gdp's Comments

Race Relations Project : Stories for Uplift

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:49:00 +0000

Wow, I can't stop smiling after watching the video about the little boy and little girl who like each other - how heartwarming! As I saw in another post while reading some of those already written above, I have oftentimes felt sad or angry or upset after (or during) our class - sometimes based upon what is being said or how it is being said, but many times because it seems that we are becoming more aware of these horrible injustices and realities in our world today and perhaps cannot come up with a good enough solution for such wide-scale problems. I am very glad Sam decided to go another direction with this (one of our last for the semester) post and really bring it back to what matters - kindness. It is incredibly nice to know that genuinely kind people do exist in the world and that, despite the many grave injustices going on still today, many strides have been made as well. These strides and advances exist on every level - from what may seem like smaller acts of kindness (as innocent as relations between children, shown in the video) to what may seem like large-scale acts on the governmental or policy level. I want to talk about each video and the story that video told individually, if I may - the first one was heartwarming and uplifting and really painted a picture of an overwhelmingly selfless individual who did something for someone he barely knew. While I found this somewhat odd (as did the woman who he donated his kidney to in the video), I think it is just because it seems to be such a grand scale thing to do for someone who you are not related to or extremely close with or anything along those lines. When I think about it a little more, though, I think of a line from the Bible that is something like, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me." Taking what the man did as solely a good and kind deed to help save this woman amidst sickness directly ties into that line and the notion of seeing one's God in every human being, no matter what he or she looks like, no matter where he or she is from, and no matter how we know (or don't really know...) that person individually. It also builds a strong defense for the case that small acts of kindness and compassion and genuine positivity do not go unnoticed. Had the grocery store clerk been unkind, impatient, or rude to the man, I am sure he would not have so willingly offered a part of his own body to help save this woman's life. It seems a lot is to be said for simple acts of kindness and simply treating one another well. I know it may seem cliche, but I think sometimes that is the only place TO start when we are faced with how to solve much, much bigger problems. Start in your own backyard, in your own family, in your own workplace....and the hope there is that what you do there will have a ripple effect and the trend will continue until it, too, has become much, much bigger. In regards to the second video, as I stated previously, I watched it over and over because it was one of the cutest things I have ever seen. We have heard time and time again that we can all learn immensely by seeing through the eyes of innocent children, and this video stands as testimony to that. I really think anyone of any race should think that video is adorable, regardless of skin color or ethnicity or any other cultural, personal, or political divide - and if they don't, I do not understand. I like how the video ends by labeling the children "color blind" - as if they, in their young ways, have not yet encountered racism among and between peoples and so they see each other as the same, which, in truth, is the way that everyone should see everyone else. Unfortunately, however, as we have discussed and seen time and time again in Sam's class, this is not the case and humanity struggles with moving forward every single day. I think, though, that this video is wonderful - it is informative, entertaining, and it truly pulls at your heartstrings, cheering for the little boy and his jaw-dropping-smiling face when the girl he likes labels him her "boyfriend." If we can all agree to cheer on his innocence and well-meaning ways, that at least has to be a start to something.

Race Relations Project : Letter from an Inmate

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:19:11 +0000

Wow, I love this. I, too, was incredibly intrigued in class after Sam and his wife spoke about how they had spent a good amount of time talking to the "lifers", those who know they will spend the entirety of the remainder of their lives behind bars (which in and of itself is a powerful and shocking truth to accept). I think it would be an amazing, eye-opening experience - terrifying to look into the eyes of people who have killed another, but also find in those eyes some of the qualities that this man described so truly, so vividly. I am so impressed and humbled - I am a writer and this man was able to put into words very beautifully the overarching human connections that we can all relate to, regardless of our past or race or background or mistakes we have made. It is incredibly difficult, once a man has presumably broken every bond of trust, every relationship he had, by committing such a horrific crime as first degree murder -- to see anything BEYOND that. It truly is. Even as I sit here empathizing with this man and feeling what he was feeling when he wrote us that letter, there is a nagging voice in the back of my head that is asking the question - wait a minute, though, is it okay to feel these things after what he did? I don't think it is any of our place to judge a man or to make the decision to take another's life. I do think, though, that men who have somehow spiraled into a place where they somehow end up in prison for first-degree murder, have the ability to change. People oftentimes do not change, but not because it is impossible for them too - rather, they stay the same because people become complacent. They become lazy and afraid and find that it is merely easier not to make life-altering decisions. Though we clearly cannot imagine the mind frame of a person who knows he/she will be spending the rest of his/her life in JAIL - in a small, contained box - maybe, for a moment, we could give these prisoners the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they know they did incredibly wrong. Maybe they know they never should have and maybe they have been living with that guilt for years and years. I am not saying this excuses their behavior because it does not and killing someone of any age is wrong. We have no authority to decide who gets to live and who does not. What if one (or more than one of the lifers) is innocent? Then what? How do we know what is the truth all the time? Can we? One of the parts of the man's letter that stuck with me in particular was when he said we might believe "prison is filled with the worst of men, and there is some truth to that." He knows it and agrees and makes that concession. Obviously, our justice system strives towards just that = JUSTICE... so we would hope that people who are in jail for life did something horrific enough to deserve it. (Though the hope for most of us would be that they never did anything horrific in the first place). However, the part that stuck with me and really made me think was next, when he challenged us to look beyond those preconceived notions and think of men - even lifers - on the same playing field, as human beings with hearts and souls and consciences and emotions. He said, "... you will find some of the tenets of humanity performed in the most incredibly simple ways and by the most unlikely of individuals for the greatest of reasons - to relieve suffering. And why? Because we all suffer and any relief, no matter how small, is of great relief to us all." How powerful! I even think he gets at the idea of helping ourselves (themselves- relieving some of their own suffering) BY helping others, which in reality could be one of the greatest methods to self-help in all the world. Thank you for asking him to do this and for sharing it with us.

Race Relations Project : Want to Learn Chinese (Mandarin)?

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:33:26 +0000

When I saw the topic that this post was concentrating on, I was excited. For some time now, I have had this itch to learn Chinese - I'm not really sure why I suddenly want(ed) to learn the language, but I think the desire came from a few of my experiences as well as things I have heard. A few years back, I remember hearing at a family party that my mom's cousin's son (or a relative like that, who I do not really know personally) had studied business and Chinese in college and was moving to China to take a really high-profile job over there. I was fascinated and I really thought that it was the coolest thing - to learn a language so well, especially one that seems to be "up and coming" in the business world - that you can work in the industry and thrive. That was my first taste of someone really investing in Chinese as a foreign language enough so that he could make a career of it, and my interest from that point on only grew. I think I've always been incredibly interested in international affairs, foreign study, and foreign languages. I am absolutely amazed and in awe of the world around me, and of the many different "worlds" that exist outside of our own little bubble (and by "bubble", I mean the Penn State bubble, the east coast bubble, the America bubble, etc. - however you want to think of it, but I think you should know what I mean). I have also taken Italian for years and have been enamored with the language, the people, and the country (and all the beautiful, amazing sites it has to offer) for years. I took Italian all throughout high school and then again here at Penn State - Italian is one of my minors. In addition to that, I studied abroad in Italy last year, which further makes me a pro-learning other languages and pro-learning about other countries/ethnicities/ways of life, which ties into this post about learning Chinese. And I think what makes Chinese even more powerful as a language tool is the emergence of it as a world language, and its usage in the professional and business arenas, which, aside from the fact that we should learn more about different parts of the world, can also be useful in future careers and/or positions. I know someone who taught English in China post-undergrad and came back with a great appreciation and understanding of the language and the people, something, really, that I think would benefit all people, especially all those who tend to get stuck in the mentality that their world (one person's world) is the actual world. I have even given a lot of thought to teaching abroad myself after my undergraduate education is over. After being abroad, I have the travel bug and I honestly have a great desire to just GO...and by that I mean, go everywhere - travel all over the USA, but also all over the world. I think Chinese people coming here to teach their language here is a wonderful thing because it gives a first-hand perspective and a vision of the world through the voice of another (as well as through the eyes of another). It reminds me of the ethnocentrism that Sam has been talking about the past few classes. There is so much more out there, and those who are really LIVING, I think, make the effort to see what else is out there to really expand their knowledge. Thus, I think the fact that more schools are offering Chinese to children starting from an early age is a really good idea, and one that, frankly, I wish my grade school and high school had offered as well. I have even read studies and credible articles that show proof that teaching young children an additional language helps them in the future in related lessons, such as vocabulary. Thus, I think teaching Chinese on a larger scale in the United States should prove to be beneficial in many different ways.

Race Relations Project : Isn't a person's qualifications an issue?

Sat, 3 Apr 2010 02:09:14 +0000

(..continued from post 1) The entire time, the only thing I was thinking was how thankful I was that I was blessed enough to be born into a country like America where we have (hopefully I won’t have to say ‘had’ soon…) quality health care, a system that you can actually trust. If unfair policies like affirmative action and nepotism (not to mention a government-run health care system that hands out policies to everyone) continue, I’m afraid to think how the quality of our medical system will plummet. People who are the most qualified for the job, most qualified for the school, most qualified for the raise, etc., should receive what is justly their’s, hands down, yet of course know this is not the case or we would not be having this discussion. I think something else I struggle with about affirmative action and nepotism is that affirmative action is not only legal, it is encouraged. It is put in place and actively used to give people of certain racial backgrounds things that white men (and women? Though sometimes, white women receive affirmative action, like Sam said) are not given. Nepotism, though equally wrong, goes on behind closed doors – it is not condoned, it should not be done, and I think the points made in class today about the differences between actual nepotism and making good connections need to be taken into consideration. I’m not sure if I am just trying to intertwine three different extremely complex concepts that should be researched much more in order to find a better solution, but I just think my fears stem from the notion of allowing citizens, students, or whatever group of people being referred to, to become apathetic and content. What I mean by that is that, if we keep putting these systems into place where people do not feel it is absolutely necessary to work as hard as they possibly can to reach higher goals, to get into a particular school, to make a certain amount of money, to hold a higher position, then the population is going to become a population that does not have strong work ethic or motivation. I don’t believe people should not feel like they deserve things – why shouldn’t it always be the opposite? If you believe in the greater good of mankind and the notion of equality and sanctity of human life – every human life – then shouldn’t we believe that EVERYONE deserves things instead? I think the simplicity of turning the question around changes its connotations completely, and I think there has to be a way to HELP people (such as those from certain backgrounds, social, cultural, racial, economic, etc.) who need assistance in going to school or to the doctor…without sacrificing the quality of the educational and/or the health care system in general.

Race Relations Project : Isn't a person's qualifications an issue?

Sat, 3 Apr 2010 02:09:02 +0000

I'm glad someone brought up the idea of diminishing the QUALITY of the system because that is what I was thinking all class (though more so in relation to Sam's rant on the health care bill). I think it definitely comes into play, though, in both cases, that is, that the mere concept of allowing individuals special access because of their appearance as opposed to merit cannot be a good one. How could it ever be? I am not an expert in affirmative action and talking about it in my discussion group in weeks past and hearing Sam's opinions made it more true-to-life and interesting, but honestly just acted as further fuel for the fire in my opinions that are against it. I struggle with voicing these opinions too strongly at all times because I have been trying to think of some kind of "solution" or at least, since I do not really think a true solution will ever be possible, a way to make the process more fair in all respects. I just think that Sam's arguments, at times, are faulty ones, or ones that are two things that should never be compared in the first place because the argument does not follow. For example, to go back to the quality issue in reference to health care, Sam compared the health care bill to our class. He said that we are unaware of it, but behind the scenes, students are "calling" him, asking for favors, saying they have issues so they need special treatment, etc. ... and his response to that was that he can't give individual favors because if he did it for one person, he'd have to do it for everyone. Then, he compared it to health care as if giving everyone in America health care was the same thing, but the logic is completely the OPPOSITE. Handing out health care to everyone stands as further motivation for those who are unemployed or not doing anything to REMAIN just as they are. Why should they try? Why should they work? The government and the people are paying for them. This would be like, instead of Sam not giving out special privileges, if, in the very beginning of the semester, followed the current administration's logic and said, "Well, everyone has different circumstances, different socioeconomic backgrounds and opportunities, and I want everyone to be able to do well so since I can do this, I'm going to give everyone an A for the class and you know it from day one." It's the same thing. If Sam promised to give every student in the class an A, why should anyone try in class or study for the exams? The "government" (who is in charge so Sam in this case) is taking care of them, so to speak. The extending of anything to so many people would UNDOUBTEDLY cause a diminishing in quality of the system. It’s burning the candle at all ends, spreading ‘yourself’ (the government) too thin, trying to help everyone and yet in actuality helping no one at all. And, though I do not condone the violence for either side in any way whatsoever, the concept of fighting for something you strongly believe in is something this country was built upon, principles I still believe in and hold true to my heart, despite the times in class when we have been told they are myths. Even if you don’t agree, how can you come down on someone for fighting for a just cause? Perhaps the problem is those who agree with the bill cannot see the injustice that has somehow been allowed to become law. I spent a night in an Italian hospital.

Race Relations Project : In Her Own Words

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:33:14 +0000

Though I am somewhat trying to figure out how the topic of menstruation fits into the discussion of racial and/or ethnic relations AT ALL, I do think it is kind of comical that it was brought up in the first place in class, and, subsequently ironic that Laurie just happened to be giving a reading that included discussion of womens' monthly cycles. I agree with Laurie, with the idea that women should not be treated as any less than men, with the fact that both are equal, with the notion of women being able to accomplish everything that a man can, generally speaking. I do not think, however, that biology gives women a reason to complain. I don't mean on a day to day basis; as a woman, I understand the reality of going through a cycle every 28 days, too, and, believe me, I understand the pain that comes along with that. I won't go into more detail because, again, I don't think it is necessary, but I do believe that on a more daily occurrence, of course women should be given the right to complain that they are in pain because of this occurrence. However, I honestly do not want to talk about it with a group of 700+ people (including my professor)! I think that the fact that it occurs should be acknowledged because it is a part of life and, as one of the women stated in her video, it is ultimately a blessing because it is what leads a woman to be able to procreate and create another human being (a miracle in itself). On the other hand, though, the saying that comes to mind when I think about all of this is really - it just is what it is. Why should we feel the need to shout it from the rooftops? When you're sick with a stomach virus, that is natural, too, but most people do not want to hear about it. I see these biological realities that occur as a part of our bodily cycles in the same way and, though Sam could label it a "beautiful" process, the process itself is anything BUT that. Most women prefer not to talk about it because it is a private matter. They disclose it to those who they are closest to, their best girl friends, their boyfriend or husband, but they don't (usually) want to share it with a large group of people because, honestly, what would that do to help? I can't really figure out what the advantages Sam sees are to talking about it all the time. Other somewhat vulgar bodily processes that are natural, too, are not exactly the most "beautiful" realities either - and most girls do not like to talk about them either! I think there have to be certain limits in a civilized society of what conversations are kept as private and what conversations take on a more public arena and/or audience. That being said, I think the way that Laurie talked about it was different. It was not seen as a joke and, though I am very curious as to whether this assumption is correct, I imagined the audience as being filled with mostly women, viewers and listeners who would UNDERSTAND her speech because they, too, have gone through the biological and personal experiences in their daily encounters as women. I think transforming it into a poetic realm was really interesting because it honestly did make the process as a whole (opposed to just the vulgarity of how it takes place...) seem more beautiful and poetic, more empowering for women and for their roles in society. Thus, I believe in the acknowledgment of this reality, but not necessarily on the public scale that we had in class the other day; I hope certain people can understand that stance.

Race Relations Project : Does this rudeness thing cut both ways?

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:53:29 +0000

.... (continued from previous post) That being said, I think race relations discussions and the pervasiveness of "political correctness" in and on our society have helped in creating an environment in which white people, particularly those who WANT to make progress in race relations, do not know what they can or cannot say without being misunderstood and thus (as Sam has said time and time again) may end up saying nothing at all. So the questions need to be asked. The bridges need to be crossed and the thoughts, opinions, and observations need to be put out there if we are ever to truly get beyond racial stereotypes and prejudice. I think one of the inherent problems is in what I touched on above, the fact that most people, when an action is done or a word is said, automatically assume the worst. For example, like the speaker touches on in this video, in class, when the text was sent stereotyping black girls as "loud" and there was a notable backlash immediately, I imagine those talked about in the text automatically assumed the worst. I am not defending whoever the individual is who wrote the texts (and I, too, have been disappointed by the immaturity some people have displayed in the texts in class), BUT I do think it's kind of unnecessary for a noticeable reaction in class. Could that reaction in itself be perpetuating preconceived stereotypes? It is something to ponder. On the contrary, is it just about personality and not about race? Do certain personality traits get heaped into a "racial" category in our class just because we are constantly talking about race? I think sometimes this could be the case as well. For example, when texts were sent that were just as offensive towards white people, such as criticizing white people for their athletic abilities or their choice of clothing or for being ignorant (a much more charged and critical word, I believe, than 'loud'), there was no outward reaction that the entire class could hear. Do people of color think white people are "out to get them" and so they should be offended whenever anything is said? Is it a personality thing because I'm sure not every person of color and every white person feels (felt) the same way when seeing those texts in front of the class? Should people be outwardly upset? Or should people REALIZE that some people, immature people who are most likely not even taken seriously by themselves, do not deserve our time of day to get upset over? I hope my point is making sense because I know what I want to say, but I feel like I could address the issues forever so it is difficult to sum up my many thoughts on the topics here. Perhaps the person who labeled black girls as "loud" does not know anyone personally and his or her only experience was sitting somewhere where black girls were indeed being loud. This person might label white girls as loud or white guys as loud as well - that question wasn't answered! Actually, now that I think about it, I believe both questions were aimed towards thoughts on white people so this person's answer is actually completely irrelevant! If the person can't even answer the question, how much time or energy should students give him/her...really? It seems so juvenile. I just think, as I have read in many other posts in response to this question, that as much as we need to work towards bettering racial relations by discussing race, we also need to take race OUT of the discussion sometimes. People need to be able to be treated the same (even if we are not really on an even level because of factors both out of our control and in our control) and people need to be treated as individuals, responsible for their own actions, but also knowledgeable enough of the actions of others, the actions of those in the past, and the reality of the times to at least TRY to understand if a person of another race has a preconception or a misunderstanding about him or her solely because of skin color. With effort and a gradual movement towards greater understanding of one another, I hope that white people and people of color will learn not to speak ill of each other (especially with the intention of offending or putting the race down) because it does nothing to better one's own race or bring those of different races together.

Race Relations Project : Does this rudeness thing cut both ways?

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:52:58 +0000

Like many of the posts I have read above, I, too, agree that this question needs to be asked, though - like so many other things - white people are not sure if they can even ask it. As someone stated above, people of color may find the fact that this question was asked at all racist....even before knowing or attempting to understand the reasoning behind it. I think there is a double standard because it is so easy for anyone of any race, gender, religion, etc., to so quickly assume the worst of people - I don't even think this is a race issue in our world today, I think this is an issue that most people do because of the fast-paced, demanding environment in which we live. So often people do not give their fellow men (and women) the benefit of the doubt or cut someone a break. If someone cuts you off in traffic, is your initial reaction that that person made a mistake and didn't see you or is your initial reaction that that person is a jerk or a lousy driver or many other things I won't write on here...? I know that example may seem irrelevant, but I think it does come back to certain issues that are indicative of people in GENERAL, as opposed to constantly dividing individuals into groups based upon categories, in this case, based on their race. ...(continued in next post)

Race Relations Project : Are Whites the Only People Willing to Humiliate Themselves?

Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:56:47 +0000

After reading this post, watching the video, and looking at the pictures, my curiosity was peaked and I decided to research the concept a little more online because I had honestly never really noticed the seemingly racist tendencies of shows like The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. On the other hand, I do not watch either of those shows to have noticed, but I never really heard this conversation discussed before either. It is interesting and it provokes many questions as to why this is being done. I think multiple factors play into the reality of the matter, in a way in which the ultimate cast of characters could be argued to be a "racist" one because it usually lacks minorities, but I also think it is more complicated than that. As Sam discussed in class just recently, people make decisions that others may view as racist, but if they were given the time to explain their choices, their rationale would have nothing to do with race at all. I never thought about my race or receiving any kind of privilege or disadvantage because of my race so much before in my entire life. I sometimes wonder if constantly defining us by our race by saying things like the "brown and black team" and the "white team" only serves to perpetuate any kind of racist tendencies people have (whether they are conscious of them or not). That being said, we have to remember what we are talking about, as I have read in previous posts, that is, a "reality" show that most people do not even truly believe is REAL. I'm glad other people brought up other examples of so-called reality shows that have come out in recent years on various channels, including MTV and VH1. The entire genre of a reality TV show seems to contradict itself and the shows seem to make a spectacle (and a joke) of serious situations, experiences, and things in life. An example is marriage on The Bachelor - if people took marriage seriously, do they really honestly believe a person's "soul mate" is going to just happen to be one of their significant others on the show? If people wanted to take this seriously, they would see that the reality of the matter is that the odds are COMPLETELY against them, and that the show serves as more of a joke than anything else (unless there was a rare occasion where a lifetime commitment did happen to be formed....). I conducted a number of searches on The Bachelor, trying to find how the contestants are chosen, but I could not really find any relevant information. I'm wondering if the show's producers choose the candidates, if they meet them in person, if they allow their "bachelor" for the current show to weigh in on his/her personal opinion in choosing candidates, if they look at personality, education, career, accomplishments, etc. That would play into the process, too. I found a picture of executive producer Mike Fleiss, who is white, which did not surprise me, but I could not really find any information on him addressing accusations of racism or anything along those lines. I think we also need to consider, though, the realm these shows are made in; what I mean by that is that maybe the show should be more open to other races and ethnicities; maybe the show should think about representing accurate demographics; maybe the show should take away their title of being so "serious" and marriage-related, and take on a more casual, dating tone. One could also argue that the show is stereotypical in other ways as well. Look at all of the past bachelors and bachelorettes, as well as candidates for them to choose from; did we ever see an unattractive bachelor or an overweight person? Like I said, I do not watch the show, but I think it most likely falls into the trap of many discriminatory stereotypes we have seen in regards to the myths of what make a person "beautiful" or "desirable." I think the problem is inherent in our culture. Thus, working towards a solution is actually much more complex than adding contestants of various races to a show like The Bachelor because it hits on so many other (I believe more influential and credible) aspects of our media.

Race Relations Project : When Do We Do or Say Something?

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:20:25 +0000

...Continued from part 1 In regards to the videos above and the comments made in class Thursday, the right thing to do in this situation is of course to stand up for the young woman. Any kind of preconceived prejudice aside, this woman has done nothing wrong, and should not be blamed for the mistakes of others. I know most people are claiming that they would step in, and I would like to believe that I would have stepped in, had I been in this situation as well, but the truth is that I honestly do not think nearly as many people would have done so if they had actually been placed in this situation. Like it or not, we alter the way we act when we are put to the test - NOT all of us - but human beings, especially those who are maybe unsure of a situation or event, will convince themselves that not doing anything is the right way to go. They might feel bad about it in retrospect or do something afterward to ease their guilty conscience, but nonetheless, I think that people - not only Americans either at all - tend to keep to themselves, especially when dealing with the unfamiliar (such as a person from a religion or race they do not understand). The problem may lie in the fact that the majority of people do not have positive personal experiences with someone from a particular racial or religious group and, because of this, the only thing they (think they) know of the person is his or her association with a group of people who attacked our country, who attacked the very ideals we hold so dear. How much can be assumed, however? The answer is very little, if not nothing at all! The woman, simply by her religion or clothing attire, has done nothing wrong and should not be assumed to belong to a group to which she has no ties. If those defending the argument of ignoring her or speaking out against her would step back for a moment and look at their argument, they would see right away that it is a faulty one. We cannot separate the world into, for example, four most populous religions and assume that person A and person B and person C will always follow the same patterns of behavior or hold the same beliefs. On the other hand, if I could play devil's advocate for a moment, I think it is also important to remember that as viewers of this situation (and in life in general), we do not know any individual's current circumstance. We do not know the circumstance of not only the Muslim woman being wronged, but we also do not know the circumstances of the customers. Some of you might argue that no circumstance would be enough to justify ignoring injustice, and I can see that point, but I also think the line could potentially become blurry because of past experience and inherent fear. Note that I said "could potentially..." because I do think in the vast majority of cases people should feel it is their right to stand up for their fellow man (or woman) in defense of the most basic of values that those from every major religion should believe in, namely love, justice, and kindness.

Race Relations Project : When Do We Do or Say Something?

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:20:09 +0000

Our recent class discussions, particularly Thursday's class, reminded me of a quote that I like, which states, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for everything." Though there are indeed many concepts and processes and beliefs that I cannot understand, one of the most infuriating and illogical concepts to me is a person (or a group of people) who will refuse to stand up for what he or she knows is right, perpetuating passivity in the face of injustice. I have had personal experience in regards to this that hits too close to home; I cannot understand it and I do not support it. The reasons why people do this - practicing what is essentially denial - can range from this person not wanting to become "involved" because somehow he or she feels the situation does not directly include him or her to this person's overwhelming apathy, that he or she simply does not care about trying issues of the times (which in itself is a sad truth). Nevertheless, if an individual refuses to stand up for any beliefs that he or she holds, that same individual, in essence, will succumb to the most blatant of lies, "falling for everything." If we allow ourselves to transform into a people who "do not stand", a people who "do not care" about anything, then the direction of the country and of the world will be going awry. Thus, what is to be done? I think the problem is twofold because, on one hand, we have the individuals who completely ignore reality (i.e., the customers who came into the shop in the video from class who did not defend the young woman or speak out against her) as well as those whose "value system" has somehow been warped into a group of stereotypical and prejudicial beliefs. If people are taught bigotry from a young age, how do we remove that and foster an awareness of the truth coupled with a spirit of love and openness? I am not sure how beliefs that have been ingrained in a people's psyche from day one can be undone; we notice this in parts of our reading in Disposable People - societies where they honestly believe that they are born into the life they deserve and thus if they are slaves, they must deserve it, a belief that makes me want to shake these people and tell them how much they do NOT deserve what they live through on a daily basis. ...Continued in part 2

Race Relations Project : LGBT Class - Question Four

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:43:22 +0000

I consider myself to be a religious person, and I uphold the beliefs of my religion as much as I can. I agree with the idea of Sam's argument being a faulty one because of the reasons said by the student in this video - if the original, sacred definition of something is being broken time and time again, until the word itself has thousands of individuals debating about its very meaning, does the word mean anything at all? If you tend to view everything as "not a big deal", would not the world become complacent? If the world became complacent, what would happen to values, beliefs, and basic principles? In a perfect world, all those who claim to follow certain religions would follow their religions flawlessly, but we all clearly know, we are NOT living in a perfect world. Sin exists in its many different forms and we as human beings, each imperfect as we are, fall victim to sin all the time; that should never, however, mean that we stop our struggle for the GOOD. God knows we are imperfect and thus, we should not fall victim to the sin and "accept" that we are sinning, but we should work to change our ways and live better. I believe that even if you make the same mistake(s) thousands of times, you can always seek forgiveness and work towards a fresh start for yourself. Therefore, I do not believe you can make the argument that "religious followers are hypocrites because they hold a certain belief, and yet break other beliefs" because no one is (or is expected to be) perfect. Individuals commit acts they know are wrong every day, but that should not equate them to being "right." That being said, I want to make clear that Sam's lecture, as well as a few certain individuals I have met, broadened my perspective on LGBT issues in the recent past, and I have been struggling as to what is right and what is a just solution. As an individual and as my religion holds, I respect every human as a person formed in the image and likeness of God, regardless of race or religion or sexual orientation. Hearing varied viewpoints and speaking with people who themselves identify as gay has given me a lot to think about in regards to what I have always believed. A person is a person and, as a person, he or she deserves "inalienable rights." However, I think when it comes to marriage, so much changes IF you hold the word "marriage" to mean a sacred union between a man and a woman meant to create a family, which is what I believe. And, despite the varying viewpoints I have heard, I stand by this belief. I also do not believe that anyone can "come at" that definition, so to speak, by presenting the worst examples that themselves do not uphold the definition, such as those we saw in class of weddings that are happening for all the wrongs reasons (monetary gain, deception, Las Vegas weddings, etc.). The essence of "marriage" in the truest sense of the word can and should be seen when looking at couples who believe in the definition I mentioned above, and who are making a lifelong commitment to each other to uphold that definition all the days of their lives. This definition does not mean that a husband or a wife or both will not make mistakes, because they will; it means they will never give up on one another and dedicate themselves to each other unconditionally. What makes marriage so sacred and good, as is what makes so many other things so sacred and good, is the essence and root of the institution, which in this case exists between a man and a woman and their ability to have children together. The faults of individuals, government, and/or society should not take away from that, as was used in Sam's defense of his view of the word "marriage" and the cartoon he showed our class Tuesday. It is not fair to say. Just as I, as a straight person, can never fully claim to understand the viewpoints or feelings of a member of the gay community, a person who was not raised upholding or believing in the religious beliefs I hold so dear, can never claim to fully understand them either. The problem is a gradual chipping away at what is truth. I am afraid that steps such as transforming the definition of one of the most sacred institutions in religion BY government therefore makes "marriage" belong to the government. Give individuals the right, but do not give government what belongs to religion. Understand that just like those who are gay and not necessarily flaunting it (as Sam talked about in class), that those who are fighting for marriage remaining as a union between one man and one woman are not necessarily doing so as an action AGAINST the gay community. Rather, they are fighting for what they believe finds its source in the God Who allows every single one of us to breath another day, and I cannot understand taking God "out of our classroom" or, more relevantly, out of marriage. I do believe God loves all of His children, which someone who is for gay marriage could use as part of his/her defense, but again, I have to return to what marriage is as a religious institution between one man and one woman who intend to have children and dedicate themselves to each other forever.

Race Relations Project : All That is Solid Melts Into Air -- Including Our Words

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:47:14 +0000

When I first read this post, I was struck by a few things and I feel torn on the issue discussed for a couple different reasons. First of all, the title, "All that is solid melts into air - including our words" caught my attention right away because of the poetic nature of the words. Once I read the article, my second inclination was honestly leaning towards apathy -- a little sad feeling, but mostly not really seeing the true "devastation" of the loss of this language (especially in the way it was compared to the kind of devastation we have just seen in Haiti - I do not think it can even be taken on the same scale at all). After taking some time to think about this issue and read more on the influence of language on a culture and a people, I can see both sides from the two feelings I initially described above; one, for as long as I can remember, I have absolutely loved to write - I adore the written word, and I am constantly being inspired by the intricate and amazing ways that various human beings can put certain words together, words you have heard time and time again, and yet they SAY something to you you never even thought to consider. It's incredible, and yet so many people fail to appreciate the beauty of the written word. Thus, in the same respect, I have a genuine appreciation for the spoken word as well, including language. I took Italian all throughout high school and then again here at Penn State for the sole reason that I was interested in Italy as a country, the Italians as a culture and a people, but also because the language itself is beautiful. It's romantic; it rolls off the tongue. You can say something so simple in Italian and, to me, it sounds like a poem. I can understand the idea of using what we can learn/hear from a language to truly understand more about the unique beauties and lifestyles of an entire group of people. Thus, it is sad that so many languages are dying off, but is it sadder that most people probably are not even aware these languages existed in the first place? I think the plaguing question is that why is this class the first time many of us are ever hearing that there are so many different languages being spoken in the world? I think one of the most crucial things these indigenous people can do is to write down their languages, write down their words, their thoughts, their explanations. Try to keep a record of the language that did so influence their very people and their own way of life. Otherwise, the languages, as implied, may be lost forever, and the mysteries they hold (though I am not sure I understand these mysteries myself either) lost as well. It is important for us to be culturally aware -- for us to learn from the linguistic habits of those gone before us -- and to make connections between the written and spoken word, as well as in day to day activities, decisions, governments, etc. On the other hand, I can equally understand those who read this and do not really understand the "big deal," especially when languages becomes synonymous with communication. I think the trick is to remember that language can be connected to so many different things and can lead to development in so many different areas, that it is not limited to communication between people of similar or varying backgrounds. Would it not be best, though, if fewer languages existed and the majority of the world was able to understand one another? Who can deny that better means to understanding would come about via a common language? Or at least a few common languages? I can see the benefits of this as well, but I think the caveat has to be in not allowing the lesser-known languages to fade away entirely. If a language has been passed down through your people or tribe or community, TEACH your children from a young age as if you are teaching of your very soul. The BBC article hinted at one point that children and community members wanted to learn, but when it came down to it, they did not put in the work. If these people were taught an appreciation for what the language means and represents (the fact that it can and perhaps SHOULD mean more to a culture than just words being said or written down), then I honestly believe they would put in the necessary effort to keep the language alive. Even if they learned English or another widely-known language, and practiced in writing the lesser-known language, at least they would be keeping the roots of the language from dying out. Thus, the importance of language should not be underestimated, but an ever-changing world should work in ways that promote compromise and discussion among all.

Race Relations Project : Avatar and the White Man's Burden

Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:06:12 +0000

.... (continued below) This, however, I disagree with and/or if the messages are there, I think reading into them is another example of a politically correct community being ultra-sensitive and immediately drawing the conclusion that just BECAUSE the “hero” of the film has “white” skin, the film MUST then be another attempt of the white man to pull every other race down and proclaim that he/she is the superior race. PLEASE. I honestly do not think Cameron preconceived this message and/or that individuals who are offended by the main character being portrayed by a “white man” should truly believe that the filmmakers desired this. As I read in a previous blog response (and as I believe based on my readings reviews, as I have not seen the film yet, mentioned above), it seems to me the hero could have been of any other skin color and the film would retain its popularity, incredible technological effects, widespread audience, and success. I honestly believe this. Sometimes reading too far into things can cause viewers to miss the intended message of the film. Sure, viewers could come to this assumption because the main character happens to be “white,” but I have no doubt that if these same viewers researched movies in which hero protagonists were of other races, whichever they may be, they would find those as well. If you’re looking hard enough for something, you may often find it. Likewise, I think it must mean something different depending on viewers’ knowledge and background. For example, I read an interesting article from Forbes.com that talked about how the film, which initially was huge in China, was pulled from theaters there. The article, written by Damien Ma (http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/03/avatar-james-cam... , states, “What is to Americans a film about colonialism, militarism, and sustainability is to the average Chinese a cautionary tale about frequently experienced social and economic injustice. To many Chinese bloggers, Avatar is unmistakably a fable about unscrupulous city enforcement officials, known as chengguan, forcefully evicting residents in the name of local development.” See what I mean? Thus, the impression left on the audience members must come about as twofold (or maybe even more than that…) because it comes about as a result of what the viewers are physically seeing in front of them on the screen, but also what the viewers read into the images before them based upon personal experience and knowledge. So sure, critics can discuss how political or racist or environmental Cameron’s movie is until they have pounded the issue into the ground, but the reactions themselves are more subjective than they might care to admit. In an article from The Villanovan, Villanova University’s newspaper, Rev. David Cregan, O.S.A., a professor in the theater department there, said, “Art can create perspective…But art is not doctrine.” I guess I will have to go see the movie for myself (after all this!) and see what my impressions are and/or if I change my mind about disagreeing with Brooks’ ideas.

Race Relations Project : Avatar and the White Man's Burden

Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:06:00 +0000

After reading Sam's post, Brooks' article on "The Messiah Complex," and a myriad of student responses, I literally feel exhausted - trying to decipher what is and is not being said/done in the film and if what viewers are ‘seeing’ in it was actually a frame of reference for James Cameron when he made the film. I wish I could say that I have seen Avatar and thus could provide a more knowledgeable response to what is being said, but unfortunately I have yet to do so. Like I have read in many other posts, I had no desire to see the movie initially, but my brothers and close friends all raved about it after they saw it in theaters, thus piquing my curiosity. The fact that now one of our race relations posts focuses on the underlying messages of the film makes me all the more interested to go and see it. However, I do think I can shed some light on the controversy based on my opinions and reactions because I have read Brooks' ideas, as well as other feedback (both positive and negative) the film received based on what messages it is really trying to convey to its massive audience. I read over Christmas break that Avatar was really a story proclaiming a strong anti-war, anti-military, and pro-environment message, thus seeming to be yet another liberal film promoting a "green" message and implying that nature is more important than humanity. I read criticism that came from the Vatican, which worried that the film's focus on nature transformed protection of the earth/resources around us into a form of worship. When I heard this, I wasn't sure how I felt about that either - I think oftentimes both ends of the spectrum (extreme conservative and extreme liberal) tend to read much too deeply into artistic pieces, whether they be movies, books, documentaries, etc., such as this one. Can't the public ever go view a movie with incredible digital 3-D and technological effects without it being overwhelmingly political and controversial? Apparently the answer is no, and, despite my "glass half full" side wanting to believe that movies can be defined merely as means to escape from the realities of life, I think that notion is naive and usually false. Thus, in my various readings, I can indeed see the pro-environment, anti-military, anti-war messages being a significant part of this film. Are the messages even that hidden, however? An interesting article I read noted that James Cameron has not been “secretive” about these kinds of themes being shown more outwardly, rather than more hidden, within the film. Art has always been a way of expressing opinions or feelings – I think the danger comes for viewers who do not have knowledge from all sides of the story and who may see the movie and automatically be convinced of its messages, when in all actuality if they researched the environment, natural resources, the government, military procedures, etc., from all sides, they might come to a completely different conclusion. Cameron himself has not been quiet about his opinions; in an interview with PBS’ Tavis Smiley, he said he knows he made “obvious” references in the movie to Vietnam, Iraq, and the American colonial period, in an attempt to illuminate humans’ history of taking more than they provide and not giving back. Should these themes, then, refute Brooks’ opinions? Honestly, I am curious to go see the movie to see if I immediately notice these messages and/or if it lives up to the hype, despite the fact that I cannot see myself agreeing fully with what Cameron is trying to say. Yes, humanity needs to respect the earth around us and the limited natural resources the earth provides us with, but nature is not on the same level as human beings themselves, which is where I think the controversy kicks in, in a variety of ways. Nature is to be respected, but it doesn’t have a soul; nature is to be treated well and not misused, but not worshipped. I think viewing Cameron’s views would add to a person’s take on the issue(s) despite his/her view of them because even if viewers disagree, they can respect a different point of view. But is the film about respecting the environment? Is it about anti-military sentiments that are actually equivalent to anti-American sentiments? Is Cameron, a Canadian film director, purposely pointing fingers at American governmental decisions he does not approve of and, if so, is he pointing fingers at their environmental choices, their military decisions, or their political decisions – or all of the above? If the film is going to be taken on much deeper levels than as is, which seems to be how most critics are classifying it, perhaps Brooks felt he could see it as a racist plot as well. ...

Race Relations Project : Racism Looks Pretty Mild on This Side of the Atlantic

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:16:27 +0000

(continued 4) I found this article interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/sports/29iht-cu... It touches on racism in soccer, especially in Italy and Spain. The author, Rob Hughes, says, “Sport is colorblind. History taught us that when Jesse Owens embarrassed Hitler’s racist theories at the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games.” The article goes on to talk about how the “punishment” and “repercussions” for the despicable actions are not harsh enough to keep the perpetrators from doing them over and over again. The article mentions that in England, there is a penalty for “racial chants at a sporting ground,” but the penalties in Spain and Italy (where the problems seem to be the most escalated) are much lesser or not enforced. The article also quotes Marcello Lippi, the former Italian national team coach. He said, “The Inter fans have insulted human nature. There is only one race, the human race.” This statement is something we all need to put into perspective, ESPECIALLY those who are as racist as those seen in the video at the soccer games. (I tried multiple times to type as one comment, but it would not submit! I'm sorry!)

Race Relations Project : Racism Looks Pretty Mild on This Side of the Atlantic

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:16:07 +0000

(continued 3) Last spring, I studied abroad in Rome, and I attended two European soccer games, AS Roma and AC Milan. I did not take notice of these kinds of horrible racist behaviors at all, but I am wondering if it was because I was not in the section where the hardcore fans sit (so I may not have been able to hear them) or I missed what was being said or done (if it indeed occurred at the games when I was there). Regardless, I am still in shock and cannot believe that this goes on, especially aimed towards fans of great talent and status in the world of what these countries label their most prized sport. Clearly, it shows that the racism of these people is embedded in their minds and goes beyond a person’s status, success, or position, which means it will be all the more difficult to find solutions to; how do you rid someone of a practice or belief if he/she refuses to hear why it is wrong or how it can be altered/fixed? ...

Race Relations Project : Racism Looks Pretty Mild on This Side of the Atlantic

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:15:45 +0000

(continued 2) Yes, we all are aware that racism still exists in America in our day-to-day lives, but as I have read in many other posts, the horrible racist tendencies of players, coaches, and especially fans, would never be tolerated at American sporting events. Perhaps the idea of political correctness, as we discussed in class, is not necessarily always a good one, but the fear of insulting someone unknowingly and the so-called “PC” culture we have come to adapt in America almost results in an opposite effect. If those in the United States did this, the slightest comment could be taken the wrong way and would result in harsher consequences than what we are seeing in Europe (not to mention the fact that the comments made by European soccer fans, etc., are much more obvious in their meaning/message). Those taking part in these actions are hypocritical themselves, especially those who wear a team’s colors and then proceed to bring down members of that team solely because of the color of those team members’ skin. It is absolutely deplorable and disgusting.

Race Relations Project : Racism Looks Pretty Mild on This Side of the Atlantic

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:15:27 +0000

(continued) My immediate reaction after seeing this video, from only FOUR years ago, however, was utter shock because I have meditated on the fact of what happened in the past, but in all honesty, have not realized what continues to happen even now. It makes me feel as if the line should be “Consider that this IS”, that these individuals still today, in a world that we are programmed to believe has come so far, constantly deal with being degraded and put down, to what seems like little (if any at all) reaction from authorities in both the sport and the governments involved. Has the world as a whole regressed? ...

Race Relations Project : Racism Looks Pretty Mild on This Side of the Atlantic

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:15:06 +0000

Yesterday (January 27) was the United Nations’ International Holocaust Day of Remembrance, which I immediately thought of after viewing the video because of the completely unbelievable racist words and actions that it depicted. In a poem written by Holocaust survivor and author Primo Levi (author of the memoir Survival in Auschwitz), Levi says, “Consider if this is a man…”, a line that has stuck with me ever since. He warned those “who live safe in your warm houses” to meditate on the fact that “this has been”, that innocent men, women, and children were treated as less than human, as less than even animals. ...