think people were prone to over react to the Asian focus of the basketball interview video due to the limited racial dialogue that is open between Asian and non-Asian cultures. The limited dialogue is experienced everyday at Penn State between the foreign student population and the domestic population. There is hardly a mingling between both groups seen across disciplines, ages and club involvements. The basis of race relations in is seen ironically at universities. The typical image of a university is like that of the acceptance folder with a harmonious blend of interracial groups, but rather a drastic contrast of us versus them. College highlights the availability of diversity but shows the nature of like individuals to clump together out of security and comfort. This is seen through the Asian foreign populations here at Penn State. Being a student from the outside of this group, I can say that it seems to be a bipartisan effort between nonnative English speakers and English speakers. The drastic difference between Asian languages and English, disables those who know only one of the languages from feeling like there is any sort of understanding of what is going on with the other speakers. Not to say that I wouldn’t clump together with other English speakers in a foreign country, to have moments of ease in which I wasn’t directly translating what I was obligated to understand. It is this type of ability to understand the other party that enables this video to not be offensive. By going to another country for travel or educational purposes, you open yourself up to new experiences. With these new experiences often comes uncertainty and hesitation, but all with a tint of excitement and interest in the unknown. This type of feeling grants you the ability to without inhibition participate in things unknown to you, for instance an interview. Your inhibition is lower due to the fact that you don’t understand the implications of your actions, also if its something new to you you and those you care about probably don’t watch and could care less what it looks like. In this instance, the actions in the video are nothing abnormal or bad. There’s just simply actions of individuals eager but misinformed of the culture they are experiencing. In that sense there is nothing wrong with the video. It is simply our inability to understand Asian culture, and therefore discern what is offensive and what is neutral from one another. This inability enables the over reaction seen in class upon the viewing of the video. Which similarly could be filmed and brought to the viewing of an Asian audience and seen as funny to them, due to the drastic divisions in culture and dialogue.

I am a freshman, so for me this past year has been a vast comparison to the life I am used to living. For me, my high school experience was comfortable and safe for the four years I was there. I grew up in a small town, with a single building K through 8 school and knew all my classmates well. My high school was a regional high school, holding two additional towns. It was a small school in comparison to others. Initially, I was nervous about my new school when I was a freshman with others that I didn’t know. But, as my confidence grew from the respectful and familiar interactions I had with members in my community, I began to become more involved. I went from a scared freshman, to senior class president and a very grateful senior. As a senior, I had a very hard time searching for colleges because subconsciously I couldn’t fathom not being a part of this community anymore. So coming from this place of fear, my adjustment to Penn State was very rocky. I went from being a part of a close-knit community, in which I felt safe and secure to being one of thousands with no connection to the place that in which I live. This dichotomy was almost impossible to comprehend and left me feeling out of step and homesick. The person who I was in high school seemed so far away from the person who I was now. With that blatant difference in support structure, I was left unnerved. When academics became hard or other adjustments seemed out of step, there was no one really to turn to. It left me more depressed and unsure. It created this cycle that was absolutely destructive, and took conscious effort counter act. It taught me the importance of closeness and human interaction. As much as it was hard for me it kind of was like one of those situations in which you don’t realize what its like to be in a city until your in the woods. However, fortunately this progressively got better. In all my anxiety of my new life I had forgotten about the importance of my adjustment to freshman year. Now, in hindsight I realize that my adjustment to my beloved high school was hard for me too and that things naturally change overtime. I now have close friends both at home and at school that I can rely on for support. I also learned the importance of finding comfort within yourself and other simple interactions with others. I value simple interactions, a thank you and hello much more than I ever did cause you never know were they may take you or how they may change your day.

I think that Sam’s idea that race relations can be summed up in terms of ethnocentrism is completely right. It was previously brought up in class as to whether race existed or not. Sam theorized that race was a simple innovation of class to justify the enslavement of vast majority of western, central Africa. In that instance the idea of ethnicity doesn’t relate to race, but race relates to ethnicity. If race is defined by ethnicity, than the entire point of racial studies is the dichotomy between the multitudes of ethnicicities found in the world. From the time when we are little, we are taught compassion. In this instance it is often compassion for a peer who is sick or sibling who lost their toy. These instances aren’t too challenging for us to do, due to our intimate experience with those circumstances. Do to our similar experiences, our compassion is out of shared emotions and empathy. However, in instances in which your circumstances are drastically different how are we supposed to show compassion?
In this instance, education upon the basis of cultures are needed. Without education it will be hard for a suburban teenager to understand why a boy in Haiti cherishes the opportunity to go to school, when the American boy hates the coming of every Monday morning. Through education, you enable the understanding of the circumstances and views of individuals of a different ethnicity that forms the construct for many different opinions and actions between different ethnicities.
These differences between the actions that arise from difference circumstances are often the cause of racial disparity between ethnic groups. Rather than form uneducated prejudice and stereotypes, compassion enables the understanding of a decision made by an individual of another circumstance, in this instance a different ethnic group.
One of the biggest ways a person can truly “step into the shoes” of a different ethnic group is through, the interactions with that person. Examples of this are interracial interactions, friendships or immersion travel. In this instance, the idea brought up in class that to truly understand the Haitian need for aid is to visit Haiti yourself. It is almost inhuman to eyewitness need and suffering without the feeling of an intrinsic motivation to help in any way you can. In this instance, if the class and group facilitated disscusions are not providing enough understanding of the disparity between Haiti and America, an independent trip to Haiti would aid in the understanding by providing a true understand and resulting compassion for the Haitian people. Rather than the examples given in class, which can seem as stories told by a salesman which cause skepticism, actually being in an area of need and seeing first hand and experiencing the same circumstance in which things are limited to you will enable without a doubt a level of compassion and empathy between people of difference ethnicities.

I think the intent behind the FOX video was the real cause of the animosity felt toward it. The presenter was very unprofessional throughout the whole video. His dialogue was poorly planned and was accentuated by an unprofessional manor and decorum. In specific instances rather than maintain composure he offered many asides. One situation occurred in which, the filming was taking place next to a wood chipper near the Trojan statue. Rather, than pause until the landscaping was finished the filming continued and the presenter stated, “ any other production wouldn’t do this but we will.” This statement just blatantly indicated to me that the standard and professional level of the production team was less than par. It’s that type of indication that brings the intent of this video under question and dispute. If it was the intention of the producers to created a mock professional video in which a specific race targeted to showcase a stereotype or bring comedy to something interpreted as professional, than the redicule is warented in my opinion. No one can deny that race humor is in fact humorus. However, that humor comes from a mutual understanding between comedian and subject. For instance, people often laugh at commedians who make fun of themselves, or their racial group. In those instances they feel no remorse. Why, you might ask? Because the comedian is of that racial or ethnic group. Since, he understands the validitiy or lack their of of the stereotype, people are more willing to except his use of it. However, in this instance the interviewer is presenting a falsehood to those he is interviewing depending upon his intentions. For those being interviewed, view it as an innocent interaction on the street with a stranger. Potentially, beginning foreign they find it exciting to be so directly involved in the culture of the country they are “visiting”*living in*. However, if the intention was to target them based upon race than the humor is lost, because both parties aren’t aware of the situation or joke. There also has to be consideration for the circumstances of the video however. It could have happened that the video was created with a limited time frame that resulted in sloppy work that was turned into something more humorus to cover up the true carelessness of production. In that instance however, the administration and overseeing of the production needs to be called into question by the public. Also, little thought is attributed to the nature of the sampling. It could be that the available population was in face foreign exchange students from Asia. Overall, there are many factors that must be considered with the viewing of this video to establish the validity of it. However, I would argue that the intent of the producers is the most important factor of all.

As a child who was raised in both pre and post-9/11 America, I grew up knowing about the war. I remember watching the news every night with my parents and sisters. My mom explaining to me what terrorism was and how they were people who hated us for who we were. I supported George Bush and the War on Terror, a silly idea now understanding that you can never really fight an idea. But it was that willingness to follow that I think we all have to understand. Until 9/11 almost all of our wars have never been fought on American soil. Unlike other countries, soldiers have never roamed in our backyards, the fighting has never been brought to our doorstep. Similar to the events at Pearl Harbor, as Americans we were shocked in the aftermath and pulled to defend our freedoms. From there, with that overwhelming nationalism events can seem to spiral. In my own experience, I can remember actively following the news at the beginning of the war right after 9/11 however with time that involvement seemed to slowly fade from my mind. To the fighting not taking place at our front door, we seemed to forget that it was even happening. Out of sight, out of mind.
So the idea that for others, like the Iraqis, that idea that there are solders roaming around through their backyards is such a novel idea. It was unbelievably easy to place myself in the shoes of an Iraqis, immediately recognizing that I would equally defend my family and fight for our lives. And the fact that this war was a back room deal for oil and not the honorable, ethical fight that all post-9/11 nationalist supported, sat uncomfortably on my mind. It revealed the general sense to me that the idea, that individuals are going to look out for themselves no matter what is unwavering. For as much as those Iraqis are defending their land, as American’s by going to Iraq to get oil, we are defending our way of life as well. However, from there the unsettling nature of the hypocrisy is the most startling. As Americans, we hold our country is such high regard. We envision ourselves as a bright shining city on a hill, who welcomes the arrival of the mistreated and willing to work to its shores. Once a year, we set off fireworks and march in parades to celebrate the liberty and freedom enabled in us by the power of the people. And we advertise this, we go around the world to other countries acting like a bossy big brother, telling them what theyre doing wrong because we feel that we have the moral high ground. But if we all are just looking out for ourselves in the end, what gives America the right to be the worlds police?

I have to admit, when I first realized that it was a gay male couple I was taken a back. Something inside me just twitched and i couldnt placed it immediately. But like one of the commentators said when something like that happens to you you have to assess your feelings toward the incident. So why did I feel odd when I realized it was too men? I believe adamantly in homosexual rights and fully support equal rights for all. However, I still biologically or unconsciously am inclined to feel a certain way about the expressions of those homosexual emotions. The idea that a photo of lesbians kissing is more readily accepted by the media and the general public is an idea I find curious because I happen to agree. However, if I find I have a natural response to the public displays of affection of gay males why wouldnt I have the same response to the displays of gay females? Its a phenomenon I've long quarreled with; why do men find it so attractive when girls kiss each other and why are girls so willing to kiss one another? A male friend of mine once explained it to me like this; you like one scoop of ice cream, so why not two scoops. My rebuttal, but what happens when neither ice cream scoop like you? But seriously thats the question, why acts of lesbian sexuality more accepted than gay males? Is it because women are more sexual and affectionate in general, so the closeness of a female to another person, male or female, is not seen as taboo in comparison to males who are generally showcased as private and stoic? This also relates to the idea brought up by another commentator, who remarked upon the provocative nature of the wrapping of the legs around the hips. If indeed we viewed this simply as a leud and sexual gesture we wouldn’t rejoice at the same type of embrace in young heterosexual couples. But from a sociological stand point, I guess this makes sense in the idea that there are hardly an openly gay individuals in our society and therefore even less openly sexual gay individuals. The idea that we are not raised around these types of displays without a doubt influences our interpretation of them later in life. Something different from your experiences will always seem a bit odd until youre used to it. However the idea that women being held and cradled by a man is more comfortable for us to grasp because it is an image we are without a doubt always taught; women are less then man. Women are inferior and must be held and nurtured by a man, for Christ’s sake Eve came from Adams rib. The image of a women doing anything in a sexual nature will always be more understandable because of the nature in which women were “created”. Also the idea of sexual comfort is associated with women do to the maternal role we all associate with them.

The idea that has impacted me the most from this class so far is the concept of white supremacy. I grew up in a pretty traditional setting without much diversity and the little that we had wasn’t true diversity in the sense that assimilation was in full tilt. Now, this isn’t to say I was so sheltered I never knew about the concept. My town, however small, was relatively close to the city and the majority of the population held advance degrees in there field. It wasn’t that culture was lack, but mostly experience. One of the many reasons I choose Penn State, was to get away from the world that I had grown to be so comfortable in and challenge myself in other ways. So sitting in Sam’s class, I was astonished at the data he was presenting depicting a society so deeply rooted in inequality. It seemed like a completely foreign concept to me that this world I had been living it wasn’t exactly as far and holding equal opportunity for others, as was shown through the tester studies in which almost all factors were controlled. So like Sam has said before, which I also think is one of the most important topics we’ve covered, I had to somehow sit with these two contradictory ideas in my head and come to terms with them, finding paradise. So I started to think about white supremacy; where did it come from, who created it, why did they create it? As I thought about it more I came to this conclusion: white supremacy happened by chance. I’m a science major and therefore am a firm believer in the data that supports the conclusion that human life originated in Africa and then through migration expanded to Europe and the other continents. So, from this we take the understanding that by chance, different groups of humans migrated to different regions and from there through evolutionary processes in the gene pool were adapted to attain certain physical characteristics such as skin color that aided in there survival in that region. This concludes that race, the categorization of physical qualities, resulted from chance. Therefore the foundation of racial inequality is moot because it was a result of chance migration. This migration also has other significance, as it resulted in the development of different civilizations due to the resources present in the region of their settlement. From this we can conclude that the supposedly superior development of the white race through the techknowlegdies of guns and metal were a result of the resources that they found by chance. This means, that since the circumstances that lead to the “superior” development of the white race were all coincidental that other superiority such as Black or Asian could be just as probable in another world. In that instance, I think it would be interesting to here the opinion from other races about that idea and how it impact there relationship with whites and our society as a whole.

The fact that calling Asians smart and intelligent is racism is almost counterintuitive for people. This is because we associate racism as a negative thing due to its resulting often bias and prejudice actions. However, in reality racism is any stereotypical over generalization of a racial group. Thus by declaring that all Asians are smart and intelligent, a person is making a racist remark. Therefore to adapt to that the standards of racism causes a general overview of inequality in our diverse community. Through stereotypes we enable the generalization of an entire group of people, made up of many unique and individual people. A stereotype generalizes a person, and predefines their life for them. It takes from them in a way their free will by establishing certain parameters and expectations of behavior. In the cause of racism of Asians, the stereotype creates an immovable limitation on the expectations of Asians. Although it seems to be a positive assumption being made, we all know the pressure that those types of assumptions can create. For instance, your parents probably operate under the assumption that there is nothing that you can’t do. They think you can have great friends, a great job and great academics. They truthfully believe you are so perfect, that you can have it all. This type of unwavering support is often sought out as the ideal type of parenting. However, how many times do we see the focus of this type of pressure crumble to pieces under the strain. Just today, Sam urged us all to read an article in the Collegian about a fellow student who recently took his own life. In the story, his mother described a son who had lived with the constant pressure of society upon his shoulders and strived to reach that point of social perfection but inevitably fell sensitive to the stress. In a world in which individuals face great pressure for perfection, such as social or intellectual success, we cause great inequality by just devaluing their personal individuality. Through the stereotypical representation of Asians as intellectual, it causes strain for those individuals who do not fulfill that generalization. Also, globally it robs them of the liberty and ability to be able to explore other facets of their personality because they are always in a constant battle against the predetermined lifestyle their stereotype entails. Although the statement that all Asians are smart may seem like a complement to some people, to the people it is directed at who do not fit the generalization it is more of a pressure and a stress that tells them they aren’t who they are supposed to be and therefore not good enough. This degradation is the basis of its inequality.

I think the divisions of races in sports is a depiction of the two types of causality of inequality. The first being biological. Like Sam has mentioned in class, specific racial traits are a result of ancestral adaptation to the environment in which that race originated in. This causes characteristics to be a direct correlation to the environment of an individual. For example Kenyans are known to be great runners for a multitude of reasons. First, being that to communicate between tribes runners were used, but secondly they became adapted to it. Kenyans traditionally ran barefoot which aided in the development of a system of muscle groups that facilitated balance and strength. In addition the altitudes helped to increase their ability through increasing their respiratory fitness. This example is often seen through athletic training in places of high altitudes such as Colorado. To continue though, these biological inequalities prove that one racial group will dominate a sport due to their advanced natural ability due to their physical biological characteristics. However, like everything this is not solely the answer to the racial inequalities in sports. One of the examples that were brought up in class was the tendency for hockey to be a traditionally white sport. In this instance, it isn’t so much that other races aren’t as gifted as whites in the physical attributes required for success in the game but that socio-economic differences are at play here. Hockey is a very expensive sport due to the fees that accompany playing it, such as ice time and facility and gear maintenance. In this instance physical ability is not the only factor that affects the rising skill level of a player. The ability of any player only advances with practice and time, thus if an individual does not have the monetary means to pay for the necessary facilities and equipment, any amount of time spent “practicing” will not be beneficiary to their advancement. Therefore whites being the traditionally more affluent race in terms of money, had a longer time to advance their abilities and stake claim in the game of hockey. That being said sports such as basketball and baseball attract certain groups of individuals who may not have any money at all due to the ability of a “pick up” game. By, pick up game I mean to refer to the fact that the sport can be played almost anywhere and therefore the advancement of the athletes that play it is not restricted by socio-economic status. These type of sports rather often provide a means of advancement in individuals socio-economic statuses. In conclusion, the division of race in sports is a cause of the inequality of races, both in terms of socio-economic and biological inequality. This inequality is a fact of life, socio-economic status may change, but the division of races in biological terms will always remain. The evolutionary processes that leant to this division in the first place were a product of millions of years of work, the reversal of those inequalities will consequently never be relinquished.

I dont think that it’s true that white people are not taught to see race. I think we are taught more to see race than ever. Through diversity education in our public schools the idea of race is made to be a conscious factor for more white individuals than ever before. When something is never varied it becomes such a reoccurring feature that people automatically overlook it in their everyday analysis of the world. Take for example Sam’s idea on race only coming into play once diversity was experienced by explorers in the early 1600s. Until that moment that new populations of people were discovered by explorers they had only come into contact with individuals that were like them. Up until that point race was never a factor because there was only one type of person. Just incase Im not expressing this idea clearly enough for you let me put it this way. Say you were raised in a family that only used grape jelly to make their PB& J sandwiches and you never once went to a grocery store that gave the option of anything but grape and all your friends used grape. Then you came to Penn State and they only had strawberry jam. You would notice because for all your life you only ever ate grape. Basically what Im saying, is to have a term like race that encompasses a variety of things, you first must have a variety before you can have a term. Anyway, back to the point I was trying to make. When the idea of race and diversity is so directly forced upon you, there is no way that people dont see race. However, I do believe that people through diversity become more comfortable with the idea of race and therefore dont question the difference in other individuals appearance from their own. Although, I do believe that for those that are taught about race but diversity is not prevelent in there everyday life, are more taught to acknowledge race but not question it. And from that stems the bigger issue of race relations. It is not that white people dont acknowledge race, but they are nervous to question it and from there are stifled in their ability to fully understand race and come full circle in race relations. The other thing that I think about the education of race and diversity in schools is that the history of race relations in the US censors a lot of people. For a large part white youth, they are in a constant state of trying to prove themselves to be different then their ancestors and some how atone for the actions of the past. This also buts a kibosh on the ability of race relations to progress because neither race is ever on equal footing with the other. If one race always has superiority over the other, than equality despite drastic attempts will always be unequal.