It’s interesting how even one objective article (I’d almost go as far as saying unbiased as this story doesn’t come from a CNN or Fox News, however there is no such thing as being unbiased; the individual who wrote the column obviously had some sort of agenda in mind) can shed new light on an issue that’s been hashed and rehashed more times than I’d care to think about. I find that it’s hard for many of us to put ourselves in the situation of the individuals whose countries are being invaded. It’s difficult to be able to think from their perspective as it’s so far out of the realm of what we’ve been conditioned to. We don’t have people from a foreign country who don’t speak our language and don’t understand our culture and customs walking our streets and telling us what we can and cannot do. It is indeed a radically different point of view when one thinks about it. This article does a good job of showing just how much the media alters our collective perception about events; those covering the situation attempt to spin it towards their agenda or the agenda of the country, rather than doing their job: dispersing the unadulterated truth to the masses. What struck a chord with me personally was the story about the 80 year old man who lost two sons, two daughters and a granddaughter in the attack outlined in the article. I could definitely see myself vowing to avenge my family if they were just torn from me by an identifiable entity. I think that more attention should be paid to the psychology behind the suicide bombing and other similar attacks. Maybe if we understood exactly why they were happening, then we wouldn’t misstep and cause someone to feel so strongly against us that they strap a bomb to themselves. Just something to consider for the future.

I’d like to start off by stating that I do think the idea of teaching Mandarin (which is, I’m assuming, the most universally used dialect in China. I know that there’s more than just Mandarin.) in schools in the United States. It makes a ton of sense to learn the language of the next economic powerhouse, especially if one wishes to remain viable in the market and is looking for every opportunity to move up in the business world. It would also seem that the U.S. is going to be doing business with the Chinese for years to come, so we’re going to need people who are bilingual to be able to facilitate these deals. This is especially prevalent because of the sheer amount of national debt that our country owes to the Chinese. What I wonder is if we’re making the same effort; are we putting American teachers in China so that they learn English? Do we have to? I seem to remember reading somewhere that most schools in China have had an English program in place for years, but then again, I could be wrong. If that were true, however, it would seem that they have a leg up on us as far as this issue goes. Although, that would make sense because, as far as I know, English is spoken much more universally than Mandarin is.

Before exploring this issue further, I wanted to leave a statement that sort of sums up my view on the issue. I had no previous knowledge that stuff like this existed and incredibly shocked and disgusted that people actually spend time, money and effort creating something as appalling as a video game that revolves around revenge raping. I think that it is indeed representative of something larger than just what is acceptable in Japan. Granted, games such as this don’t exist in the US, however there very well may be if we didn’t have laws to prevent the creation and distribution of such material. Laws like that evidently aren’t in place in Japan, and as a result people are allowed to sell their product even if it is a revenge rape video game. A few questions came to mind as I watched the report: how do Japanese women react to those games? Are their reactions different than women from other cultures? For that matter, how do Japanese men react to the game? Does it stem from some odd fetish or is purely for entertainment? What do these games say about the Japanese? Does similar material exist in other cultures? What do the reactions of other people say about them, respectively? This situation provides much to ponder.
I also wanted to explore the one woman’s declaration that video games such as that are no different than the “shoot em up” games (or whatever they were referred to as) that are currently, and legally, on the market. I find her statement to be true in some respects, but my opinion differs drastically in others. I do agree on one hand that the acts portrayed in both games are disturbing, graphic and illegal, in different ways. I also agree that video games in general are a way of escaping one’s everyday life. I do not, however, see how the games centered on rape would be more acceptable than a Grand Theft Auto game, or something similar. Granted, extreme violence and unwanted sexual advances are two different issues entirely and should be approached as such, meaning that one cannot make sweeping statements that blanket them. Personally, I find the rape games much more offensive; for some reason I find a girl being assaulted in a subway more believable that someone grabbing automatic rifles, killing randomly, stealing cars and getting away with it all. I think this stems from having a mother and a younger sister; the thought of anything those rape video games portray happening to either of them makes me sick. I also find someone playing those games more likely to act out their fantasy than an individual playing a shooting game. For instance, I’ve played many a shooting game and have had absolutely no desire to make anything within them a reality.
Also, there’s less than a 0% chance that I’d play the rape games, even with friends and even if the beer were FREE.

Personally, I find this issue incredibly interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, I completely understand the Census’ justification for the placement of the word “negro” on the form. I will say, however, that I’m not 100% sure that it’s completely necessary; one would think that even older African Americans would recognize the other terms that are listed and have been for every census they’ve participated in previously. That being said, if many of them do recognize themselves as “negroes” and not any of the other terms, it would have to be listed so that we get an accurate, and very important, representation of America today.
I do understand why individuals would be offended about that word being on the form, and found myself somewhat shocked that it was. I thought that the woman who shot the piece did a very respectable job of getting many peoples’ views on the issue at hand. I found it very interesting that during one of the conversations that she was having with the younger man that the older guy voiced his opinion as well and it was one of acceptance; although he understood exactly why the younger man and the woman with the glasses were offended by the Census form, he also recognized that it was a term that older African Americans would recognize and be able to check off. It definitely matched up with Sam’s comments on the blog and definitely makes some sense.
I feel that in most countries, but ours especially, it would be almost impossible to get everyone’s race represented completely accurately. Personally, I’m Irish, Italian, English, German and French. Being labeled “white” doesn’t necessarily represent my heritage with complete accuracy, but I don’t feel that it’s relevant as far as what the Census is trying to accomplish. However, that’s obviously going to change depending on your specific makeup. I actually had a conversation with a couple of my friends whose parents felt the same way that many of the individuals in the video did. I do agree, however, that this is most likely a very big distraction from the incredibly important “snapshot of America.” People should be focused more on the helpful aspects of the Census, such as the allocation of Congressional seats, electoral votes, and government program funding.
I also thought the one woman’s comment about the classification sort of putting you in a box was very interesting. I find that I agree with her sentiment. A lot of times we’re told that individuals are more than just numbers, but this is the ultimate evidence to the contrary. A little white box with a term next to it doesn’t define you as a person, but you’re still required to label yourself.

It seems to me that the Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes are presented with two win-lose situations; neither decision would come without consequences. On one hand, they'd have the ability to dramatically alter their collective lifestyles for the better. If they chose to build the refinery their numbers for poverty and unemployment (28% and 40%) would obviously decrease. However, would they be willing to pay the steep price for such a decision? As stated in the second article, the emissions from the refinery are shown to cause "cancer, neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, increased respiratory disease, decreased lung function, and premature death." To me, it seems like they'd be securing their short-term comfort at the expense of their long-term well being, not to mention the condition of the bodies of water, air and wildlife in their area. The wastewater produced by the refinery is often dumped in nearby streams, lakes, etc. and would potentially harm the area's ecosystem as well as individuals who are unaware that they are drinking contaminated water. They also go on to say that members of the Three Affiliated Tribes already suffer from the effects of "the existing multiple polluting stressors of several coal/lignite power plants, the USA’s first coal gasification plant, coal mining, oil wells, the states existing oil refinery, and farm land herbicide/pesticide use." How could the Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes justify the additional risk represented by the proposed refinery? It seems to me that building said refinery would only be magnifying an already harmful situation. Is the almighty dollar worth however many lives, those of plants and animals as well as humans, may be lost because of the pollution? It appears that many people believe so.
I do empathize with those responsible for making this decision. The Native Americans in that area, as well as similar locations throughout the US, were born into a situation that they'd obviously rather be removed from. They were also placed in these situations through no fault of their own; they were simply in the way of a rapidly expanding European colonization effort. I am somewhat comforted that this decision is theirs to make, and not completely out of their hands. At least they get to determine their fate in this situation. It's upsetting, however, that they're forced to chose between the lesser of two evils. If they chose to build the refinery, they're putting themselves, as well as the surrounding wildlife, in harm's way to bring some sort of affluence to their people. If they decline to build the refinery, they're dooming many of their people to the same situation they're already in for who knows how long. Thankfully, it's not my decision to make. I definitely don't envy the person whose job it is.

penguins