In all honesty, I feel I have always kept in mind the fact that every one of us, shy Native Americans, came to America from immigrant families. I was taught early on that we are no more entitled to be here than anyone else: After all, even citizens and indigenous people are born here by random chance. Not one person said to themselves prior to their conception, “I choose America.” We just were, like those born in Germany, Australia, Africa, etc.

I personally have trouble seeing the boundaries between states and between countries. Shy the obvious breaks in land from oceans, what makes one place different from another? Aside from our man-made borders, what makes our land American soil and another Mexican? Nothing. So, therefore, who is to say where I can and cannot walk and settle. Why does it have to be so difficult to venture and explore the world? For cultural and political reasons, as well as safety and security ones, I understand. However, in superficial terms, it seems so arbitrary.

For this reason, I cannot say that I see immigrants different before and after Sam's lecture. In terms of jobs and politics, I guess I do not feel the pressure of illegal immigrants on my potential. Because we are from the relatively far North East of the country, in comparison to Texas and California for example, the odds that I even meet an “alien” are pretty slim. Although I come from a blue collar area and family, who at times work hand in hand with immigrants not legally registered in our country, I must say- there is not competition for the jobs they work. American people are simply too proud, even in desperation, to do some jobs for the offered pay.

In terms of jobs and salaries, I would hire the best worker for the job. If an immigrant is more capable and has a better work ethic, he or she would be my choice. I would not pay them less than an American's “fair wage” simply because they will work for it. Our countries economy in part relies on them and their cheap labor, yes, but does that make it right to rip someone off? After all, everyone has a family to feed. Being unregistered is no excuse to let someone starve. I could not punish the person when society is already so against them. I feel that such extreme treatment is shutting a blind eye to our own ancestry and past.

Perhaps the most eye-opening part of the class was the clip regarding Europeans traveling crammed by boat to America. It made me really wonder about how my family came here. There are so many stories that I look forward to hearing from my grandparents, that I never have because I was too unaware to ask the right questions. Was my family attempting to escape the negative conditions of my country? Was my family poor and did they struggle when they arrived? Overall, I appreciate the risks and dangers my ancestors from generations past imposed upon themselves to benefit the lives of them, their children, and now me.

In my opinion, I believe everyone told the story differently. Because a long story, not personally experienced from the start, was passed by word of mouth, with every new encounter less information was included and more was summarized. I think it unfair to state, “The white students told the story differently from the black/minority students,” predominantly because the white kids too told the story different to other white kids, and the black kids too told the story different to other black kids. The only difference I noted between the two respective groupings was that one particular white student substituted more “politically correct terms.”
In this scenario, I can see why the white student felt less comfortable telling a story with elements of racism, to a class of 700, when even through education whites are felt to be the persons being racist, as opposed to suffering from it. Yes, we, our sociology 119 class, are a more aware and knowledgeable body of individuals compared to the average person, but the habits ingrained within whites generally are to avoid saying or doing anything that may even be misconceived as prejudiced. I do not have the personal experience to generalize for the black/minority group, but it is my belief that generally, they are not raised with this feeling of guilt or shame for the actions of these ancestors in the past.
In any event, the story definitely showed how word of mouth can distort a story and change its meaning. In a chain of merely 6 people, not uncommon for a flow of rumors, different points were emphasized, cut out, exaggerated, underplayed, manipulated and forgotten. The exercise really made me question what I hear as a recount of events. It was interesting to see how one person’s summarization, which seemed acceptable and appropriate, translated to someone else differently. Equally fascinating, was how chains of synonyms overtime took on meanings less like the original words. Verbs in particular, were generalized too much for the sake of easily remembering and sharing the story- but took on a completely different translation in transition.
By-in-large, however, I do agree that perhaps whites and blacks would tell the story differently. In our class, I felt the students consciously tried to avoid doing this, hence why I saw little difference across the white and black boundaries. In normal society, when communicating informally with friends, this censor is decreased, if present at all. I feel the story would be told in these scenarios to make the group you identify with look better, or more correct, and the opposing worse, or more wrong. Doing so makes the story more interesting, perhaps, but certainly enhances an underlying racist message. I do not agree this action is right, or appropriate, but I do see the potential for this to occur.

Sam generally ends the period by claiming that the next lecture will be the best lecture of the class. The first time, I believed him: The second time, I just laughed about it. The phrase just started to seem like one of Sam's signature characteristics, like his beads or goofiness. At times, I gave him credit thinking he meant that it was the best class, as of yet.
While everyone of Sam's classes are above the average standard of educational quality, he has personally set the bar so high for his class, that to be the best of the best is a very difficult. In the case of the Christian Invaders lecture, however, I believe he truly nailed it. This session was, in fact, the best of my year- and potentially my Penn State career.
Seldom do individuals take the time to take on a controversial viewpoint. Even rarer do professors stress the importance of it for understanding not only ourselves, but the world around us. Empathy is a difficult quality to teach, but Sam's lecture certainly did just that.
When we look at war, it often can be categorized as "us" versus "them." "Us" the "good people" fight against "them," the "bad." We do not realize the other side is a bunch of average people like us making the same generalizations to rationalize the destruction and loss of life the will result.
Our governments and media intentionally spoon feed citizens the image of "them" that best suits their political agenda. We see the war through a lens that is specifically designed to make us angry at the other's for their "wrong doings." Little are we shown the positives of their people, and the shared characteristics, goals, and dreams between their inhabitants and ours.
The lecture really made me stop in think. After his thought experiment, I truly could understand where "they" we coming from. After all, if I were in their shoes, I would have felt the same exact way, and probably acted out in the same way too. I could truly relate to their feelings and perceptions of the situation. This expanded awareness definitely changed my perception of our country’s current war.
It made me started to see "us" as being somewhat "bad." Is it now our government's fault that we built up our economy on a resource that was not ours? Is it not our fault that we invaded Iraq, a country we impoverished some by stealing their natural resource? I would argue that to a point it is.
It was also refreshing to understand the perception of the average Muslim in Iraq, who is often just as misguided and ill-informed about our average citizens as we are about theirs. In day to day life, we all want the same thing: safety, love, family, happiness…

Sam generally ends the period by claiming that the next lecture will be the best lecture of the class. The first time, I believed him: The second time, I just laughed about it. The phrase just started to seem like one of Sam's signature characteristics, like his beads or goofiness. At times, I gave him credit thinking he meant that it was the best class, as of yet.
While everyone of Sam's classes are above the average standard of educational quality, he has personally set the bar so high for his class, that to be the best of the best is a very difficult. In the case of the Christian Invaders lecture, however, I believe he truly nailed it. This session was, in fact, the best of my year- and potentially my Penn State career.
Seldom do individuals take the time to take on a controversial viewpoint. Even rarer do professors stress the importance of it for understanding not only ourselves, but the world around us. Empathy is a difficult quality to teach, but Sam's lecture certainly did just that.
When we look at war, it often can be categorized as "us" versus "them." "Us" the "good people" fight against "them," the "bad." We do not realize the other side is a bunch of average people like us making the same generalizations to rationalize the destruction and loss of life the will result.
Our governments and media intentionally spoon feed citizens the image of "them" that best suits their political agenda. We see the war through a lens that is specifically designed to make us angry at the other's for their "wrong doings." Little are we shown the positives of their people, and the shared characteristics, goals, and dreams between their inhabitants and ours.
The lecture really made me stop in think. After his thought experiment, I truly could understand where "they" we coming from. After all, if I were in their shoes, I would have felt the same exact way, and probably acted out in the same way too. I could truly relate to their feelings and perceptions of the situation. This expanded awareness definitely changed my perception of our country’s current war.
It made me started to see "us" as being somewhat "bad." Is it now our government's fault that we built up our economy on a resource that was not ours? Is it not our fault that we invaded Iraq, a country we impoverished some by stealing their natural resource? I would argue that to a point it is.
It was also refreshing to understand the perception of the average Muslim in Iraq, who is often just as misguided and ill-informed about our average citizens as we are about theirs. In day to day life, we all want the same thing: safety, love, family, happiness…

PART TWO: Seldom do individuals take the time to take on a controversial viewpoint. Even rarer do professors stress the importance of it for understanding not only ourselves, but the world around us. Empathy is a difficult quality to teach, but Sam's lecture certainly did just that. It was suddenly, I could place myself in an average Muslim's shoes, and understand.

Sam generally ends the period by claiming that the next lecture will be the best lecture of the class. The first time, I believed him: The second time, I just laughed about it. The phrase just started to seem like one of Sam's signature characteristics, like his beads or goofiness. At times, I gave him credit thinking he meant that it was the best class, as of yet.

While everyone of Sam's classes are above the average standard of educational quality, he has personally set the bar so high for his class, that to be the best of the best is a very difficult. In the case of the Christian Invaders lecture, however, I believe he truly nailed it. This session was, in fact, the best of my year- and potentially my Penn State career.
Seldom do individuals take the time to take on a controversial viewpoint. Even rarer do professors stress the importance of it for understanding not only ourselves, but the world around us. Empathy is a difficult quality to teach, but Sam's lecture certainly did just that.

When we look at war, it often can be categorized as "us" versus "them." "Us" the "good people" fight against "them," the "bad." We do not realize the other side is a bunch of average people like us making the same generalizations to rationalize the destruction and loss of life the will result.
Our governments and media intentionally spoon feed citizens the image of "them" that best suits their political agenda. We see the war through a lens that is specifically designed to make us angry at the other's for their "wrong doings." Little are we shown the positives of their people, and the shared characteristics, goals, and dreams between their inhabitants and ours.
Sam's lecture really made me stop in think. After his thought experiment, I truly could understand where "they" we coming from. After all, if I were in their shoes, I would have felt the same exact way, and probably reacted the same way too. I could truly relate to their feelings and perceptions of the situation. This expanded awareness definitely changed my perception of the War in Iraq.
It made me started to see "us" as being somewhat "bad." Is it now our government's fault that we built up our economy on a resource that was not ours? Is it not our fault that we invaded Iraq, a country we impoverished some by stealing their natural resource? I would argue that to a point it is.
It was also refreshing to understand the perception of the average Muslim in Iraq, who is often just as misguided and ill-informed about our average citizens as we are about theirs. In day to day life, we all want the same thing: safety, love, family, happiness…

The answer to this question for me, contains various levels and circumstances.

Should it become necessary to speak another language while in America, as the dominant and only language of the workplace- I would be unwilling. Given that languages take a good deal of time to perfect and master, I would not want to sacrifice the functional working time for such purposes...especially when there are many jobs available in English. The simple truth of the matter is, my bills cannot wait for me to train awhile. Being forced to speak another language in America, where street signs are written in English and schools are overwhelmingly English-based, also seems strange to me. Being forced to speak another language, is to me an un-mutual obligation with the person hiring. If they are not receptive to assimilating to the dominant culture, why should I assimilate to them? The situation reminds me of when Sam stated something along the lines of, “Hey dude, you can practice your culture and that's cool, but don't try to make me do the same.”

Should a language supplement an American job, where English is the dominant language utilized, for an overseas position or enhanced relationship- I would be willing. An obvious example I can think of within my major of study would be the FBI or military. In such cases, Spanish and Arabic (amongst others) would be especially helpful. Additionally, if I work in a culture where the people speak English but also use another language, as in the case of my current position as a waitress in Allentown, I enjoy learning relevant words for the job and basic conversation so that I can enhance my relationship with the client and bond on a greater level. These circumstances allow me to be a fully operative employee while learning the new language.

For personal fulfillment, I am very receptive to learning new languages. Post-graduation, I intended to master the language of Spanish, sign language, etc. I am interested in these cultures because I encounter them in my daily life. While I regret not studying them in my undergrad, situational factors left me with 23 credits a semester to graduate on time with my major change…little room for leeway, and when tuition is as high as it is, I cannot afford to spend more time than necessary at school. I can however, afford night classes at a community college and still accomplish my same goal.

I understand that jobs are looking for highly educated and cultured employees. The more languages one speaks, the better the chances of being hired and advancing within a company. This trend is great and improves America's global relations. The whole argument comes down to being forced to, versus choosing to. I would not if I was forced, but I would if I was choosing.

Back in high school, I remember having a crush on a guy named Jameel, who was black. I enjoyed Jameel's company, and had more fun going out with him than anyone else. It appeared that Jameel felt the same, because one day, he asked me to be his girlfriend. I said no.

I use the above example to show how my views since high school have changed. You see, I WANTED to date Jameel, very badly at that. However, my father made it very clear this would lead to conflict in the house. I did not want to be forced to choose over my family and the person I was dating. (It sort of helps that my father funds my tuition for college.) Since I did not want to expose Jameel to this situation, and never wanted him to feel unwelcome at my home, I decided to remain his friend. My father had no problem with our friendship. The issue was strictly because he, "did not want a black guy dating HIS daughter." For anyone else, interracial dating was fine.

My father's concerns stem primarily from fear of others' reactions. He works with a group of individuals who are his generation and older, therefore, more closed minded and prejudice. He is friends with people from the middle east, Asians, Blacks, Whites,…a little bit of everyone. His main friend group is minority, but he feared the indirect prejudice I, and therefore he, would receive from the judgmental people of society.

Now I am in college, not living at home with my parents and attending high school. While I have always been receptive to dating anyone, of any race or heritage, now I am more content with myself and my beliefs to stand up for this. I am mature enough, and feel I have standing enough to confront my father with his foolishness. I have enough determination to stand up against those who attempt to put me down. The bottom line is, I can be happy no matter who has a problem with it.

As I am a senior in college, I am looking for different things than I was from my high school relationships. I did not confront my father's ignorance with Jameel because I was not prepared to yet mentally and maturely, but also because I realized a high school relationship was not worth the conflict in my family. My relationships are more serious now, and I am slower to say "I like someone." I am slower yet to date someone.

All that being said, I am currently in an interracial relationship, with someone I would like to potentially marry. Since I have grown up, established who I am as a person, and found happiness, I will stand up for it. I told my father very early, incorporating my boyfriend's race after a laundry list of characteristics about him my father would enjoy. It caused some argument and discussion, but after about a month, my father realized how much I liked this person, and how happy he makes me. Because I could love him and be happy with him, my father could too- though he still struggles especially in telling the guys from work.

My father has spoken with the African American priest at our church, a place in which he is very active and has strong faith. This priest is "his favorite" prior to the issue, and he did this to confront his prejudice in a "head-on" kind of way in order to work through some of his self-stated ignorance. My father has come a long way in the year and a half I have been with my boyfriend. I am proud for his efforts. I look at people and see them by their name: I look at my boyfriend and see him my name. My father still see him as black first, which I truly believe will change in time.

The bottom line is, yes, I will date a black guy or anyone of a different race, color, or heritage. I was always receptive to this. At one point, for a superficial high school relationship, it was not worth the conflict with my family to fight my case. Truthfully, I wasn't strong enough as a person yet to take on my own father. Now I am…and I will always fight for what I feel is right, especially when it is something (or someone) I love. I will not regress to the ignorance of society to "keep the peace with them," even in my own family. I trust my father loves and supports me, and he will in time work through his personal prejudices. He has come so far, to the point he is proud of the person I am dating, and anxious to see my future grow with him.

Personally, I have never felt guilt because of my race. I would like to think that I have never disadvataged another for the color of their skin or heritage of their family. For example, I have never owned slaves, and I have never consciously done something to harm another because of this characteristic...so why should I feel guilty because of the aftershock?

The color of my skin and race were just as much a random chance for me as they were for everyone else. In the scheme of things, skin color and race are really quite arbitrary. Not one person, prior to birth or conception can state in their nonexistant head, “I am choosing to have black parents (or white parents, native american parents, etc). I did not choose to be the color I am. It was given to me. It is not something I was even entitled to. If I did not choose my race, and if could have done nothing to earn it, why should I feel guilty? Either way, I do not feel that my race or skin color makes me greater or lesser of a person when compared to someone else. Why should I feel guilty, and in a way punish, myself. To punish myself for being white is almost just as degrading as it would be to punish someone for being of a different color or race. It makes no sense. There is no hierarchy of skin colors.

Now, in society, I do understand that there is a privlidge that comes with my “white race.” Regardless of the reasoning for this, I can understand and process some are at a disadvantage for his or her arbitrarily assigned skin color. This statistic does not cause me to feel guilt. I do not blame myself for this statistic. I do, however, understand and in turn, try to be more aware of my actions and the actions of others which allow this trend to prosper.

This is where the blog shifts tone. The word for how I feel is not “guilt.” The word is cognicant. I recognize that byinlarge I will have priviledges resulting from mass society's tendency to benefit my race over others. I cannot understand this root of this statistic, because again, I see skin color as arbitrary. It was not chosen and in itself, has no hierarchy. On the contrary, I am aware it happens. I do not have the answer for how I should work to change this situation for those of another race. But throughout my life, I hope to work towards equal opportunities for all.

In my everyday life, I am not in a possession, at least as of yet, where I have influence of a large body of people. But in the steps within my range now, I do what I can to keep a fair playing field for everyone. If I see a injustice, I do speak out. I hope to make people more aware of their actions, so society can rebuild itself where the color of one's skin is really looked at in the way eye color and hair color are- arbitrarily assigned to you at birth.

Affirmative action is a very complicated initiative. I cannot say that I am particularly for it. Perhaps I am strongly siding with the free-will and determinism perspectives, but I feel as though individuals should be hired based upon merit and accomplishment. Because of this, I do not feel race should be considered a factor for better or worse. What difference does one's skin color cause with regards to the quality of work one is capable of doing?

With regards to applications, I do not feel race should even included as a question on the sheet. I feel every resume, cover letter, etc. should likewise be removed and replaced with a number for view. Doing each one of these two things, I believe, would lead to the most unbiased hiring possible. It would avoid many of the issues the survey regarding call back rates for white sounding names as opposed to white sounding names.

Obviously in my scenario, the applicants race would be at least superficially apparent upon in-person interviews. I would like to think, however, the employers would be forced to think more about their underlying prejudices before confirming or rejecting a candidate. Since that same employer would have already confirmed the potential employee was qualified enough for an interview, it would be hard to jump to the extremes of saying, “they are a definite no,” without significant reasoning.

Affirmative action programs do, however, serve a purpose. They strive to help those at a disadvantage reach a level playing field with the average sectors of our society. I do not feel the programs should be based on race.

To be most beneficial and most appropriate, affirmative action programs should aid those in poor towns and school districts, or those from the lower class backgrounds. These individuals as a whole seem to more deserving than a generalized grouping of race: some of which are poor, but some of which are also average and wealthy.

Back when blacks were first acquiring their freedom and there rights, it was more necessary and appropriate to aid them into the transition of the typical citizen's level of comfort. Programs were correct to target this specific group for help. Currently, however, I feel the target benefactors must change.

I do feel that at times affirmative action programs may hurt the majority to help the minority. While this is not a significant problem on the whole, there are numerous individuals who could testify directly to this assertion. Be the situation employment or a scholarship, the bottom line is, often there are people in the majority group more deserving or needy when race is not taken into account. I do not feel that the programs are bad, I just think it is time to rework them.