I don't believe that you need to begin with a great amount of money in order to be able to make something of yourself. It is easier, granted, but it is not the deciding factor in determining one's success. Money is very hard to come by. If it were easier, most of us would be "rolling in dough" so to speak. But it's not; as such, we must work harder to attain monetary compensation, enough that would support not only ourselves, but our families. In regards to the girl stating that all immigrants must work legally for money, I believe that is a fanciful perspective. Our government does not favor "outsiders". As such, most immigrants resort to working illegally as a means of putting food on their tables. Most of these illegal jobs are illegal only because of the lack of documented evidence of the job being effected. They are not jobs selling drugs, murdering, or any such felonious activity. It is very easy for us to judge the immigrant for working illegally, but it is important that we examine the circumstances under which they are propelled to do so.

I do believe that regulations are necessary to ensure that immigrants do not take advantage of the system, and are indeed looking to become legal residents in the eventuality. I believe that though the government does not favor the immigrant community, it does not at the same time cripple them. I believe that there are multitudinous opportunities for which they can utilize to better their situation. Most of the immigrants in this nation are hard-working, but are content to be doing the same thing with no intentions to progress. I believe that that is the problem. If more incentive was provided for these immigrants to become legal, perhaps it would help to eradicate some of the problems we have with the immigrants currently living here.

It is hard enough as it is to work for little pay, but to work illegally for little pay presents a great disadvantage for the individual in that circumstance. It allows opportunities for abuse by your employer, and provides no legal benefits such as health care, etc. In the event that legal issues arise between employer and employee, it would be very difficult to go against an employer when your position in his or her employ is illegal. Attempting to contest any proposed offense would be to almost no avail on the part of the illegal worker because of their status in the U.S. system. If some of these points are stressed to the workers, perhaps it would provide a more pragmatic perspective on why it would be beneficial to attempt legality in the U.S.

Thursday's class was particularly interesting to me because it reinforced something that I've believed since the beginning of the war. However, put in the way that it was, it makes a lot of sense and I hope many of the students in the class understood. We are just as much terrorists to the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as they are to us. We’ve spent all of our lives living in our shoes and never understanding, or wanting to understand what it is to live in the shoes of others. In class, I really enjoyed Sam making us think of ourselves as the “other”, causing us to have to understand what it means to be the individuals on the opposing side.

There are certain things that I didn't agree with as well. I do not believe the ideal term for what the war in Iraq is to the Iraqi's is a "Christian Invasion" like a previous student stated. I am a Christian myself, and I harbor no malice towards anyone, Muslim or other, because of their religion. These individuals invading the Iraqi and Afghan nations are radicals. The war is about oil as Sam stated. The fact that the country being invaded is Muslim is to me, a is not important save for the fact that their suicide bombers are the same religion as most of the nation.

The Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are not attacking us because of our Christianity nor is the U.S. doing so because the countries are Muslim. To call it a "Christian Invasion" implies that the war is based solely on religion rather than other factors. I do not believe that the individuals there hate us because we are Christian. There are many Christians in the Middle East; they hate us because we are invading their land taking what is not ours. The world is full of prejudiced people who use the smallest excuses to justify their ignorance and dislike of anything foreign. This is reflected in our society, and in the way many of us have used the war to justify discrimination against Muslims (even those who are not from the Middle East.

There is missionary work done all over the world. This does not indicate that Christians are attempting to violently invade countries to convert everyone there. People of a choice. To me, this is like introducing me to a new way of thinking that I have never explored. Yet in the end, I reserve the right to continue thinking in that way, or going back to the way I always thought. That was probably one of the few things I did not like about the lecture though I understood why he alluded to such.

I'm a person of color, and based on my own experiences, I do not see someone in a catalog like LL Bean and automatically assume they are "white washed". For me personally, that's not what I am looking for. And what does it mean to be white washed anyway? I kind of feel that the statement made by Sam in class is boxing people of color into a stereotype of what we assume another person of color should be like. It's hypocritical in that respect. Looking in a catalog, I'm looking to see a person of color period. I don't care how they are dressed, or what catalog they are in; my objective is to find them represented in the catalog at all. My next thought is then how dark or light the individual is.

I honestly respect and understand a lot of where Sam is coming from, and I give him a lot of credit for being free thinking and being significantly more aware than most individuals, regardless of color; however, I don't believe he knows the mind of a person of color as well as he believes he does. I don't think it's an issue of never really being satisfied. I believe the issue is, due to the history existing between white people and people of color, it is justifiable for people of color to be wary of the motives of white people. In a catalog, are you actually representing a person of color because you want to, or are you placing a very light skinned individual that can almost pass for just white, to fulfill a quota and appease the public?

I have many friends who are white; however, coming to State College has made me extremely sensitive to the motives of white people who talk to me. Yes, I want to be treated as an equal, and seen as such; yet I know that because of history, it is not easy or maybe even instinctual for white people to see me in the regard. Because of this, when a white person approaches me, my guard comes up because I don't know whether or not I can and should trust them. Why is it that people revert back to hanging with people of their same race? Because the fear of being patronized because of your color does not exist. You no longer have to question their motives regarding race. Plain and simply, they understand. People don't always want to have to explain why they are equal to, or justify their race to a white person. Sometimes, you just want to be comfortable and know that you can be who you are without being judged as a product of your racial group. It's sad, but unfortunately it's the reality forced upon us by our society.

Watching the video, I felt ashamed and a lot of pain. I felt ashamed to be a part of a society that fosters such thoughts in children. As a dark skinned African girl myself, I felt the pain of being that little girl struggling to identify herself as a person who looks like the "bad doll". I asked the same question now, I know that I would choose the dark-skinned doll because it looks most like me; but asked the same question, maybe even as few as 5 or 6 years ago, I am not so sure. I may have very well chosen the white doll as being my preference because of what I know in society to be beautiful.

There was a time not so long ago, when I struggled with being dark-skinned. I love myself now, but I had to get to that point. Society has socialized us to believe that dark skin is not beautiful. Dark skin is not high on anyone's standard of beauty. However, once you make a break through, and realize societies socialization of skin color as being in the eye of the beholder, you develop a new appreciation for yourself. I would never change the color of my skin. I love it! I understand my skin as being a part of what makes me my fabulous self.

Initially, I watched the video and felt the stirrings of self pity; however, that was quickly over powered by anger towards the society in which we live. I wanted to get up in class and ask the lighter complexioned individuals if my skin was ugly, and why if they said yes. I was pissed for being placed on a beauty spectrum based on color, and forced to be on the bottom because of the skewed ideas of what is thought beautiful. I felt even angrier for the kids. The confusion brought on by what they see in the mirror, and what society tells them to believe is epic. They're innocent eyes begin to tell them that they are ugly because society says they look like what ugly and bad is. It's sad and pathetic that we as a society have allowed this to happen.

Personally, I believe that we should do more to restructure socialization so that it incorporates the acceptance of all skin colors being beautiful. I do not want to be responsible for my future children believing themselves any less or more attractive, bad, or worthy, than the next individual merely based on the darkness or lightness of their skin. I really appreciate beauty companies that work to promote beauty as indigenous to all skin tones. However, the media needs to do more to further this cause.

I would like to begin by saying that the term "colored people" is dated and offensive. I am not a crayon, so it is not a term that sits well with me personally. I do understand that "people of color" is very similar and means the same, but it is a bit easier to palate. With that said, I do agree that there were offensive comments made by both parties in regards to the question posted up. I feel that neither was right and both were unjustified. I don't believe many people took the assignment very seriously to begin with. But for those who did, I do believe that there were some good points made. There is a certain privilege that comes with being white. I certainly do not believe that this means most white people are any less hard working than the next person of color. I believe what people were attempting to convey was that it is easier to gain a level of success being white and working hard then it is to gain the same success being a person of color and working just as hard.

I think that many of our experiences have engendered a certain bitterness in most of us. This, I believe was reflected in some of the comments posted of the board. In my opinion, I believe that Sam did not address the negative comments posted by the people of color because he understood that some people were venting, so to speak. I'm not agreeing with what some people wrote in the least, but I do understand that perhaps some used the opportunity to vent some hard feelings. Personally I believe it was childish and petty, but I understand all the same.

In a similar vein, I believe Sam chastised the white people for their negative comments because there were no real grounds from which certain comments derived. I believe the point was for us to try to understand each other, and for white people to understand the frustration just as people of color should as well. I don't think either party really gave that a chance with some of the comments; and perhaps this may sound stupid to many people, but I think the people of color were frustrated with their lot and took it out with the messages written on the board.

My comment didn't make it to the board, but what I did write was that when I think of white people, I think of people who don't really understand. I think with time, I'm learning to understand the other side, and I recognize that others are as well. But I think it's important to remember that bitterness does exist, and it will come to the forefront on more than one occasion during our time in class. I think they go further in helping us than actually hurting us in our learning about one another.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, if that was a problem to begin with, they shouldn't have hired her. It's a slap in the face to go into a position thinking you have all of the qualifications, only to find out a few months later that you are terminated for something your employer has known about you since day one. IT's almost a feeling of betrayal. There is a moment of relief when you feel that you are accepted, only to find out that that was a false comfort because you are NOT accepted. Personally, I feel that what Abercrombie did was wrong. And to make light of the situation saying that you will begin a religion and demand employment protection, is a little disrespectful. The Muslim religion is one of the oldest and respected religions. They have their guidelines, and as such followers adhere to those guidelines. However, equal employment laws do not exclude individuals because of religious gear.
In what way is she going against the image of the company? What makes her any less Abercrombie material then the next person? She has a right to her upset because she was discriminated against. Abercrombie has had a history of discriminatory acts. This is not the first time so justifications of such actions are to me, unacceptable. They’ve shown their true colors over and over again and to make light of another such discriminatory action is despicable in my opinion.
I think it’s important that we all put ourselves in this girl’s shoes. How would we feel in a situation where we were denied a position because of our religion? Granted, Abercrombie is not attacking the Muslim religion as a whole; however, the reason for which she can no longer work there is a direct result of her religious practices. It’s offensive to feel that you cannot be who you are because you won’t fit in, or you won’t get a job. If she adhered to Abercrombie’s strictures by sticking to the colors, I don’t understand why she should be fired. I can understand that Abercrombie is trying to maintain a certain “look”, but that look is not one of diversity. In a nation where we are struggling to get past discrimination every day, it is to be expected that a blow such as this would cause a commotion. I personally feel that it sets us back quite a bit, and elucidates just how far we have not come. Over the years, we have made strides, but clearly not enough when one is fired from a position for adhering to the mandates of his or her religious beliefs.

I feel that the article was highly biased. The vast majority if individuals today, who follow some version of the Bible, follow more of the New Testament than the Old Testament. During the time of the Old Testament, the world was very different than what we know today. However, over the years, the commandments written in the bible have been modified to accommodate times such as the one in which we now live. Granted, the bible is a book inspired by the God, but it doesn’t postulate to be anymore than that. The individuals who wrote the bible made clear distinctions between direct commandment by God, and those interpreted by themselves. Regardless of which, it is a book that guides the lives of many. I believe that everyone is going to have their own interpretation of the book, but the ability to do so any way we chooses was also granted to us by God.

Going back to the idea of Eve being made from the bone of Adams penis, in my interpretation, I don’t believe this to be true. The penis is where the seed which produces off spring comes from. To say that Eve was produced from the bone of Adams penis symbolically puts her in the position of Adams child. However, the rib is at the side of the man. I do not believe God made a mistake and commanded the writers of the book to say rib when he actually meant penis. God doesn’t make mistakes. And as the divine inspirer of the bible, I don’t believe that there are mistakes in the book either. The time was different, and what we perceive as a mistake written in the word now, was not a mistake to those who wrote it. Our interpretation is based on the evolution of time and knowledge. As such, I believe the bible should be read with the knowledge that it is still more than relevant to us as individuals today, but was written in a context suited to the time in which the book was originally written. Yet, I digress. I do not believe there was a mistake between rib and penis. Symbolically, the rib at Adams side represents a helpmate; someone who will stand at the side the man. To me, this makes more sense than being drawn from the penis. I feel that Eve not being from the penis accommodates the fact that incest would in time be seen as wrong. In the New Testament, we see a new era of commandments that better suit our ability to follow despite our different time period.

I think the reason for which black and white people are always at the heart of a racial discussion, is in part like was stated, a result of the efforts of African Americans in making themselves a noticeable presence in the U.S. But I also believe that a part of the reason is even simpler than movements and such. I believe a part of it is simply the drastic difference in our complexion. I believe that people often go back to the topic not only because it was the most vocal struggle, but it was the struggle which included people most dramatically different in appearance.
The issue of slavery itself was a result of difference in race. Individuals went so far as to determine a biological inferiority in blacks as a result of their complexion. African Americans were seen as subhuman because of the color of their skin. The struggle in and of itself was because of the color of African American skin. In many cultures, not just that of North Americans, the darker your skin is, the more unattractive you are. People strive to lighten their complexions in many cultures so as to appear more attractive by the standards of their society. As such, the issue of race and discrimination is more so concentrated on black and white because black people have the darkest complexions and is therefore the most present in the minds of individuals discussing inequality resulting from difference.
I think It is easy for people to refer to because the difference is physical and requires little thought.. Arabs are discriminated against because of their religion. It is a discrimination based not only on appearance, but on the deeper issue of religion, which requires more thought. As such, it often eludes individuals who want to discuss discrimination without having to think deeply about anything other than the blatant physical difference between black and white.
Often, I think about why the people seem to forget that the racial issue is not just between black and white people. Over time, I’ve concluded that people keep coming back to it because it was the longest struggle. Native Americans struggled for their land, but they are no longer as numerous as they were and no longer a strong presence due to their diminished numbers. But the blacks are constantly increasing in number and as such, continue to remain present in the minds of individuals having the racial discussion. Asians, to my way of thinking, are seen as less threatening because of their lighter complexions. Granted their facial features are different, but it is easier for people to overlook that difference because the color of their skin is not so different. Also, slavery was one of the most violent periods in American history. The violence began because of the skin color of individuals, and is still an ongoing battle for the same reasons.

I agree that it is not the place of westerners to try and dictate what the people of the east, or any other part of the world for that matter, should do. We live in very different worlds, and what is right for us, is not the same for everybody. However there are certain circumstances under which I feel another country should be able to step in and say something about what a country is doing. A few years back, I did a presentation about honor killings in predominantly Muslim countries. An honor killing is when a member of a family or clan, is killed for what appears a justifiable reason. One of the things that struck me about this particular custom was the fact that the victims were mostly women. Certain cases that we examined discussed women killed for not wearing the customary "hijab" of their culture. This was disturbing because it made oppression by families okay for women.

However, I do realize that not all of the women wearing "hijabs" are under the same oppressive pressure as others living in their country. Despite this, there are still those who live under these oppressive dictates. I don't believe that the west should govern and tell these countries what is right or wrong, but I do believe that human rights activists have a right to fight to these laws abolished. The freedom of progressive women in these countries does not take away from the injustice being done to other women within their culture. Many of these women have grown up knowing that this is how they should be treated, poorly and as inferior to men. But, sometimes it takes an outsider to make someone realize the circumstances of their situation. It is not always a negative when someone introduces a new point of view the may help enrich what you knew before.

It all really just depends on the approach taken by the western countries. The women who choose to wear their customary “hijab” CHOSE to wear them. They were not forced to do so as others in their culture are. As such, we should work to give these women a choice. Granted, it is not the way in which many of us were raised, and it may seem pretentious in a sense, to portray that your way is better than another’s. But I don’t believe that is the objective. Given the history of the west, freedom from oppression has always been something that seemed necessary to fight for. Perhaps the apparent oppression of women in certain Muslim countries is a freedom the west feels they should fight for as well.

It’s interesting to observe how society’s perceptions of light skinned versus dark skinned affects the way people perceive themselves. Sammy Sosa, a very well known athlete, and clearly a male, shows the evidence of how far individuals will go to fulfill society’s. There is a misperception that issues of light and dark is only referenced in regard to black, brown and white people. However, it is an issue within the black community. Therefore, I do not believe that Sammy Sosa’s complexion change is a result of him attempting to be white. I believe it is a result of him wanting to be lighter within the dark-skinned community. It’s an insecurity shared not only by women, but by men as well. Within the black community, many believe that the lighter skin positively correlates with attractiveness and social status. In all honesty, I do believe that was the motivation behind Sammy Sosa’s transformation.
We spend so much time reflecting on the racial dichotomy between people of color and white people; but in doing so, we neglect to realize the issues that exists within the individual subgroups. Sosa’s dramatically altered appearance brings light to the insecurities of many. It is illogical to assume that one will achieve whiteness through bleaching processes. But it is very possible to achieve a lightness of complexion that is more so than another person within your racial group. This is the motivation for a lot of individuals who undergo these procedures and utilize bleaching products.
As a society, we have projected the idea that light is right. I say light because light is not necessarily white. Many believe that because whiteness cannot be achieved by artificial means, the next best thing is to be as light as possible. It is a sad reality to witness as a dark skinned African American woman.
I remember being younger and wishing I was slightly lighter then I am. It’s interesting to reflect upon now that I am older. At school, fellow black and brown students would look down on me because I was not lighter in complexion. Naturally, this weighed on my self esteem. That was on a much smaller scale than what someone like Sammy Sosa would experience. The difference though between Sammy Sosa and I is that I grew out of my insecurities. There comes a time when you realize that you are who you are. It is sad to witness an individual alter their appearance to better suit society. I realized a long time ago that the color of my skin, whether dark or light, does not affect my character, nor reflects the ability for me to succeed. Granted it will be more difficult because of the history of our community, but I cannot fathom selling out to make life a little more pleasant for everyone else.