gdp's Comments

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:09:05 +0000

I thought that learning about different porn searching habits was one of the most interesting parts of class we’ve learned about in a long time. In a non-creepy way. It was so intriguing to me that the most sheltered countries, particularly in terms of being able to express homosexuality, the amount of gay porn watched was far above any other category. Likewise, some really strange trends popped up in other sheltered countries. When people look up porn, I feel like it’s a really personal thing. Unless someone happens to browse through someone’s searching history, the only person who is going to know what you’re necessarily “into” is you. It’s very personal in that there are so many different things to look up to match any fetish. Some are insanely bizarre, but someone out there is into it. So when you look it up, there’s no one there to judge you or condemn you for being out of the ordinary. So in a way, it’s sort of an outlet. Imagine being gay and never being able to express that in any way at all your entire life. For example, this is exactly how it is in countries where the authority believes there are actually no gay people even existing in their country. Obviously this is completely ignorant and that’s impossible. But in a lot of these countries, people are not only publicly condemned for being gay, but in a lot of cases, they are actually killed for being gay. Clearly, if one wants to keep their life, they are not going to be outwardly gay. So what left is there for them to do? I’m sure there are some who just keep their relationships very secretive so that no one finds out. But I’m sure some are too terrified for their life that they even do this. So for them, they could either end up alone or with someone of the opposite sex which they are not into. Either way is a lose-lose situation. I think that having an outlet like watching gay porn is for some people, the only option. As long as it stays private, they probably won’t lose their life over it. So it’s the one thing that they can actually express their homosexuality without being stoned to death or publicly hated because of it. In America, there is in a lot of places, a vast gay culture and many are very accepting of homosexuality. In a lot of cases, you’re perceived as an asshole if you don’t. So in many places here, people can be who they want without as much fear as in other countries. So because of this, the outlet of watching gay porn here isn’t as much of an actual outlet as in other countries unless that person can’t be free to openly be gay.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:14:44 +0000

I believe the statistics shown in class are completely true. There’s a lot of reason for this-the way television and even woman magazines that tell you how to "please your man" (can't fully express my hate for cosmo always saying "your/my man") portray sex, the way men respond to these types of things, and women just not knowing how to even reach an orgasm. However these things change once someone is in a long term relationship. Guys and girls even seem to have this perception of sex where it’s the heat of the moment and both individuals are so excited and ready. Everything happens so fast. This is obviously due in part to movies, television, magazines, people making out against walls at frats…but clearly, this isn’t what leads to a girl orgasming. And it certainly doesn’t lead to what is always seen on tv where the couple orgasms together. Second, a big contributor to this is the way we perceive sex. Sex typically begins when the guy is ready-which seems to happen way quicker than when a girl is ready. Likewise, it ends when a guy finishes-certainly not when a girl does. If it were the other way around and a girl was like “well we’re finished now” after she orgasms and the guy isn’t finished, a guy would probably sit there in disbelief. But the other way around, it’s quite normal for the guy to finish and for a girl not to. This is especially true in a one night stand where quite honestly, neither individual really gives a shit about the other person. Unless the guy is seriously worried about his reputation or actually thinks this girl is too good looking NOT to satisfy, he is quite likely to just finish without regard for the girl. Or he could be disillusioned like by the surveys presented, many guys are in thinking that their partner always or almost always orgasms. I honestly wonder why guys think this way. Usually, real orgasms for girls since they are not often are pretty intense or at least more intense than a guy’s whose are pretty frequent. So how can it be that so many guys are mistaking a woman as having an orgasm and not? I wonder if it is because girls actually fake them that often that a guy cannot distinguish whether it happens or not. Or they just don’t know what it’s actually like when a girl really does. This is all in terms of random hook ups rather than a relationship. In a relationship, it seems kind of obvious why a girl would orgasm more often. Couples become closer and talk about these things and in most cases I’d say a girl would feel comfortable enough to tell their boyfriend what they like and don’t like. Also, if you’re a couple it’s likely you’ll have sex more often and will eventually mold the sex into something both individuals are into. It becomes more than just finishing for each individual, but rather a more intimate experience.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:47:55 +0000

I was so intrigued by Tammy’s story for some reason. It was just crazy to me to see someone have such a different-and equally depressing life than most of our own. She didn’t have simple things I would consider essential like a hot water heater or a working car in order to get to work, or anything else. Also according to her son, she basically wore different variations of the same outfit every day-all of which consisting of her work clothing. The most striking bit to me was that she walked ten miles to work every day and back as well. If i had to walk 10 miles to do anything at all, I’d probably just give up immediately. However we also watched a tidbit about how some, actually most, Native Americans live. For example, pushing their car on the road because it broke down in order to go get some gas. There was clearly a crazy amount of poverty in this video as well. To answer the question, I think that I feel roughly the same either way. I have empathy and an understanding of how hard both their lives must be. I don’t feel particularly worse for Tammy and I didn’t feel particularly worse so I probably would have felt the same if Tammy were Native American. However, I think it was more of a shock factor thing for me seeing Tammy as being white-who we’ve seen over and over again having higher amounts of money than other races-being so poor. It just isn’t as expected as a Native American who we’ve seen at least in statistics being significantly poorer than the rest of the country. So rather than feeling worse about her if she were white or if she were Native American, I actually am just more intrigued by her being white because it’s not as expected. Granted, that doesn’t make it any more worthy of attention or help than any other race. It brings up an interesting question though. Perhaps there is a sort of disconnect between empathy and races other than ones own. And maybe that’s why I actually think there’s more of a shock value to Tammy being white and poor-perhaps it stems from the disconnect. It’s certainly true in other cases, like sympathy for certain animals as opposed to others. For example, most Americans would never eat a dog or a cat or care a deal if one would die brutally-animals that are more similar to humans-eating food bought at the grocery store, having fur, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth. On the other hand, someone is far less likely to care that lobsters are thrown into a pot of boiling water alive. It’s the same type of issue (sort of) that we have more empathy to whatever is most similar to us.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:41:36 +0000

I wouldn’t necessarily say nepotism is more “socially acceptable” than affirmative action or at least in terms of what people are willing to admit. Rather, I think that nepotism is more commonly an issue and since it isn’t a sticky situation tied with race, it’s much easier for individuals to talk about or bring up at all. In some ways, I guess, it is more socially acceptable because it just isn’t talked about or debated upon as much as affirmative action. Everyone sees nepotism. Someone who was related to a boss may have gotten a promotion over you while you may be far more qualified than that individual. Or it could be as simple as you getting a job because you know a friend of a friend of the owner and you were chosen over someone who didn’t. So as seen, it seems like everyone is affected by this in a negative way as well as being a positive way at least for the most part. This would be seen as a reason as to why nepotism is more acceptable to some individuals as opposed to affirmative action. People, specifically white males it seems, are the most likely to dislike affirmative action. This all is based on this idea of “fairness” that is stuck in their heads. It may come from an idea that most everyone shares that if you work hard for what you want, it’ll be achieved. So with this mentality and thinking about a situation where you were most qualified for a job and someone got that job over you because of affirmative action, one will obviously get angry or react negatively. But this picture we paint in our heads of affirmative action just doesn’t seem to be the case at all. It doesn’t mean someone is automatically going to get a job over you to meet some sort of quota. The negative image we create makes for a distaste of affirmative action-but the image is false. As Sam pointed out, foreign sounding last names are rarely chosen for callbacks to job in comparison to traditionally “white” names. Likewise, when a white man with a drug conviction was compared with a black man without a drug conviction, still the white person was chosen over the black man. In terms of qualification, wouldn’t a drug conviction hinder someone’s qualifications of holding a good job in most cases? Obviously this is a very judgmental statement but it is obvious that on the other end of it, the black individual clearly is not being favored on the basis of his skin color alone-provided that all other qualities are similar. This doesn’t seem to be an issue for those opposing affirmative action along with the significantly lower median incomes of races other than white. I think a large part of this is that people just don’t know these statistics. I too was unaware of what affirmative action really was and I also never before had compared it to nepotism.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:11:38 +0000

I think anyone who says they wouldn’t accept a “handout” is essentially lying to themselves. It is human nature to want to get ahead in life-doing whatever seems possible to get to the best possible place one thinks they can achieve. At least, this is what seems true by people working hard to receive advancements in their line of work, or the countless years and research put in by graduate or even undergraduate students to get a certain job with specific benefits (and a higher salary) one day. “Affirmative action” seems to grind people’s gears specifically because it makes people think someone is “unfairly” getting a job or position, or any advancement of any sort because of something they didn’t necessarily work for. And it’s obvious that someone may get mad over this when they are working hard to get to that position. However, it’s misunderstood which was exemplified by many examples in class. For example, women getting benefits in some ways due to affirmative action help out the people who are dependent on her as well. So in some ways, everyone gets a slice of the benefits. Getting back to my point on affirmative action seeming to spark a wildfire of anger in some, it is because of the so called unfairness. However, if the benefit were to be helping you yourself or someone directly associated with your own success, I’m sure the answers on this subject would be different. I personally absolutely will accept anything to help me get where I want. For example, I received a waitressing job over summer because my uncle knew the owners. Needless to say, I wasn’t exactly qualified and I sure as hell wasn’t any good at it, but I made a lot of money from it and I have no shame because it helped me pay for school which essentially is helping me in all aspects of life. I'm not going to look back on it one day and say to myself “man that was really unfair.” That brings up another issue-people want to get where they get and say they did it all based on hard work. For some reason, this seems to often be the case. But why make the journey any more difficult than it already is? For example, someone will want to say they got the job based on only their qualifications. However, networking proves to be such an important strategy in getting jobs. Networking and getting a job because you know an individual isn’t “unfair”, but getting a job because of some other non-qualification influencing factor because of skin color or gender is? This doesn’t make much sense to me. Essentially, people feel as though they are getting “jipped” and that someone less qualified will come in and sweep up their dream job just based on that alone. But this certainly isn’t true and it seems affirmative action needs to be relevant to help individuals who truly need it as well.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:58:45 +0000

Reincarnation is an interesting subject. I was first introduced to this subject when I was young and my one friend Dacin told me she believed in reincarnation. After she told me what it was, I thought to myself “Wow I hope that’s not what really happens.” To this day I’m not sure how I feel about the idea. But there is certainly a certain stigma for reincarnation among most individuals. The idea behind a lot of religions is that the things you do in this lifetime will greatly affect what happens to you in the supposed “afterlife”. People treat people a certain way, go to a certain amount of religious ceremonies, and devote certain holidays and prayer to whomever their God is. This is all to achieve a certain eternal afterlife in some heavenly paradise. So what if reincarnation is what truly happens? Some may think they are never going to see their deceased family members again or what is extremely terrifying for many-I won’t have the mindset or body of a human (or perhaps it will be in a different human who may not live the standards of life you do). It is a difficult theory to grasp. I want to specifically examine the aspect that one could come back as not being a human. After taking a nature philosophy course, I came to the realization that people put humans on a pedistool unreached by anything else in nature. We do so by creating this identity that has inherent value while all other aspects of nature are instrumentally valuable to our own benefit. This is usually done so by referring to our thinking and mental capacity, or our connection to the creation and maintenance of technology to better our lives. So how would we feel knowing our deceased loved ones and one day, ourselves, as all parts of nature-whether it be the tree we cut down because it blocks our expensive view or the bug we just squashed because it was bothering us. It certainly has an effect on the way we would conduct our lives. Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of reincarnation, at least for myself, is the idea that I may not have the thinking abilities I do now. I can never wrap my head around the idea that one’s mind and thoughts and memories just cease to exist when you die. I think this is a difficult thought for many people. Within reincarnation, this is quite possible. This is the idea that your spirit continues through many different “mediums”, but the mind may not. I’m not sure if all who believe in reincarnation believe this to be true, but this would be my interpretation. There’s many reasons why reincarnation scares people-maybe a lack of knowing, and overall an unsureness of what is truly going to come of them.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 01:58:06 +0000

I had no idea whitening cream even existed as a cosmetic product at all until Sam introduced the fact that it’s the highest grossing beauty product in the world. This seems slightly bizarre to me. This is especially bizarre to me because it seems that generally, white people are always seeking a darker skin tone in terms of being tan. The reasons for this seem complex for me to think about or to come up with a solid reason. I’m not sure that the reasoning behind the mass amount of money spent on whitening cream is purely a preferred cosmetic issue or completely dependent on racial issues. Rather, I think it is a combination of the two. In my opinion, financial and society status seems to be a huge factor in this. There is no doubt to me that some of the reason for this is just a cosmetic beauty fad. I think this because of the fad of being tan is so prevalent in our culture. Women spend hours in the summer sun, go on countless trips to tanning salons, and spend money on self-tanning products all to achieve a darker skin color. People are at such a high risk of eventually developing skin cancer from tanning beds as well as extended time in the sun. So it’s striking and puzzling to think everyone continues to do just that. I think it may be similar for the whitening cream. In some cultures, it could just be a beauty fad that exists. I’m very confused on the racial issues of the topic. Why would someone want to be whiter as opposed to what their natural skin color is? This might be from the countless actions of white people in the past and sometimes in the future presenting themselves as superior. For instance, this ranges from enslavement of Africans to current neo-nazis favoring an “aryan” race. No one can be completely sure why this occurrence has happened so many times throughout history-but perhaps its aftermath’s effects are sticking with people making them feel inferior with the darkness of their skin. I think the main issue with skin whitening cream is mainly one of an economic status. From what was said during the lecture as well as experience from my mom who spent time in the army abroad in Korea, skin color is a matter of status. Light skin is preferred and exemplifies being wealthy. One girl in class even mentioned that some Asians even carry around umbrellas on particularly sunny days. My mom also mentioned that being tan essentially relates to being out in the sun and working-being of a lower class. Considering a large amount of individuals want to appear wealthy or of a high class, it’s no surprise that lighter skin is preferred.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:36:29 +0000

I can honestly say I have never thought about something like this happening. Although there is certainly no proof either way currently that there is a God, actual proof against the idea would somewhat be earth-shattering to me as well as I’m sure many others. As of now, it is sort of a mystery. However it is a mystery that dictates much of the world’s lives-whether it be God, Allah, or whomever. Either way, there is a God that many believe to be real. With this comes in some circumstances, an afterlife. And in many situations, the road to the seemingly perfect afterlife is one of being a good, charitable person who believes and is spiritual. Without this idea of a God existing, many would not know what to do. I think a main point to the idea of a salvation after living is that it dictates how we run our lives. The idea for most is that if we are good people who don’t do malicious evil things to other individuals, then we get a heavenly afterlife. So what if there is no God? What would be the reason to live a wholesome life? I’m sure many people wouldn’t just go start killing people or stealing, but some may not see the point in not doing so. I personally wouldn’t feel the need to do evil things, however if I did I might have the attitude of “Oh well, why does it matter?” now. For the most part, people are terrified of the idea that this life is it-nothingness to follow. So rather than just living our lives to live life, we have this idea of something to in some way look forward to afterwards-to see loved ones we’ve lost and essentially have at least “something” after life. So if there was no God, and this was it-would that mean people will live their life to the fullest and take it for what it’s worth or send people into bouts of depression? I’m not sure how I would personally react. I feel I would be severely depressed thinking I will never see the individuals who have passed away. And the thought that one day I just won’t exist terrifies me. But this may in fact make me take every day and do what I actually want to do with it. This brings up so many different questions then-would I still want to go to school? Would I be friends with the people I surround myself with currently? It really makes me wonder why I would do any of the things I don’t enjoy even IF there is a God. It’s striking to me that that would be a factor at all. I think it would change people’s lives in many ways. Another factor to consider would be whether to even trust the news. We see already how it shapes our opinions into misconceptions about other people and events. But without that being a factor, it would definitely shape lives.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:56:38 +0000

There is an obvious distaste for Muslims among some Americans. This is seen by the huge deal made by Americans during the 2008 election when people thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. But why would this be different than any other candidate’s religion if it indeed was true? I believe the main reason why Muslims have this negative perception placed on them is because people falsely correlate them with the individuals we see on tv fighting against us in previous wars. We see the headlines regarding Muslims and see a following image of destruction and violence. It is no surprise that the news and media sources shape our opinions about people and what is going on in the world. This derives from the idea that what is on “reliable” news television is true. Therefore the negative misconception about who Muslims really are is skewed. Another reason I believe why Muslims are considered to be of such a negative religion is because they are seemingly so different from Christians or Catholics. What is different from ourselves seems to always terrify ourselves. Some Muslims wear certain headdresses or clothing much different than the stuff we may find in popular stores. Many individuals don’t understand why someone would dress in this way. The more different, the more one doesn’t understand, and consequently, the more scared one becomes of what’s different. I believe this has a significant effect on the perception of Muslims. I think that the negative images associated with Muslims creates the idea that the religion itself is extremely associated with violence and hate. This is something also seen in the long history of antisemitism in which Jews were perceived to be hateful of everyone else. These are all just made up false accusations. However in a past history course, I learned about the five pillars of Islam. In my opinion, none of these point to violence or a religion inspired by hate. They are as follows: daily prayer, giving alms to the poor or in need, fasting, visiting Mecca once in a lifetime if able, and acceptance of Mohammad as the one and only God. In my opinion, these bases for a religion do not sound entirely different from the basis behind many Christian divisions of faith. Understanding even the basics of a religion will give more insight into why our conceptions are sometimes so wrong and ignorant. Like Sam was trying to state in his Ted Talk, empathy is key. While the “war on terrorism” can be perceived as a Christian war on Muslims, Christians may see the opposite but similar misconception of Muslims. Just as Christians or any division of that do not want to be perceived as violent or basically anything that they are not, I’m sure Muslims are the same way. Media, misconceptions, and the fear of difference however create these thoughts. Unfortunately I am not sure how to help stop the misconceptions. It is difficult to turn an ignorant mind into one of understanding. However, perhaps doing the same thing that started the misconceptions (media coverage) of the positive real conceptions of Muslims can be put out there for the public eye.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sat, 9 Feb 2013 21:12:23 +0000

It is an interesting and confusing thought that one wouldn’t befriend a homosexual of the same sex as them but befriending a homosexual of the other gender. It is far less “questionable” by bystanders. If one were to become very close with a homosexual of the same sex, whispers and rumors could quite possibly spread fast of that person’s sexual orientation. This is why people may fear the situation all together. The conception that someone is gay because they hang out with someone gay of the same sex but not the opposite comes from the assumption that the gay individual hangs out with the other person because there is some physical or emotional substance behind the friendship. For whatever reason, people think that just because someone is gay means that they will certainly find you attractive and try to make advances. I have seen this so many times throughout my high school years. But how would this be a correct assessment when being straight, I am not attracted to everyone of the opposite sex by any means. These are silly but popular misconceptions. But in reality, there is no difference between straight and gay friendships. Some people are going to judge you more if you stop hanging out with someone of the same sex when you find out they’re gay. Not only are you abandoning someone on the grounds of something that doesn’t affect you or your sexual orientation, but you may also come off as close-minded or not being a supportive friend. So would someone rather have to shake off some gay rumors, or be perceived as being a “homophobe” even if that is not entirely true. I think a lot of individuals struggle with this because they are so terrified of how others perceive them. What is the big deal about someone thinking you’re gay when you’re really straight anyway? I understand that no one wants to be perceived as anything they’re not. But how is it much different than someone thinking you’re different than you are perceived in any other way? But for some reason, this is huge to some people. I believe that especially in males’ cases, they can become extremely offended if someone think that they are gay. For some reason in most cases, homosexuality is related to a lack of masculinity. To many men, having a masculine identity is a huge part of their life and their confidence within themselves. Being thought of as gay because of someone’s friendly association with a gay individual may make a guy feel less masculine and therefore self conscious. I’m not entirely sure why this correlation exists, but I do believe it has a lot to do with someone not befriending a gay individual o the same sex for men.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Mon, 4 Feb 2013 03:14:02 +0000

I’m not sure race specific scholarships should necessarily be considered racist. But thinking very hard into it, they certainly could be. I’m not entirely sure of my exact opinion on whether they are or not, but there are several reasons as to why one may think said scholarships are racist. An obvious approach to race specific scholarships would be one of a “That’s not fair” mindset. For example, one would why someone of a certain ethnicity should receive money solely for being that ethnicity. Or they may wonder why they don’t receive scholarship money for being whatever ethnicity they may be. What people may not take into account in this situation is the reason behind these scholarships. For example, statistically speaking, in 2010 while 27.6% of black people were considered to be living in poverty and 26.6% of Hispanics were, only 9.9% of white people were living in poverty (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/). These statistics are quite alarming to me. There is a significant amount of non-white individuals living in poverty. When one takes this into consideration, the justification for race specific scholarships seems to hold more value. It is not a hit on other races, but rather an attempt at helping those in need. From these statistics it is clear to see that races other than white may need more financial assistance for things like college. If we turn this around, we might see this as racist to those who are benefiting from the scholarships. I say this because someone may wonder why their race should be set apart and differentiated from others. In other words, they may question what it is about their race that would require a special scholarship. However if we once again look at the financial statistics, it can be seen that there are reasons for this. But this viewpoint is interesting because it is bringing up the topic that races are being separated from one another. Another way that race specific scholarships could be considered racist is due in part to the lack of a scholarship for all races. While it is clear at least to me that some races should receive a scholarship, one might question why there is not at least some sort of financial compensation for all races. This may not be one as much as the others in terms of how much money is issued, but at least one could exist in general. This once again is just putting the stress on a clear separation of races. I’m truly not sure how I feel about this issue. It stems from statistics of generalized financial statistics in my belief. But as Sam brought up, just because the intent was not racist does it make the whole ordeal not racist? Yes, helping people financially is a good thing. However the separation between races that arises makes the situation difficult.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:23:10 +0000

I found it striking that parents in America are so opposed to their child marrying an Athiest. However, it is somewhat understandable because religious belief is so huge to some individuals. Whether it be attending church sometimes, individual prayer, or on the extreme end of the scale, living out one’s life solely to devote themselves to their God, religion is typically a part of everyone’s life. So it is obvious that there is going to be some discrepancy when one’s child marries someone who has no connection with a God. But does it make someone a bad person or someone not fit to marry? I believe there is nothing to back up this type of opinion, but rather a collection of misconceptions and biases. I believe that part of the reason why there is such distaste for Athiests is because of common misconceptions about them. Because of their connection with not having a God, I have witnessed some people believing that Atheists are actually devil worshippers or just cold-hearted people in general. This is so far from the truth, but misconceptions like this one give Athiests a bad reputation-especially to those who are not as open minded as others. Not believing in a God is not going “against” other people’s Gods. Rather, like the girl in the video said, it is a belief within itself. So why would it be much different than believing in a different God than one’s own? I think another reason why this is such a big deal to parents is due in part to the image people have for their kids’ lives. For instance, one may picture walking their daughter down the aisle in a church. Or, one may think about going to their grandchildren’s baptisms, Christmas mass, or anything with religious ties. These images may be shattered when they think of their child marrying an Athiest. But how is it any different than someone of another religion who has grown up with different traditions and lifestyles? Also who’s to say that an Athiest would be any more opposed than someone of another religion to attend these types of events. It is wrong to think that the way you pictured your children’s life is ruined because they chose to marry an Atheist. Judging by the survey’s results, it seems people want their children to marry someone who believes in a God even if it is not the same one they believe in. Perhaps it is out of the worry that their children will digress from their own beliefs and stop believing in a God as well. But, Athiests are by no means bad people. They just think and believe differently than the norm. To not want to welcome them into your family if your child is in love with them is being somewhat ignorant of differences among people.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:40:36 +0000

I felt that Sam putting the girl on the spot for not being “fully white” was not a rude or accusatory sentence, but rather an observation of someone’s features (which all of us do). He just went to the extent of verbalizing it. Why should someone feel offended that they are a blend of different ethnicities anyway? It also made me think, why is this an issue in the first place? This is especially true because we all come from countless generations-from all over the place. It is slightly naive to think that everything you think your family is is to be accepted as completely true. Plenty of white people are bound to be partially black and plenty of black people are bound to be partially white. Sam calling this girl out also made me wonder how I would personally react to it if I was put in a similar situation. For some reason, I think it is made easier or more comfortable by the classroom atmosphere and it being said by someone who has spent a lot of time studying race and related matters. But if someone out on the street would come up to you and say “What are you? You can’t be fully white.”, it would probably be an entirely different situation for someone. A less comfortable one. It makes me wonder why is it that this isn’t as acceptable outside of a class about race? If someone were to tell me I don’t look completely white, I would just wonder why they felt that way. I would by no means feel offended, but I would still feel uncomfortable. And it makes me uncomfortable to think that that situation within itself would make me feel uncomfortable. It wouldn’t be an issue of someone thinking I wasn’t white, it would moreso be an issue of not knowing how to react that takes the question from a normal question to one that really puts me on the spot. It’s interesting to me that someone’s schooling in a certain area for me personally would change the entire situation. When Sam called out the girl for not being fully white, it also made me wonder if I was in any way black. It made me really think about my parents, grandparents, and myself in terms of physical attributes. For example, my mom and her father become extremely dark in the summer time. While my mom’s side claims to be fully Irish, we don’t really posses traits that are typically “Irish” in nature. Although obviously some of those “Irish traits” are somewhat stereotypical, it’s still not common to be so dark there. So it really made me wonder if we are something completely different than we had thought. It actually makes me want to say to my mom, “What are you? You can’t be completely white,” and see how she reacts to the situation and see if she is uncomfortable or offended.