Growing up in San Francisco, from a young age, I have always been surrounded by a prominent gay community. Many of the gay teachers at my high school commuted from San Francisco to San Jose. Our school, in general, was always accepting. At the annual Gay-Straight-Alliance assemblies at our high school, a few teachers would go up to the stage at tell their extremely personal tale of “coming out” and the struggles they continue to face even after coming out of the closet. After one of the biggest Proposition 8 marches in the bay area, my Spanish teacher and his partner were kissing on the front page of the local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News. At many other schools, my teacher would have not have been met with as much support; however, the school rallied around gay rights and even displayed the newspaper for a few weeks in the library.
I have met many gay people who I have close friendships with, so displays of gay affection never strike me as different than displays of affection between straight people. I have met the partners of many of my gay teachers in high school and even met their adopted children. I think that after vast exposure to the gay community, I have become significantly more accepting. It’s interesting because I find that even though they are liberal on some issues, they are not as accepting as gay people. I’ve found myself in many debates about proposition 8 with them. Part of their lack of understanding might be derived from the fact that they grew up in India. In India, even discussion about sexual orientation (other than straight) is considered taboo. Growing up, they did not know any gay people. Unlike me, they never reached that point of realization that gay people are just like straight people. Sexual orientation should not be a cause for discrimination. In reality, what is normal? Why, as a society, do we find the need to delineate from the normal? Normal cannot even be defined anymore. Other than the fact that we are all people, it’s hard to find similarities among a population. We should stop looking for reasons to call out other people on their differences. As a society, we have made significant strides to eliminate the major forms of racial discrimination in legislation. Now, we need to work towards the same goal for gay people.
For example, interracial marriage was banned until 1967 in the United States under the grounds that anti-miscegenation laws were rendered unconstitutional. I believe that the Supreme Court will eventually come to a similar decision on overturning the gay marriage ban nationwide.

In situations regarding race, many people believe that they must adhere to the binds of political correctness. Why? Even though people may have a defined opinion about racial matters, political correctness forces them into silence. But, the political correctness could not excuse the lack of speaking up in the video for the oppressed Muslim woman. Throughout history, we have seen that in crowds, diffusion of responsibility is a real phenomenon. For example, take the Kitty Genovese incident. Many people in her neighborhood could hear her cry for help, but why did no one heed her plea? Often, when there are other people around, we do not hold ourselves as accountable because we believe that someone else will definitely come forward and take action. Much of the time, we all have a clear conviction of deciphering between right and wrong. As human beings, we have a tendency to forget our responsibility as soon as more people enter the situation.
Does the explanation of diffusion of responsibility apply to racial situations? Do witnesses fail to speak up because of the presence of other people? Would they speak up if they were on their own? In the video, sometimes the witnesses were on their own and at times in company of many other customers. Yet, they found that several witnesses did not speak up even when it boiled down to the victim, the racist clerk, and the witness himself. I think that the witness’s personality can have bearing on whether they choose to stand up to the clerk and express their opinion. Headstrong personalities would probably choose to speak their mind whether it be expressing their approval with the clerk’s behavior or their outright indignation. People who are reticent are less likely to say anything even if they have a clear opinion about the issue. Instead, they might express their disapproval with the clerk’s attitude and statements by walking away and refusing the clerk business. Every person has a different opinion on what constitutes “making a stand.”
Silence can be detrimental. It can allow for oppression to prevail and continue. They found that more people stay silent than talk back and fight for their opinion. In a society that values individualism and freedom of speech, we need to learn to take stands more often. We often have an opinion about issues, so we need to voice it. Taking a stand can be done through actions without talking, but it is more powerful with words. Speaking up gives more power to the victim and more ammunition for them to fight for their rights. As people, we do not always realize the repercussions of our actions and their effects on the psyche of other people. For the sake the of the victim’s morale, it is imperative that we learn to take a stand through both our actions and words.

Growing up in a conservative household, I can understand the point of view of many Muslim women. I am a first generation Indian-American, and I was the first in my family to adjust to a completely new way of life by growing up in the United States. My parents grew up with traditional values and preached conservatism. With exposure to the ways of America, including food choices, dress, and holidays, over the last nineteen years, we have become more Americanized. Being the older child though, I know that I had to fight for more things than my sister because my parents simply did not grow up exposed to the same culture. I think in a sense, being the older sister, paved way for more understanding from my parents, especially towards my younger sister. My parents both work in jobs that involve significant social interaction. Over time, as a pharmacist, my mom was exposed to a wide range of the patient population. My mom understands that people do not come from the same culture as her, but still, at first, was reluctant to adopt other people’s ways as her own. However, still, when it came to the way I dress, she consistently pushed towards conservatism. I remember for my first middle school dance, I begged her for a week to wear a miniskirt. For any other girl in my grade, that conversation with her mom was normalplace. Before even approaching my mom, I knew that she would be reluctant and question why I wanted to dress like that. I think that in the American culture, there is a tendency for women to dress both for other women but also for men. In my parents’ culture as well as the middle-eastern culture, women are told to dress a certain way for god and to avoid projecting the wrong image about themselves. I wonder if moving to a different country causes a shift in these values or is just a byproduct of acclimation to a new environment. How do we determine what our motivations for dressing a certain way are? When I was younger, my mom would not buy me tank tops and short shorts because she thought that it exposed too much skin. However, after seeing how girls my age dress, over time, she has become more lax with her standards/expectations. Although she has not changed the way she dresses, she is less restricting with the way both me and my younger sister dress. I notice, though, whenever I go back to India, my mom acknowledges that there is a different way that I must dress. When we were packing to go to India, the rules were stricter because she said that in India men would receive the wrong impression about me if I wore my everyday clothes in America. I don’t mind the changes that I have to make when I travel from one place to another, but it continues to interest me how the way of dress in a country explains volumes about the culture.

When we are young, we are brought to recognize and celebrate differences. Part of understanding others’ perspectives is by coming to the realization that these differences exist. I remember when I was younger, I said that the world would be boring if we were all the same. There is a joy that comes with learning about different cultures. As kids, we would participate in “show and tell” and share experiences that make us unique. We reveled in these differences because they that make us “special.” These differences were not highlighted in order to create divisions but in order to understand that there are different cultures and each one has its own merits. We were never taught that there was a dominant culture or that one was superior to another in school. But, it is valuable to teach young people that what makes us unique should be celebrated. However, as we grow up, we start to get told that celebrating these distances creates divisions. And, thus, we should forgo bringing up these differences all together in discourse and conversation. However, not talking about differences does not mean that they do not exist. If we are still thinking about them, they should be valid fodder for conversation as we should be honest with ourselves and other people. It is important that instead of suppressing our thoughts, we come up with a way to deal with them without creating a hierarchy of races and ethnicities. As we grow older, we should become more mature and understanding in our words and thought. However, by reverting to silence, we are not able to progress as people. The key to more peaceful society is through awareness and discourse. Continuing to silence our opinions gives way to an unhealthy way of being and the development of extreme opinions. I think that we had an outlook on race that was more beneficial to society when we were younger. It predisposed us to an understanding similar to Stage 5 and 6. Our way of thinking about race and relations when we are older that involves shunning our thoughts brings us towards Stages 2 and 3. The focus on constantly being “politically correct,” places us under a constant filter that does not allow us to be ourselves. In class, we learned that “political correctness” is a construct that brings us farther away from racial equality and invisibly upholds white supremacy. Being “politically correct” “narrow[s] the range of acceptable opinions to those held by a small group that enforces it.” It prevents minority groups receive closure about unresolved issues by barring conversation about controversial topics. We would be blind to say that there are no physical differences in skin color, hair texture, etc. between people of different races. So, let’s keep the discourse going.

Our snap judgments affect more decisions that we come to realize. Many of our initial opinions about people stem from their physical appearance. We try to understand people’s life stories and backgrounds by evaluating their physical appearance. Unfortunately enough, our first impressions about people can be misleading and can lead to inaccurate judgment of someone’s background and character. Factors that aren’t under people’s control such as their physical characteristics should not be grounds for discrimination. We should place more importance in respecting people for excelling at given opportunities and making the best out of their financial situation and background.

In a working environment, employees often aim to work towards maintaining professionalism at all times. Part of professionalism is linked to appearance. It is expected that professionals are clean-shaven, dress conservatively, and do not have visible tattoos. In high school, one day in class, my English teacher addressed rumors tied to her at school. In that divulsive conversation, she revealed that she had tattoos on her arms and that was the reason for her wearing long sleeved cardigans everyday. At our school, it was required of teachers that tattoos not be exposed. Whether the rules are said or unsaid, the expectations still exist, and we, as people, feel a need to conform. We all understand that we are judged on the basis of the physical features we are born with, even though it is not necessarily fair or under their control.

In our Soc 119 discussion group, we talked about how physical appearances play a role in the job market. Almost every person of color and woman recounted and shared an experience where they believed physical appearances was the primary factor in them getting hired or rejected from a job or opportunity. Most of the experiences shared were in the service industry or sales where success was based on maximum interaction with customers. With the additional social standards and rules imposed by businesses, we feel the need to mold our appearance to maximize our opportunities and success. These standards pose an unfair burden on those who might not be able to afford “professional clothes” or routine trips to the salon/barber. If poor people cannot afford the treatment/grooming and apparel required to look “professional,” they stand a higher chance of being rejected from a job opportunity, perpetuating a cycle of poverty. To promote equality, we need to become more conscious of how we regard appearances and steer away from making rash judgments about people based on them. As a society, we should start to acknowledge that we do have a tendency to form opinions about people based on shallow standards and work towards a more objective way of evaluating/getting to know people.

Our snap judgments affect more decisions that we come to realize. Many of our initial opinions about people stem from their physical appearance. We try to understand peoples life stories and backgrounds by evaluating their physical appearance. Unfortunately enough, our first impressions about people can be misleading and can lead to inaccurate judgment of someones background and character. Factors that arent under peoples control such as their physical characteristics should not be grounds for discrimination. We should place more importance in respecting people for excelling at given opportunities and making the best out of their financial situation and background.

Ethnicity continues to remain both a divisive and unifying characteristic in modern society. While a common ethnic background has the potential to bring together communities to celebrate and preserve their culture, it also has the ability to draw attention to ethnic differences in a heterogeneous population. When people identify with a certain ethnicity, they are simultaneously associating with a specific group and separating themselves from the rest of the population. As alluded to in the video, some people are offended or feel the need to correct those who wrongly identify their ethnic background. It is possible that this sentiment rises from a strong sense of ethnic pride and a desire to distinguish their ethnic groups from others.
The tendency of individuals to dissociate from other ethnic groups may trace back to prejudice from prior conflicts in their ethnic group’s history. Throughout the course of history, all countries have had nationalist tendencies. Extreme nationalism can have adverse consequences and lead to the discrimination and even persecution of those who do not fit in with the ethnic majority. For example, during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Indians living within the Pakistani border and vice versa were subject to prejudice and were persecuted based upon their ethnic and religious differences. This nationalist sentiment can carry on between generations as children are exposed to their parents’ belief systems and often adopt similar convictions growing up. Sometimes, the beliefs extend across so many generations that future generations do not know the reasons that the prejudice stemmed from in the first place. Even today, a rift seems to still exist between Indian and Pakistani people even though the war was over fifty years ago. For example, intermarriage is not common between the two ethnic groups. The debate over who should own what parts of Kashmir caused more strife between Indian and Pakistani people. An amalgam of history, religion, culture, and politics can explain the reasons for differences between the two ethnic groups, but cannot justify them.
In the video, students ask important questions about what drives people to go out of their way to specify that they are not a certain race/ethnicity. This behavior is telling of prejudices and divisions that might be subconscious. Becoming aware of our own innate biases is crucial so that, as a community, we can all become more accepting. Realizing that we have prejudices and then learning to become more open are the steps that we should all take.
Over time, society will become more heterogeneous as interracial marriage becomes more commonplace. The United States is a melting pot of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, and ethnic identification might become a more inclusive process instead of a means of seperation.

As Sam stressed in class, white people are often reluctant to share their sentiments about race in fear of offending others. White guilt stems from the concept of white supremacy and causes many white people to refrain from engaging in dialogue about race. For example, in class, when a white student was asked to pick out the darkest student in the room, she felt extremely uncomfortable and was worried about getting “beat up after class.” Even before answering the question, the student profusely apologized for possibly offending any black students in our class. Her behavior is not an anomaly, but a prime example of the behavior that white people are afraid to share their thoughts on race. The silencing of the opinions of a large part of the population has created a slant in discussion of race. Starting a dialogue in which all races feel free to share their opinions is essential to making members of society more fair and equal in rights. Glazing over the issues longer will perpetuate the cycle of ignorance and inequality. White people should not feel as self-conscious when addressing issues that pertain to race, because often people of color are not offended by what they say. Going back to the previous example, the black girl who was called out for being the darkest in the class was not taken back by being singled out for that. Instead, she embraced her skin color and was proud of her African heritage.
Without losing tact, white people should feel free to voice their opinions and not hesitate to answer objective questions about race. Recognizing our inherent differences is the first step to creating an open forum to talk about race. It is essential though that we learn to identify our biases and work towards understanding the perspective of people of the race and ethnic backgrounds. That being said, as a society, we should work towards creating an environment where people feel like they can express their opinions without being attacked or judged. Meaning, a white person should be able to say that they would prefer to have a child of the same race as a black person already has the freedom to express their preference for a black child. To do this, white guilt and white supremacy would have to subside and wield less influence on the way white people think.
According to Zeus Leonardo of California State University, “Indeed, white guilt can be a paralyzing sentiment that helps neither whites nor people of color. White guilt blocks critical reflection because whites end up feeling individually blameworthy for racism.” Leonardo encourages improving the situation in the status quo by engaging in a “discourse on supremacy offers whites and minority students a progressive starting point because it does not cater to white racial thinking.”

America has been branded as the land of opportunity since the European settlers arrived. The “American dream” is supposed to reward those who work hard in this country and compensate them with success and good fortune. To use such harsh rhetoric and derogatory treatment against “illegal immigrants” trying to do the same is contradictory to the ideals on which this country was founded upon. Without an understanding of the motivations and hardships of “illegal immigrants,” it is easy to negatively brand them and question their intentions. However, “illegal immigrants” work hard at the jobs, putting in hours that many Americans are unwilling to work in harsh conditions. Like the rest of citizens, many are working hard to provide better opportunities for their children, a goal that is common among “illegal” and legal immigrants.
Many Americans expect “illegal immigrants” to adjust to the cultural ways and chastise those who do not know English. Learning a language in adulthood is extremely difficult. In the first few years of age, language acquisition coincides with brain development. This span of time is called the “critical period” for language acquisition “during which a child can easily acquire any language that he or she is regularly exposed to.” With the stresses of one or more jobs and raising a family, many “illegal immigrants” do not have the time to devote to fully learn another language. English has many peculiarities that make it harder to learn. For example, the phonetic spelling and irregular conjugations of words complicate the process of learning English. Many Americans who express their anger about “illegal immigrants” not knowing English do not view the situation from the perspective of the “illegal immigrants.”
These same people fail to realize that they benefit from “illegal immigrants” being in this country. For example, the prices of produce in this country are lower because illegal immigrants provide cheaper labor than American workers are willing to accept. While reaping the benefits of illegal immigrants staying this country, Americans should not complain about them not knowing English or deride their customs or accents.
Instead of criticizing “illegal immigrants” without understanding their hardships, Americans should push legislators to make the citizenship process more clear-cut and help those who want to achieve the “American Dream” become American citizens. Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in America for most of their lives and are well integrated into society. Instead of deporting them, more efforts should be made into granting amnesty. Fear of deportation prevents many “illegal immigrants” from initiating the process of citizenship. Amnesty could help illegal immigrants gain temporary citizenship and ultimately work with the system towards complete citizenship. “Illegal immigrants” contribute their hard work to society and deserve the opportunity to become American citizens.

http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-faqs-biling.cfm

The ideal of the American Dream has been a powerful motivator for immigrants to come to America. Often, immigrants more heavily believe in the American dream because they made the conscious decision to leave their homeland for America and strongly believe in opportunities that America has to offer. Leaving one’s homeland and family is an extremely difficult decision, and it is one that is built upon great faith. Many Americans who have lived here for many generations do not realize the potency of the American dream because they have not been put in a position to choose between their homeland and opportunity. In the past, this ideal has been preserved for those that were classified as citizens. The definition of an American is full of ambiguity. Many people would describe an American as a person who lives in America and has assimilated into American society. However, the law does not grant that definition credence as many rights that are associated with the American Dream require citizenship. The recent controversies with illegal immigration shed a light on how defining what is an American can be difficult, especially when a definition has the power to decide whether an immigrant can stay in the country with their current family and/or job.

The American dream has seemed to have lost its value among Americans who have lived here for generations. However, this can also be attributed to the rise of corporations and their increasing influence in both the spheres of business and politics. Ever since the court ruling that deemed a corporation an individual, the concerns of the American people have been overlooked in the name of corporations. The greediness of corporations have undermined key tenets of the American Dream. Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get jobs as the unemployment rate is at a staggering 8.5% currently. The American dream ideal stresses that opportunity and freedom is attainable for all people. However, this does not seem to hold true anymore as jobs and even loans are becoming harder to get. Recent legislation favors corporate interests as, much of the time, donations by big businesses are responsible for helping candidates fund campaigns and get elected. As defined by James Tuslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth. The concept of the American Dream disintegrates when corporations benefit at the cost of the majority of the American population. Corporations, much of the time, engage in risky economic behavior that involves leveraging; this behavior can help explain why “the the U.S.’s debt burden, as a proportion of the gross domestic product, “in the region of 355 percent.’”
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/0...