Great point Tom! The first part to this would be how you should value yourself. In my opinion everyone should feel that he or she is the most important person in the world. Now, just because you feel yourself important doesn’t mean that you feel others are unimportant, and certainly doesn’t make you racism. Again, this is just my opinion, but to be racist you have to have negative preconceptions about another individual or group of individuals based solely on race. So in summation, to think you are more valued than another does not make you racist since you are only valuing yourself and not devaluing others.
Being realistic for a moment, you make a valid point saying that you feel you have more of an advantage in giving or a better chance to achieve than others in worse off countries. I could not agree more. I do not feel this is racist either but rather a statement of how things currently stand in a realistic world. The fact of the matter is coming from America, we have many more opportunities to achieve or help out than other individuals in third world countries. It is not racist to say this, it is factual.
Back to the point of racism, I think people are too willing to designate an individual as racist. We, as people of a modern, educated world have to understand that not everyone is equal. As an American you were able to fly overseas to a third world country and donate your time and effort whereas individuals of third world countries cannot easily fly over here and help out. I do disagree with the point about the line not being broad about a person’s worth and being racist. Again, I feel to be racist one must look negatively upon another because of an individual’s or group of individual’s race. Worth is an entirely different story. Worth is the real net value of individual, measured by how much he or she can contribute to society. To no fault of an individual in a third world country, he or she really cannot contribute much to greater society, especially when he or she needs to work to provide for him or herself.
Overall the point I am trying to get across here is that thinking highly of yourself does not make you racist. Everyone should think well of themselves, but no one should think poorly of others due solely to race. People need to be careful when classifying someone as racist, as I feel that this term is being thrown around more and more often in society. In my opinion, being unjustly labeled as a racist is just as bad as being racist. I do not think it is about picking sides or anything of that sort. Again, and this is just my opinion, as long as the intention to not be racist is there then I would not consider a person or action racist.

This is one of the few posts that I was happy to see. Unfortunately the other people commenting on this post went the route of we are all the same people, all one, should all love each other, but still does not take away from the original point of the post. I think what the girl in the video was trying to get across was that her husband is unfairly grouped in this category of radical Muslims and terrorism just because he is Muslim. I think it goes without saying that this is unfair and completely wrong. I found it interesting that the girl said her husband died a little inside every time he saw Bin Laden. This shows that her husband understands the world’s misconception about Muslims and often, albeit wrongly, associates Bin Laden as the poster boy for all Muslims.

On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that many of the conflicts, both present and past, that plague world history deal with Muslims fighting against other religions. Eventually, even if the Muslims are right, the world comes to see the entire Muslim people as the “little brother” who keeps getting picked on in a hypothetical family. He cannot stand up for himself against some of his “big brothers” and so he keeps seeking out help, but eventually this cry for help becomes too burdensome and instead of gauging the need these people are ignored.

It should be said that not everyone associates Bin Laden with being the voice of Muslims. I feel that a majority of individuals, especially in the United States, have come to the realization that Bin Laden represents an extreme minority of Muslims who hold extremist radical views. Muslims cannot be held responsible for what a select few crazy individuals do. Sometimes in this world some people are just genuinely nuts. Had there been a reverse situation, I would certainly not want to be blamed for the actions of a crazy American or Jew just because we shared a similar background or religion.

If there is one thing I would hope to get through with this blog it would be that the best way to fight ignorance such as blaming all Muslims for the actions of Bin Laden is through intelligence and learning. If the average person could just be educated enough to know about the different beliefs and opinions of others then problems such as this can be avoided. Unfortunately, this is a rather unrealistic solution to this global problem since there are a number of things people still need to be educated about, and more importantly most people don’t care enough to learn about this. For now the best any Muslim can do, in my opinion, is to be as good a person as possible, maybe even more so than the average person, to start laying down the groundwork for a change in national and global perception of your people.

My answer to this speaker would be to handle the situation however you feel like handling it. Just because someone, Sam, has grouped people into different teams with specific goals or traits doesn’t mean that you have to necessarily conform to any narrow-minded way of thinking. How about not being part of a team and just thinking for yourself? If you decide to consider yourself white then be white. In truth this distinction of how you classify yourself is almost completely irrelevant, unless you buy into the punch-drinking way of thought in that if you consider yourself white you now have white guilt, don’t want to help black people, and are still bisexual. In truth there are two ways this issue can be addressed.

First off there is the less important distinction of what you should consider yourself. I consider myself an individual who through experience and interactions with a world of other individuals have developed my own point of views and feelings which guide my actions and thoughts towards those same individuals. The other distinction would be what other people see you as. In the example that was brought up you were seen as white by Sam and you responded by saying you were Hispanic (probably a good indication that you consider yourself Hispanic). In truth it doesn’t matter how you see yourself because based on physical characteristics others are going to see you as whatever they think you are and act accordingly.

Back to the question at hand. What I would say to this individual is, according to the definitions given by Sam, you are of the white race, and you are of Puerto Rican ethnicity. The ideal answer for the way you should be identified is however you want to be identified. If you think of yourself as white, or Hispanic, or whatever then identify yourself that way and if someone calls you something else correct them, as you have done before. The realistic answer to this is the guidelines are not as black and white as Sam depicts them. In some instances you will be identified as a member of the white race and your response will be identified as being part of the “white team”, and in some cases you will be identified with the “Hispanic team”.

I can’t emphasize enough that what is important is to not think of yourself as an individual of a team but as a member of society with your own thoughts and opinions. It bothers me that I have to hear that as a member of the white team I think this or I do this. I don’t. I think the best thing to do when you encounter a situation where you are identified as a single race or member of a team is to think about what response is most appropriate for the situation and respond in kind. Based on everything which you posted in the video though, it would appear that you consider yourself Hispanic, and factor this knowledge into the actions you carry out or statements you make. What is important is you don’t let the fact that you consider yourself Hispanic guide your actions, for then you really have picked a “team” and you are going to find yourself losing.

Asians work the same way as any other minority, according to Sam, not according to me. To reiterate the point any minority in a majority setting will be seen as a minority and any speaker of that minority will be seen as a representative of that minority. This is definitely true in some instances but I can’t agree with that statement in all circumstances, as I cannot agree with most statements made in the class which generalize races, genders, or almost anything else.

I have been in instances where a homosexual made an obscure claim in a small group and I personally thought to myself something along the lines of that one individual only thinks that because he is gay; however, I have been in instances where that same situation occurred and I did not think like that and only thought that the homosexual was making such a claim because of his individual uniqueness and not because he represented an entire group.

Back to the subject at hand though, Asians. I agree with some of the points made by my other class mates in that the student posing the question does make a good point in questioning where do Asians fall in the black white spectrum, and I agree with his assessment that they lie closer to the black/brown side. This a tough question because I answer this question from the perspective of a white individual as I would imagine black and brown students would equate Asians closer to whites.

The other point the student brings up is whether or not people can distinguish between Asians and Asian Americans. I have no idea what this means. In my opinion, an Asian American is an Asian who lives in America and an Asian is an Asian who lives in Asia. If there is some distinction I would like to know it, and when I say some distinction I mean some real distinction, not some distinction which is fabricated and spread because it is the opinion of another individual.

With all this said, there are some stereotypes which follow Asians and Asian Americans. As Sam showed in the beginning of the semester, to his credit, many people think Asians primarily major in math and science and are all very studious learning oriented people. Not to say that they aren’t, but they ALL are not. Similarly there are some negative stereotypes which follow the group such as they are poor drivers. While I have seen a substantial number of poorly skilled Asian drivers, and many Asians who major in the sciences and math, I personally don’t categories all Asians as one characteristic, nor do I think anyone does. I do think Asians, as any other group, excel or at a disadvantage in certain activities or skill sets due to their innate genetic make-up but it works on a case by case basis and certainly doesn’t define an entire group of people. Overall, I think people see Asians as Asians, a unique category, just as unique as any other race, who like everyone else are trying to live the best lives they possibly can in America.

I have so many issues with this comment. First off I have no guilt and I’m white. There is no guilt at all, and it’s not that I don’t understand the issues; it’s that I just don’t feel guilty. I suppose the rebuttal could be I don’t fully understand the issues and there is no way over the internet to prove that I do, so this only works if my remarks are taken at face value. I get that white people “took” land from Indians and killed them too, but that’s the way it works. Technically speaking Africa had the first human beings on Earth and thus everything belonged to them. Over many years and evolution many wars and struggles for land occurred where land was won and lost over battles of blood. Technically speaking, if you believe in white guild, you believe that all land still belongs to those Africans and their ancestors and we should give it all back? The way of the world and of social Darwinism shows that when two cultures battle to the winner goes the spoils. The early Americans fought the Indians, won, and took their land, that’s how it works.

Now to the post. I don’t agree with the message the poster tried to make. To discuss her comment one first has to acknowledge that everyone has white guilt, which I don’t, but for the sake of argument I will. Some assuming everyone that is white has white guilt should they change history books to fit more for blacks. My question is what history books? Obviously she has to be referring to American history books but to talk about blacks in American history would be to only talk about slavery. Other than being slaves, there really isn’t much more to it. Even still, history books have been rewritten to discuss the history that was slavery and why it was wrong. Other than that there is not much to discuss about early black history in America.

It is possible that the speaker is referring to early American history post slavery though where there is actually history and progressive changes being made. Fortunately there are books about this issue, in fact there are whole classes about this issue. If this student is so interested in learning about black history then read up on it, take classes on it, or do something related to it. In a semi-related topic, do black people have black guilt about having TV shows which criticize white culture, or have their own television network? Probably not, and to the student who posted if I am interested in seeing a picture about white culture I won’t be turning on these programs. The point? If the student is interested in learning about black history then take a class about black history and learn about them. Other than that, I hate that because I am white I have white guilt. I see it as the claim from class that everyone is bisexual. I am not bisexual nor do I have white guilt.

Continuing with the class consensus I believe the school board was wrong in this instance for cancelling the prom due to the desire of one student to attend with her lesbian girlfriend. It is a little disheartening to hear that for as advanced and progressive as our society has become these kinds of issues still exist. The first thing I’d like to mention is that this act of banning the gay couple from attending the senior prom, does represent a minority incident in society and should not be taken, especially by other students in the class, as a sign that society as a whole has taken steps backward and does not believe in gay rights or support equality. The actions of a couple do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the majority, and especially I find that to be true.

Secondly, just to play the devil’s advocate, people do need to see the side of the school board, whether or not they agree with them. While I do not agree with the school board, the case they make is valid. They want the majority to feel comfortable at the prom and this gay couple will make some people feel uncomfortable. The school board is trying to avoid an incident by causing an incident which is wrong, but they are looking out for the majority of students which is really what their job is about. Again I do not agree, but to look at the school board with prejudice eyes and say immediately they are being unfair is no different than looking at the lesbian girl and saying immediately she is wrong for being selfish and wanting to go with her lesbian girlfriend at the expense of everyone else’s feeling comfortable.

It is unfortunate that the way the student body is going to probably react to this situation is to blame the lesbian girl for getting prom cancelled, thus reinforcing a negative stereotype on the lesbian/gay community. I am happy this incident has gathered serious attention and the student gained support from a national organization. It is interesting to see how this will play out and how the opinions of the community form. I do not know, but it is reasonable to assume that the school board does decide whether or not to have prom and I am curious to see whether they, or even possibly the girl fold under the pressure of national scrutiny.

Similarly, I would like to know how the local community reacts to these series of events. Clearly this is painting their town in a negative light, but will they back the girl and her rights or will they stick with the side of the school board. Personally I hope this issue is resolved locally and does not have to be resolved by a national body with a new law or rule. Whether the outcome is good or bad, items like this, while making interesting national news stories, are local issues which need to remain local when it comes to the decision making process.

Continuing with the feelings of the entire class, I feel that this statement is just plain false. While there are some parties which focus on race and of these, sometimes, the race of focus is black America, I do not think it is fair to claim that a majority of the parties purposefully aim to degrade black America. There are two parts to this video. The first part of this video is that themed parties are meant degrade or insult a specific race or ethnicity. The second part is that of these race themed parties, a majority focus on black America.

Starting with the first issue, I do not agree that themed parties are meant to offend any specific race or ethnicity. If anything, the argument could be made that themed parties are meant to promote the observation of stereotypes so that they may be more prominent and thus addressed by the greater community. This is no different than what many famous and accepted comedians do in their comedic skits, including Dave Chappelle. Also, at least in my experiences, most parties are not focused on race or ethnicity themes, but instead are focused on themes which require girls to wear sexually seductive clothing or no clothing at all. In fact, the argument could be made that most themed parties are aimed at degrading women more so than they are anything else. But even here, it cannot be forgotten that the idea of a party is to celebrate and have fun, and not to insult or make people angry, hence the addition of the theme to add to enjoyment.

As for the second issue, I also do not agree with the notion that most race themed parties focus on black America. In my personal experiences, most of the race themed parties focus on white trash, which as a white person I do not get offended by. The reason relates back to the previous idea that these themed parties are not meant as much to insult as they are to satire. Back to the issue of racism towards black America, I just don’t see where this point posted on the website gains any credibility or momentum? This is not to say that there aren’t any racist parties geared towards black America where nonblack students dress in black face, and that is not to say that this is not racist, but this is only for the extreme minority. Possibly the same minority that comprises neo-Nazis or KKK membership. Again not to be misunderstood, that is not to say that these people are wrong for their beliefs just because I disagree with them or just because they do not represent the majority.

The addition of themes to parties is meant to add to the enjoyment of the atmosphere and, at least in my personal experiences, to entice women to wear as little as possible for aesthetic or personal reasons. While there are some parties which do focus on race, I do not believe that these parties are meant to offend as much as they are intended to promote awareness. Finally, within these race parties, to look for patterns of racism towards a specific group of people is to look for racism where there probably isn’t any, and when someone looks for racism it does not take much of a leap to extrapolate irrelevance into make believe fact.

The question that is posed is what age or how early should our young be educated about Native Americans? The issue here is that in a study of some sort when little kids were asked to draw a picture of a Native American they couldn’t but when they were asked to draw a picture or an Indian they drew a picture of a person with primitive weapons. Yes, admittedly this shows ignorance on behalf of the kids, but they are just kids! I don’t disagree that somewhere down the line these kids need to be educated about who Native Americans are and need to learn about their culture but I don’t believe this case shows anything. At a young age there are more important things to learn about than the politically correct way to draw and discuss Native Americans, such as the alphabet, the English language, and becoming potty trained. The truth is learning about the political correctness of Native Americans takes a distant back seat to many other things and shouldn’t need to be addressed until high school or late middle school at the earliest.

Apparently the education system is doing a fine job educating about Native Americans because in the large sociology class when Sam mentions Native Americans no one raised his or her hand and said, “You mean those people in Teepees with spears?” I understand Native Americans have not had it well with regards to treatment by general modern Americans, and they also suffered the largest genocide ever at the hands of those same Americans, but with regards to education…so what?

It may be harsh to say but learning about Native Americans is not all too important in most people’s lives. I understand Sam wants everyone to acknowledge the hardships felt by the genocide of the Native Americans so that we can start making things right but I don’t think this needs to start at an early age, if it has to start at all. I come from the mindset that in battle and wars to the winner goes the spoil. It is tragic what happened to the Native Americans by our great great grandfathers, but I cannot agree that I am at all responsible for their actions. As a Jew, I do not blame modern Germans for the crimes of their elders, and I certainly don’t demand reparations for those crimes.

I too would appreciate the acknowledgement of the travesties which occurred during the Holocaust, and that is all. I do not demand that young German students in school learn about Jews when they are two or three or ten, but at some point in their learning have the issues of the past brought up. I think the same stance should be applied for the Native Americans. As long as at some time during schooling students are educated about Native Americans and the issues concerning them I am perfectly content. Not only this, but by learning about the issues and genocide of the Native Americans, I truly feel that the government has done its job in making-up for the crimes of its past (as best they possibly can or should).

I agree with this speaker. His argument that just because something is broken let’s continue to brake it is completely valid and shows the flaws in the argument for gay marriage. Another related issue, which subsequently came up today in my discussion section, is that the government shouldn’t have their hands in any religious institution at all so it should not be up to them who can and cannot get married. I agree with this point as well, but fault any idealist who makes it. Marriage is a sacred, religious institution, grounded in tradition and in government intervention. Thus, it is unrealistic to say that the government shouldn’t be involved because it already is. Saying something like this is like saying there shouldn’t be war, murder, or death. Obviously in a black and white world this conversation is simple but it is not. So, before any true conversation can occur it must be conceded that the government, whether good or bad, plays a role in the religious institution of marriage.

Once this is established the argument becomes more clear-cut. Marriage is, as the student in the video says, a religious institution and is thus backed by religion. In most religions, it is unacceptable and unlawful to marry a person of the same sex. So I don’t see what the big debate is about? I understand that gay people, like straight people, want some sort of sacred bond with their life partner but why not then enter one that doesn’t involve the approval of a religion that doesn’t approve of them?

In my opinion gay people should be allowed to enter into a sacred bond that is called something else besides a marriage. Not that I personally care about the word choice, but by using different words I feel that the religious side would be appeased and less critical of such a radical idea. On the other side, if two people love with each other who cares if what they do is called a marriage or a union or anything else. Too much stock is placed in this title of marriage and if the two individuals are truly in love I don’t see why it would matter what their relationship is called.

Another point that many people are commenting on about gay marriage is how it is wrong for two homosexuals to get married but not wrong for two people who are not in love to get married in order to gain social or economic benefits. A fair and valid point, but again it relates back to religion. In modern society, to get married it is not so much what you aren’t as what you are. If two people aren’t in love there is no way to prove it other than the two people admitting it. On the other hand, if two people are homosexuals it is much easier to prove and thus not acceptable.

I don’t pretend that the rules of marriage are fair or just to everyone, just as I don’t pretend that any law or rules are fair to everyone. In reality there are always going to be rules or problems that people disagree with and have to deal with. That is not to say there is no reason to fight this cause and try to gain more rights, but sometimes people have to be accepting of other people’s beliefs and religions, even if it goes against their way of life.

Reading some of the responses I noticed a majority of individuals used the term mistake. I cannot honestly call what Mr. Bauer did a mistake since it is hard for me to believe that a politician made remarks without having them first checked over numerous times. Thus I feel he knew exactly what he was saying and had to know what kind of response it would evoke. That is why the first issue about this article I would like to address is his issuing of an apology. I understand that as a public figure it was probably the smart move to apologize, it just bothers me to have to watch someone who is clearly intelligent have to say sorry for something he clearly isn’t sorry for, anticipating that the general public is so dimwitted that they will just accept it for face value.

The next issue I feel needs to be discussed is the most obvious one which everyone responding has touched on. It was clearly wrong for Mr. Bauer to refer to poor people on welfare as animals. I would hope that this is universally agreed upon and understood but from this article, it is clearly not. Just because people don’t have much money, doesn’t take away from the fact that they are still people. The poor need to be protected, represented, and accounted for just like every citizen, and to be referred to as animals by one of the people who represent is disheartening to say the least. Sometimes in life people go throw rough patches, bad luck, or a multitude of things which culminate in them losing or not having money, but to pretend that they are no longer people is immoral. If anything these people need to be represented the most by politicians because many of them are overlooked and don’t get their voices heard. Clearly Mr. Bauer was wrong in referring to these people as animals, and I do hope that when he is up for reelection people remember this incident before casting their vote.

Again what Mr. Bauer said about poor people on welfare was wrong, but that doesn’t mean that every point he made was wrong too. For instance, it is mentioned that he would like welfare recipients to take mandatory drug tests and be required to attend parent-teacher conferences if they have kids. There may be merits to the latter point, but I will focus more on the first point about drug tests. I couldn’t agree more with this point. While I would not make the claim that all poor welfare recipients use that money to fund drugs, there certainly is a preconception that this is true, and is more than likely true is some cases. While it would be an inconvenience to be forced to take a drug test to receive welfare, it would be a minor inconvenience at best and would help gain some public backing for a program which is disliked by so many. I don’t think people have as much a problem with giving money away to people who need it, as they do that money is going to be wasted given to people who are going to use it for bad purposes. By imposing a mandatory drug test, people will be reassured that money going to the poor is more likely going to help the poor, and just seems like a simple idea that would put a lot of people’s minds to ease.