I was shocked to discover that only 10% of boosts are provided by affirmative action because the ruckus that is caused by those opposed to it would have one believe that the percentage was much higher. Conversely, I was not surprised to discover that the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women, simply because I believe that the beneficiaries of many social programs are often the unintended recipients. I do, however, think that women of all colors need and deserve some level of affirmative action to balance out the gender inequality gap that has been perpetuated for so long in this country alongside racial inequality. I also would have to agree that many of the first people to scream “farce” about affirmative action are often talking out of both sides of their mouths because they are often those who have benefitted so many times from nepotism, which as Sam pointed out is equal to affirmative action. I think the problem lies in that, like he also pointed out, most humans, especially those who are privileged, are arrogant enough to believe that they are only benefitting from nepotism because they are better than another. So although the same issues are at the foundation of both affirmative action and nepotism, most people don’t see that the main difference is that one is sanctioned by the government and the other the same thing just shrouded in secrecy at that personal level. And so one has to ask, how many benefits are enough? Are you really crying over the one or two extra hands that I may dealt after receiving 16 million?! I think that a very important point was made during the lecture, in that most times even if someone does “unfairly” gain something in society due to affirmative action, that person usually has to produce three times more and surmount ten times the adversity once they are there in order to stay – especially if it is a known fact that they were given some sort of boost by affirmative action. Moreover, I believe that affirmative action is one of the few effective ways to even the playing field in a system steeped in institutionalized racism, however, many of those that are against it are often too uneducated or too unwilling to see that it runs so deep. Additionally, many of those same people don’t even understand how the system of affirmative action works, and that it is more about redirection and second looks, as opposed to hand outs and quotas as is so often argued. So my bottom line and opinion on affirmative action is directly in line with that of President Obama, which is that it should benefit those who most need it based on socioeconomic status and not race. In essence those people of color who need it will thus benefit more often than not because more often than not those are the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Loved the cartoons by the way!

Funny enough, Americans do not do assimilation. Anytime we travel outside of our cozy little comfort zone of a country, we hem and haw the whole time about how things don’t look, smell, taste, or function as they do back home. As can often be typical of our beloved country in matters of patriotism, we are totally hypocritical on the flip side when it comes to people immigrating to our country. Many Americans expect people immigrating to this country to assimilate fully, practically to the point of patriotically cloaking themselves in the flag the second they touchdown. Interestingly enough, as our professor points out during lecture, we didn’t assimilate when we stole the red man’s land, why should we force everyone else to? Is that the only way to ensure order in such a great melting pot? Or are we just so steeped in arrogance that it basically boils down to one of the most basic of human ultimatums – you’re either one of us, or one of them? I am not saying that we should just open up the floodgates and let it be a cultural free-for-all. I just think that we should have a little more tolerance for those that have a cultural perspective that is different from “ours”, particularly because all us other than the Native Americans are immigrants. Speaking of which, I would like to also touch on the whole “free-market” bullet point about thinking outside of the box in when it comes to immigration. Yes, I believe in free-market capitalism, and yes I realize that businesses and large landowners are the ones that have truly shaped our immigration policy. We’re the quintessential capitalist country for crying out loud! What I do not happen to agree with is the perspective that this is an “open-minded” viewpoint, or more to the point a viewpoint at all. I believe this to actually be a dirty little fact that nobody wants to discuss. I am talking about the fact that we talk about the free-market being sustained by immigration, but in reality it is our way of life that is sustained and fostered by the cheap labor that immigration provides. For this has always been the tradition of nation building in this great country of ours – use damn near free labor to “free” the market and tend to the land! As Professor Richard said, if you can’t exploit poor people, you don’t want them. It’s all good until Jose and Fatou want equal rights, health care options, and the ability to vote along with the taxes they pay, right? Right. I’m just saying that we can’t speak out of one side of our mouths about the wrongs of slavery and how this is the home of the free, all the while just refurbishing it and dressing it up in a modern day frock under the guise of competing with China. Let’s keep it real for once “America”!

I found the statistics on fewer churchgoers wanting to live in more diverse communities very interesting. I have long also considered it the most segregated hour of the week before now, but have for an equally long time thought this to be utterly ridiculous and hypocritical (one of the reasons I am not a frequent churchgoer). Church is supposed to serve as the rock of the community as far as institutions go, providing as many of the needy with assistance as possible regardless of faith, creed, color, etc. Moreover, one of the basic tenants and goals of most religions is evangelism and or conversion! So in both of these instances wouldn’t it behoove the church and it’s parishioners to dwell in more diverse surroundings? Just a thought. In terms of assimilation, I have always considered it to be a tragedy because I feel like everybody usually looses – immigrants and “natives”. My great-grandparents on my mother’s side immigrated here from Panama back during a time when people were really expected to assimilate 100%, thus none of our subsequent generations were taught Spanish or even much about our culture and history on that side of the family. In fact, I travelled all the way to Spain at the age of 14 to learn Spanish for a semester because I never knew about my Panamanian heritage until I was almost 18 years of age! Everyone loses in this day and age especially because globalization trends call for increased exposure to other cultures and languages in order for future generations to be successful. The quote of “many live their lives in a very narrow window of ethnocentrism and ignorance” by Professor Richards is so profound because that has to cease and desist from Americans post haste if we are going to thrive in this new global society. For we are deemed to be some of the most ignorant people, are seen as very uncultured, and are actually hated by many around the world currently due to this perceived and sometimes true prideful close-minded point of view. I am also of the opinion, however, that part of the reason Americans are so happy in our xenophobic bubbles is in some part a direct result of our exposure to multiculturalism. I think that the way America coped with the obstacle of being such a melting pot from the start was to unify all of these different cultures, languages, etc. under one really patriotic banner and make the most acceptable outlet for displays of difference be those of regional distinction, or living in New York City – one of the only places of true amalgamation it seems. I would also just like to state that everyone wants to act as if the “caramelization” of America and/or the fact that whites will be the minority by 2050 is not such a big deal – but I believe it is. I think that internally white people are shaking in their skin with trepidation of retribution of some sort (however insane that may be), and actually so are people of color with anxiety over failure at the helm.

Is it really true that white people are taught to not see color from early on? That this makes them assured that they are not racists? I find this such a difficult concept, or truth, to grasp. I hate the whole idea of political correctness, especially coming from white people because I feel that it is often just based in avoidance or excuse tactics. It drives me crazy. I would much rather that someone comes out and speaks their opinion blatantly like a white supremacist (however ignorant), as opposed to those who hide under a cover of innocent ignorance. An example of this would be the one that Professor Richards brought up a few lectures ago pertaining to racism from white people in the North as opposed to the South. Yes, it can be difficult to deal with the turbulence that you encounter along the path of awakening whether you are black or white when dealing with these topics amongst one’s own people, but can be ten times more difficult for one is in the presence of a majority of the other group. So it can at times be understandable when let’s say a white person in a room full of black people grapples with finding the courage to speak their minds racially, but I think that it is so necessary. And even more important can be to have patience and understanding coming from the black group’s perspective. I also think that black people or even other minorities are not given the opportunity to prove their willingness to be fair and productive in these conversations. As expressed in regards to the stage of revisioning, yes anger often comes into play. Anger, however, is not always the first response by people of color in discussions =surrounding race. As a matter of fact, many times an honest conversation would be so welcomed that we would often probably offer up a lot of “passes” not necessarily warranted! Even when people say ignorant and dismissive things like “get over it already & move on!’ Oh, the frustration! At the end of the day it’s not about assigning guilt, or perpetually victimizing minorities. It’s mostly about recognizing and stating that one realizes there is a problem that exists, in order to evoke a genuine emotion of concern and responsibility to contribute to a better way forward. I know that it can be difficult because sometimes we don’t move past the guilt, but this is a necessary hurdle to cross and move past to get to a solution. Until now I couldn’t really identify with white guilt the way that I do know after having learned more about the plight of the Native Americans, and subsequently how my inaction contributes to their continued plight.

I thought that this was a very interesting and important topic for this course, and I was wondering when we were going to really get to it. Now I am eager to see what the next part of the lecture brings! One of my main “problems” with white people has always been that they often feign innocence and ignorance when it comes to racist situations or racism in general. I fell as though almost every or anything “foreign” to them can easily cause them discomfort and thus they just avoid it when possible. It’s ingratiating, however, because every and anything can be considered foreign when you are in a position of power so to speak, and thus are responsible for creating and molding the norms of society. At the same time, it sometimes saddens me that many people of color often put white people into one group. This can be annoying for two reasons, one because it is often done to black people and many of us spend a lot of time trying to fight the stereotype that we are all the same. Two because I happen to know a number of very different white people and yes there are many different types. But I don’t think that white people really consider this when thinking about themselves because they are often in the fortunate position of thinking and speaking from an individualistic perspective. A luxury that is not always afforded to minorities. I also feel as though that in terms of being at the pre-awakening stage or the first to points of the awakening stage there are also luxuries of ignorance that adults should not be able to claim. I was always taught that once you know better, you do better, and that anyone other than true children are responsible not only for the things that they know but the things that they do not as well. Any judge will tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Why do these same rules not apply during conversations about self-identity and responsibility as they relate to racism? Although there is a desire to cut people slack and say that if you don’t have the experience you don’t know (and it can often be true), the onus also sometimes lies on the individual to go out and find the experience or create it themselves t find out. For example, I came from the hood and was born poor without a whole lot of exposure to a lot of different cultures or life’s other multitudes of offerings. As I grew up, however, I realized that in a world trending towards globalization and in the interest of my own personal growth and success, as well as a n ability to educate my daughter efficiently, that I would have to go out and discover some of these things whether it be through study abroad, picking up a class or book I usually otherwise wouldn’t have, or even spending a few extra moments chatting with the owner of the local bodega from Cuba around the way. It seems as though white people often truly do epitomize the theory that ignorance is bliss, and I think that we have to move away from this to start to evolve in our national discourse on race relations. I still love my white brethren though – keep hope alive!

I have been arguing this lecture with people since I was about 19 years old, but I just didn’t have as many facts at that time. I think that although it is best to be in the middle of the whole freedom vs. determinism argument, but as Professor Richards points out, I also believe that there are a host of historically induced invisible factors that contribute to who we are and hence the choices we make. I am also of the opinion that although luck of birth used to have a lot to do with success during the inception of socialization, that for the most part ancestral choices combined with domination of resources has the majority to do with modern day circumstances for most. Although we have freedom to fight for more, sometimes one can be so far behind in the race that there is just no way to catch up and “fight fair”. Thus, I guess I am of the determinism school of though in terms of ideology and resources. So it’s not just about hard work and following the rules, like a lot of the haves like to lecture to the have-nots. That is such a lie to keep those in power powerful, and those not on the hamster wheel! Because like the basics of the sociology of social production intimate, once someone Is on top they will fight tooth and nail (and definitely not in a fair way) to stay there, out of which is born systematic racism and discrimination. The craziest example of which is the example given in class of the G.I. Bill after WWII! In one way I am flabbergasted because I never had knowledge of this before today, but on the other hand I just shake my head in disbelief at Avery from class who still cannot see the big picture of truth because there are so many other examples that end up at the same truth – the king of the mountain will always protect his position whether in the light of day or under the cloak of night, and it is extremely difficult for a whole group to overcome those barriers. The inequality of our penal system is just another example of how this theory can manifest itself as something largely awful for an entire group of people. I feel as though the argument presented in our text of the U.S. elite (or white people) hyping crime and violence to induce a more punitive justice system to self-preserve is right on point. I believe it to be an evil and extremely unjust way to lock away and disenfranchise long term a lot of their potential “competition” for space on the mountain. Simultaneously, it provides the added benefit of a new and major revenue stream for their government and future endeavors. Such a sad and daunting state of affairs!

I found it so very interesting that professor Richards implies that white people are the only ethnic group to be politically correct. Not only do I seriously doubt that most have learned to be politically correct, as our textbook points out, political correctness is such a general and overly used term that I find it difficult to believe that most white people have learned to be politically correct, as that correctness changes depending on the situation. Moreover, working in an immigration law firm I have learned to be politically correct in regards to a number of race and cultures. By the way, although the term “red nigger” may be an educational talking point to educate us about Native American discrimination, I doubt it’s political correctness (repeated several times over) in this forum. I was also very interested to hear the term “we”, as in all Americans other than them, used in discourse regarding the tragic history of raping the Native American peoples of their land and lives, for black people had very little part of this as far as I knew. Tyrone, Sheniqua? Really? Reinforce stereotypes much (?), was the first question to come to mind when that comment was made by Professor Richards. Why if all cultures creatively name their children, as so shortly noted by the Professor, are the names that black people bestow upon their children “more creative”? Hmmm. I also found it interesting to hear the young lady comment that she that mostly white girls attempted suicide because they mostly want to be perfect and thin. In my experience as someone with a fashion background & myriad of girlfriends, society as well as women themselves, places high demands on women of all races to be perfect an thin – even “angry black women”. One of the statistics that I was most intrigued to discover to be true was that 75% of Arabs are Christian. I can’t wait to throw that back at the next Arab-hating zealot that I come across in polite conversation down here in the good ol’ South! I was definitely glad to hear about the immigrant breakdown of health and economic power. These are things that a lot of Americans could learn from immigrants while they are busy with their xenophobic rants about sending them back home. And I am not surprised to see that the number of people speaking another language other than English at home is growing, because it’s more accepted. For example, although my grandparents are from Panama they immigrated here during a time when assimilation was demanded, so as opposed to learning Spanish at home I had to wait until I was in high school and travel God knows how many miles to Spain to learn our language.

imperative to always when tempted to only want to debate the right foot, try walking in both shoes of the person or people that you’re judging because as Professor Richards pointed out until you live that life and have to trudge through it yourself, you can never guarantee that you would end up with the same hand that you are currently “lucky” enough to be playing.

play, but all of us that play poker know that sometimes a 7 deuce just won’t cut it and you have to work extra hard to stay in the game at that point! And two, that even when people do try, there can sometimes be such an insurmountable number and never-ending wave of continual obstacles in one’s path that as emotional beings, sometimes people, spent, just eventually crack under the pressure. Thus, it is

play, but all of us that play poker know that sometimes a 7 deuce just won’t cut it and you have to work extra hard to stay in the game at that point! And two, that even when people do try, there can sometimes be such an insurmountable number and never-ending wave of continual obstacles in one’s path that as emotional beings, sometimes people, spent, just eventually crack under the pressure. Thus, it is imperative to always when tempted to only want to debate the right foot, try walking in both shoes of the person or people that you’re judging because as Professor Richards pointed out until you live that life and have to trudge through it yourself, you can never guarantee that you would end up with the same hand that you are currently “lucky” enough to be playing.