This is a matter of ethics versus law. Which is more important? When answering this question, I’ll just be honest. The law is more important. Now, why is that the answer I chose? Well, it is human nature to be selfish, even if it concerns another person’s life. Sure, I can sympathize with all of the suffering, less fortunate people in other countries who want to come to America for a better life, but doesn’t this world run on survival of the fittest? Not everyone can have the million-dollar house, with the million-dollar car and perfect family. Life doesn’t work that way. Like Sam demonstrated a while back, there are going to be people on top of the mountain, with the power and influence, while other people are at the foot of the mountain. The peak is too small for all 6,775,235,700 people to fit onto! So, long story short, no I would not help someone illegally immigrate into the United States. I wouldn’t want to break a law, because I like being a citizen of this country. I was fortunate enough to be born a citizen, and there are reasons for the strict immigration laws. If it were so easy to get into our country and live here legally, then our entire country would most likely look like New York City—crammed and urban. It wouldn’t be such a great country anymore. That being said, I understand why certain people help individuals immigrate into the country. There are definitely benefits to having them here. They are hard workers and have immense drive when it comes to pursuing their dreams. Like we saw on Tuesday’s class—that woman who was a pear farm owner lost an entire harvest, in turn losing her livelihood, just because she was not allowed to hire illegal aliens. If no one else in the United States is willing to work these jobs, then so be it. Why not let (these) illegal aliens work for the woman? This is where I honestly think that our immigration laws should just stay the same. There are always going to be loopholes when it comes to any law. I mean, there are numerous criminals roaming the country after committing various crimes. People get away with murder, for god’s sake. Let’s not forget that illegal immigration is just that—a crime, and nothing else. Even that “silly” cartoon about our immigration management failure history spoke some truth about the issue. We keep trying to lock it down, and it doesn’t work. It’s not feasible to build an actual wall around our country like Bill Clinton apparently attempted (which is fully ridiculous, let me add). People are going to slip into the country—it’s going to happen. Let’s accept it. I just won’t have any part in assisting the matter!

I never really noticed how segregated our schools were until last spring, when I went to a talent show at a school across my town where my friend tutored. I had never felt like such a minority, but when I walked into the makeshift auditorium that was really a multi-purpose room, I noticed that I was probably one of five white people in there. I am from the south, where racism is historically widespread, and from both ends of the spectrum. Many races just dont associate with each other, not necessarily consciously, but just from comfort levels. The high school I graduated from was probably 95 percent white. Its located in a very well off part of town thats predominantly white as well. Even the (ahem, white) governors sons graduated with me. It just so happens that the bad parts of town (downtown and rural areas) are the ones inhabited with black families. In 1954 the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education mandated desegregation of public schools. However, this did not factor in the residential segregation that has naturally kept the way it has been since that era. Socio-economic class ties in as well, with one-third of all black and Latino (this issue does not just deal with black individuals) students attending schools where more than 75 percent of students receive free or reduced lunch. So, its obvious that racism and segregation are absolutely not things that just happen. It is a societal structure, created to keep certain people in certain places and to allow those in-power to keep it that way. True, many of the minorities in the United States have immigrated here from a variety of other places, and it takes time to build place in a community. However, it is always in search of a better lifethe huge point that we promise in our country. So, what DOES it say about our society if our schools are more segregated now than in the past? It says that our society is way too comfortable with keeping to the way they know how to live. People are comfortable with other people who are similar to them. There needs to be a change in the way people think. The playing field needs to be balanced out just a little more, so everyone has an equal chance in getting the education they want, so they can get the scholarship for the college they want, so they can get the job they want, so everyone can get closer to being equal.

This is a touchy subject, because on one hand I think that showing pictures of poor children can be used in a positive way, but there are many things about it that I disagree with. Ernso said in class that he does not want pity or help for himself, but for his country. This is where the photographs can be seen in a negative light. This is taken advantage of, especially when a person is watching television in their comfortable house with indoor plumbing, electricity, and heat, and a commercial with sad little kids’ faces comes on the screen. The person sitting there will be more likely to think that it’s terrible, and feel the instant need or want to help them, because they are “poor, helpless children.” However, it’s demeaning not only to the children and their capabilities as well as their future, but to their nation. When photographs of impoverished children are shown to the masses, the majority of people either thinks, “Wow, Haiti must be a failure of a country if they cannot even feed their children,” or “That’s just so sad. I should pity them.” Yet, if that same person found his or herself homeless due to an unfortunate event of his or her own, it is likely that he or she would not want that same pity. From all that I have learned in class, it seems like Haitians have so much pride and ambition for their country and culture. It’s unfair to use their children as propaganda for a stereotype. Yes, it’s true that Haiti is the poorest nation in the western world, but there are so many other ways for us to help the country. Now, I understand the reason for using the pictures to begin with, because people are just trying to raise awareness for Haiti and all that it has gone through so that people will donate to the cause, but there are other ways to do so. What we are doing in our discussion groups is exactly what the rest of the people wanted to contribute should do. Furthermore, if people see the photos of helpless Haitian children, many are likely to feel helpless themselves. It’s difficult to wrap one’s mind around being able to help a nation starting with just one person, but it’s possible by spreading awareness, like the projects we are making. We should just support their efforts to rebuilding their nation and maybe lend an actual hand and teach them our knowledge. Like Ernzo said in class, we shouldn’t just give them fish, but teach them how, so the wealth will spread.

I actually remember getting verbally upset when this issue was brought up. I see girls walking around campus on the weekends at night in the tiniest outfits. I’m not sure I would even call them outfits—more like torture devices in cloth form. I’ve never been the kind of girl who enjoys baring it all for the sake of getting attention. I know my mother would never have allowed me to walk out of the house in the types of get-ups I see girls wearing here, not that I would have. On a Saturday night, anyone passing me by on the street will find me bundled up in jeans, boots, and a long, puffy coat. Newsflash to all girls in Happy Valley: it is the winter… and it’s cold here. This is no Miami. So, why are all of the other girls wearing five-inch heels, tissue paper-sized dresses, and then spending two hours on their hair and makeup? Like it was said in class on Thursday, guys are able to get away with wearing jeans and sweatshirts to parties and they just look “cool,” not comfortable. Comfort isn’t even a choice for guys. They have a standard uniform in college, whereas the average sorority girl is expected to own two separate wardrobes. One is comprised of sweatpants, leggings, and Uggs for class, and the other is stripper gear for fraternity parties. Why? It’s all really just to look sexually appealing to guys. I’ve learned since coming to college that people are not really interested in making friends when going to frats at night. Girls usually want attention, but for what? I’ve seen a few “girly” girls get ready to go out on the weekends, and after all of this primping, they evaluate themselves in the mirror and say to each other, “do my thighs look too big in this skirt?” or, “my boobs don’t look big enough in this tank.” It’s all about a matter of having a low self-esteem, which brings me to a depressing point. It seems as though the only way for these girls to achieve a higher self-esteem is to get sexual attention from guys. How messed up is that? It needs to be more prevalently advertised in our society that confidence is the most attractive quality to possess. Sure, guys may notice the girl with the short skirt and low-cut top off-hand, but if there is no personality, or confidence there, they lose interest really fast. I bet if a girl showed up to a frat in a simple tee shirt and jeans, but with the liveliest personality, she would get noticed even more than the other look-a-like girls. Girls shouldn’t feel such pressure to impress when guys don’t have to do anything extra. It’s not fair, and it’s demeaning, so it should be stopped. Besides, heels are way too uncomfortable!

Barack Obama’s presidency was not just a catalyst to help the race movement progress. It was the absolute best hope for minorities in America. Though I was only sixteen at the time, I remember talking to some of my friends at school (who were minorities themselves) about his campaign. I could see the way their eyes lit up when the subject was brought up. His presidential campaign wasn’t about his political ideology or whether they agreed with it or not, it was really just about him being black, though, in actuality, he’s biracial. There was hope all over the country, for young and old alike, that the issue of race discrimination and prejudices would get better. Even though I’m white the idea of there being a minority-race president made me feel like the United States was breaking old bad habits that have been around for centuries. Sure, there have been smaller roles filled by minority races before, but by Obama overtaking such a huge and widespread leadership role, the story of his success is more attainable across the country.

However, I feel like a majority of the people affected positively by his success are of the younger generation. Many adults have had difficult times adjusting to the small fact that Obama is biracial. I’m originally from the South and have witnessed many instances of racial discrimination. In one of my classes as a high school student, my teacher refused to show one of Obama’s speeches targeted towards students on our classroom television. She was then told by an administrator that it wasn’t her decision because it was our right to be able to see it. Then, the most ridiculous part of the situation was that she had to leave the room just for spite. People who are so closed minded like this woman, aren’t going to be affected by moving events like Obama’s presidency.

Nonetheless, I definitely think that his presidency has sparked the change in younger people, who are (cliché as it sounds) the future. Though it’s sad that some adults today aren’t as accepting of different races and cultures, what matters is what we are feeding the younger generation, so positive change can be made. Just the fact that Obama became the first black president is probably the most important part of his presidency and will lead us in the right direction towards more and more change to break boundaries.

Ive been told about this experiment before, and it was originally conducted in the 1940s, so children have obviously been born into this idea of white is better for decades. In the 1940s study, the majority of the children (63 percent of them) said they'd rather play with the white doll. Most said the white doll was nicer than the black doll and in the most emotional answer of all, 44 percent of the black children said the white doll looked most like them. Before watching the video in class, Dr. Richards said that the video would be one of the most disturbing videos we would watch in his class, which of course got me thinking that it was going to be graphic or gory, but this clip was even more disturbing than anything with violence as its subject. This was violence of the mind. Society has hurt young minds due to historical discriminations and prejudices that have been around for centuries. What I find to be most interesting is that as a child, I actually preferred darker skinned dolls, and I am white. I thought the different skin tones were beautiful and appealing, since they were different from myself. However, my moms personal experiences were probably a motivator to look past skin tones that were like my own, because she had adopted black and Hispanic siblings. Its difficult for me to imagine why young children think that white baby dolls are more attractive because of this. In the video, "A Girl Like Me," the struggles that black women go through concerning their self-esteem about their appearance and how they deal with society were showcased. It became obvious after watching this why young black children would choose the black baby doll. The same exact ideas that they were fed as children followed them into adulthood. Not only was it light versus dark, but also there were issues with skin tone within the black community. If someone was lighter, they could be demeaned or envied (depending on the situation) by their own race. Even girls who were darker toned were thought of (and thought of themselves) as less attractive, no matter what their individual features looked like. All it had to do with was skin tone. I just dont understand why people are being fed this same message over and over again throughout the years. Everyone should feel good about himself or herself. Lets buy our children white, black, Asian, Hispanic, and even multi-racial baby dolls in the future, because all skin tones are beautiful and just as nice or good as the other.

Before taking Dr. Richard’s class, I never realized how ignorant I was concerning modern-day slavery and the freed slaves circumstances. Even before I was familiar with the actual concept of present-day slavery, I didn’t necessarily feel guilty about my socio-economic position and the comfortable way in which I lived and still currently live. There has to be competition in the world, and there are going to be poor individuals, middle class people, and the wealthy. I don’t mean to sound superior to anyone, but I did, however, feel a bit of pity for those who could not afford to even feed themselves, much less live comfortably. I know that I live a comparatively relaxed and easy life. Now, after learning about the horrific conditions that current, and especially Ivory Coast cocoa-producing, slaves endure, I still feel that same pity for them, but more so for not having the right education and knowledge to stay out of slavery and out of their unpleasant situations. This is a very conflicting subject for me to try to understand how I feel about it. On one hand, from an emotional and empathizing standpoint, I definitely feel terrible for the people who have had some bad luck and fallen into slavery, but on the other hand, I logically (perhaps cynically) think that it’s just the way of the world. Slavery has existed almost since the beginning of humanity, so why should I feel guilty about it? I don’t support slavery-affiliated products or practices (besides purchasing them occasionally), but it’s difficult to live in a well-to-do city where slavery is out of my view and personal, immediate control and say that I feel guilt. If anything, I shouldn’t feel anything. I should just want to do the right thing, which is to boycott products associated with slavery. Then again, like Dr. Richards said in class, it’s pretty difficult to do so. So many commercialized (and especially cheaper) products have traces of slavery attached to them. Now, once slaves enter the free world again, and try to get themselves back on their feet, throughout history it has not been easy to do so. Especially in United States history with African American slavery, the past has shown us that residual prejudices are hard to let go of. The Jim Crow laws were perfect examples of this, in which black people were not treated equally to white individuals. My dad grew up in the 1950’s and 1960’s and vividly remembers this period, but even at the time did not feel guilty for any of the occurrences because it was just the way things were in his North Carolinian small town, and he never advocated any of it. This is exactly how I feel today. The only thing I can do is to try to continue to spread peace and stop discrimination one person at a time, whether it relate to skin color, background, religion, or even socio-economic statuses.

It’s interesting that this question is on the blogs because I thought about this issue during the video about Tammy, who is a prime example of this issue. From my upper-class standpoint, of course I think that it is selfish for people having a lower socio-economic status to bring multiple children into this world for many reasons. The children did not have any control over the situation in which they were brought up, and by growing up in the said situation; they have less opportunities for success by default. Tammy’s son in the video mentioned how he was almost ashamed of his mother, while Tammy said that she believed he thought he was above the standards she had for their family. Though her son was slightly harsh, I do take his side in the matter. It is unfair and irresponsible for Tammy to have made him go through life like that.
Then again, there’s the issue of education. Tammy grew up with twenty brothers and sisters in a similar living condition, so to her four children must seem significantly easier to manage, and less than average from her standpoint and the way in which she was raised. So, it was probably considered to be absurd for her to have just one child or even none. It’s sad to see that she does not know from anything else. If she had lived on her own, there would be so many more opportunities available to her, and she would have saved her children from not only the physical suffering, but emotional and mental. She would also probably not have to walk ten miles to work at a fast food restaurant.
There is, of course, the question and issue of having unplanned pregnancies that is connected with being uneducated, but they can easily and inexpensively be avoided with the right information and planning. Also, after having more children, Tammy should have noticed the hardships she was experiencing and either given certain children up for adoption, or gone some other route. I can’t say it enough, but having so many children in Tammy’s position is just unfair to them—forget her own well-being. Even people in the middle and upper class can’t afford to have four children. When people think of having a child, they usually just think of a small baby, but babies grow and mature into children, who grow into adults, who have to deal with their own finances and families. Then, it just becomes a horrible cycle.
I think people need to learn how to manage their money and educate themselves further about the HUGE impact they can make on their children just by the amount of money they make.

What Dr. Richards did with the “King of the Mountain” game was pretty clever. I thought it was an excellent visual way of showing the class how people get to the top and stay in control. Now, the way he chose students was interesting as well. The students came from a plethora of backgrounds, making the concept quite analogous with reality. Dr. Richards, the “white” guy, tricked all six of the students into going along with whatever he chose to do, whether that be getting to the top of the mountain first, or placing students in certain areas at the front of the classroom. I found it especially interesting when he placed the stereotypical “minorities” in the corner, and put the Jewish Hispanic girl closer to him, and later said it was okay for the white Jewish boy to stand closer to the “mountain.” How culturally accurate. Dr. Richards mentioned nothing about smarts when it came to this game, however. He said in class that he simply “chose” to get to the top of the mountain, because he could! This same idea is true of white people in history. They forced themselves to the top of the totem pole—excuse my idiom there. If African people way back in history had chosen to explore to North America themselves and gotten to the top of society, then we would have an entirely different social order today. It’s just by chance that people with white skin decided to make sure everyone else stayed at the bottom with certain lofty rules and regulations. It’s unfortunate that these rules caused residual social constructs that are still around in the United States today. As Dr. Richards said in class, someone among the group is poor and someone is rich. Someone is lazy when it comes to schoolwork, and someone works really hard—above and beyond. He then went on to describe the distinctions among the students, and I realized that he was almost solely able to state these facts because of their race, and how society has shaped each one of them, starting way back with their ancestors, to live this way. While the “King of the Mountain” game is true and accurate to the way in which we live today, it just doesn’t make sense. The mountain is the reason why prejudice and stereotypes still exist. I say screw the mountain, and level the playing field for every race. Sure, there is bound to be competition between people, but when it comes to social ladders based on race, it’s just not morally right.

(part 3) Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience, are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person". As such complex beings, it’s impossible for humans to not want to judge and create differences among each other. This is how race exists, and will continue to exist as long as humans stay the way they are.