I think overall this was broadly the most significantly informative class I have take, college or high school, as of yet. I loved how it addressed so many different issues that we are faced with every day and yet because they are considered too controversial to address in most cases we are never really taught how to handle them. That alone I think merits this class as one of the most important classes you can take during your time at penn state, for the reason that it addresses issues and situations we are not ready to handle because no one has taught us how to handle them. I love how it touches on the issues such as ethnicity, religion, politics, class, and even things like the media. I do wish it had touched a bit more on religion in some way, although even the few comments that sam did make (particularly about Christianity) sparked a lot of debate and thought. I think sam’s teaching style is incredibly effective for this class and yet needs to be understood in order to succeed. If you believe that sam honestly believes everything he says then he loses some credibility, but I think the general understanding is that he is simply trying to get us to think in a way about these issues that is not really encouraged or taught to us and not that he honestly believes everything he says. That raises another point I have to mention, and that is that I think that if this class could be taught in high school it would be way more effective (which is saying something because it already is effective in its goal). I know the style with which this class is taught would be difficult to pull off in a high school setting, but if it could then I think it could affect many more people. There are some people who took the class and who will be taking the class who I think will struggle to accept many of the points that sam tries to drive home mainly because they are so diametrically opposed to sams stated position on the issue at hand. As a personal example, I know someone who will be taking the class who is already thinking she will hate it because sam is a flaming liberal stereotypical college professor who is trying to indoctrinate the youth (or so she thinks). This is a result of the fact that her opinions on political and social issues have been molded by a very conservative household (not to pick on conservatives, the same could hold true for liberals). Because she thinks she knows what she is getting into and knows her stance on these issues already, I very much doubt that she will benefit much from the class. Often our stances on these issues are formed at a young age when our minds are most malleable and then we carry what we learned at that young age throughout our lives, so if a class like this could be introduced at a younger age I believe it would be more beneficial for one major reason, it would offset the often 1 sided education we get on various issues at a young age when our minds are most malleable.

I loved the lecture Thursday for several reasons. First of all, he assumes (and in many cases this is an accurate assumption) that we are currently unable to see the issue from the side of the Iraqis. Operating under this assumption, I love how he then strives to get us to see it from the other point of view. This is something I think is a necessity, as the primary source of our information on the state of the war and the toll it is taking on the people there are western news outlets, which are inevitably going to be biased towards the Americans and other western forces there. So in order to get accurate information on the people of the Middle East, at least in this situation, we need to simply put ourselves in their shoes to understand their situation. I thought Sam did a good job of getting us to see things from an Iraqi perspective. Knowing that many of us would be hopelessly biased with American sympathy, he chose not to simply try to reverse rolls in the current conflict (a scenario in which we would have to find the faults in the American government and troops, an ability that many of us do not posses) but instead created a scenario that featured the issue he wanted to highlight and yet still allowed the Americans to remain the “good guys”. So the way in which he fabricated an invasion by China was an effective method in getting us in the Iraqis shoes without at first attacking our patriotic sensibilities. After presenting the situation and getting us into the correct state of mind, he then turned the tables again by then putting us back into the actual conflict, only on the side of the Iraqis. Once the class as a whole had imagined the Iraqi situation as an American problem (thus, had built up some animosity towards the invading force of Chinese) we were then thrust back into reality when made to imagine ourselves as Iraqis. It was a powerful mental transformation for me, and I found that upon imaging that scenario unfolding in America, it was even easier than before to really sympathize with the Iraqis. It was easier to see why some of them are upset by our presence and suspicious of our motivations for even being over there. All you need to do in order to understand why someone is doing whatever they are doing or feeling whatever they are feeling is to effectively put yourself in their shoes, and I believe Thursday’s lecture did an excellent job of accomplishing that. The reason I view this lecture as important as well is because in order to properly debate in issue you first have to understand every aspect of an issue, and I believe this lecture aids tremendously in that.

I think the response to this question first dictates that I make known my stance on the abortion issue. I believe that even though it is a woman’s own body, she does not get to decide the life of her potential child. I view nothing in the actual act of having sex as wrong, but a risk you take when you do it is the possibility of (if you are a girl) becoming pregnant. That is a conscious decision by the woman and she should become pregnant then she should have to live with the consequences of that decision, especially when another life is at stake. And make no mistake, the prospective child is by definition another life almost immediately in its’ life stage, so any argument that it is not a life for a set amount of time is invalid. If you perform an abortion you are indeed ending a life. So does a woman deserve to end a life simply because she does not want to have a baby? I do not think that she can make that call. Ultimately, it was her decision to have sex so it is her responsibility to deal with any potential consequences. However this issue is anything but simple, and there is an extenuating circumstance that needs to be discussed. That circumstance is if the woman should get raped and become pregnant from the act of the rape. This is a huge ethical conundrum, as policy makers (the people who should in my opinion decree that abortion should be outlawed) are often quite inflexible. So the question is too often “allow abortion for every circumstance or outlaw it across the board”. I should state now that my opinion stems from no political or religious affiliation, but from my opinion that a woman should not have the ability to end a life because she does not want a child. So in response to this ethical dilemma, I believe that in the event that the woman has been raped (and this claim can be backed by official police report) then an abortion should be granted to the woman if she desires it. In the eventuality of rape, the woman has not made a conscious decision to have sex, it has been forced upon her. So the ensuing child is not a consequence of her decision, so she should not have to live with it if she does not want to. While this child is still a life, ethically speaking I do not think that she should have to suffer through having the child of a rapist for various potential psychological issues (such as how could the mother love this child since it would only remind her of the rape) among other ethical issues. So while I think abortion should be outlawed, I would make a legal exception in the event of rape.

I am not trying to offensive with this post, it is just my opinion. This question really deals with our propensity to allow prejudice to dictate our actions. This question goes back to the clicker question asking whether or not we were prejudice. I was one of the people who answered yes. I answered yes not because I am a racist bastard who believes in white supremacy or anything like that, but I acknowledge that latent prejudice probably dictates the way I think sometimes, even if it is just a passing thought. I think it is ridiculous to think as a person that you do not have latent prejudice. First of all, it is difficult to detect in yourself, thus the term latent prejudice. Second, it is not really an active choice on your part, it is simply the way you have been conditioned to think, whether by some obscure event in your past or just subliminal messages society has provided. I try not to be prejudice, and in fact think I do a fairly good job of not acting prejudice. However, that does not mean I do not experience latent prejudice, and if you experience latent prejudice chances are that in some way it does affect how you act. So while I think I do a good job of not acting prejudice, I experience thoughts that can be classified as latent prejudice and even probably let it affect me more than I realize. I think that we are judged on our actions, not our thoughts or intentions. Everyone experiences latent prejudice in one way or another, it is almost unavoidable. What matters is what we act on. So many people do think prejudice thoughts at times, but that does not mean we are all narrow minded bastards. I try to drive this point home because I think it is instrumental to the question being asked here. So how approachable would I find you? The fact that I am a white guy is also very important here. If I were black then I do not think this would at all be an issue. So just based off of your appearance, I think I would still find you approachable, but with an asterisk. I am a sophomore, and while apparently still not the most diverse, Penn State is far more diverse then my hometown. Over the last year I have at least burst this bubble, through conversation and just being exposed to some variety, I do not think race plays a huge role in me judging how approachable someone is. Last year had this question been asked I would have absolutely not found you approachable. First of all, the fact that you are black would have intimidated me, and second you have some pretty crazy dreads, which by the way still for some reason effects how approachable I find you. That being said, it would not be nearly enough for me to not approach you, but to be honest it would still make me think. The asterisk here lies that I would not have found you approachable last year.

I loved the exercise with the desk pertaining to who is entitled to the land we are living on today. It really showed the complication associated with asking who deserves to own the land we all live on today. With the first generation of people where the one came and simply took the desk aka land from the other, the appropriate owner of the land is obvious. Clearly the original owner of the land deserves to have that land returned to him, because what did he do wrong? The first person merely flexed some muscle to take what did not belong to him. So it is not much of an ethical dilemma deciding who deserves to be on that land. Once it passes on to another generation is when I believe that a line of no return is crossed. The land has now been passed down from the first generation to the second generation, who did nothing more than accept the land from someone who was voluntarily giving it to them. Did the individual from the first generation deserve to have it? No, but that has been decided. How about the second generation individual? This person was not the one that forcibly removed somebody from their land and forced them to settle elsewhere, they have done nothing wrong. And the second generation individual from the population that got kicked off the land has no personal claim to that land. They were not born with it in their possession, so what claim do they have to it? If they were to be awarded that land at the expense of the person who inherited it then it would just be similar situation with reversed roles. Someone would be forcibly removed from land that they had simply inherited from their predecessors. So what would give them the right to commit the same crime? At this point any solution to this problem is far more complex than simply letting the indigenous population returning to the land that had belonged to their ancestors. I do not believe that anyone should suffer from the actions of their ancestors, so by extension I do not believe that the people whose ancestors kicked out the indigenous peoples from the land should be punished as a result of an event that they had no control over. Now if the second generation of the indigenous population had no viable claim to the land, then does that mean that the second population of the conquering population really deserve the land? No, they have it as a result of their parents show of strength and questionable morals, and then they simply inherited it. Just because the other population has no legitimate claim to the land does not mean that the opposing people truly deserve it, but what can be done besides repeat the same crime? As it passes to the third generation I believe that the same paradigm that applies to the second generation applies to the third, except now the events that determined these events are even more distant, which only dilutes any rightful claim to any land previously lost by natives. I do not believe that the conquering population really deserves the land they are on, but kicking them off the way the natives were once kicked off is not the solution.

Tammy’s poor situation is not all her fault. She was at a statistical disadvantage in several ways. First, she was one of twenty two children. She most likely did not get the appropriate attention from her family to help her deal with any problems she might have had, such as any academic issues she may have faced, which would have put her at a disadvantage compared to other children of her age who got the necessary attention to foster academic growth. Another disadvantage is the fact that her family was poor, which fosters its own set of statistical disadvantages. For one reason or another, less money translates generally to poorer academic performance (perhaps an emphasis on getting a job rather than excelling at school?). So Tammy started behind the eight ball when she was a child, and when it would have been time for her to go to college, she most likely had no money and so could not afford to go to most colleges. That coupled with her likely childhood neglect of education and necessary attention to foster academic growth have likely resulted in a mindset that underscores the importance of education. Simply put, she was put at a significant disadvantage because of how her childhood unfolded. I think her current situation can easily be explained by simply looking at her childhood and looking at the events that would have shaped her mind. That being said, the period during which she was on welfare is questionable in my mind. I do not know why she was on welfare, whether it be an inability to find a job or a severe lack of ambition. If she could not find a job, then that is just an unfortunate situation; however, the long period of time that she was on welfare suggests that she simply did not try to find a job. If that was in fact the case, then regardless of her upbringing she is responsible for her own poverty because of her lack of ambition. I also think her treatment of her children is inexcusable. I respect her situation insomuch as that there were strong determinate factors shaping her life, but at a certain point regardless of how you were brought up you have to want more for your children, and have to want to give them the best chance you can possibly give them to succeed. She brought them into the world, so it’s her responsibility to give them the best chance to better themselves. She has a son who is trying to do just that, and she is treating him as a pretentious wannabe who needs to learn his place. This is inexcusable, he deserves and needs her support as he is trying to crawl out of poverty, not her trying to pull him back down. Overall, I would say that I understand why she turned out the way she did as there were strong determinate factors in play, but her long stay on welfare is deserving of ridicule as well as the treatment of her son. She was dealt a bad hand in life, but she still needs to try to make the best possible situation for her family.

I think the answer to this question depends on your own personal situation, such as how much you have, who is depending upon you, and whether or not the person in question deserves the help. Broadly, I would have to say no, we do not have a personal responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves. I believe our primary responsibility lies in providing for ourselves, and more importantly those who rely upon us. If I had a family, I would feel more obligated to provide for and take care of them than to provide for someone who I had never met. Now that being said, if you have enough money to support your family then what better endeavor is there to undertake with that surplus money than to help others less fortunate than yourself? So as long as those who rely upon you are taken care of, then I believe helping others less fortunate than yourself is the most appropriate use of your money. Another determining factor is does the recipient of the your aid really deserve it? If they are in the situation they are in due to their own decisions and inability to provide for themselves, then I believe social Darwinism should determine their fate (the strong survive, the weak perish). Another way to put it is they made their bed, now they should lay in it. However, if their unfortunate situation is due to events outside their control (like a poor economy, for instance) then I think it is a praiseworthy endeavor to try to help them in any way we can. The significance of this question is multiplied by the fact that our country now sees this dilemma far too often, with people in need of help and some unwilling to give it. I believe that each case should be broken down individually to see if that person really deserves the help they require to carry on. While impractical, a blanket statement or policy on whether or not we need to help these people or let them try to work their way out of it, weather the storm so to speak, would be inappropriate because some will deserve it, and some will not. The only way to answer this question is to break it down case by case to determine if the unfortunate party deserves help. I realize I have not really answered this question yet, so here is my answer. I do not believe that it is our personal responsibitiy to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. I believe an act such as helping those less fortunate than yourself caters to your sense of morals and compassion rather than a responsibility to others. I personally would, and will try to help those less fortunate than myself in any way I can because it is my sense of morals and compassion that determine that I should try and help others, but I do not believe others are obligated to help others, that is a personal choice dependent upon factors independent of responsibility.

I don’t think that it is specifically us as men so much as us a culture, both men and women, who set these standards that we feel all women need to live by. It plays hand in hand with the other picture on the power point, juxtaposing the Indian man on the magazine cover and the other asian man. It is comparing them in a way that the Indian man is clearly supposed to be more attractive, but why is he attractive? What physical characteristics does he have that makes him desirable, at least more so than the other man? This is an example of a preconceived image of physical beauty that not only do males use to judge people but females as well. We as a culture have traits that basically because the majority considers it beautiful, we are taught subliminally or otherwise that to have that particular trait is desirable. In women, it is considered attractive to men to have long legs, round ass, no stomach, and big boobs. Women look for muscular and big men. Why can’t really fat and short guys be attractive? Why can’t women with no ass or boobs and short legs be considered attractive? It is all psychological, it is all about what we have been taught to find attractive or in the sikh girl’s case, socially acceptable. So going back to the question, it is not about what we as men are telling women pertaining to growing out their bodily hair, but we as a people (both men and women) are telling everybody about not fitting in to the social norm. Men were not the only ones to question the sikh girl’s decision to not shave her facial hair. The amount of girls in class who shave their bodily hair is as much a statement as is voicing discomfort with the facial hair. While perhaps not telling the girl anything negative, it still sets a standard to which she is expected to live, and when she does not live to that standard it subjects her to scorn and ridicule by her peers. Who cares what she looks like? That is not really under her control. What she can control is the choices she makes, and by standing up for what she believes in and not shaving despite large amounts of pressure and ridicule she is doing what she considers right. That is admirable, so in the only aspect of her life that she can control, her choices, she is making commendable decisions and instead of getting praised for it, she is receiving huge amounts of criticism for it. So what does it say about us as men? I do not like the question. I think it says about us as a culture that we narrow mindedly force people to live in our predetermined ideas of what is normal, and we are so frightened of change that whenever we see someone defying those ideas for whatever reason we scorn them merely for being different, and perhaps even afraid of them.

Art can be used to bridge the gap between cultures by being able to identify with people on a level that transcends culture. Culture plays a huge part in how people think on issues social and otherwise, but art speaks to a part of us that is more or less untouched by culture. To interpret art take a way of thinking more basic than what cultures can influence. Basic in a way that it appeals to peoples need to survive or desire to be happy or even search for understanding, regardless of culture issues like this will appeal to people as well as thought regarding these things. It also addresses the human condition in a way that everyone can relate to, like omar feeling torn between two cultures. Something like that does not change from Libya to America, it is an issue that pertains to the humanity of an individual. Addressing an important issue is only half the battle. There are many attempts to bring attention to important issues that go unnoticed, so something that grabs attention is necessary to bring attention and interest to an issue, which is where something like art (and hip hop in general) is useful. Art is a great platform to bridge cultural divide because of its popularity. People will listen and pay attention to new and popular songs, and if those songs address some social issues (such as a divide between cultures) people will listen to its message and may gain some understanding of it. Once you have peoples attention and more importantly interest, then a message can really hit home. People need to know and care about something before it can change. Important in the message is to give people some insight about the issue (in this case the other culture) that they do not understand, and art providing insight into that which is not understood provides an invaluable perspective of that topic, basically just hearing both sides of the story in a way. As stated before, it is important that everyone can relate to the message that is being conveyed, which is why things like news reports often don’t connect with most people, they are normally heavily influenced by their audiences if not bigoted, and skew the story according to what the audience wants to hear. The only way something can effectively bridge a cultural gap is by speaking to everyone involved, which art can do. To sum it up, art and more specifically hip hop can be a great platform to bridge a cultural divide because it speaks to a purely human part of us that does not change from culture to culture, and it brings attention and interest to an issue that might otherwise go unnoticed or because of its lack of presentation generates apathy among people. Getting people to know and care about an issue is essential before anything can be done to change it.

I loved the way that Sam related slavery and Christianity. No one had ever linked the two like that to me even though a connection between them is undeniable. Even though Christianity would have spread through Africa because of missionaries, I think that the fact that it is so prevalent throughout Africa is a result of the hostile manner in which it was spread by the Europeans, which brings up a peculiar irony. A religion that stresses love and peace was spread largely in part to a hostile slavery movement that caused the forcible relocation and deaths of millions of Africans. The irony is definitely worth mentioning when thinking of Christianity and the prevalence of it through the African American community, however I don’t think it should lessen the appeal of following Christianity to anyone looking to do so, since the church had nothing to do with the relocation and killing of the Africans. I also really enjoyed the mass objections the class took to Sam’s making this connection.