put into finding out exactly what causes these kids to think like this. And while this video was negative because what we saw in the way these kids think, I did see a positive in it. The girls that were in the beginning in the video did seem to acknowledge the stereotypes that surround blacks and go against them. Although they did talk about the stereotypes suck as loud, big butt, kinky hair and ghetto, they seemed to acknowledge them in a mocking way. I see this as a positive thing. It very may have, and most likely was, the same mindset that these girls had when they were little kids. According to the study, these same girls who spoke out about the way they are viewed would have conformed to the common mass and picked the white doll, but they have risen up from this and see that it is a bad thing and that they have to reverse this trend. And while I do see this as a positive aspect of the video, one has to wonder if the only reason these girls see this trend and acknowledge how bad it is, is that they are working on this video and therefore are taught about it. Do all girls, and guys, of color realize this trend and mindset when they reach a certain age? Or will the trend continue generation after generation, bringing down people of color forever? I think this is the aspect of the video that needs more exploration and explanation.

But what Dr. Richards showed us was hey there are a lot of sins out there and nobody has lived their life, or is living their life, without committing some of these sins. I also thought this article was interesting because I had never known that there was so much sexual discussion in the bible. While I think that the authors arguing that they actually meant penis when they mention Adam's rib was wrong, you can't look past all the other sexual mentions in the bible such as the one person swearing an oath while holding the other man's thigh. I'm pretty sure we'd be ok with a handshake or fist-pump these days. But I think the biggest lesson we can take from this is he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone.

And also things were said to happen in the bible that we now condemn or at the very least look down upon. Now I'm not saying we should all start having incest, but I find it very ironic that the very bible that millions and millions look to for their path to life and the afterlife, also talks about these things in not so negative of a way. I also was intrigued by what Dr. Richards said in class the other day about the sins. I think that is a major problem with the people who are really against homosexuality is that they can simply support their argument by throwing out "it's a sin."

This article was really kind of an eye-opener for me. I consider myself a christian (although not a die-hard bible thumber as some can be). In this I mean that I try to be a good person but let's face it, I'm in college and the prime of my youth. I can't hold myself to this higher standards. At the same time however I have always believed in the bible and the things it said. but lately with the things we've been discussing in class as well as now reading this article it really does make you think. Although I wasn't overly impressed with this article because it seemed like some of the research might of been spotty, I think it does provide a lot of valid information in showing that the bible is not some high and mighty rulebook that we all see it as.

well for a guy that was hoping to become the new governor next year i think it's pretty safe to say that he just single-handedly fried those chances. What amazes me the most is that this person relies on the very people that he insulted for his career. Like Dr. Richards said in his post, this isn't some random guy on the street putting people down, but rather the guy who the citizens of South Carolina elected based on the fact that he was going to help them. On the other hand, I think that this was a thought based on ideas of his that simply escaped his mouth. He stated that he would like welfare recipients to have to submit to drug testing and go to their children's parent teacher conferences. I doubt that anybody who is not taking advantage of their welfare would agree that this is a good idea. No matter who perfect you try to make a system, there is always going to be somebody that finds a loophole and takes advantage of the situation. This is the problem with welfare. Although it is designed to help people in need, such as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, what ends up happening is people that are too lazy to get a job and support themselves will milk the system for all its worth. My aunt was on welfare for many years while I was growing up and i never understood why because she was perfectly healthy. Then she told my mom that because they require that you try to get jobs and keep track of interviews, she would go to interviews dressed like a slob and make herself seem completely useless so that they would not hire her. That way she does not have to get a job, but she gets to meet her interview requirements. This is bogus! Nobody should be able to that easily cheat a system that the taxpayers of America are supporting. And I think that this is what this guy was trying to show. Could he have said it in a better fashion? absolutely. Should he have not said it at all? I don't think so because people need to hear comments like this every once in awhile to open their eyes and make them question things like this.

I have seen avatar and i have to disagree with mr. brooks on how predominately in movies it's white people saving other races. The first reason that I want to disagree with him for is because if you've seen this movie you know that all it is is a very modern and glorified version of pocahontas. People are new to a world and they are enclosing around the native people. Then one of the humans falls for the natives and helps to fight against his own people. If you take away all the three-D, and all the make up and CGI, this is exactly what you get. So because of this I think that it's not like James Cameron went out of his way to create this storyline about white people helping black or brown people. In fact he didn't come up with a storyline at all, he just copied pocahontas. Although this isn't a major reason why i disagree with Brooks, you will also note if you watch the movie that 2 of the people that helped in the movie are either black or brown. Michelle Rodriguez plays the helicopter pilot who helps fight at the end. And there's also a minority scientist who helps them as well and decides to stay on the island at the end of the movie. The second reason that I disagree with Mr. Brooks is because of the overwhelming evidence that its not just that white people are playing roles in which they help minorities, but that white people are playing nearly ALL the roles period! There have been studies done that show that minorities are not represented very often at all as the protagonists in movies or TV. Now i think this is a bad thing. I'm not making a case that this is ok and that's why Brooks is wrong. What I'm saying is that if they majority of protagonists in any movie are going to be white, then they are going to be white in movies where they are the heroes as well. It just goes hand in hand. Another reason that I disagree with Mr. Brooks is that an argument can be made that the main character actually made things worse for the native in the movie. Before he begins to care for and love the natives, he was feeding information to the trigger-happy man in charge of the military, making it easier for him to plan his attacks against the natives.

After watching this video my perception of European soccer has gone from one of already disdain to pure disgust. Everyone has heard for years about the violence and riots and such at soccer events in Europe, but until now I hadn't heard anything about the amount of racism that exists within the sport as well. You would think that after Hitler and the holocaust, Europe would have learned somewhat of a lesson about prejudice and the effects it can have on people. What particularly struck me is that this isn't sport related at all. Although it would still be a bad thing, it would be one thing for fans to taunt players of the opposing teams simply to throw them off their game. But the video says that players are being taunted with racism by their own fans at their own stadium as well! We all know how big soccer is in Europe and how much these people live and die with their teams. How can you call yourself a true fan of a team when your saying and doing things that are causing some of your best players not to concentrate and perform at their highest levels? Another thing that really struck me is the coach from Spain making comments about the player from France. Although it doesn't always happen this way, coaches are supposed to lead by example and show their players not only how to play, but to be better people as we can see by such coaches as Tony Dungy in the U.S. For the coach of a team to make these comments shows not only his players, but the thousands of fans who saw it, that it's ok to act and think like this and not have any second thoughts about it. Although I think that it is good that FIFA is taking steps to correct, or at least tame this problem, I think that its pathetic that it took the public acts of the players being taunted to finally grab their attention. This is a sport that millions and millions of people across the world watch and FIFA is allowing this kind of blatant hatred to be shown to everyone of those viewers, not only in Europe where this is apparently tolerated, but to other countries where this idea could be implemented into their minds as well. I think the President of FIFA needs to take an even harder stance against such racism to ensure that these acts are stopped in the future. It said in the video that teams of taunting fans will get a penalty, but that fans may taunt their own players trying to get the other team penalized. The solution to this? Any fan heard or seen making racist comments or symbols should immediately be thrown out of the stadium by security. After missing a few games of their beloved team, I think that many people will think twice about voicing their outdated mindsets.

hey