Yesterday’s lecture really opened my eyes to the reality in Haiti. When I first heard about the earthquake I remember thinking to myself that a natural disaster like this was the last thing that Haiti needed. I was aware of the extreme poverty left after colonization and slavery and could not imagine how Haiti would cope with such an event. I desperately wondered what could even be done to help the situation. Like someone in class mentioned, I too thought that without some skill set it would be impossible to make a difference in Haiti. I was very surprised upon returning from Christmas break to start the spring semester, that in all of my classes not one teacher even mentioned the earthquake in Haiti but Sam. I remember that in grade school after September 11 happened, we talked about it for weeks and weeks and even had assemblies in our gymnasium that honored America. A hundred times more people died in the earthquake in Haiti and it seems that, as a whole, we have already forgotten about it. Coverage on Haiti is no longer on the news and then once the earthquake happened in Chile, the tragedy in Haiti seemed to disappear altogether. We can’t expect any alleviation of disaster by ignoring the fact that it happened.

I think this video goes hand in hand with the story Ian told about the man burning wood to make coal for his family. Everything he has ever known has just been destroyed but he is content to have a piece of wood. The people living in the tent city have started to take care of themselves and one another even though they are living under tarps surrounded by rubble. Even more amazing was the picture that Ian showed of the choir practice happening in a completely destroyed church. The Haitians have showed that they are not going to let go of what is important to them, even living among sickness, destruction, and death.

I’m glad that NGOs are helping to sustain the people in Haiti, but what Ian talked about really gave me a new perspective on the economical side of the issue. I thought that giving them necessities was the best possible solution, but really it is undermining their ability to rebuild the economy. I’m happy that people like Ian and Sam have figured out ways that can really give Haiti a fighting chance to rebuild their country because it seems like if we (as the United States) deal with Haiti as we have tried to aid global disasters in the past, then the people of Haiti will live in these tent cities for a very long time. So many global problems could be helped if we could just get to their root.

I truly believe that the census was not meant to offend anyone. I also do not understand why people are offended by things that are clearly not meant to be offensive. I can understand someone being offended by a racial joke, but the census, really? Like Sam said, the people who make the census are not dumb. They have tons of statistics that show how people have responded to the census in the past, so they use these statistics to make the censuses in the future. So the writers of the census did not just add "Negro" as a race/ethnicity option for no apparent reason. They have obviously tried to accommodate for generational differences. It is our civil duty to fill out the census and how can we be expected to do that if we cannot identify with one of the questions. People get really worked up that it asks for your race on the census but it really is not such a big deal. The government wants to know which race you most identify with in order to have accurate statistics of majority and minority races. If the white race is supposed to be a minority by the year 2050, we prove it by looking at the changes in census data. By the year 2050, "Negro" will probably not even be an option on the census because there will be no one left who will identify with that terminology. There are lots of generational differences that could certainly be taken as offensive but most people do not view them as such. I think this is because they do not deal with race. For instance, Generation X, born between 1965 and 1977 are supposed to have the “slacker” mentality, but people do not make a big deal about these types of differences. I know this is a somewhat off key example, but the point I am trying to make is that generational differences are just that: differences. Not everyone is going to agree.
A story also dealing with generational differences and the census: My friend recently applied for a job working with the Census bureau this summer. One of the requirements is that the applicants take a simple math test to test their computation skills and may not use a calculator. When she was waiting in line to go into the test, she noticed that she was the youngest person there by at least fifteen years. The people around her were criticizing people of our age group—college students, saying that we rely too heavily on calculators to do everything for us. My friend finished the test with ten minutes to spare, before any of the other applicants. You know what they say happens when you make assumptions…

I think that the reason the female menstrual cycle is such a forbidden topic is because it is a gross monthly occurrence and that makes people generally feel uncomfortable. I mean most people don’t bring up their daily bowel movements, which are just as natural as a period, in daily conversation. Yes, it’s natural and something everyone does but talking about it in detail seems a little unnecessary.
I think most men, after learning about it and school and hearing about it from the females that surround them, are not as sensitive to the topic as most people think. In fact, one of my guy friends used to use his sisters maxi pads as beds for his G.I. Joes when he was little. I think many men realize what happens to women during her time of the month and sympathize. Of course they can’t exactly relate, but they can recognize that we are in pain. I actually think that guys show more sympathy for a woman on her period than women do. For women, it is not a valid excuse.
Most of the reason that women don’t talk about it is because it is embarrassing at times. It is something that you can’t always control—like Laurie mentions her brother pointing out the blood running down her legs. I can only think of one thing that happens to men that they can’t necessarily control, and while it can be embarrassing it’s still not blood. Most women have had at least one embarrassing experience when they had their period, which usually involves people seeing something you would rather them not see. Also, while it is something all women experience, all women experience it differently. I feel comfortable talking about it with my girlfriends, because they have all experienced having their period and have gone through some of the same things I have. However I have also learned from talking to my friends that all women experience their menstrual cycle differently. Because of our different hormone levels some women may have very “easy” menstrual cycles, whereas other women can become physically ill, experience extreme PMS, bleed heavily, and even faint. Developments in birth control have made some women’s cycles more manageable and less painful.
People have different comfort levels when it comes to talking about bodily functions. Some people will burp and fart in front of other people and some people are completely disgusted by it. Some people are uncomfortable talking about sex, and some people don’t like talking about the menstrual cycle, men and women alike. I think women, and all people for that matter, should be able to express how they are feeling no matter what the circumstance but the gory details can be left out.

This question makes me think back to Laurie’s post that asked, “Why does it always come down to black and white.” In her blog post, Laurie explained that when race issues are addressed they are usually in terms of black people and white people. Her question asked why, when there are countless numbers of different “races” in the world and even in the United States, does the conversation always boil down to the relationship between black and white people. Laurie explains her position that it is because of the massive Civil Rights movement in the history of the United States and the awareness of discrimination against African Americans that brought their struggles to the forefront of society before those of any other race.

While I think part of the reason Sam asks the text message response questions to “white people” and “black and brown” people because it is the easiest way for most people to identify, I also think a part of it comes from this history of the race conversation being between black people and white people. I don’t know of much animosity that exists between people of mixed races and white people except for maybe when someone of a mixed race is assumed to be a race they don’t identify with by a white person. This also makes me think of Obama, the “black president,” who is of a mixed race. His dad is from Kenya and his mom from Kansas. I think it all comes down to what you identify with.

I’m not sure how I would tell a person of mixed race to answer questions like these. It kind of strengthens the case that race doesn’t actually exist, and that in fact it was just made up by human beings to have a name for other human beings who look different then they do Today in class, Sam asked white people how they identify themselves and was surprised to see that the majority would say their ethnicity. I responded that I would identify with my ethnicity because if someone were to ask me what I am, they can physically see that I am white, so I would give them my ethnic background, which usually explains some physical features. So then, even if I am “white,” does being both Polish and German make me a mixed race? It seems that we all have mixed blood within us but the color that we appear to be most visibly on the outside tends to shape our race identity, solely because it is what other people see. I think that if someone doesn’t identify with any particular race, then they probably wouldn’t have strong feelings about answering questions about race identity.

I think the video made the events that happened at UCSD a little unclear. I understand that students were mad about the “theme party,” but I find it hard to believe that this one incident started such an outrage. From the looks of the facebook event the party was definitely one that stereotypically targeted black people, and yes that is wrong but I think people can be too hypersensitive sometimes. I personally don’t get upset about theme parties that target white people like “white trash” parties and “Jersey Shore” parties ( I also happen to be from New Jersey). I don’t think anyone would agree that all poor white people are missing teeth, live in trailers, and have pregnant teenagers, or that all Italian Americans fake tan and do steroids, just like all black people do not wear FUBU and eat fried chicken. These are generalizations and stereotypes and when we do that of course were all being a little racist. I’m not saying its right, but it’s going to happen. If there are no hurtful intentions behind parties like these I don’t see what there is to get so upset about. Theme parties are meant to be fun and creative ways to socialize- not to offend people.
The other events at the University of California San Diego, like the noose in the library, are wrong no matter who committed them. It seems as we are just perpetuating acts of hate for the sake of it. That event is a hate crime—it cannot be called anything else, and will only bring us further from a society of understanding and unity. A college campus is supposed to be a place for students to feel safe, not in harm, included, not isolated, and in an environment of learning and acceptance, rather than that of hate and ignorance.
And if CNN really wanted to get a real perspective of the situation at UCSD they should have had a diverse group of students to talk about their opinions on the issues, and to get different angles of the story. I think the whole news story exaggerated the issue and made it seem like there are more problems than there really are.

The summer before my freshman year at Penn State I visited the Pine Ridge Reservation that Sam talked about in class this week. It was part of an outreach/immersion trip with nine other students that was paired with a class in Native American Spirituality. Like Sam said, these are some of the poorest people in our country. The Pine Ridge Reservation lies within two of the poorest counties in the United States. The unemployment rate is around 80% and alcoholism is about the same. During our time on the Rez, we heard from some of the wiser and experienced voices of the Lakota (Sioux) community. They told us that one of the greatest things we could do to help them was to talk about our experiences on the Reservation and to share our stories with others. The history and the current situation of Native Americans is something that is rarely, if ever discussed, and that needs to change.
I guess I must first describe the setting of the Rez. It took us about three hours to drive from the airport on to the Reservation. The Reservation is miles away from any large towns, and lacks any legitimate industry—which contributes to the high unemployment. The Rez is very spread out; you can see open land on both sides of the one road that runs through the reservation. For the first three days we conducted a bible camp for the kids that lived on the Rez. We would drive a van in the morning to pick them up from their homes, which were groups of ten to fifteen people living in trailers. Many children were orphaned or had parents in jail. At the bible camp, the kids clung to us as if our piggyback rides were the only thing that could rescue them from the reality they faced. They have seen more hardship in their childhood and adolescence than most people have in their entire lives. For the rest of our stay we participated in cultural experiences like hiking in the Black Hills, a Sweat Lodge ceremony, and visiting the site of the Battle of Wounded Knee.
Over the holidays, South Dakota, and specifically Pine Ridge, has been hit by devastating snow and ice storms, eventually leading to a State of Emergency being declared. Heating houses is the biggest expense from November until May. The coordinator of my outreach trip has recently contacted us asking us for funds for propane. Heat in our homes is something that many people take for granted. So on the grand scheme of things, it is educating others and spreading the word that can help. However, donations never go to misuse on the Reservation either. There are a number of things that one can do to alleviate the pains on the Reservation the problem is that no one wants to think about them.

It's hard for me to comment on the need for a male and female parent around-- I share equal time with my Dad (and his wife) and my mom and her partner, so essentially I do have both. As for a stigma, I can say that I have never felt cut short by or had any resentment toward my unique family. My mom and her partner are the two most amazing people I know and I will be happy if I can grow exemplifying their values, compassion and courage. If anything having gay parents has shaped me as a person to be more open minded and accepting of others, especially those who do not always fit in. Likewise, I have strong feelings of anger when I encounter people who consider gay and lesbian couples different (an unequal) to heterosexual couples.

Allan—I’m glad you brought this up. For many lesbian and gay couples they do not necessarily need a ceremony of marriage to acknowledge their love, but want the same rights that are granted to married men and women. No matter what one believes about the sanctity of marriage this is an issue of pure human rights. Many people who support gay rights but have strong religious beliefs (like the person posting their question in the video) are in favor of civil unions of gay couples, but not a marriage. I’m wondering if these people are aware that civil unions offer most, but not all of the rights that are granted by a marriage. Civil unions offer no federal protections, and only exist within state lines. Likewise, only a handful of states offer the option of a civil union or a domestic partnership. Civil unions and domestic partnerships do not offer the same security in terms of immigration, taxes, and benefit as a marriage does. If you think a lawyer can obtain these rights for gay couples, they can’t. It would first cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, and then, in all likeliness, would be challenged in court.

I think that when most gay couples ask for the right to marry they are seeking marriage in a legal form—not in a church ceremony. Legal marriage of gay and lesbian couples is not far from approval, but a marriage ceremony in the terms of religion is a different story.
I am a practicing Catholic and I understand the church’s stance on gay marriage, but I do not agree with it. I believe in a God that accepts all of his children and does not reject love in any way, shape, or form. I attended Catholic schools for twelve years and I think that the Catholic Church’s view on gay marriage contradicts the values that taught all of my life. My parents divorced when I was six years old because my mom came out as a lesbian and has had the same partner ever since. I consider myself blessed and am thankful to have the care and support of another individual. I have been raised in the healthiest of households—but more importantly, in an environment of love. In having conversations with my mom, she has expressed her concern that if she were to die, her partner will have no inheritance and she would not be considered my legal guardian.

So, when you think about whether or not you support gay marriage (as a legal action), consider these issues. Would you really deny people these basic rights? I don’t understand how anyone can define marriage as anything but a union of two people who want to commit themselves for a lifetime. I also don’t understand how someone can say that one loving couple has more of a right to marry than any other.

I agree with both Laurie and the previous post in that the race conversation always boils down to black and white people because one— the struggle of African Americans, beginning with slavery is taught as a part of American history, and two—we have seen and heard the plight of black people as a part of the Civil Rights Movement (also a part of American history.) I do however believe that the general public is not the best informed about what has happened in the history of the Civil Rights Movement. As Sam said in class today, there are a lot of issues associated with the emancipation of slaves that people would not necessarily know unless they studied it. I have found this is the case with many race issues in the United States history. Unless you study it, and really dig deeper to find out what really happened, you would never know. The information is there but only selective parts of it are provided to aid our education in school. I don’t think history books have always given the best explanation of Black History because if they did, people would understand why black people have not had the equal opportunities as white people. But these are just some of the many details of our country’s history that are not explained properly, or not even talked about at all. The previous poster is very right in saying that Native American issues have been “swept under the rug,” for whatever reason. In fact, we are taught the opposite of what happened when European settlers came to America—Columbus sailed away from Spain in search of a new land, grounded in Virginia, met the Native peoples and they shared dinner. It was not until I took a Native American spirituality class in high school that I really understood the history of Native Americans in the United States. If you really want to talk about white people feeling guilty for their history this is something to look into. Centuries of slaughter of Native American people by the European settlers and their decedents have been completely disregarded and forgotten. The Native American people are the poorest of people in the United States, yet the race conversation is still always about black and white people. I’m not saying that any one issue is less significant than another. However as a society looking to understand some of these issues, we need to make sure that we understand the history behind them without blatant ignorance of the truth.

After seeing Avatar for the first time, I immediately made the comparison of the movie to the history of Native Americans in the United States. The tribe native to the planet Pandora in the film finds the entire environment of their planet sacred and a part of their history. Likewise, Native tribes in the United States view the land and the animals as sacred entities. Brooks’ is right to say that the story is based on the idea that the white man realizes the “peace-loving” nature of the natives and feels inclined to be a part of their world. He is also right to say that the story involves a “Messiah complex,” in which the white man inspires the natives to fight for their cause. However, I do not agree with Brooks on his claim that “it rests on the assumption that non-whites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades.” If it were not for the white people as a group seizing the land and resources of the native peoples, there would be no need for a “Messiah” at all.
I think that James Cameron was trying to emphasize the fact that groups as a whole are not inherently bad. He stresses the values of compassion and unification. The natives in the film—as a whole, exemplify these values to their full potential, whereas the white society is greedy and callous. If anything, Cameron wanted not to apply the “White Messiah” fable, but point out the wrongs of the white man. I noticed that these wrong doings of the white group in the film related to the wrongs of the white group of the United State’s past. The external conflict of the film was the white people’s finding of a valuable rock in the home of the Na’vi. This seems to strongly resemble what happened when miners found gold in the Black Hills. The Black Hills are sacred to Native American tribes, like the Lakota, who believe that they were the very place of their creation. These tribes were forcibly pushed off their lands for the sole purpose that the white people get what they want. While I’m sure there were white people at the time that thought this was wrong, there was no “White Messiah” in the case of Native Americans.
Yes, the hero of Avatar is a white man. Yes, the native people are peaceful, spiritual and at one with nature. Do I think Cameron meant for the white-man to save these people to show his superiority? No. I think Cameron created the conflict maybe to show a parallel, but mostly for entertainment purposes. The white-man, and main character of the film, had to be a part of the native’s victory because the film could not exist without a resolution. Undoubtedly, Avatar has given us all something to think about.