gdp's Comments

Race Relations Project : South Park...off the hook?

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:32 +0000

First of all those two episodes were brilliant. South Park has always looked to walk the line in terms of what’s acceptable for cable television, and at times, has crossed it in the minds of many. To be honest, I think they cross the line at times, and I’m a huge fan. However, what critics of the show tend to see when they watch an episode is vulgar humor, political incorrectness, and jokes aimed at certain people and religions. What they constantly fail to see is the moral message that lies in every episode. South Park is by nature an ongoing satire. They are frequently covering current events in the episodes, and tackling issues that other programs would shy away from. In reality, South Park is one of the finest examples of free speech in our country today. They push the extremes of what is appropriate for cable television weekly. However, the creators of the show rarely do something for purely entertainment purposes. For example, in the most recent episodes they show Buddha snorting cocaine on a constant basis. While these scenes are funny to me in their own right, they achieve something greater than just humor. The scene is meant to say “look at how we can trash other religions and get away with it, but not Islam”, since Mohammed is constantly censored. The writers are pointing to a huge inconsistency in our society, and are doing it in a very raw fashion. This is something they do week after week. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are not pretending to be right, or to have all the answers. To be honest they do a lot of what Sam does...they get people to ask questions. They highlight facets of society from a moral standpoint, at no small risk to themselves apparently. In essence, they are poking holes in our cultural practices. What is so terrifying about all of this is the degree people will go to protect these practices. As the speaker said, a group has threatened Stone and Parker with death for the recent episodes. Threats of death over something as trivial as the made up face of a religious figure? This seems incredibly ridiculous when you consider that they did not even show Mohammed’s face. This is just further proof that the writers were poking fun at the concept of not being able to show Mohammed as opposed to actually making fun of the religious figure. Yea I know, but to some even just mocking the ideal is not very trivial. However, where do we draw the line of being politically correct or morally correct? South Park tends to focus on being morally correct, often showing us an unbiased perspective we may not otherwise see.

Race Relations Project : Christian Invaders - the turnaround

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:02:17 +0000

I always read the other posts before I myself do, just to see what everyone else is saying. I must admit, I was rather surprised at the things that I was reading. Sam made it very clear in the beginning of class that nothing he was about to say pertained to his personal views about ANYTHING. Yep, that includes Christianity. He’s a sociology teacher damnit, he doesn’t take sides in front of us; he shows us why the sides exist, which is exactly what he was trying to do today. A lot of people seem to have completely missed Sam’s point; that we were simply to take on the perspective of another person (a Middle Eastern Muslim in this case) and take it for what it was. There is no reason to sit here and debate why the US went to war with Iraq, because that’s not what the lecture was about. During that class I was told to take the view of an Iraqi college student. I was told about how my country was invaded by people largely of a certain religious denomination, who were admittedly after my country’s resources and killing my people. While making war on us, missionaries poured out of their country and began converting my neighbors. Does it look to me like Christians are trying to convert and kill myself and my neighbors, all the while stealing our property? Absolutely. Does that really mean all Christians are trying to convert or kill every Muslim? As a citizen of the United States I can honestly answer no to this question, because I personally know this to be untrue. As a citizen of the United States do I think Middle Eastern Muslims are trying to kill and convert Christians? Many Americans may in fact answer yes, as shown in that ridiculous JIHAD video Sam showed. Doe that really mean all Muslims are trying to convert or kill Christians? Obviously not, or did that go over everyone’s head too? In other words, both Muslims and Christians have their share of ignorant hate-spewing sheep, but these pleasant folks are far from the majority. The point Sam was trying to make is that on the other side of this whole issue, things are not what they appear. While you could argue that he was making points about the war, I don’t know how the hell anyone could say he was making points about Christianity. His point was that to Iraqi’s it looks like we are using the war to try and convert them; whether that’s the case or not is irrelevant. And on that note I’ll finish by saying that those “little Christian soldiers” are scarier than a damned suicide bomber any day.

Race Relations Project : Revisioning the Revisioning Stage

Fri, 2 Apr 2010 00:08:29 +0000

Why the Lion King? Would you not agree that lions do in fact live in only Africa and a small part of India, thereby limiting their choice of setting? I think that might be digging a little too deep. I mean, especially when you have so much other racist shit from Disney to choose from. Let me explain. Take for example the crow gang from Dumbo. Some might say that the jive talking BLACKBIRD gang is digging a little deep, despite their clear representation of black stereotypes. How about the fact that the leader of the gang is named Jim Crow, or that they are all voiced by a white guy told to do his best black impression? Still digging deep? Or how about the Indians from the Peter Pan movie? Check out the scene if you don’t know what I’m talking about -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk&fe... Yes you heard them right. The reason that Native American Indians say “how” is because they demand knowledge. While extremely ignorant, I guess it’s really not that offensive. But then comes the moment where they explain the “Red Man” skin tone. A normal white person was kissed by a girl and he blushed. And it fucking stayed that way. Yes indeed, the only reason that Indians have a different skin color is because SOMETHING CHANGED IT. Nice Disney. Let’s not forget the long lost book Mickey Mouse and the boy Thursday. Mickey Mouse opens crates from Africa, and what do you know, he finds a bonafide African inside. Unfortunately the Crate-African (hereby referred to as Thursday) does not understand Mickey’s ways and responds by sticking spears in things and shooting arrows at Mickey. Then along comes this gem of a line “Poor little guy! He just makes mistakes. He doesn't know any better. I'll just have to be patient and teach him the right way to do things” spoken by the master mouse himself. If you’re going to make fun of Africans, this is the way you do it. Not with pussy lions. Finally, have you ever watched Aladdin? I mean really watched Aladdin? Because if you did, there is no way you did not notice that Aladdin was a bit different then his fellow townsfolk. I am referring, of course, to the fact that Aladdin is a big ‘ol white cracker straight out of the Midwest, accent and all. Did you also notice anything about the man that is trying to Kill Aladdin, Jafar? Like, oh I don’t know, the fact that his ethnicity is so exaggerated he looks like a fucking space alien? So to sum it all up; until a pride of lions swim their asses over here and start a colony of Non-African lions, I’m going to continue to preserve my childhood love of the Lion King.

Race Relations Project : If men could menstruate...

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:57:03 +0000

Would tampons be free? Are there things that men get for free just for being men? Where the hell have I been? If men had menstruation cycles that would mean tampons are a product used by both men AND women. Men and women also both use shampoo, but there isn’t any free shampoo stands around. Just an observation. I really don’t believe that education is really the issue here. I’m a guy, and at the risk of sounding creepy I’m pretty knowledgeable about a woman’s menstruation cycle. I know about the follicular phase, ovulation, and the luteal phase. I didn’t do any personal research, I was simply taught it in biology class when I was younger; I imagine that most people were taught about it at some point in their lives. So it’s really not that men don’t know about it, they just generally don’t want to hear about it. To better make my point, let me compare this natural body function to another. Nobody wants to talk about their period to the opposite sex, the same as nobody wants to talk about that huge steaming shit they just took to the opposite sex. Also, what about masturbation? Every single guy in the world masturbates, so I would call it pretty natural. Not to mention healthy, but I digress. My point is that I think it’s pretty safe to assume that me talking about my masturbation to a girl is not going to earn me a lot of points. Why? Because girls don’t want to hear about that shit. They know its natural, and they are certainly educated as to why people do it, but they don’t the visual that comes along with talking about it; which when you think about it is pretty similar to most guys not wanting to picture blood coming out a girls vagina...who would have thought. To the girl who asked about if guys would be to grossed out about her being honest that she was on her period, and THAT’s the reason she can’t hook up with them, I would have to say no. Most of us aren’t pussy craving animals contrary to popular belief. If you were to say that, I’m sure most guys would be taken back by your honesty, but probably just end up laughing about it. And something tells me they would not care too much if you met up at a later date to consummate your acquaintance. However, if you show you up the same night sporting that recognizable piss-drunk smile, and you suddenly want to mess around again because you have completely forgotten that you’re red all bets are off. I think I can say they may be pretty grossed out then.

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

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:02:30 +0000

Why can’t we all just smile? Honestly I wish Dave Chappelle was still around. His show was bluntly honest about racial stereotypes, and it made people of every color laugh. He took shots at everyone, and we all loved him for it. During our lab today I found out something that I did not previously know; that what made Chappelle shut down was that he decided people were no longer laughing at stereotypes, but laughing at him making fun of black people. Why are we so incapable of just laughing at everybody? I have an idea as to why. We talked about this in detail in our soc lab, and I couldn’t help but realize how much more derogatory stereotypes against colored people were than ones against whites. Seriously think of stereotypes for white and black people. White People: Rich, snobby, rude, privileged Black People: Loud, underprivileged, poor Staying away from the harsher stereotypes, my point is still clear. You know why white people weren’t making a big uproar at the comments being made to them? Because when someone assumes (I am white by the way) that I’m rich and privileged, I think to myself, shit man, I must be looking good today. If someone assumed that I was loud and poor, I would probably take issue with that. Sure I’m sure “white guilt” and all that other stuff plays a part, but this obvious fundamental difference in stereotypes is probably a core reason that rudeness does not go both ways. Yet there are still white people posting all over this thread how annoyed they are that colored people called us rich and snobby. Boo fucking hoo. Every time we get on the topic of racial stereotypes, at least one white person makes a comment regarding the fact that they believe black people are too sensitive. This is then followed by the majority of white people in attendance agreeing with them, even though most may be afraid to say it. If you have ever thought to yourself that blacks are too sensitive, you cannot possibly be offended by the crap that was scrolling up on the screen in class. You always hear people talk about the double standard, where black people can make fun of whites but not the other way around. Hell, I even agree with the above statement. However, it is also a double standard to bitch and moan about racial sensitivity, and then get hot and bothered when someone gives you a good ‘ol racial burn. You can’t hold certain principles, only to throw them away when it doesn’t suit your situation. Well actually I suppose you can, but then you’re most likely a huge douche bag.

Race Relations Project : Why Is This Racist? Really...

Thu, 4 Mar 2010 03:42:04 +0000

This response is going to be racked by opinion, but truly and honestly, I can’t believe this shit. I mean really, I can’t stop laughing at the fact that this is actually happening. I realize that the point could be brought about that there is a demand for niche market programs, but this certainly does not seem to be the case. Moose’s blatant racist remarks aside, who the hell wants to see an all-white basketball league? Fundamentally sound? Priceless. Look all I’m saying is that if you’re going to try and open something for a specific market, you better be sure that market actually exists. Not to knock the athletic talents of my own race, but nobody wants to watch a league where the players are simply worse and slower. What’s the point? People barely give a shit about the WNBA for the same reason, what makes Moose think any differently? Sorry this just really bothers me. It has taken our country a long time to reach the point of relatively racism free athletics. Compare us to European soccer, which some of us may remember from one of Sam’s earlier blog posts; we have come a long way. I just don’t think because a few players in the NBA have become less that acceptable role models we should start taking huge leaps backward. Moose is right about one thing, the NBA needs to get its shit together. Players need to be reined in for unacceptable behavior, and should be obeying by stricter rules of conduct. However I refuse to believe that its problems are caused by the fact that the majority of players are black. Take the NFL for instance; while the population may not be as overwhelmingly black and brown as the NBA, it is still easy to say that blacks and browns make a up a large portion of the players. That being said, they don’t exactly have the same hooliganism (for lack of a better word) that is apparent in the NBA. It’s not the color of the players skin, it is the attitude instilled in them by the league they play for and their coaches. It’s the nature of the sport if you will; NFL is a highly disciplined league (not that some players don’t have issues), where as the NBA has some things it could improve on. I have no problem with people doing things that some may construe as racist for marketing reasons, such as Moose’s alleged reason (case in point, an African American beauty pageant). I do have a problem with people doing things like this when they can barely try to sell it with a straight face. On the other hand, I do love my basketball fundamentals!

Race Relations Project : Inequality Class: Question One

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:25:03 +0000

As most people who have already commented here I am inclined to agree with the speaker in the way he views the situation. People are so quick to blame race (and I am not saying that race does not have something to do with those statistics) that they often miss other potential factors. Recently for a CAS class I was required give a report on our nation’s drug war. For obvious reasons, I researched racism within the drug war extensively, and found the same statistics that Sam showed in class. However, I also found that area’s law enforcement size was based on the populations of the area. That being said, it is a also a true statement, as the person in the comment said, that many minorities reside within high population urbanized areas. So the logical conclusion is that since a heavy amount of minorities reside in an area’s with heavy amounts of law enforcement, the statistics could be drastically skewed. Yet, even considering those things, racism cannot be counted out as part of the issue. For example, go back in time, and let’s consider why the cities are so heavily populated by minorities, specifically African Americans. After the abolishment of slavery, those who were not content or able to participate in sharecropping flocked to the cities. Many former African American slaves came north in a large scale migration in search of ANYTHING better for themselves and their families (although conditions here could barely be considered an improvement). Ever since these events, the populations of cities have remained locked in this demographic trend; and this can certainly be construed as racism. In other words, it was racism that brought them to the cities, so in effect is it not racism that has put them in harm’s way (referring to the heavy law enforcement)? Truly I think all that this discussion shows is that issues are not completely black and white. Obviously racism still exists, and I would never intend on downplaying the role it still plays in our society, but I think people need to start looking at the bigger picture if it means solutions are going to be found. When an issue has become so complicated that in truth, it is a variety of problems combined, we cannot simply zero in on one part of the problem and try to fix it that way. What I’m attempting to say is that racism has integrated itself into our society. It is not just a social issue anymore; it has become a part of us. So I wonder what this means for us? Are we doomed to always have racism as a part of our society? This morbid view seems to become truer every day.

Race Relations Project : LGBT Class - Question Four

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:01:10 +0000

This is such a common argument, and I always get hung up as to why. Often times, when someone argues that they support gay unions, but refuse to call it “marriage” they follow it with something to the effect of “who cares anyway, they’re just words”. I find this funny, because this point works both ways; marriage IS just a word, so why does anyone care if homosexuals use it to describe their unions? Why is it anyone’s business but their own as to what they want to call it? In my opinion, if you are serious about making it the same thing (legal rights and taxes) then don’t stop short at what you name it. I realize I may have some bias since religion is not a part of my life. The actual written definition of marriage means very little to me as a result. However my point has little to do with my personal beliefs and a lot to do with hypocrisy. You can’t tell someone not to be upset about the inability to call themselves what they wish because “they’re just different words” while simultaneously stating the very reason they cannot call themselves what they want is because “they’re different words”. Bullshit. Just to be clear, this is not an attack on the guy who made the comment into the camera, since no such words came out of his mouth. However, I have frequently heard these very words come out of the mouths of people who argue the same points, which is the reason that I bring it up. That being said, I actually respect the person who made the initial comment because he addressed the fact that the supposed sacredness of marriage is not quite as prominent as it used to be; a fact that is often overlooked because it’s simply not convenient. He asks that instead of further breaking the already broken system, why do we not try to fix it? In response, I ask why not change the whole system? Should we really consider gay marriage another crack in the already cracked definition of marriage? That would be the same thing as comparing gay marriage to those who get drunk and get hitched in Vegas, or those who “find love” on trash reality shows…wouldn’t it? I’ve always believed deeply in “to each’s own”, so I see nothing wrong with letting homosexuals do whatever the hell they want, as long as it has no effect on my physical being. As such I have always wondered what it is about gays and lesbians calling their unions “marriage” that bothered people so much, even those who claim to be tolerant. Is it some perverse need to feel different than them? Like straight love is in any way different than gay love? I guess only those people know.

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

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:56:44 +0000

Will racism ever disappear? Probably not. Excuse my cynicism but humanity will always find something fight about and something to hate each other over; this is a time tested fact. So as long as there are different races and different religions in this world, there will be hate and prejudice. Should it ever be tolerated under any circumstances? Absolutely not So in response to those that may argue it is not up to FIFA and the leagues to stop this problem, and instead is the obligation of European society, I disagree. As most people probably know, European soccer and American soccer are two vastly different things. What I mean of course, is that in Europe and other parts of the world, soccer is a way of life and not simply a game. The fan followings are notorious for hooliganism (the famous “firms”), violence, and basically what we in the United States would call “taking shit too seriously”. My point is that when the leagues fail to enforce anti-racism policies, they are in fact enforcing their society’s respective racism, because quite simply soccer is so important in Europe it is a very large part of their society. The fight against racism needs to start somewhere, so why not in a forum as large as the soccer community, where it can reach so many people. For the league officials and non-racist fans to overlook this behavior is almost as bad as those spewing the ignorant comments. The coach’s comments towards Thierry Henry can be looked at several ways. I honestly believe that he did not intend for it to be a racist comment, but that does not change the fact that it in fact was one. To him Thierry Henry is black (a true statement) and also happens to be, at least in his mind, a “piece of shit”. However for him to combine those two things in the same sentence may have been one of the poorest choices of words in history. This could have just been a matter of Europe’s ignorance towards racial issues (at least relative to the US) that he thought this was alright to say. Whatever the reason, it was a relief to see the League had at least fined him, showing some intolerance of such behavior (although, coming from a coach, I believe it should have heavier). I must say though that it’s nice to see that Europe is making progress with such issues. The ad campaign against racist behavior at soccer games is evidence that people are at least trying. Players like Henry and Eto’o deserve nothing but the utmost respect; respect that’s deserved by world class athletes such as they, whether some fan has a problem with their skin color or not.

Race Relations Project : Last Name Begins with "W"

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:05:40 +0000

thedirtytownsend

Race Relations Project : Clubbing the "Bejesus" Out of Rationality

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:54:48 +0000

Everyone has plenty to say about Robertson, and they very well should. However, what about Mr. Limbaugh? While Robertson may be able to plead insanity, what’s Rush’s excuse? For someone to actually use such events to their advantage, and to try and make a point using them is disgusting (a word that always seems to come up when Limbaugh does). To make the claim that the Obama administration is actually looking at the process of aiding Haiti as an opportunity to connect with the “dark skinned” and “light skinned” black communities (don’t even get me started) is very obviously a fabrication. The scariest part about Limbaugh is that a lot of people actually listen to Rush. That’s not to say Robertson does not have legitimate followers, but I believe it is within reason to assume that Rush Limbaugh has a larger and more serious following than the crazy preacher. Yet I think Limbaugh is in the same situation that Sam describes for Robertson, making him that much more dangerous. Limbaugh’s views are sometimes so extreme that it sometimes borders comedy, and as Sam pointed out, I’m sure he surrounds himself with people that think just like he does. The combination of the volume of followers Limbaugh has and his blatant unchecked extremism makes Limbaugh much more than a joke. In regards to Sam’s comments on just why it is that we watch people like Robertson, I am in full agreement. It really is the same principle that reality TV operates under. Think of the Real World or more recently Jersey Shore for a moment. These are people with issues, whether they are real issues or MTV’s creations has little to do with what we actually view. Yet we watch and laugh at these issues, almost as if to say, “thank god that isn’t me”. I’m guilty of watching these shows and occasionally enjoying them, similar I’d imagine, to almost everyone else. When Rush Limbaugh comes on I sometimes leave it so that I can spend my time yelling at a man that can’t hear me. However, with all of the anger I have towards these two gentlemen, I honestly don’t think to highly of Olbermann either. He’s just as bad as Rush Limbaugh sometimes, and I think he does just as much harm to the political state of our country. We don’t need so much extremism in this country; it never seems to do us any good. Even with his comments on this issue, Olbermann just adds fuel to the fire. If we wish these remarks to stop, then we should just stop watching them (hard as that may be), instead of giving them the media attention that crave so much.