I really liked the immigration lecture thus far (and no, I’m not just saying that because Graham Spanier showed up and we got to hear Sam sing the blues, though those were definitely bonuses that made it way more fun to be there.) when asked about my opinions on immigration, I am often in the awkward position of having to say that I don’t have an opinion. It’s not that I don’t “feel some kind of way” about immigration, it’s just that I don’t think I know enough to really form an educated opinion. Any opinion I have at this point is the sum of a lot of overheard arguments and skimmed articles in the New York Times. I don’t have enough unbiased information to make a good opinion. Which is not something I’m proud of, but there it is.
I like that Sam is presenting both sides of the story, and the question that this guy points out is really interesting: if the people who are immigrating now could fight us for the land, would they? When the pilgrims and early settlers came here they waged war on the Native Americans and they won, which is why America is how it is today, namely a predominately white country where Native Americans live in poverty. If the Mexicans and other immigrants moving in today could do that to us, would that be fair? Should might make right? I guess this question would apply more if more of the immigrants moving here today were poor, but according to Sam’s lecture, the majority of the (legal) immigrants are coming from wealthy backgrounds and bringing that wealth with them to the United States. It’s difficult, and I think dangerous, to compare immigration today to immigration then because the parallels take place in completely different time periods.
Another interesting point that I think I need to think more about is the difference between the reality of old immigration and the nostalgic view of immigration. Like, I would like to believe that the story about “hard work and coming to America for a better life” but in reality, they drove Native Americans off their land, killed them, oppressed them, and eventually drove them out to the worst land in the United States. It’s hard to be sympathetic to that. Then again, my ancestors were those immigrants, and they had nothing, like REALLY nothing. My family came from Ireland and worked in coal mines under horrible conditions. That was their reality, and I can’t discount it. I guess the trick is in finding a balance of the two ideas, which I think is the lesson we’re supposed to learn from every lecture in this class: balance.

That class was mind-blowing. I couldn’t believe how much different I felt after listening to Sam’s lecture about the Middle East and Christian invaders. I have never thought that I was biased on this subject, but I guess I was, at least a little.
I have never in my life thought what it would be like to be an Arab Muslim, and it was difficult to think from their point of view at first. What must it be like to believe in a different faith and be from a different country? At first I was kind of incredulous, but as the class went on and I became more engrossed in what Sam was saying, I realized that from their point of view, we were invading to steal their resources and kill their people and then leave. How callous Americans must seem to them, to be willing to kill and die in order to steal oil that isn’t ours in the first place. It made me a little ashamed, not of our soldiers or military, but of our government who is willing to start a war over oil, of the people here who don’t care what the war is about, and of myself for not ever thinking of it from the other point of view.
I am a Christian. I have heard every criticism, every bad thing, every negative historical event in which Christianity has been implicated, but that doesn’t change the core beliefs that are at the center of my life. I know we’ve screwed up a lot, but Christians, just like Muslims, just like Jews or Hindus or atheists, are only human. We all make mistakes, people of every faith have crazies who give their entire religion a bad name. However, I never realized what Christianity must look like to Muslim Arabs. At this point, I wonder if it’s possible for Christianity to stop being associated with war and conversion and a war of greed for oil. Do the Muslim Arabs know anything about Christianity, about what it’s really about? Was the question I kept asking myself. Then I thought, do I know anything about Islam, about what it’s really about? Not much, so why should I expect them to know any more about Christianity than I would about Islam?
I had never seen videos of American soldiers screwing up so badly. I never looked for them. But if I was a Muslim Arab and I saw that, I would think that all American soldiers were crazy. Just like I used to think that a majority of people in Iraq were really radical—because that’s all that’s on the news, all that I have ever seen. I wish that there was a mandatory rule that everyone has to do the thought experiment of being in the other people’s shoes before any conflict is started. I think a lot of problems would be avoided.

I thought it was awesome that Sam brought up menstruation in class. That probably sounds weird, but I don’t understand why it should sound weird, or why it should be seen as weird to talk about it. Bleeding is a part of life, like sweating, or breathing. It happens. If it didn’t happen, there would be no babies. Period. (Pun totally intended.)
It doesn’t really bother me that men don’t know much about periods. I mean, why would they want to know? It isn’t really something that concerns them. They joke sometimes about having to put up with PMS, but then again, so do our women friends who are around us when we are PMSing. I think a big part of the reason guys know so little and have so little background knowledge about bleeding is because they aren’t educated about it in school. In my health classes in high school, we spent one year learning about sex organs and all the functions and responsibilities therein, and we learned it in same-sex only classes. Looking back, I wonder if that was a good idea—didn’t we kind of miss out by only learning with other girls or in the guys’ cases, other guys? Wouldn’t it promote understanding and openness about our bodies if we had to learn about things like bleeding in a mixed-gender setting? I think it would.
What bothers me isn’t that guys know so little about bleeding, but rather that a lot of them are downright disgusted by it. That upsets me. I feel like telling them, “Hey, I’m not too crazy about it either, but it’s part of life.” I had ovarian cysts when I was in high school, and because of them, I had a lot of girl-related health problems. I had a lot of guy friends and it was really hard for me to be suffering excruciating pain and missing school for doctor’s appointments, and not feel like I could talk to any of them about it.
I know some of my friends who are girls won’t even talk about bleeding with other girls, at all. It’s like it doesn’t exist for them. The only way they will mention it is if they are caught by surprise, per say, and need to borrow a tampon. And when they do that, they say “tampon” in a hushed voice, like it’s a bad word or something. It’s ridiculous. Granted, I don’t know many girls like this, but I do know a few. I wonder what made them feel like bleeding is so shameful that they can’t even ask for a tampon without being embarrassed?
If men menstruated, tampons would totally be free. So would Pamprin. I think that men need to “grow a pair” and learn to talk about what is a perfectly natural part of life, instead of treating it like something shameful and dirty. I have to say, I do know a few dudes who are really open-minded and aren’t weirded out by the idea of bleeding, which is nice because it makes me feel like maybe guys are slowly becoming more aware of it.

I think it’s ridiculous that schools are still systematically discriminating against homosexuals. I saw a little of this at my high school when the administration tried to deny access to a boy who wore a dress to homecoming, and it was really upsetting—his dress wasn’t hurting anyone, and it honestly looked better on him than it would have on some of the girls. Discrimination against homosexuals from other students is more expected, but to see the school administration itself take steps against gay people is really surprising.
Another thing I find disturbing about the actions of the school board is that they not only said McMillen couldn’t attend, they cancelled the entire prom. Now, how do you think all the other students are going to feel about her since she got their prom cancelled? My guess is she is not very popular with her classmates right now. And for what? For trying to take her girlfriend to prom. It’s incredibly unfair to her and to her classmates.
I have actually been thinking a lot about this issue lately because my sister, who is a high school junior, wants to go to her upcoming prom with her girlfriend. I’m worried that she’ll be met with opposition from the school, and after reading this I’m even more worried. I know her high school allows same-sex couples but I think they frown on it all the same. It’s just so unfair—McMillen, and my sister, and everyone else who wants to go to prom with their significant other of the same sex, should be able to do so with no more worry than I did when I went with my boyfriend. I don’t get what the big deal is.
I’m no expert on gay rights but because my sister is a lesbian and not out to my parents, I feel like I think a little more than the usual person about the struggles gay people have to go through. Situations like this one are unnecessary if people would accept that sexuality is not a choice, it is an inborn trait, and one that cannot and should not be supressed. I hate that my sister feels like she can’t tell my parents who she really is and who she really loves, and I hate that I have to read articles like this one and worry if my sister is going to get kicked out of prom. McMillen should never have had to ask permission to bring her girlfriend to prom—it should be understood that anyone was welcome to come with her as a date, regardless of gender.
I am comforted by the fact that cases like this are becoming more rare. The situation for gay people is slowly, slowly becoming better. The ACLU is getting involved in this case, and hopefully it will set a precedent that will warn other school boards not to try something like this.

This was a weird video, honestly. I think that the reporter seemed really nervous to be talking about race and it made her seem really uninformed and almost scared. The two interviewees, who were the professor of ethnicity and the president of the black student union, seemed to be able to answer her questions with composure, but what I don’t understand is why they were being interviewed at all. Did they have anything to do with these acts of discrimination? Why aren’t they interviewing either the people that found the noose or the people that attended the party where “ghetto” dress was encouraged? I feel like they picked the two interviewees based on the fact that they were both black and had titles related to being black. Couldn’t they just have easily interviewed any black student on campus? Why pick these two and allow them to be representative of the entire black student population? It doesn’t seem fair that the opinions and views of two people should represent the opinions of the majority of black students and professors. I think a poll, or an objective overview of the events leading up to the acts of discrimination, would be more informational and a lot less conflicting.
It’s disturbing to me that a noose showed up on a campus, and that this probably was done as an act of hate towards black students. At the same time, there are acts of hate committed everyday towards Muslims and members of the gay community in every college across the nation, and almost none of them get this kind of publicity. I’m not saying we should kick up this kind of conflict every time an act of hate happens, I’m just saying, it would be nice if the acts of hate that made media headlines were more representative of which groups they were committed against.
I don’t think it matters that the noose was hung by a member of a minority. I don’t think that makes any difference at all. The intent, and the effect, are both the same. I think it’s kind of racist to say that it’s okay if a minority hung the noose—that makes it seem like it is okay for minorities to discriminate against each other.
Honestly, I think that instead of protesting the acts that were committed on this campus, it would be more effective to protest the sentiments behind the acts. Having a “Compton” party is insulting, true, but what were the underlying reasons for having such a party? Stereotypes about black people. If they really wanted to solve the problems at this campus, they would try to change their thinking about stereotypes like being “ghetto” and maybe try to educate the student body about how those stereotypes hurt everyone. Instead, they are interviewing random black people to see how they feel and nothing is really getting accomplished.

This article kind of makes me angry. Yes, it’s great that the residents of the reservation are now going to have a lot more wealth and a better economy, and yes, a lot of happiness will probably come from that wealth, but that doesn’t solve all the problems that they and other Native American reservations have. So there is oil on this reservation, and people are now going to be wealthy. Does that solve the years of poverty that they suffered beforehand? Does it make up for the lack of resources they had before, or for the people who had to move away because of lack of jobs? Not to mention the fact that the only jobs available because of this oil boom are entirely dependant on a finite resource that pollutes the environment and degrades human health.
At first when I was reading this article, I thought “How lucky they are!” If I found out that my house in my hometown was built on an oil deposit and that my family and I were going to be fabulously wealthy, I would feel like the luckiest person alive. But then I realized that in comparison to some of the Native Americans living in this country, I already pretty much am the luckiest person alive; I can go to college and my parents have jobs and I never had to grow up in extreme poverty. A lot of these people will have money now, but that doesn’t erase the past. It doesn’t erase the fact that we took all their land from them, and that the only reason they got land with oil in it is because the government was ignorant of any possible resources of value on that land. The manager of the casino said it, and it’s true: "If they knew there was billions of barrels of oil here, they would never have put us here.”
Even more recently than the 1800’s when the reservation was “given” to the Native Americans (if that’s the correct word, since the land was in all reality theirs to begin with), more wrongs have been committed against these specific tribes. The article mentions that in the 1950s, part of the reservation was flooded by the government to create a reservoir. Ironically, this reservoir is named “Lake Sakakawea”—a name of Native American origins. Ironic, but mostly just sad.
I just wonder how much good this money will actually do for these people. Yes, money is necessary to live, and this money will do some small reparation to the years of injustice that they’ve gone through, but that doesn’t make it right that any of the injustices happened in the first place. Oil money is no replacement for an apology, or for simple recognition of the wrongs done. And oil money isn’t going to cure a lot of the social ills that could be and probably are present due to past poverty—abuse, alcoholism, gambling problems, etc, aren’t going to go away because people suddenly have money. Several generations from now, this reservation might be at the same level of happiness and wealth as average Americans—probably just in time for the oil to run out, and for them to sink back into poverty. There needs to be a more permanent solution, and one that applies to more tribes than the few with surprise oil reserves.

This article really caught my eye for a couple of reasons. First of all, I really love learning different languages, even though I only really know English, almost Spanish, and a little French and sign language. More importantly, my professor for my English class was talking about this last semester, the power of languages. It’s difficult to really think about language outside the general concept of learning grammar and memorizing vocabulary, but in reality, language can be (and is) so much more than that. Language is a result of culture and history. Culture and history are a result of language. It’s fascinating to see how they interact. That’s a big part of the reason why the “English-only” movement in America has been met with so much adversity from Spanish and other non-English speakers; because language isn’t just about what word set you use, it’s about culture, and power.
Languages bring people together not only because they allow us to communicate, but because of the background, history, and intricacies that fill each language and make it unique in a way no amount of grammar charts could ever describe. One of my favorite things to do when I was supposed to be paying attention in high school English was to open my dictionary and look up etymologies. There is so much history, so much background to the words we use everyday! Our culture has been shaped and will continue to be shaped by our language, the shared bond we hold in how we communicate. As society grows and changes, this is reflected in our language. And as our language grows, so does our society. They reflect each other. So to lose a language that is tens of thousands of years old is not merely to lose a set of words and structures that can convey meaning. If that were all it was, there would be no loss, no grief, for we have other sets of words and structures, other languages, that we could replace it with. By losing another ancient language, we have lost so much more than that. We have lost thousands of years of culture and history. We have lost a chance to understand how the people who spoke this language evolved over the generations into the complex and unique society that they previously were. So much can be learned by analyzing a language, and so much of oral tradition and history can only be truly understood in the language that it originated from. As each language dies out, so too does our chance of learning from them.
That doesn’t mean that we should stop learning new languages, or stop allowing our language to evolve. There’s a big difference between language evolution and language death, if you will forgive my made-up terms. There is a significant difference between English a thousand years ago and English today, as anyone who has ever had to read Beowulf in Old English will tell you. It’s practically a completely different language. But our modern English has been allowed to evolve, to move with the cultures and societies that use it. Language is a living thing and should always be allowed to change. But for an entire language to completely die out, that is a tragedy. That probably sounds weird, considering the amount and degree of atrocities committed in the world, to consider language loss a tragedy, but I think it is. So many opportunities to learn are wasted when this happens. It upsets me when people say that English is the “best” language and that “everyone should use it”; don’t they see that they are discounting not only the other languages, but the cultures and histories of the people who use them?
But I digress. This was a really interesting article, and I’m glad I read it.

"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."

This quote from the article really struck me. I have thought about this issue a lot, mostly about the healthcare bill. I don’t understand why the people who seem to need health care the most are the ones who vote against it. It just doesn’t compute with me. Do these people want corporations and insurance companies to continue depriving them of care? It seems like common sense to me and a lot of others, but like the article said, it isn’t common sense.
Any issue worth caring about is one worth researching and sometimes it can be intimidating to deal with people who have obviously done more research and have more knowledge about a particular subject than ourselves. Personally, if I am talking with someone who is an expert about something and I know next to nothing about it, I am very likely to feel somewhat embarrassed and want to change the subject. People like to stick to what they know. When a politician sells us an idea in such a way that we feel like we are being talked down to, it makes us nervous. Throw in the fact that we don’t trust politicians in the first place and you’ve got the making of a very paranoid group of people.
I think it’s ironic and sad that a lot of poor people vote against healthcare reform, and other programs that would only benefit them, or at least would benefit them more than the current system. I have noticed that a lot of Penn State students here talk about how they’re “poor.” This upsets me because there’s a huge difference between being short on cash because you’re in college and actually being impoverished. It really upsets me when people talk about how they can’t buy something because they’re poor, but their parents are paying for them to go to college. Newsflash, you have no idea what it means to be poor. A lot of my friends from home are legitimately poor, and have been their whole lives—it’s not something to joke about. And ironically, a majority of them are conservatives, and they and their parents routinely vote against/voice their views against programs that would only benefit them. I think it’s like the article said: they don’t like feeling like they’re being talked down to. It’s so much less intimidating, and less demeaning, I guess, to just accept the less wordy, less patronizing explanations from Republicans.
Although I am tempted to argue that conservatives have this habit of voting against themselves more than liberals do, I know it’s not really true. I’m a liberal so of course I want to think that my party is better than the alternative (well, I do think that) but in reality, we all make the same mistakes. One of the biggest things our parties have in common is that they’re both made up of people and all people make mistakes. I think if we remembered that about ourselves instead of just our opponents, we would have a lot more empathy even with people whose views are completely opposite our own.
On an unrelated note, this video about healthcare reform pretty much sums up my views and also has Will Ferrell. Even if people can’t agree on the reforms themselves, I think we can agree that Will Ferrell is hilarious.
http://pol.moveon.org/insurance_execs/?rc=fb.6&am...

I don’t know how to feel about this issue. In all truth, I’ve always been a little conflicted about the Muslim tradition of wearing the burqa or head coverings. I’m not a Muslim so I recognize that it is really none of my business, but that doesn’t stop me from considering the beliefs behind this practice. Is this tradition really helping Muslim women become more spiritually aware and modest, as it claims? Or is it just another means that a belief system has used to keep women out of power? Or, as is most likely, is it somewhere in between the two extremes?
I think it’s insulting to the Muslim faith to forbid French women from wearing burqas. It’s taking away their right to follow their religious beliefs. Of course, there are women who don’t want to wear burquas, and they should by no means be forced to. However, I find it ridiculous that the French government would mandate clothes in any way. Is there any precedent for this kind of law? Is there any national safety at risk by women choosing to cover their face? Or is the French government just trying to start mandating religious practices (a scary though, although I don’t live in France)?
On the other hand, I don’t think it helps these women to be covered up all the time. Sure, it’s promoting modesty but is it really helping them to wear them all the time? I would imagine that it would be difficult to breathe, see, or move around freely in a full burqa. Once again, I’ve never tried it so I wouldn’t know, but it looks uncomfortable. In warm weather it must be sweltering in one of those. I wish I knew more about the Muslim faith so that I would understand what drives them to wear it. We have fasts for my church sometimes, and I’m sure to outsiders or those who have never fasted, it probably seems odd, but to us it’s a way of being closer to God. Maybe the burqa is like that; something that I shouldn’t disparage before I’ve tried it.
I am definitely biased about this issue, at least a little, because I’m a westerner and a Christian. I, like all Americans, see women wearing little to nothing on MTV and the covers of magazines (and College Ave, if we’re being honest) and it doesn’t even faze me, though perhaps it should. I feel like the way some women dress over here is more demeaning than any burqa. Then again, it’s our right to do so; our religions and our government don’t try to mandate how we dress or what we wear. I think we (western women) are fortunate in that we have the choice to dress how we want. If I learn nothing else from this blog post, which I hope I have, it’s that I should feel fortunate that I can pick how I appear in public without any man or any government trying to legislate my clothing.

coffee