To be completely honest as soon as he finished asking the question I knew immediately that I would choose to save my child rather than my spouse or my mother. Now, when I was picturing the child in my head I will admit that I was thinking of a little boy/girl, probably younger than 10, but after thinking about it for a while I think that my answer would have been the same even if the child were older, say 16 or 17. I can’t really explain why my immediate reaction was to save the child, but I feel that perhaps it due to some innate thought process in addition to some sort of conditioning. As children, at least in the US, I think we grow up exposed to different things telling us that parents should always make sacrifices for their children. And although I can’t think of any specific examples at the moment, I know there are a lot of books/shows and stuff that I read when I was younger where a mother or father risks their life to protect that of their child, because children are supposed to be the most precious thing in the world. Children are precious, but I feel that this overwhelming sentiment is one of the reasons why so many people chose to save the kid and let the spouse or mother perish in the water. I would say that that definitely was a factor for me in choosing to save my child. I also thought, as many people mentioned, that my spouse or my mother would be mad or frustrated with me if I chose to save them instead of my child. Although it sounds horrible, may child has a future to look forward to and a whole life ahead of him, so I think that as a parent it is my job make sure that that happens. My spouse and my mother would have already experienced a lot of life and I just know that they would have wanted me to save my child. Another explanation for why people might choose to save the child is more of a biological explanation. From a biological perspective, one could argue that the point of life is to ensure that your genes are passed on to the next generation. A child is the realization of that goal, so biologically (at least for humans who are very communal, maybe not all animals) I think that there is a huge drive to protect one’s child to ensure that they can live on and pass on their genes, which are partially the genes of the parents. I can’t say I really thought about this aspect at all when making my decision, but it might have played a subtle role in other people’s thought processes. When it comes down to it, I would say that I decided to save my child because I would want to give him a future and because I know that my mother and my spouse would want me to save the child rather than themselves. If however two people could be saved, I would sacrifice myself so that my spouse and my child could live on.

I thought that today’s class on Ethnocentrism was extremely interesting and I whole heartedly agree that an entire class could be spent talking about it, examining it and learning how to remove ourselves from thinking in such an ethnocentric manner. My first experience in the concept of ethnocentrism occurred in my high school world history class with Mr. Christoff. His way of teaching us about ethnocentrism was by making us read an article about the Nacirema and their strange cultural/body rituals. I really recommend reading the passage, and you can find it at the following link: http://www.ohio.edu/people/thompsoc/Body.html. I don’t want to ruin the article for anyone, so I’ll just say that the article does a great job of showing how strange daily rituals that we all perform can seem so foreign to people not familiar with our culture (it’s just like the video of the men from Sudan being utterly confused with American culture). I will readily admit that I still sometimes think of things ethnocentrically, because from a very young age we are indoctrinated with the ideas that our way is the right way, that there is only one right way, and therefore anything that does not align with our concept of correct or proper is considered strange. I thought that the video comparing rituals in a South American village, worshipping a god, to US people getting all crazy for a football game was very telling. I really enjoyed the video and it really hit home with me. Although outwardly there were differences in how the tribes and the Americans expressed their worship (piercings v. body paint, sacrifice v. …), the psychological basis behind it all seems to be the same. It seems that once you take a step back from things and look at the big picture with unbiased eyes, it would be much easier to find many similarities and correlations between even the most different of societies.
Recently I have been thinking a lot about ethnocentrism as I have been reading books about Vietnam/Cambodia in preparation for my trip there at the end of the semester. It’s been extremely interesting learning about the culture of Vietnam and how the approaches they take to tackle things in their daily lives are very different from the ways that most Westerners, including Americans, tend to handle situations. Most of the examples that the book gave were in terms of business interactions, but even just examining differences in that aspect is very telling. The Vietnamese are a very collectivist society whereas the US and most other Western civilizations are very individualistic. There were lots of stories in the book from Vietnamese individuals who had interacted with Westerners and the Westerners just assumed that that the Vietnamese acted the same as them. Many Westerners just don’t try to learn anything of the Vietnamese culture before heading over and tend to just ignore the customs thinking them as foreign. For example, in Vietnam it is perfectly acceptable for two male individuals to hold hands while walking and it doesn’t mean anything at all while Westerners might see that and believe they are in a relationship which is not the case at all. While this may not exactly be ethnocentrism, I think taking the time to learn about another culture before just dismissing different customs of the people is an important step to stepping out of an ethnocentric mindset.

I will admit that I laughed, and I’m sure that many people laughed just like me. Oftentimes laughter is very involuntary and you just respond to a certain situation by laughing before even consciously realizing in your head what exactly it is that you are laughing at. I thought that the intent behind the video at the hands of the Fox reporters was probably a mean one and that they seemingly specifically targeted Asian foreign students to play up the stereotype that Asians only know book stuff or however you want to describe that. If that was the intent behind the video, then I would consider it extremely offensive. Also, I think it is terrible that the students didn’t seem to realize that they were at the butt end of a joke, providing sincere responses because they thought they were helping out the reporters. But I didn’t think that the source of laughter, at least in my part, came from the making fun of that stereotype. Rather, I thought it was funny because of the confusion and incoherent answers to the questions, a kind of situational comedy that has been around since the show “Kids Say the Darndest Things”. If you asked little kids the same questions you would have gotten ridiculous responses, and those ridiculous responses are comical to me. Would any of you have complained and thought twice about laughing if the two reporters went around interviewing little kids? No, I’m guessing most of you would think the answers were really cute/funny and would have laughed your heart out. Really, I don’t think there is any difference in laughing at a child’s responses to those questions or laughing at an Asian foreign student.

I think that if it were white foreigners interviewed (such as Russians), it would be offensive as well but not to the same degree as with the Asian Students. I don’t think that it would be as offensive because questioning the foreign Russian students would not be playing up any previously existing stereotype as occurred with the Asian students. So while it would be somewhat offensive because the reporters were making fun of their lack of knowledge, they wouldn’t be making fun of their lack of knowledge because of some stereotype such as Asian’s only know school stuff (so really the difference in level of offensiveness is dependent upon the existence of a pre-existing stereotype). But even so, we as viewers are the ones making the leap assuming that the video with the Asian students was made to build up the stereotype, so we are immediately jumping to conclusions that the intent behind the video was mean (which may or may not be true). I think that it was probably done out of bad intentions, but I can’t say that I know that for sure! We don’t actually know the true reason behind why the video was made, so maybe it was just a harmless interview and we are all just seeing something that isn’t there and therefore just continuing the cycle of stereotyping. It’s a possibility, and in that case then we are the ones with some race relations issues (I hope that you are getting this kind of devil’s advocate point that I am trying to make, I don’t think I’m doing a great job of getting across what I’m thinking).

If the situation were reversed and I were over somewhere in Asia, in a country whose language I was somewhat familiar with and two random reporters came up to me asking me about policies, current events or sports or whatever of that country, I know that I would feel extremely self-conscious and embarrassed once I figured out what was going on. In the heat of the moment I would probably do my best to answer the questions, thinking that this was some sort of real interview, but if I later saw a video of my interview on the internet, I know that I would be upset. I would be so mad at the news station for taking advantage of me as they did and I would be extremely embarrassed that I honestly tried to help these reporters out while they were just stringing me along to make me look like an idiot. So, yes I would be offended if I were in an Asian country and taken advantage of in a similar manner to the Asian foreign students in the video (but only if I saw a video on the internet later that made it clear I was being ridiculed).

I would have to agree with this statement from class. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a preferential treatment whether among the press or the men in blue of white people, especially over blacks. This whole story is incredibly disheartening and I am so upset that Zimmerman was not immediately placed in custody or even given tests that could have supported or disproved his version of the events. I don’t know why I feel this way about things, but I just know that if the races were reversed, there would be an entirely different story and the police would have followed an entirely different protocol. Maybe the reason he wasn’t immediately thrown in jail was because it was easy to believe that this 17 year-old African American kid was acting suspiciously and therefore Zimmerman’s story seems really reasonable. If this is the case, then it is very appalling. I just don’t know how to express what I want to say about this whole situation, but I know at least it makes me angry and makes we want to do something about it. I can’t understand why they would just immediately take the word of some random person who had a history of calling the police about black people in his neighborhood right after shooting a kid. There is something terribly wrong there and I don’t think that that is standard protocol anywhere (or at least shouldn’t be). I think that this kind of thing happens all the time in the US unfortunately and that we have a long road ahead of us before there are going to be any major changes. I think part of the problem is how the media plays up things and that white families I guess can put more pressure on the police/garner more support in general if the roles were reversed. It’s a terrible thing, but I don’t see it going away any time soon. But, although this is terrible to say, I think that this case in particular could be the catalyst needed to get the US on the right path and maybe for once actually have equal justice for everyone.

I think oftentimes people react to foreign ideas and concepts contrary to what they’ve always believed by closing off into their own little bubble or world because it is easier. People tend to identify themselves by their beliefs, by who their family is, by what school they go to, what sport they play, etc. These things make up the identity of that person and are as much a part of that person as the color of their hair or how tall they are. When confronted with ideas that are foreign or in contrast to something you believe, to question it is in a way to question your own identity. I think a kind of a small scale identity crisis occurs within a person when they are challenged to think a new way, such as Sam has been pushing the Christians in the class to analyze and really think about why they believe what they believe. To even consider that your way of living may be wrong is to allow the possibility that you’re whole life has been founded upon false pretenses, that everything you thought you were may not really be everything you actually are. I know that I am being really vague in this explanation, but I hope that some of you are getting the point I am trying to make. While completely surrendering oneself to experiencing new ideas, events and taking hold of molding your own identity would probably be the ideal way to go, it is also a much harder path and consequently the road less traveled.

When the guy asked in class why black people smelled different than white people, I thought why in the world would you ask that question. What do you mean that black people smell different than white people? Maybe it’s just a product of my asthma and many allergies, but I can honestly say that I have never noticed that people of different “races” smelled different from each other. Of course I’ve noticed that oftentimes girls smell different than guys, mainly because of BO, perfume usage, etcetera, but I never noticed a difference in just the natural smell of people. So my reaction to the question about why black people smell different from white people was essentially the same as my reaction when someone said that white people smell like wet dog when they get wet. I had never really noticed a difference in smell when I was wet or dry (obviously a difference if I was sweating though), so I thought nothing of it. But apparently I am in the larger minority here, because there are black/brown people saying white people smell like wet dogs and white people saying black/brown people smell different from us, and me sitting there thinking that I’ve never noticed any differences in smell at all.

As I said, maybe my naïveté in this issue is just a result of my stuffy nose or maybe it’s something that I have noticed but never was really aware of because I wasn’t “looking for it” in a sense. I guess from a biological perspective it would make sense that people of different “races” could smell different from each other, since different biological compounds are produced by bodies adapted to different environments. I mean, a lot of oils are produced in a white person’s hair (which as Sam has explained multiple times in class is very different from African hair) while not as many are produced for African hair. This is probably some sort of biological adaptation along the lines of oils repel water, so in a hot climate such as Africa where one needs to keep his/her head cool, it is probably advantageous to produce less oils and thus trap more water in the hair to minimize heat damage. I don’t really have an explanation as to why white people produce more oils and how this is more advantageous to a cooler climate, but I imagine that there must be some evolutionary explanation behind it as well. Also, I know that many dog breeds produce a lot of oils as well (I work at a kennel so I’ve seen/petted enough dogs to notice this firsthand), so the apparent similarity in smells between white people and dogs when wet is probably just a result of similar levels of oil production.

Another possibility to explain why I have never noticed that I smell strange or maybe black/brown people smell strange is the fact that you tend not to notice things that you are accustomed to? I hope that you get what I mean by this. Like, I’ve never realized that I smell like a wet dog because to me I smell like myself, and for me, that smell is representative of how people should smell. If I come across someone else who has a smell different than my own, I notice their smell as different from mine so I say they smell strange while they can follow the same logic and come to the same conclusion about me. To me, I don’t smell, just like a skunk probably doesn’t realize that it is odorous even though all the other animals around can clearly tell. So I guess as a white person, no I never realized that brown/black people think I smell like a wet dog when I get wet. Maybe after my shower tonight I’ll remember to smell myself before I dry off, obviously if a lot of people think it’s true, there is a good chance that there is some basis of truth to the claim. But even though the question asked if white people were aware that black and brown people thought we smelled like wet dogs when wet, I’m sure that there are plenty of black/brown people who were just like me and never noticed that there was a difference in smells in addition to a ton of black/brown people who didn’t realize that many white people think they smell different as well.

The first thing that we can do is make sure that we are aware of what is going on, and do whatever we can to make sure that others are aware of the problem as well. If no one ever informed you that there was a problem with racial discrimination and that people were getting jobs over others simply because the color of their skin or even their name, would you ever suspect it. I’m sure that there are plenty of people in the United States (and even in our class) that had absolutely no idea that such blatant discrimination was occurring in the job market. I mean a lot of people if they heard that would probably respond with something along the lines of “really, you must be joking. Discrimination is against the law, it can’t be happening now”. And we are not talking about slight discrimination, we’re talking about blatant discrimination in which a white person can have a 50% advantage over a black person just because he/she is white! So again, I think that the first step is to be informed of what is going on and make sure that others understand as well. But informing others about the issue should not be done in a harsh and informal manner like that of the Willard Preacher, but rather through simple conversations with friends, parents, teachers, family members, whoever will sit down and just listen.
That being said, I think that we are a long ways away from completely eliminating racial discrimination, if such a goal is even feasible in the first place. I think that one way that businesses/companies could try and reduce the chances of racial discrimination occurring when selecting individuals for jobs is to look at a person’s resume and only their resume. Don’t look at any pictures of the person, don’t even look at their name, just select the best on paper applicants merely by their merit and qualifications and then interview the cream of the crop. I understand that this method obviously isn’t ideal, especially if an preliminary interview is necessary before applying which still presents the opportunity for the employer to see and talk to an applicant, but even still it would be a good step for many businesses.
Change is not something that is going to happen overnight or even in our lifetimes. However, e need to at least begin to plant the seeds to say that we won’t put up with racial discrimination, start a movement so that others after us have something to build on. If no one ever starts a change, there is never going to be any change and the problem is never going to be fixed or addressed. Also, I feel as though most of this discrimination comes from an older generation, although I could be completely wrong in this assumption. So maybe as society as a whole becomes more educated and wealthier, and this generation begins to take over for the older ones, the concept of racial discrimination will begin to attenuate naturally. But for now, it appears that it is extremely prevalent in society (obtaining jobs, obtaining a loan for a house, who goes to prison…) and isn’t going away anytime soon.
To come full circle, it all comes back to education and informing people. Some of the stats we have learned in class have been ridiculous (like the one’s pertaining to black kids going to adult jail at a tremendously higher rate than white children for the same crime) and I would have never expected them, and that’s the problem: I would have never expected them. There is so much injustice in this world and as we’ve learned there is still a lot in our own backyard (although it is markedly better than in the past) and for the most part it seems no one knows about it or at least is choosing to ignore it. If we want to make a change we need to start first by making people aware that there is a blatant problem that needs to be fixed, and once we accomplish that only then can we begin to formulate how to actually bring about that change. And I would say that just by us being in class and learning about this is making a change for the better.

I, like some other people have already mentioned, think that the uneven spread of “races” among many of the different sports in the US comes about from a variety of factors, mainly some sort of combination of the three explanations of causality that Sam talked about in class. I would say that for a sport such as basketball, which is clearly dominated by blacks, there are several factors explaining why there are more blacks playing and just as equally why there are less of other “races” playing as well. I think that in the US, African Americans/Africans tend to be localized around cities (I don’t know if this is actually true however) where there is always an abundance of basketball hoops and random patches of green, but often times no pools, ice rinks, soccer fields. So naturally, if you live in a city you will probably play the sport that is most accessible to you, especially if your family is not incredibly well off (and we know that there is a big wealth gap between whites and blacks). Also, public education in some cities is oftentimes not as good as that of smaller towns and private institutions and thus students don’t receive the high quality education that seems necessary for most success in the US. So basically explaining my past few sentences of wandering thought, I think the reason there are a lot of African Americans/Africans in the NBA because 1) basketball is a fairly inexpensive sport, all you need is a ball and a hoop 2) I think Blacks have high densities in metropolitan areas where there is an abundance of hoops 3) Black families have much lower average family incomes than white families (and I believe Asian families) so they may not be able to spend resources on more expensive sports like soccer, lacrosse, swimming. 4) Public education systems tend to be poor in large cities so black families may push their kids in athletics so they get athletic scholarships as opposed to academic ones. 5) Whites families tend to be richer on average than blacks so money can be put towards other sports like soccer, wrestling, lacrosse, tennis, golf, volleyball, etc... which could decrease the number of whites even pursuing playing basketball. 6) Many white families want their kids to go to college and get a degree, so sports are more of a hobby to many kids, something that they can do on the side while they are going to become a Doctor or Lawyer or whatever. (I know this is true at least for a lot of my friends). Also, some people just seem to have innate talent. So while I may have trivialized things a bit in my explanation, my point is that the reason there is a great difference in the representation of different races cannot be narrowed down to one specific factor. There are a variety of social, economic, cultural and biological factors that affect everything in life, including who is playing basketball.

Ok, so when Sam started talking about experiences he had with shahman and what not on his world explorations my first thought was “well this is getting pretty metaphysical and this seems pretty ridiculous”. Although I haven’t always done so in the past, I’ve been trying to take things with a healthy dose of skepticism so obviously I wasn’t entirely convinced of his stories of long trances and communications with plants and whatnot. I have a scientific mind so I need facts, multiple reliable sources, personal observations and the works before I can completely accept what someone is telling me as truth.

When he told us about his high-ankle sprain in Equador (which apparently is very painful) and how the shahman healed him through a concoction of herbs and physical therapy, my first thought was how do we really know that he sprained his ankle? Since there was no damage a day later and he made no mention of going to a doctor, there is no scientific documentation that something was wrong with his ankle (I’m not implying that he wasn’t hurt, only that the diagnosis of what was causing the pain could have been incorrect). Perhaps there was a blood clot in his leg and all of the rubbing and the herbal concoction (probably some sort of natural analgesic that is used frequently in the rainforest, a place where many medicines come from) helped to destroy the clot. I don’t know if that is a real possibility, but I just want to point out that there are many other scenarios that can explain the situation rationally without some sort of magic, herbal healing process.

I realized I have ranted on a about how the stories Sam shared impacted me in the moment, but I haven’t really addressed the question proposed in the video. While I can’t say for sure that the Shahman does enter a trance to communicate with plants and animals, I can say that I’m sure some sort of thinking is going on during these “trance events”. I think that a lot can be learned through self-reflection and meditation and this deep kind of thinking has been prevalent among many pronounced people throughout history. So I think that there are definitely benefits to meditation as it can clear the mind and help one ponder many questions, but whether meditation can entirely replace a school education I have my doubts. I love nature and I am a biology-ecology major so I know that a lot can be gained simply by going into nature and observing all of the interactions that are going on. I feel as though these shahman have a lot of what I’ll call “natural education”, where they gain knowledge about the environment- its plants, its animals and their roles or uses- simply by constant interactions and essentially growing up dependent on all that is around you. There is no way you can live in a rainforest your entire life and not gain some knowledge about how to survive, what plants work best for treating what injuries (commercial medicine is not available) and other useful information.

I like to engage myself in my education so I think that I have gained a lot and grown in my scientific education by attending classes here. I know that with what I want to do in my life, I need to obtain a college degree and the career I am working towards is not one that could be achieved by applying the shahman style of learning. I need to learn procedure, techniques, processes, what’s being discovered/studied so that I can understand all that it take to be a scientist in this day and age. However, especially since I want to go into ecology, I can appreciate this kind of self-reflection and “natural education” that the Shahman have because I believe that it is beneficial to what I want to do. I think that perhaps a balance of both my school education and a sort of self-education is the best way to go, and that is something that I am working on doing. However, in the end a person should study and learn however they feel is best for themselves and to achieve whatever goals they want to achieve.

I can’t really say right now that I believe or can even try to believe that these Shahman can enter a drug induced trance to travel in some sort of spirit world where plants can talk to them. It’s just too much at this point. All be it, I will freely admit that there is a lot I don’t understand in the world and perhaps this phenomenon that Sam described is just one of those things, but until science or at least myself has verified or experienced what he talks about I can’t really just accept it. But, I will look into this further because I honestly don’t know enough about it at the moment.

Well first off I would like to say that I don’t really like the way that this question was ultimately worded. For me using the word accommodate seems to imply that Spanish speakers are somehow inferior to “regular Americans”, as if we need to learn Spanish because it will be impossible for them to learn our language (even though the United States doesn’t have an official language, a point I’ll touch on later). So I don’t think that “Americans” should just learn Spanish to “accommodate” Spanish speakers, but rather I think that residents of the US should learn Spanish because it is a growing language and it is a highly important skill to be able to communicate with another person in his or her native tongue. On that same note I also think that it would be incredibly valuable for residents of the US to learn Chinese if they are able. Not learn it to accommodate all the people of Chinese living in the US, but rather to expand horizons and become more marketable in a tough economy. As humans, we are becoming more and more globally interconnected each day due to technology, jobs, education, etc. so why not become more “global” and learn another language?

I started learning Spanish in 8th grade and by 10th/11th grade I was already fluent. I learned Spanish because I wanted to and to be honest because I just reveled in the idea of being able to communicate with even more people than I had been able to before. I also enjoyed learning about Spanish culture and I was fortunate enough to travel to Spain my senior year, an opportunity which gave me ample opportunities to practice my language skills in a real life situation. As for anyone who complains about signs for shops being in both English and Spanish, I really want to know whether or not it really bugs you that much? My opinion is that it doesn’t affect me directly and I am not harmed by their presence so why should I find them offensive. I can understand that they can be a daily reminder of the fact that there are more and more Spanish speakers coming to the US each year (many illegally), but I don’t know at least for me it’s not a problem. If you complain about the signs because they make you think about illegal immigration and you are completely against it because of X, Y and Z, I can understand that. But if you complain about signs being in both Spanish and English because Spanish speakers who live in this country should learn English, then I have a problem with that. I would ask that you think about this question: do you have a problem with the brail signs that are often located in almost every building on campus? While I know this is quite a stretch since those with sight-disabilities are physically incapable of seeing English, still one must realize that not all Spanish speakers living in this country are at an age where they have the time or brain power to try and learn English. Try and put yourself in the shoes of a primarily Spanish speaking person: if you went to a foreign country (whether legally or illegally, because you don’t have to speak English to become a US citizen) to live, wouldn’t you want to have signs in English available to you (assuming English is your first language), or would you rather like to wander around struggling to read the signs for basic things such as how to cook your frozen meal.

I enjoy being able to speak Spanish and I would recommend that others try and learn the language too because it’s a ton of fun, and with the growing Spanish-speaking population within the US there are ample opportunities to practice. Also, I at least get a little personal satisfaction when I can walk down the street and read ALL the signs (as long as they’re in Spanish or English haha). Ultimately, the decision to learn Spanish comes down to an individual and how they think learning Spanish or another language will affect them in the long run. Each decisions has certain consequences (both negative and positive, as most decisions generally do) so it rests with an individual to make the decision and then fully accept whatever consequences entail.

As for declaring English as the official language of the United States, I am completely against it (I talked about this in one of my other blog posts, I think on the migrant worker video). I can’t give super specific reasons, since it’s more of a feeling/concept that I have had for a long time, but I think in general since there was no need to do it in the past I see no need to do it now. We are becoming a more globalized society, and I believe we are approaching a time where it will be considered abnormal to not be fluent in at least 2 languages. The US is a diverse place and making English the national language would only hinder that diversity.