en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2397558 Comments by mld5254 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/12/07/voices-from-the-classroom-224/#IDComment514925886 I took Soc 001 with Sam Richards a few years ago, so I am a part of the small minority who really knew what we were getting ourselves into when we scheduled Soc 119. I knew that Sam would challenge popular ideas and morals, and I knew that he would change the way I think about a lot of things – or at the very least, he would change the way I think about SOMETHING. The element of the discussion group once a week was new to me though, and I definitely did not know what to expect. Overall, I took a lot away from this course, and looking back on it, I can say for sure that it has been one of the best classes I have taken in my four years here, and I will definitely miss it. One of the main things I am taking away from Soc 119 is to be open-minded. That notion may be a little vague or general, but that’s how I think about it. Too often, we get accustomed to something and then it’s hard for us to break away from it. It’s human nature… we’re afraid of what we don’t know. It is important for us to look at elements of life from all different angles, directions, whatever. The discussion group really helped me with that. Yeah, hearing Sam’s opinions or thoughts about certain things was cool. But what really did it for me was hearing my classmates’ views on different topics. I think I definitely learned more (and had way more fun) during discussions than during lecture. There are so many different backgrounds and patterns of thinking represented by the group I was lucky enough to sign up for. Hearing my peers say things that I didn’t necessarily agree with wasn’t always the easiest thing in the world. Again, when I disagreed, my first reaction was to think: “that’s stupid” or “he’s wrong”. But then I would take a step back and try to understand where the person was coming from. Being able to understand others’ views is something I’ll be able to carry with me for the rest of my life. Even if I don’t agree with another person’s ideas, morals, choices, actions, etc., I am at least able to appreciate why he or she feels the way they do. Thinking about it, it’s really hard to write down what I took away from this class. Mostly everything is an intangible feeling or thought, as opposed to a math class where I could say, “I learned how to do this or that.” I would say this class was an experience, and in some ways maybe even a journey. Soc 119 was absolutely unlike any class I’ve taken during my time here at Penn State. I guess if it comes down to it, I think this is what I’ve gotten most: Just listen, observe, and be aware of others. And don’t be afraid to ask why. Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:55:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/12/07/voices-from-the-classroom-224/#IDComment514925886 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-213/#IDComment508314842 I’m not sure that I could ever kill another person. It takes a lot for me to get angry, and I feel like most people murder someone else out of anger. I don’t really get mad at people, so it just seems completely out of my nature to be violent in any way. I’ve never fought someone… I’ve never even had the urge to fight someone. On top of that, I just don’t see how I could ever take someone else’s life. Who am I to decide if someone else should live or die, no matter the circumstances? In the end, what could ever make me worthy of that decision? That being said, one thing that could probably trigger the thought of murder in me is someone hurting a family member of mine. For example, if my mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, etc. got raped – or worse – I would probably consider murdering the person who did it. That’s just unacceptable in my eyes. If the person doesn’t go to prison for the rest of his life, then maybe murder would be acceptable. I already know I’m going to love being a father so much. It’s one of the only things I’m really looking forward to in life. So if my child was seriously, purposefully harmed, I may consider murder there as well. There’s a certain level of protection that I’m going to feel responsible for, in regards to my kids. I’m not going to be overprotective by any means, but I guess there’s distinct things that if someone would do them to my kids, it would make me want to murder him or her. You just don’t fuck with somebody’s kids, that’s really all there is to it. You hear about all these stories of kids getting kidnapped, raped, and murdered. I’m aware that it’s extremely rare – way more rare than most Americans believe – but still, if it happened, I could see myself maybe reacting violently and possibly killing the other person. I guess I would have to be in that situation to truly know what I would do. When you think about it, there’s really no way any of us can say for sure they would kill someone else. Until we’re facing extreme conditions (and seemingly horrible conditions at the same time, like a family member being murdered) we don’t know how we would react. Most people would probably like to think that they would be able to hurt someone who hurt them/the people they love. And I think that’s the way it should be. That’s a part of caring about someone. But again, until they’re placed in that situation, they don’t know what they would do. I can imagine that it takes a lot of psychological pressure to reach that point, and it would only increase should someone decide to commit murder. Mon, 3 Dec 2012 03:21:45 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-213/#IDComment508314842 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-211/#IDComment495150765 Even though I wasn’t in the class, I sat in on this lecture when I was a freshman. As fate would have it, I’m taking the class as a senior (and forgot all about attending that lecture three years ago). My reactions and thoughts on the topic haven’t changed much since then. On a very general scale, I don’t understand religion. I get that some people need something to put their faith in, and that’s fine. It’s probably a great sense of security to know that there is some great being watching over us, if not shaping our every move. I have no problem with religious people – we’re all free to believe what we want, and act in accordance to those beliefs. I’m a firm believer in the idea that your religion should be just that – YOUR religion. Your faith should be between you and whoever/whatever you believe in. But where I get lost is when religion leads people to do amoral things, like hurting those of other faiths or forcing (or strongly persuading) them to convert to the “correct” religion. Granted, it’s important to note that most societal morals and norms come from religion in one way or another). However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. In my eyes, religion is man-made. We don’t, and most likely will never, know which religion (if any) is the “right” one to follow. But it doesn’t even matter. I think the idea of religion is more important than the religion itself, and that’s where people get lost. It shouldn’t run peoples’ lives – it should be used to guide them. Personally, I have an issue with investing so much into something that I don’t know exists. I have a hard time believing in heaven, hell, god/s, etc. because I don’t know if they truly exist or not. The only ‘proof’ we have is a book that was written by some guys. Why should I believe it? Again, I’m not against religion. I just happen to spend my time investing in things with more tangible benefits. But religion is at the root of so many issues in the world. Look at the Israel/Palestine war. What was/is the cause for all of this fighting? Religion. All of this “our religion is right, yours is wrong; our religion says that land belongs to us, not you” is bullshit. That Jesus Camp is another example. I’ve seen the movie, and I couldn’t help but laugh throughout… but it’s really not funny. It’s fucking scary, along with all other forms of religious fanaticism. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your religious beliefs doesn’t deserve to live? Really? That’s the equivalent of me wanting every Ohio State student dead because they don’t go to Penn State. The foundation of most religions is treating fellow men with respect. That is lost when people start worrying about what others believe in. A human construct is causing so much pain and evil in the world. Isn’t that the opposite of what most faiths preach? Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:11:05 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-211/#IDComment495150765 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/01/voices-from-the-classroom-198/#IDComment480556948 In reality, I don’t think your or any other person’s individual buying habits have any impact on the global market. It may be the pessimist within me, but I have a hard time believing that just one person can really make a difference. You may not buy a new phone for the sake of the people who work in shitty conditions, work long hours, etc. – as you said, “slaves” – but you’re really not helping them at all. I hate to say it, but in my eyes it’s true. Someone else will buy the phone that you choose not to. I wish that one person could change something on his or her own, but I really don’t believe it’s possible. Maybe on some minimal, micro level, this guy’s decision to not buy a new phone is making a difference. Maybe this video will change someone in the class’ mind, and he or she will decide to stop buying products related to foreign labor or “slavery”. But on a large scale, it won’t do anything. That being said, I think starting a movement based on an idea like this is totally possible. If enough people buy into what’s going on, this dude might be able to make a difference somehow. As cliché as it is, we only have to look at people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. Without going into details about each man’s modus operandi, they had extremely different strategies in regards to both achieving their goals and gaining support and followers. Anyway, they both had an idea, and worked hard to garner supporters. After a lot of hard work and problems, they both started to gain support, and people started buying into their plans to change the way black people were treated in the United States. But, even after they gained a strong following, neither saw much tangible change occur while they were alive. So here’s the problem we face with an idea like this: even if you think you’re making a change, and people agree with your thoughts and want to help… even if you’re in the national or international spotlight, it’s clearly hard to make a true difference. Granted, after their deaths, MLK and Malcolm X’s visions eventually came to light, so change is obviously possible if enough people want it. So I guess if he really tried hard enough and really cared enough, this dude could start a chain reaction and more and more people would stop buying electronics that contribute to overseas labor problems. The key is numbers. One guy on his own can’t do much, but if he had enough people on his side, who knows. I’m still skeptical that anything would change because so many people want the newest phones, computers, whatever. But maybe I’m wrong. Sun, 4 Nov 2012 21:17:06 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/01/voices-from-the-classroom-198/#IDComment480556948 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/24/voices-from-the-classroom-194/#IDComment475182159 This is a really interesting exercise, and one that provokes quite a bit of thought. From first glance, here’s what I noticed: It seems the women are generally presented as nice, friendly, intelligent, etc. On the other hand, the men’s demeanor tends to give off being tough, mean, rude, etc. The women were smiling, or at least seemed content, while the men were staring at the camera with a blank look or a pseudo glare. When you factor in the clothing/features like dreadlocks, a fitted hat pulled over the eyes, and headphones, the women seem more likeable and downright friendly. But I don’t know any of these people. For all I know, the dudes with the fitted hats could be the nicest people in State College. The guy with dreads could be incredibly smart. But based on the way they’re dressed, society says that’s impossible. When you think about it, it’s pretty funny how much emphasis we place on how people look. When you go into a job interview, you want to make a good first impression – so you buy some new clothes that you may never wear again, you get a haircut, and do whatever else you have to in order to “look your best”. What if the most qualified candidate walks into the room in jeans, flip flops, and a t-shirt? Theoretically, shouldn’t he or she get the job? We worry so much about how people look, to the point where we immediately write someone off if they’re not dressed ‘normally’. If one of the guys with the hat and the first girl both interviewed for the same position, wearing what they are in the video, I have no doubt in my mind that 10/10 employers would choose the girl. In my opinion, this all comes down to being afraid of what you don’t know. There are so many different styles of clothing, but if something isn’t mainstream, or even (socially-decided) acceptable, our immediate reaction is to think it’s weird, ugly, whatever. I keep going back to this, but the guys with the fitted hats are a great thing to analyze. If my father saw those guys, he would be quick to judge them because their hats aren’t like a traditional baseball cap. It’s different than what he grew up with and what he’s used to. Some of my friends at home wear hats like that, or tilted up and off to the side. My dad gives them crap for it all the time. There’s always going to be that generational gap, and some things among young kids will just never register with the older people. But why does something as obsolete as clothing and demeanor lead someone to be judged so negatively? I’m not sure if it’s possible, but if we could adjust our views to incorporate more important things – like how people act and how they treat others – then maybe the guys in this video would be seen in the same light as the girls. Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:31:23 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/24/voices-from-the-classroom-194/#IDComment475182159 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/18/voices-from-the-classroom-190/#IDComment467906541 The thing you have to look at here is our cultural perceptions and preconceived notions of race, which go far beyond racism – these ideas are latent and embedded into our culture, sometimes without ever being explicitly expressed. Whether direct or indirect, we are taught early in life that the lighter a person’s skin, the ‘better’ they are. There have been numerous studies done with little kids and dolls, where both the kids and dolls are of varying racial backgrounds. Almost every time, the child chose the black doll over the white doll because it seemed ‘nicer’, ‘prettier’, etc. This point is particularly important when looking at the older black women who witnessed the white guy trying to steal the bike. When asked why they didn’t intervene, their answer essentially said that since he was white, it was unlikely he’d be stealing the bike. One of them went on to say that she has been conditioned to assume that a young black guy (or girl) is more likely to commit a crime than a white guy (or girl), so she just assumed he ‘lost his key’. White people aside, even most black people would assume a black guy is stealing a bike and a white guy has a reason for doing what he’s doing… that’s pretty crazy. It’s just assumed in America – and probably around the world, too – that a black person is more likely to commit a crime than a white person, no matter the circumstances. But I think it’s important to note a few things about the ‘experiment’ within the video. It was stated that their clothing was a ‘control’; “we dressed them in similar clothes.” That was bullshit, they clearly didn’t. Sure, the clothes were LOOSELY similar, but the black guy’s pants were much more baggy, and his hat was tilted to the side, as opposed to white guy’s tighter pants and straight (although backwards) hat. I’m sure that had something to do with the parkgoers’ perceptions. It would have been interesting to flip their outfits to see if anything changed. I’m trying to think how I would react if put in that situation, but I just can’t say for sure. I’m a naturally a conflict-averse person; I’d rather stay out of drama altogether. I think I would probably assume the guy was stealing the bike no matter his race, for the simple fact that he has a saw, chain cutters, etc. (after all, growing up in the city, I’ve watched both white and black people commit a number of crimes). But I doubt I would step in. Sometimes we just need to take a step back and look at the situation, and do our best not to let stereotypes and perceptions get the best of our judgment, which seems almost next to impossible after watching that video. Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:52:46 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/18/voices-from-the-classroom-190/#IDComment467906541 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/10/voices-from-the-classroom-183/#IDComment460363535 Tammy’s situation is pretty wild to think about – it’s hard to even begin to imagine living like that. But talking to her face to face, and trying to “make sense” of that situation would be immensely more difficult. However, I think it would be equally interesting, and there are a few things I think I would say to her. I think it’s important to note that I would try my best not to instill a false sense of hope in her… As we have seen in class, it’s almost impossible for someone in her situation to drastically change it. It seems that she already knew this, but I would definitely take the time to reiterate to her that it isn’t her fault. Based on all of the background knowledge I have – for example, her father have 22 kids and bringing them all up in poverty – I would have to say this was, for all intents and purposes, unavoidable for Tammy. In Sam’s words, Tammy’s situation was determined by “factors and forces outside of her control” (the invisible strings). The more I think about this, her life, as it was portrayed in the video, only sets her up to continue this pattern. Everything’s working against her. I know I touched upon the difficulties of improving her conditions earlier. That’s mostly true. But at the same time, as hypocritical as it sounds, I’d stress the importance of trying to make a better life for her kids. It really touched a nerve for me when she was talking about how her son is “no better than she is”. If he wants to go to college and attempt to improve his life, who is she to hold him back? Even if he goes to school, and then he ends up failing, dropping out, or whatever, at least he tried. At least he can say he had the opportunity to change the situation he’s in. All in all, this whole idea is complicated. I’d be lying if I told her or her kids that hard work and determination is enough to improve life. Sometimes it’s not – there’s a certain amount of luck needed, as well. In the end, a number of factors have determined and will continue to determine how Tammy’s life plays out. She really had no control over what family she was born into, or the fact that her father was as irresponsible as he was (in the sense of having 22 children, knowing they would grow up in poverty). On top of that, she has little to no control over her current situation. I guess all she can do is continue to work, and live life the best she can, while trying to help her kids all that she can. Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:47:42 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/10/voices-from-the-classroom-183/#IDComment460363535 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/07/voices-from-the-classroom-178/#IDComment457797444 I was a little surprised when this happened in class – and coming from a lower middle-class and/or poor neighborhood, I was almost offended that people wouldn’t admit it. But after thinking about it for a while, it made more sense to me. I think there could be a number of different reasons why no one raised their hand when Sam asked who was rich. The first explanation I thought of was that maybe some (probably not all) rich people in class don’t know they’re rich. Sure, they probably know they’re pretty well off. But if someone grows up in a rich area, and they aren’t exposed to any other socioeconomic conditions, what’s around them is going to seem like the norm. While this is sort of hard to believe when talking about college students (hopefully they’d understand by now) – maybe it would be more likely among children who don’t really understand being rich vs. being poor to begin with – it’s still possible. (Granted, there’s more to it than just rich vs. poor, but for the sake of making a point, I will place anyone who isn’t ‘rich’ into the poor category.) My second idea was that it’s hard to define what ‘rich’ or ‘wealthy’ really mean. My definition of rich is probably different than someone else’s. Going back to my previous example, I hope it would pretty clear to someone our age if his or her family has money or not. But they still might not consider themselves ‘rich’. If he or she knows someone/a family with more money, a bigger house, nicer cars, then maybe in this person’s eyes, THAT’S being rich. In other words, the grass is always greener… “I’m not rich, HE’S rich.” The last thing I came up with is that it’s incredibly likely that some people were embarrassed. Being on the other side of the rich vs. poor table, it seems like a silly thing to be embarrassed of. I think it goes without saying most of us would love to be rich. But think about it – when put in a room of 700+ people, knowing that a good number of these people don’t come from wealthy families (especially because it’s a race relations class and there are so many different people coming from so many different backgrounds and experiences), would you feel comfortable admitting your family has money? Apparently rich people are a clear minority within this class, they don’t want to be singled out in front of everyone, just as no one raised their hand when Sam asked if there were any lesbians in the room – which is possible, but hard to believe considering the amount of students. Inversely, if it was common knowledge that most of the class was rich, I can only assume any poor students would be hesitant to raise their hand if Sam asked, “Who in here is poor?” It’s an interesting dynamic… it’s usually no one’s own fault that they’re rich or poor, yet we place such a large importance on it, so much so that people are afraid to admit belonging in a certain category. Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:41:09 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/07/voices-from-the-classroom-178/#IDComment457797444 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-173/#IDComment452487613 The “guessing game” on Thursday was both interesting and entertaining. It was interesting in the sense that it was cool to see our cultural perceptions and ideas about race/ethnicity come to light in class. As a white American, I tend to lump certain people all in the same group – I assume the majority of people of other races do the same thing. Even though I’m aware of the physical differences between Asian peoples, it’s essentially a part of our culture to automatically assume that an Asian person is Chinese. I feel like if I was chosen to guess peoples’ ethnicities, my go-to would have been Chinese for most of them, even though I know better. It’s the same idea for people from the Middle East and surrounding areas; I usually assume they are from India no matter what. These assumptions probably just come from cultural reinforcement. I can remember a few specific instances when my father called an Asian person ‘Chinese’. Now obviously, he didn’t know for sure whether or not the person was in fact Chinese. I don’t think we mean to be ignorant in this sense – it just sort of happens. I think it would be the same way for an Asian person looking at me. Granted, it’s a little different because we’re normally just called ‘white’ or ‘American’. Regardless, I feel like it would be difficult for someone to look at me and guess that I’m Irish/French. This exercise tells me how racially – and ultimately culturally – ignorant we are. This seems to be a recurring theme in this class, but there are a lot of things we don’t know, in regards to others. Instead of trying to understand, we just assume whatever we’re used to assuming and nothing ever changes. But I don’t really see this ever changing, either. No matter how informed, knowledgeable, or educated we are about other people and their backgrounds, these misconceptions will always exist. It’s human nature to lump people into groups based on different things. It sounds messed up to say, but even though I can see differences in eye and face shapes, Chinese, Japanese, Korean people, etc., will, to a certain extent, always look the same to me. I guess MAYBE if I went to live in China or Japan, and I was exposed to the people all day everyday, I would be able to pinpoint differences much easier. I’m not sure if our ignorance is such a bad thing. If we knew everything, there would be nothing to learn. Our differences (and similarities) are important. Not being able to tell people apart may seem like a bad thing, but it’s also kind of cool. There’s so much to discover about other people. If we knew EVERYTHING and were aware of everything, there wouldn’t be any room to grow. Mon, 1 Oct 2012 01:31:00 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-173/#IDComment452487613 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/20/voices-from-the-classroom-171/#IDComment447035854 Since its inception, hip-hop (as well as art in general) has been instrumental in connecting people of different races, cultures, etc. Hip-hop came about in the Bronx in the 1970s, partly as an escape from and way to fight back against racial oppression and hatred within the US. When used correctly, an artistic outlet like hip-hop allows people to get their message out to a large audience. Barring the artists who talk about money, cars, drugs, women, etc., there are a lot of positive messages in hip-hop that all people can relate to. As far as the “east and west” goes, I think hip-hop could help to bridge the gap in a number of ways. I would say that the average person in the west doesn’t know much about the east – and if they do know a lot, chances are they learned it from news outlets that tend to fabricate stories to play into the west biases. There’s a lot of things we don’t know about the east, and contemporary culture tells us that’s okay, when it’s really not. We judge them and their lifestyles without having the slightest idea what they’re about. When we spoke to Pedram via Skype, the question was raised how Iranians would treat visiting Americans. We only see violence on the news related to the east, so it’s our natural instinct to assume we’d have to worry about our safety there, when in reality, we could not be more wrong. Hip-hop could help break through these boundaries of news-inspired assumptions. Hip-hop can provide a raw, uncensored, and hopefully unbiased view. While rappers like Lupe Fiasco, Mos Def, Talib Kweli talk about east/west issues, someone like Omar Offendum would be particularly useful because he is from Syrian-American, whereas most others are solely American (meaning they and both parents were born and/or raised in the US). For lack of a better term, knowing and experiencing both sides of the story gives Omar a unique perspective, and he obviously applies it to his music. He spoke about eastern cultures respecting men with beards – how they’re revered as being wise – but after 9/11 they were “public enemy number one” in America and the west. Something as simple as a beard creates such a large cultural difference that we don’t even think about. I’ve only heard one song, but I can tell his music has a positive and informative nature. He’s lucky to experience two different cultures, and it’s clearly influencing his music in a good way. Hopefully it rubs off on whoever his listeners and audience may be. A person like Omar can teach people how to accept and understand differences through his music because he has experience with both sides. Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:18:28 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/20/voices-from-the-classroom-171/#IDComment447035854 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/12/voices-from-the-classroom-162/#IDComment440331270 Sam’s idea of focusing on the differences in order to eventually not notice them is intriguing; I dig it. Differences are usually pretty obvious – it’s easy to spot the one black dude in a group of white people, the one girl in a group of guys, etc. I can’t help but think of the common expression “the elephant in the room”. Ignoring the “elephant” won’t make it go away, so you might as well embrace it. For the most part, people are afraid of what they don’t know. There’s a general fear of the “other”, which leads to quickly judging someone based on those differences, without understanding them and how they help make up who they are. I think that’s why we as Americans often feel like we have to defend our country so vigorously and aggressively. We take differences as threats, instead of just differences. I was fortunate enough to attend an extremely diverse high school. When I graduated, there were 67 countries represented within the study body. With so many different cultures, races, religions, backgrounds, whatever, I can only imagine the difficulty this presents to educators. How do you reach a white kid like myself, born and raised in Philadelphia, and at the same time reach a kid who moved from Nigeria to the US less than six months ago? It can’t be easy. But luckily, our differences weren’t ignored or avoided. We spent a good amount of time learning about each other. As foreign-born students were getting assimilated into our culture, we simultaneously learned about theirs. Putting differences out in the open creates a more personable, and downright enjoyable atmosphere. It gets rid of the “elephant”. In my homeroom of thirty people, I was one of four white people. I remember my freshman year being a little overwhelming. I was never on the minority side of things by THAT MUCH. But by my senior year, I honestly didn’t see any of my peers as anything other than that – my peers. We were open with each other about race. We celebrated the differences, and it made us stronger. We got to the point where we could even joke about each others’ race, religion, etc. I loved it. It’s always so easy to point out the differences between you and someone else. We all do it. I just feel like more often than not, the thought process is ‘different = worse’. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth. There are so many close-minded people in this country (and world) who automatically close themselves off to the idea of something other than what they know. Something’s abnormal to them, so they fight it off. I almost want to say this reaction is natural – it’s HUMAN… but I don’t think it is. I think we’ve learned throughout history to fight other peoples’ differences. Almost every war in the history of wars was started because People A are different than People B. That approach won’t do anything but create more fear and more elephants. Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:10:55 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/12/voices-from-the-classroom-162/#IDComment440331270 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/04/voices-from-the-classroom-160/#IDComment435609974 Religion (in general) is a messy thing to talk about. I’ve found that it’s almost impossible to have a discussion about Christianity without someone getting offended. And that’s the way it should be. Those of us who are not religious should be allowed to question different facets of religion, and people who are religious should defend their faith. Sam’s idea of the relationship between slavery and Christianity was interesting. As a white, non-religious person, I enjoyed the opportunity to sit back and watch everything unfold as Sam held nothing back. It’s pretty crazy to think that if over 30 million people didn’t suffer, by in large their descendants wouldn’t be Christians. It was obviously something that the majority of the students in the class never realized – I know I definitely didn’t. I remember one student spoke about how, during those trying times, the religion was the one thing that kept them going. Yeah, that’s definitely true. But to me, that was only the tip of the iceberg. I started thinking about how, in the big picture, Christianity was forced upon the slaves (in the sense that they wouldn’t be Christians otherwise) and consequently their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., and how that relates to other instances of forced faith. My first thought was Catholic schools, where kids as young as five or six start to study religion. At that age, they don’t have to conscious decision-making ability to say, “You know what, I’m not into this” or “You know what, I AM into this” - it’s drilled into their heads like it’s math or science. By the time they DO have the ability to question it, I’d have to guess that opportunity has disappeared for the majority of the students, because the decision of being religious was made for them. They just blindly accept it. On a grand scale, I’d venture to say that a good amount of people are religious because their parents are/were. That’s nonsense. I know my parents are Catholic because their parents were strict Catholics – mass every Sunday, etc. On the other hand, I was raised Catholic but my parents weren’t strict about it. They let me make my own decision about Catholicism. Unless someone did the research, actually LEARNED about their religion prior to becoming a part of it, and made the conscious choice to follow its ideas, teachings, and morals, then they didn’t know what they were getting themselves/getting forced into. I’d like to think this is part of what Sam was going after. He opened the door for people to wonder why someone is religious and how they became that way. Clearly the origin of someone’s faith is hardly talked/thought about. Whether it’s through the sacrifice and suffering of over 30 million people, or a school subject, it’s usually just accepted. Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:27:11 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/04/voices-from-the-classroom-160/#IDComment435609974 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/18/war-through-the-ages/#IDComment145278848 War is crazy to think about. I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately, and how it affects people. But I guess I haven’t really thought about how people affect war. War happens because countries want to rise up and become stronger and more powerful in the world. Our greed is the reason all of this shit happens. Our greed kills fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, spouses, etc. Is this nonsense really worth it? Should it really fucking matter at all which country is more powerful? Is that power more important than a child having his father or mother there for his childhood? Oil or whatever the fuck else we fight for should not be more important than human life; especially the lives of our own citizens. We talk a lot in this country about supporting the troops. But we don’t support the troops. If we REALLY supported them, we would be smart enough to not go to war in the first place. What we’re really doing, is supporting the troops, and supporting them as they go to a different country where they could die. It’s hard to believe that there have been so many wars. There’s been so much fighting, and I never realized it. In a way the wars that I didn’t live through seem unreal to me. Like they didn’t happen because I wasn’t alive. That video helped me realize just how long people have been fighting over bullshit, and how many people have been killed over bullshit. What the fuck are we doing to ourselves? The United States is killing its own kids for money. They say we’re fighting terrorism, and I guess we are now. Because the people we decided to fight are fighting back… and that’s terrorism. Apparently. But we aren’t terrorists. We kill half of a country’s whole population with atom bombs. But we’re the good guys. And I think it’s more of our ideology and stubbornness than anything else. Anyone who opposed our government’s ideology is considered a threat and we have to destroy them before they destroy us, even if they have no intention of violence. There’s no way in hell we could be wrong, right? Sat, 23 Apr 2011 02:59:54 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/18/war-through-the-ages/#IDComment145278848 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment143207187 That video really hit me hard, as I’m sure it did for most of my peers. For a little while, probably about seven or eight years ago, I was thinking about joining our military. I have two cousins who have served overseas (one is about to go back for his second tour of duty), and I’ve always looked up to them. When I told my brother I was thinking about joining, he simply said, “What if you die?” That knocked that idea out of my head pretty quickly. I don’t want to die. But that video showed me that there are way worse things war can do to you. Most of the soldiers who came back with PTSD (or experienced it while deployed) probably would rather die than experience the shit they have to go through with PTSD. I say that because so many of those soldiers eventually take their own lives. So it’s obviously really fucking hard to go through what they’ve gone through, and be okay with it. And to me, the way the military deals with these problems is cowardly. Sure, they “offer help”, but do they really? These soldiers are obviously going through some crazy shit, and they’re expected to just act like nothing happens. And if they don’t act like nothing happens, and they speak up, they’re called cowards and they become an outcast. That’s pretty fucked up if you ask me. I understand that’s the way the United States military has always been – “holier than thou” – and if you don’t like it, too bad… War is fucking crazy. Luckily, no one that I have ever known to go to war has died, although a few people have been seriously wounded. But this video definitely got me thinking, what if they HAD died? What if my cousin, who is a father of four, died in Afghanistan? How could the military and the government justify his death? What could they possibly say to the mother of his children that would make his death ‘alright’? I could never imagine trying to explain to kids that their dad is dead because we are fighting a war over OIL and MONEY. Is that really more important than human life? I think we lose sight of the human cost of war sometimes. Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:11:01 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment143207187 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141084716 The main thing that I pulled away from this article is, to put it bluntly, that these people are greedy. But I think that’s probably pretty apparent to most people who read this story. And this is just another example of how money is more important than being rational. The want, and the NEED for money is universal. So if people NEED money to survive can we really blame them for being greedy? Sam touched up this idea in class a bit: What if people worry about something happening and they won’t have enough money to help themselves (disease, natural disaster, or anything else)? Sure, some people may have more money than any of us could ever imagine what to do with, and we think, “Why the fuck don’t you donate money?” I guess the point I’m trying to make is that for some people money (and of course the greed associated with money) could be a sense of security – being sure that if something terrible were to happen, there’s no doubt they have enough money to be okay. That got me to thinking about ways that if the oil industry’s taxes were increased, what we as a country could do with that extra money. That money could prevent the massive budget cuts that have been going on. School programs wouldn’t have to get cut, libraries could stay open, and teachers, firefighters, and policemen could keep their jobs. Basically, there’s better use for that money than letting it sit in Big Oil’s bank accounts. But I’m not naive, the money probably wouldn’t even go there if Obama’s budget proposal passed. The lobbyists would probably find a way to get some of it funded back into the oil industry somehow. And then the rest would probably go towards our military, so we can fund the three wars we are involved in. So the way I see it, no matter if Big Oil’s taxes are raised or not, the greed will still take precedence over rationality. And that’s exactly why this proposal won’t pass. The oil industry wants their money, and they pay the lobbyists so it stays that way. Fri, 8 Apr 2011 20:44:00 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141084716 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/28/soccer-and-haiti/#IDComment139217344 This is just another example of how important sports are in our society, and how important they are to humanity. As Penn State students we kind of get a sense of that. Our school is obviously centered around the football team (American football). I almost feel like they are the source of most, if not all, of the school spirit we all have. Penn State football brings us all together, and more importantly, it brings EVERYONE together (meaning not just students, but alumni, parents, friends, etc). But soccer does so much more for Haiti than what football does for us. If Penn State did not have a football team, I’m pretty sure the school would still exist, and would still be one of the most respected academic institutions in the country, and the world. So in that sense, we don’t depend on football (although we probably do economically). And that’s where the major difference here is. In Haiti, soccer is the only thing keeping them going right now. They have been through so much, even before the earthquake, but they have always had soccer. And I can’t help but think that just the IDEA of soccer is helping them. It is probably something like “man, we gotta get these stadiums back up and functioning, so we can have soccer again.” But to do that, they have to rebuild towns, cities, and the houses that comprise them, so they can get the people who are currently living in the stadiums back to their lives. Who knows what would provide their hope right now if soccer was not an option. We had a little glimpse of this in the United States. After Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was destroyed. They had NOTHING; except their Saints. It’s such a great story, how the whole city put the faith (which is all they had) into the idea of the Saints winning the Super Bowl, and providing just a little hope for the people of New Orleans. In my mind, without a doubt, that team has helped the city rebuild just as much as any government organization, relief groups, or anything else. That’s what makes sports so beautiful, and so poetic. We don’t really think about sports being poetic, but they definitely are. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:57:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/28/soccer-and-haiti/#IDComment139217344 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137515139 It blows me away every time I read one of these. It is so crazy how different B’s perspective of life is than mine, and I would assume the same goes for most students, and people in general. Just think about it for a minute. This man, B, is in prison for life, but he doesn’t act like we would expect (or at least write like we would expect). If I were in his situation, I am almost certain my attitude would be the exact opposite. Hell, I’m going through medical issues at the moment and I feel like my life is over. But just reading this letter has helped me tremendously with that. Sometimes we forget how good we really have it. My problems are always put into perspective when I read the notes from these “lifers”. Surgery is a hell of a lot better than being in prison, I’m sure most of the lifers would agree. I find it interesting that B contemplated suicide, and then decided not to because he “isn’t a murderer”. I don’t even really think of suicide of murder, even though it definitely is. But it is interesting because I have always thought about what I would do if I ever went to prison, particularly for a life sentence like these inmates, and killing myself always comes into play. But I guess that would be the easy way out. And like he said, who am I to play God and take my life, and hurt my family like that? That just tells me there is so much we can learn from these inmates. I hate to say it, but they probably have more wisdom to share than most of our professors. He touched upon his relationship with his step-father, and how it has never been better, even though the man abused him when he was younger. That right there just floors me. Luckily I was never abused as a child or teenager, but if I was, I would definitely hold a grudge against that person. That’s just the way I am. I don’t think I would ever be able to forgive someone for doing that. Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:07:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137515139 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/14/kids-getting-life-how-is-this-serving-us-really/#IDComment135904865 I really don’t see the difference between a 13 to 16 year old and an 18 year old committing murder. By that age, people know right from wrong, and they should understand there are consequences – if they don’t know right from wrong, and don’t understand the consequences for their actions, that is the fault of the parents, and society in general. But none the less, I just don’t think we should look differently at murder based on the age of the murderer. Murder is murder. There are special cases though, like the freak accidents you hear about when kids are play-wrestling or whatever and a kid accidentally dies. Accidents are different. But if the kid is consciously aware of what’s going on, and makes the decision to kill someone, they deserve to be punished. That’s the way society works. I guess the way I look at it is something like this: YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE FREELY WHEN YOU TAKE THE LIFE OF SOMEONE ELSE. I guess my main argument I’m trying to make is that murder (and crime in general) is considered to be an adult decision, so everyone should receive adult consequences. That being said, I do agree that in some cases a life sentence may be a little extreme. But where do you draw that line? How can you look at Criminal A (who is 15) vs. Criminal B (who is 19) and say “Criminal A, you’ll be a ten year sentence. Criminal B, you get life. Even though you both committed the same crime”? I can’t even begin to understand how some of those decisions are made. But I just don’t get how as a society we view being 15 and being 19 differently, when we don’t view being 62 and being 64 differently. The distinctions that we make based on age should be clear-cut, otherwise everyone should get the sentence regardless of their age. When it comes down to it, we get what we give (or in this case we get what we take)… These kids take a life, so they get life. Whether that’s right or wrong, that’s how it is. Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:36:34 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/14/kids-getting-life-how-is-this-serving-us-really/#IDComment135904865 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/09/what-would-make-this-guy-less-white/#IDComment134040343 I guess before I even get into what makes this guy “white”, apart from him physically being white, we would have to establish “white” characteristics. Luckily we can just look and listen to this guy, because his mannerisms sum up being “white” pretty well; he annunciates every word fully, his shirt is tucked in, even the way he sits and stands seems pretty “white” to me. So, what if this man was black, but he acted and spoke the same exact way? My guess is mostly everyone would still consider him “white”. I’ve actually had some personal experience with this subject. I come from a pretty diverse part of Philly, and my high school was a good mix of all races. Consequently, I have both white and black friends. I have been told many times that I am “whiter” than some of my friends, who are also white. My brother tells me that all of my white friends are “black”, and I guess in some cases some of my white friends are “blacker” than some of my black friends. But what makes someone “black” or “white”? I guess because I don’t wear baggy clothes, and I do my best to speak correctly, I’m white. And I’m alright with that. I guess the problem we run into as a society is when someone whose race is not white, is considered “white”. It’s not really fair of us to categorize certain actions, mannerisms, or speech habits to certain races, but we see it everywhere. We always hear about how “white” Barack Obama or Colin Powell are, even though they are clearly not white. I guess being involved in politics is a “white” thing. Race has always been an important part of our culture and history as human beings, and because we generalize certain things to certain races, it always will be. Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:06:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/09/what-would-make-this-guy-less-white/#IDComment134040343 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130451093 I feel like there isn’t really a true answer to this question. Based on what Sam said in class last week, we shouldn’t be afraid of strangers; they can help. But based on everything we’ve been taught since we were kids, and everything the news and media in general tells us, we should be afraid of strangers and we shouldn’t talk to a stranger no matter what. So I guess kids should and shouldn’t be afraid of strangers. The problem is that there is a chance, however small, that something bad will happen to a kid if he comes in contact with a stranger. And can you really blame parents for being cautious? We see things like that video of the kid in NYC, and that just gives us proof that strangers can attempt to take or hurt kids. But then there’s the other idea that this child has passed so many strangers before in his life, and even that morning, and this is the first time something like this has happened. So the probability of something like this occurring is obviously small… but it COULD happen. Which leads to our society being proactively preventive (even though that kid’s nanny wasn’t doing a very good job, letting him walk behind her like that). The fact that something like this COULD happen is enough for people to freak out about it. And realistically, can we expect anything different? Let’s say someone tells their kid to talk a stranger if he needs help, then that stranger tries to hurt the kid. How can the parent ever justify and explain this to their kid? And they surely can’t expect to kid to be comfortable with talking to a stranger again. But on the other side of the spectrum, I fell down a set of stairs once when I was a toddler, and although it was a very traumatic event for me at that age, I still use stairs. So I guess there’s always going to be some things we’re afraid of (even if we shouldn’t be). You can’t really blame a parent for having his or her child’s safety in mind… after all, as the old cliché goes, ‘better safe than sorry’. Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:46:29 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130451093