hey, im Asian too. figured i'd throw that into the mix...

personally i am not surprised at all, and i dont think anyone should either. what did we expect? for him to scream "Death to America!" or for him to say "we all love America, please stay here. the war is good". instead he gave a very average Joe's response, he responded just as the majority of people would in his position would, no matter what their nationality is.
War, whether it is justified or not, is always bad. in terms of the normal day-to-day life of the citizens nothing good could come out of war. I can not say i know how it feels, because thankfully i have never been in this position or a in a country being torn apart by war. War is just bad on so many levels. politicians can talk all they want and justify it, but it negatively affects the country or the people living in it.
Baghdad is a beautiful city. The land between the 2 rivers where Baghdad falls in is a very rich, fertile land. with beautiful scenery, greenery, amazing fruits. However thanks to the war (notice i am not blaming America or the troops here) that is not the scene we picture when we imagine Iraq. Instead we think of dirt roads, sandy planes, destruction, bullet riddled buildings, basically just another scene from the Hurt Locker. from what i got from Bassem is that despite the reasons for war and Saddam's tyrant regime, all he probably want to do is walk around and enjoy the beauty of the city of baghdad and Iraq as a country, rather than want to deal with all messiness of war.
if anything did surprise me it would be this: his answer to the question weather all Iraqi's think America is there for oil. and he replied with an emphatic YES! he didnt even try to give a politcal answer, or go around it or anything. im not surprised by the answer itself because obviously i know that is why America went to war. but i was taken back by the fact that it is like a fact now, common knowledge. Noboday is trying to hide it anymore, and from Bassem i got that iraqi's all think like that as well.
All in all I really like the talk with Bassem. It wasn’t life changing, and what he said wasn’t anything dramatic. But it was extremely significant in my eyes because it was so very organic and real. There were no strings in between, no media to fog up the view, there was nothing to distort the view. I felt I could connect with him in a personal basis and could find that much easier to sympathise and empathise with Iraqi’s than any news segment ever could.

First of all, it doesn’t matter what I think, because whats done is done and all the evil acts ill talk about in this blog are going to continue to keep happening to the Natives, Palestinains and any other weaker, less advantaged group of people. But in just trying to make sense of it here is what I have to say:
This whole country's economic system works on the idea of "survival of the fittest", or using another cliché saying, "only the strong survive". Although i dont agree with the actions of the white man, and of course looking at the case of the Native Americans its pretty inhumane and the case is on their side so to speak. But here is the REALITY of the situation.
Yes the native americans are the rightful citizens of this land that we are on. but this just goes to show how cruel this world on earth can be, and why there is an afterlife, because one of the mottos of earth is "this is life". The white man came and was able to take advantage of the indigenous. with strength, smarts, and power they took over their land and effectively conquered the natives. Now the hypocrisy here is ridiculous to be honest, because America, and especially the American government claims to be the force of peace and good and claims to be taking care of unjust dictatorship and rule. but really that is not what America is about at all.
America is about the "the strong survive" from its economic system, to its founding, to its political system. so they shouldn't pretend to be something they are not.
with that said, i do believe in the right for the indigenous and the white man has not treated them with any justice back when they came from europe, and still not today because they are discriminated against and live in poverty.

the case of the natives reminds of the Palestinians. a more powerful force came into their land 60 years and is still taking over their land bit by bit. it pisses me off when people justify it, instead of trying to claim its right, just tell us, we came and took it by force because we are stronger and this is life. don't say this is our land. same way this land we are one is not the white man's land.
don’t mistake what i am saying as "this is life, deal with it" no this is wrong. but the entire act from the beginning is wrong weather its Israel taking land from the Palestinians, or the White man taking the land fro the Native Indians. and no Palestinian or Native Indian would be the least bit satisfied or accept a person saying that to him. but if i am trying to make sense of it, all i could say is this life, i hope the afterlife is a place free of such evil. Instead of trying to find ways to justify the evil and obviously wrong acts that groups of people have done onto other, less powerful groups.

hmm, what makes multiculturalism positive. basically its the ideal of America isn't it? isn't this whole country built on the idea of accepting everybody,a land of immigrants where everyone can come and be safe and free to follow thier own faith, live within their culture. we have to accpet every race. so i believe it would hypocritical of us to question that.
multiculturalism is positive because it builds tolerance, it opens up people's minds, expands thier bounded rationality. it is the first step to alleviating hate, discrimination, prejudice, and basically it is American.
more specific ways that multiculturalism is positive for America is because it can enrich our culture even more and help Americans be more well-rounded. the reason this country is considered one of the greatest countries in the world, is due to its open mindedness. It is so fascinating that you are able to learn about so many different cultures without even leaving your country. Many countries do not have this, and are in for a shock when they visit another country. other countries i have lived in have a very homogenous population and so i believe it does not allow them to develop and expand. Luckily, we can learn about other cultures whenever we would like. Also, if Americans accept all cultures and learn new languages, I feel it just shows how great this country is. The fact that we can embrace it and learn more is wonderful.
lets take it from a business aspect, now with globalization it is no secret that you would most probably have to deal with other cultures and make business with them in order to expand your business. how would you be able to do that without embracing multiculturalism in your country first? you would find it really hard and challenging to do so.
other than in the business world, it would help your relationship with other people. multiculturalism opens your mind to be a more social person. that way no matter where you end up in life, or were your work or life takes you, by multiculturalism and having an open mind you would be able to build relationships and form friendships much easier. and who knows maybe you find your sole-mate to be from a different culture.
usually when i argue a point or a side of the argument, i ten to pay attention and at least be mindful and respect the other side. however i find it hard to see the point behind the other side to this - multiculturalism being a threat- simply because sometimes logic and common sense has to trump all other cards in arguments especially, so i find it hard to listen to people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and see where they are coming from, because you cant make an argument for being closed off.
although some countries close to me are much more closed off than America, i think its a beautiful thing if one or a country for that matter, is able to find the balance between maintaining their own culture and identity and still be respectful and open minded to other cultures and races and really embracing multiculturalism.

its one thing if u just sitting with ur boys and the situation is already light, maybe ur already very close with the group of friends ur with and one of ur boys makes a racial comment about someone not in the room and u call him out there. But here's a more challenging question, if ur friend said a racial slur directed at someone of another race and the other dude answered back and maybe they were going to get in a confrontation, would u still call out ur friend then? or would u just have his back? the thing here is the latter setting your are really putting the rights of another person you don't know above ur friendship with ur friend. You are literally deciding to lose a friend possibly fighting for someone else's rights.
although the first situation your calling your friend out does not seem relatively as heroic or as challenging, i sitll believe its important. its important when u learn something or have a discussion about race or any other topic in an academic setting like in SOC 119 or other classes, you should go back and talk to your friends about this stuff, discuss it with ur friends and loved ones rather than just lose that spark. because what classes like SOC 119 do is spark your mind, or make u aware of certain things like racism and discrimination happening in this world so it is ur job to address them.
so going back to my two hypothetical situations i presented at the top of this blog, you need to have a few discussions like those with ur friends or within ur comfort zone, before you can really do change out there and call out racist acts in the community. whether its by your friends or others. not until you have brought the issue out into the open somewhere will you be comfortable and confident enough to act upon it when it really counts.
it is interesing as well in this video the person's choice of words, he said people of ur own race. so if you said yes, this means that your are not blind to the fact that racism is a two-way street. it is easy to point out or act upon racist acts done to ur own race, but it gets more personally challenging if you point of racist acts BY your own people. meaning u acknowledge that racism could occur in both directions.
with that said, i believe that it is okay if a person says no, it means that that person is in one of the initial stages, and as the class showed us you have to pass through these stages at one point, so just because one isnt so racially active in terms of pointing out racist slurs or acts, being at least involved with such discussions means that he or she is working to get past those initial stages.

i dont have any exact data but i dont think the issue here is just that white people simply dont date black girls, but maybe you might feel that here in a place like penn state which is dominated by white people, simply because to date someone yu have to have a deep emotional connection to that person. And as we see time and time again with race is that people are just more comfortable and share more in common with those of thier own race. i would re-frame the issue by saying that its not hat white people won't date black girls, but they are more likely to date white girls rather than any other race. and since the black race here is the minority they might feel like whites dont choose black girls, but i dont think thats the case. they won't date chinese, brown, or even some white-skinned girls but from a different race like from turkey or eastern europe or something because simply they are choosing the white race.
also, i think that since people do tend to stick more to their own race, they nturally interact more with people of their own race and be surrounded by them, so hence make it more likely to have a relationship with ppl of thier own race, and again here im talking about the white people.
so its not that they are hesitant, but rather that would be stepping out of thier comfort zone for them or any other race.
now when i said other white-skinned races, some might not agree, so allow to clarify that. Yes, a white male here is more likely to date a white female from europe (like actually from europe, not her great grandfather moved 100 years ago) than to date an african-american but that has nothing to do with skin colour, it has to do with similarity of culture. cuz white people in europe share the same culture and practices with white people here in America, even if they spoke a different language. at least they share more common culture than they do with African Americans.
the culture of african americans from what i see is different than the culture of white people. although they both live in the same country, but it is very different. Recall the catalog advertisement pictures that sam showed us in class, the reactions showed that white people's culture is very different than black people here in America, the majority im saying. that again has nothing to do with skin colour, the following example would help put this in perspective. blacks are more likely to live in urban cities, while white people live in more rural areas, so white people would adopt outdoor activities like hiking or hunting, but they cant go hiking with their black partner because he or she doesnt have the same hobbies because they lived in a different environment or different culture, so never went hiking because they lived in the city.

The issue of resource reservation is a big one and I will tackle based on my firm beliefs from a number of different fronts. BUT I will say this to begin with, the issue is not limiting the number of people, the sheer number is not the problem, but the efficient and sustainable use of those finite resources.
First, I am a conservationist. Which is basically a less radical form of environmentalism (more towards the center of the spectrum). What I mean by that is I believe that nature and its resources are put out there for our use, now defining who "we" are in this case is quite difficult, because animals are found in nature and need its resources, at the end of the day humans are animals who depend on other animals to survive. However for the sake of this argument I would say this humans -whether it be because we are at the top of evolution ladder, or because God chose us to be - have the priority and are the main beneficiaries of this earth's resources. With that said I believe we should preserve and conserve nature in order for us humans to reek as much benefit from it as we could, without hindering the ability of others to wreak those benefits. Those "other" humans could be future generations (sustainability) or in other areas of the world (environmental justice).

This takes us to the issue of what is an efficient use? Other than the sustainability approach definition I gave, in practicality it means that I could use up the resources at the same rate that they can re grow, or if that is not possible, build or grow alternative resources instead. Meaning if I use up a part of a tree, I should make plant a new one, or make sure by the time the next person needs to use that tree, another one is there. Take that specific example and expand it to apply all of humans’ use of earth’s resources.
Therefore the fact that there are 3 billion hungry people out there, to me does not mean that there aren’t enough resources, but that some people are abusing and/or are not using it efficiently. Meaning some people are using up other people's trees.

Going back to your original question, NO we do NOT need to limit the number of children that we have, because the stats show that the large families of 8 kids and so are not the ones using up the resources in the first place. It’s the western families with 2 or 3 kids that are using up all the "trees" -so to speak-inefficiently. In an ABC documentary they tackled the issue of overpopulation in which they compared the life styles of an American family to that of a poor Indian family. Amongst many others, one finding revealed a statistic that an American child consumes as much as 26 children living in poverty and THAT what is overpopulating the earth. Not the sheer number of people.

That is a great question, and its something that I have struggled with personally.
My major is community, Environment, and development. So we basically learn about helping others, precisely the underprivileged and communities that need out help.
When I start thinking about my future career as a community developer, I think well where do I want to go Africa? (Because that seems like the default place for poverty) or do I go back home and help people in the Middle East? Even within the Middle East, do I do community work in Gaza, Iraq, Jordan (my home country)? But as I became more aware and opened my eyes to various problems all over the world, even here in Pennsylvania there are communities that need help or at least some kind of community work.
Unfortunately I have come up with the answer to myself before I took this class, I decided if im going to help someone I might as well help people back home, so I hope to join up with a non-profit or the UN program back home and work in Jordan or Palestine.
But now as we cut down through racial boundaries in this class, and we break down races, I started to think then if were all the same no matter the race (what was that stat we are 99% genetically identical?) we appeal to others on the basis of humanity, we are all citizens of humanity and of this world, so why would I discriminate against one race, or chose one over the other. Using the same logic, and I don't consider myself racist or a person who discriminates, then why did I chose to do community work helping my own race before I would help say poor white people in America for example
The only answer I can come up with is because we feel a sense of community or belonging with our own race, due to the many things we have in common. We would have the same interests, culture...etc so it’s easier to build a personal connection. And you need to at least connect a personal level with someone in order to help him or her.

This whole time we have been discussing this issue from a far, I am going to try to bring it closer to home in order to understand why we seem to be racist, or more reluctant to help other people than our own. Imagine your brother or sister is suffering from a disease and a person from your high school whom you don’t know well, but don’t have any problem with him or her. Who would you help? Majority of people would say their sibling, although they know just how bad the other person is suffering or needs help. The fact that you help one over the other doesn’t mean ones struggles are more worthy than the others, or that you are a racist, its just that you have a stronger personal connection with one over the other, and that’s who you are more likely to help. So the question shouldn’t be what race would you help? But whom do you connect with more on a personal level.

Having lived in different areas of the world the first thing i can say is that you can take no shame or blame for the situation u were born in, good or bad.
Every person, citizen of any country has a lot to celebrate and be proud of, that is why some of the people living in the poorest countries can be very patriotic and have love for their country. Moreover every person can and should celebrate being alive and a citizen of this world.

WITH THAT SAID however, being a citizen of this world and understanding that we are all human; we cannot be oblivious to what is going on around us. We must first acknowledge that people around the world are not living equally or enjoying equal rights and wealth. So living in America you can not be naive and think that all your fellow citizens of this world can enjoy the same living standards and pleasure of life, so it is your job to dig deep into what you care about, what your passion is and find out how you are privileged above others.

After you have done so, you still owe it to yourself to not feel guilty about yourself, you have to form your opinion as to why the balance of power is so, see what you can do to help, or even if you should help. in fact it might make you more of an American, A Christian, or a man of faith to be lending a helping a hand where you can. On the other hand, you can reflect back to your values, and what shapes your own culture and decide weather you feel guilty or bad if you continue on living with your life knowing that such a divide occurs.

Both types of people shouldn’t feel guilty or ashamed of how they live or where they live, if they consciously decide to do so and cannot honestly be true to themselves that he or she is not doing anything wrong based on his or her belief and value system.

Going back to your question, personally I don’t feel guilty or ashamed for being born in a more privileged setting, but I do know that now I have the responsibility to own up to the gift that has been given to me and earn it. Because it is a gift, and I know that it is only a taste of what I can get in heaven, so as long as I work to be a good person I can take this privilege and gift with me to my eternal life.

As a final comment I would say this; as a human I have the responsibility to sympathise, and educate myself about the hardship, injustice that some of my fellow citizens live in, then I have the responsibility to consciously decide whether I want to do something about it or not. But I have to first recognize that a suffering person and I are both equally human.

Excuse my language here, but Damn right we have a responsibility. why? well I will answer that from different fronts.
First front is religion. This issue came up in my World in Conversation West Meets Middle East session this week; one thing we found out was that no matter what religion you associate with, one common denominator is the idea of doing good on to others, without real expecting a reward, the biblical notion of "do onto others, as you would have others do onto you" came up as the same value preached across religions all over the world. So first of all our religion obliges us and gives us the responsibility to treat others with respect. I would go as far as saying that it is outside ones religion to not attempt to fix that inequality, or even worse, add on to that inequality injustice.
A second angel i would argue from is humanity. All of us on this earth are humans and we all, no matter where we come from or what our title is, have the same and equal right to live, eat, breathe. Just keep that in mind and properly comprehend it when you see a person on TV suffering, a prisoner in jail, a starving child in Africa, an orphan in Gaza, a sick man in Haiti, an hungry Nicaraguan and think that they all have the same and equal right of humanity to live as the average the American Joe does, better yet they have equal rights as the president of the United States. therefore the fact that some of the people i mentioned do not enjoy some of those human rights, then humanity has dropped the ball somewhere along the line. So if consider yourself as a human being, you have the responsibility to fix the inequality and at the very least work to bring equal human rights to all human beings. however if u consider yourself a monkey, then that is a different issue.
The third angel, and that is the more selfish one. do you love yourself? if not love, you at least want the best for yourself right? well there's a famous quote that goes along the lines of: when the civil rights movement happened I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t black, when the women’s movement happened I didn’t stand up because I am not a female, when the gay rights movement happened I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t gay, when I needed people to stand up for me, nobody stood up for me. As I said I don’t remember the exact quote, but the message is simple and clear-cut, help others because you’ll never know when you might need others to help you.
So if you don’t believe you have an obligation to fix inequality on religious or humanitarian grounds, just do it for your own sake