I really want to know not whoever thought of this game but who approved this game to be released into the public! This game is truly truly disgusting, and I find it tremendously offensive that any guy could ever think of a girl like this. Rape in the name of revenge? Even in the fictional and virtual world, rape of any kind is unacceptable! I’m not trying to make anti-Japanese comments, but I’ve heard things about the Japanese culture – like how they are more open about sex, etc. compared to other East Asian countries. Knowing this, I did find it easier to believe that a game like this could surface from Japan. The anime culture badly represents women and gives bad ideas to men about women, especially to those who do not really have female friends to begin with.

This isn’t to say that I don’t appreciate Japanese culture. I do enjoy their anime and manga from time to time. I also love their food! But being open about sex is definitely another thing. Not to say that it’s bad to do so, but there definitely should always be a limit – a line drawn that cannot be crossed! With this rape game, I think it’s safe to say that the line has been crossed. Watching and reading anime, I sometimes found it disgusting that they portrayed the girls to be busty and curvier than real women. I found it wrong that the girls’ bodies were drawn out of proportion, giving wrong representation of girls. No one, and I mean no one looks like that! With such representations of girls, I guess it does make sense that such games were made. Not that I approve!

I’m glad that the game was taken off the market, but since it has been released already, I’m sure if anyone actually wanted to find this game on the internet, they could. This makes it so sad. Even though the game has been taken off the market, people still have access to it. And the people that already bought the game will have infinite access to it! Why anyone would play this game, I have no idea. If I found out that one of my guy friends played a game like this, I would smack them! This is not okay!

When Sam first started talking about “Brown” people, I was fairly confused. First of all, by the word, because I've never heard anyone use that word to describe people. Secondly, the definition of the word, which Sam seemed to use to describe anyone that is neither White or Black. As an Asian-American myself, I've never been classified as Brown before this class. First of all, I am as pale as most White people (if not more), and I've been classified as “Yellow” more than Brown. But with both terms, I have a problem in that I am neither yellow or brown. So when Sam starts to talk about Brown people in class, I have a hard time picturing myself in that group, because in my mind I am definitely not Brown. So when he asks “Black and Brown people” to sympathize or respond, I usually sit in my seat wondering if he's talking about me too. Most times, I tell myself that he is not talking about me. After all, I am not Brown!
The class on Thursday did remind me of my Elementary School days, however, with the pre-awakening stage for “colored people”. He said that Asian people are most likely to identify themselves as being “White”. Did I just do that in the paragraph before? Not necessarily, but it does sound similar. I did consider myself “White” once upon a time, however. When I was in Elementary School I thought I was one of the “White people,” because my skin color was similar to theirs. If not “White,” I was Korean. I never saw myself as Yellow, Brown, or any other colors that Asian people are identified as. Currently, I am beyond that pre-awakening stage now, and know that I am not “White”.
But I am glad that there's room to talk about Asians on this blog now. So many times, Asians are just looked over. In my discussion group, we talked about Asians for maybe five to ten minutes, and most of it was about Asian stereotypes. Then, my group basically came to a general consensus that Asians stereotypes are usually “good” things (such as being smart, good at math, etc.) and that neither White or Black people are too judgemental about Asians – in fact, most people are “jealous” of Asians based on the stereotypes. I'm not sure if I like that. Why can't we talk about Asian people in a broader aspect? Like, how many different kinds of “Asians” there are on earth. After all, Asia is a large continent. So now I'm sitting here wondering, how many people actually know the differences among “Asians”? I'm an Asian Amerian myself, and most of the times I am unable to distinguish between Asians from different parts of Asia.

It would be awesome if the world could be without bias and prejudice, but the fact of the matter is, bias and prejudice has always existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future. That being said, I think it's very important to stress what others above me have repeated numerous times already: people feel more comfortable with others that look like them. Fortunately for me, I did not realize this fact until the beginning of 7th grade. Before this realization, I rarely classified people as different based on the color of their skin. My friend circle was very diverse – my best friend was white and my other best friend was Arab (and I am Asian). Then, I entered 7th grade. Once I entered 7th grade, the other Asian girls in my classes approached me and we started doing everything together. Honestly, I don't even remember how it happened. I just know that one day, I started hanging out with more Asian people than non-Asian people. Anyways, back to my point – people start to associate with others that physically resemble them, because friends usually have things in common, and the physical attributes are what brings them together. The group forms based on the common “look” that they possess. Of course, not to say that exceptions don't exist, but for the most case, you see white people hanging out with white people, black people hanging out with black people, and etc.
Back to what I was trying to say from the beginning, the world is always going to be prejudiced. And since there are many recognizable names with different culture (i.e. John Smith – white, compared to Tyrone Jackson – black), it is easier to distinguish people. Therefore, it is easy to become prejudiced as well. So, do colored people tend to choose white people as far as job applications go? Personally, I think colored people will be more fair as far as picking people of color for the job openings. Sure, they might pick more white people compared to black and brown people, but I think they would pick more black and brown people than white people would. I think it's because they would be more open to choosing black and brown people, since they are more familiar of black and brown people. Plus, remembering what Sam said in class about white people being less likely to help out black and brown people than white people, whereas black and brown people were more likely to help out both white and colored people equally. This made me think and assume that black and brown people would be more likely to choose both white and colored people when choosing job applicants for their companies.

I see where this article is heading, but quite honestly, it is really difficult to agree with it entirely. I believe that with every book, people have different interpretations of its meanings and underlying messages. The Bible is no exception. If Tibor Krausz, the writer of the article, has fully read the Bible and interpreted many of its stories as dirty and inappropriate, it is his own opinion. Although, on one hand, I doubt that Krausz has ever fully read the Bible. Anyone who has read the Bible would agree that the things that Krausz talked about are no more than a fraction of the stories. Unless he was looking to find stuff like that, it’d be hard to read the Bible and immediately think, “This book is so inappropriate!” Just because the person reading it thinks the text might have sexual innuendo, does not mean that it actually does. The article said that “thigh” referred to the male genitalia, but who reading it would actually think that? Not I!
Plus, like others have mentioned, the Bible was written long ago, and the linguistics and logistics have changed a lot since the time it was written. Therefore, it is hard to argue to interpret the Bible literally. Sure, some of the things are arguably (and obviously) morally wrong in our standards, like Lot’s daughters raping of Lot. But is it really important to linger on that fact alone when analyzing a text like the Bible? It’s like lingering on the fact that Harry Potter tripped and fell flat on his face when he defeated Voldemort (I’m making that up, obviously, but you get the point).
I would just like to argue and point out that the people that are saying that the Bible is X-rated and inappropriate, probably have never read the Bible in its entirety. I have never met a non-Christian that has read the Bible cover to cover say to me that it was harmful and inappropriate. There are more important things in the Bible to concentrate on than to argue about the morality of the people and their deeds. So to the people agreeing with this article: read the Bible first! So top lingering on the trivial, unimportant facts and read for yourself what the Bible is actually about, thank you very much!

I did notice that many times during our discussions about race, it always ends up being about black and white. In our discussion groups and even during Sam's lectures, we busy ourselves with talking about the struggles among blacks and whites. Of course, Sam does mention “brown people,” but it always takes up so little and insignificant amount of time than it does with blacks and whites. But then again, even when discussing American history, it is so rare that the history books and teachers talk about the others – Asians, Latinos, Hispanics, and etc. - whoever they may be. I think, the biggest reason for many race discussions turning into a discussion of white versus black, is due to the long impactful history the struggle embedded into American history.
I do agree with what other posters said about it being inevitable. American history has been so occupied with slavery and emancipation of slaves, and rightfully so, that there has been so little time to talk about the browns. There is just so much to talk about with slavery and problems that arose from slavery, that it is easy to get caught up in talking about it. The dispute between blacks and whites have been so great. It, however, does make me wonder why the browns have never really made a great impact in American history. As an Asian American myself, I wanted to bring this idea up in my discussion group – actually, my friend and I were planning on bringing this up in our discussion group in the near future. “Browns” are classified as minorities, and it seems that even in its place in history, we have been minorities.
From another point of view, it is also a wonder why so many groups were clumped together into one group. Even in the white versus black debate, there are so many different groups involved in a “white” group and a “black” group. A “white” person could be from Europe, Australia, Asia, and even Africa. Also, it may be that in the white versus black debate, the “brown people” are already put into the black group. Maybe in generalizing the debate, the Asians, Latinos, Hispanics, and other brown people are automatically considered to be a part of the “black” group, just as the people on the “white” team is considered the “same”. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, as someone considered “brown,” it would be nice to be talked about in the race debate sometimes, but maybe we're already a part of the discussion – just generalized and considered one of the “blacks” as someone that is not “white”.

As someone who loved Avatar, I can't help but disagree with David Brooks' arguments. I may be biased because I loved the movie, but I don't know anyone that saw Avatar as more than a mere form of entertainment. White Messiah fable? Okay, sure, I can see where Brooks is coming from, but how many people will immediately think of the White Messiah fable upon coming out of the movie theater after watching Avatar? I'm betting only David Brooks. Everyone I know had thoughts along the lines of, “Wow, the special effects were amazing!” The beautiful scenery of the foreign planet, the colorful natives, and the vastness of their tree – the movie was full of things to rest your eyes upon. To think that David Brooks didn't focus on that, it just seems like Brooks watched the movie with the intention of finding faults within it, didn't see any obvious faults, so he went directly and linked it with the first thing he could think of. “It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace.” Seriously, does anyone really think this way besides this guy? Because to me, the only one that seems to rest on assumptions is this guy. If Brooks had just talked about how Avatar runs along the same plot lines of many movies such as Pocohontas, etc., I would've agreed with him, but he's gone a little too far with this one.
Many movies have underlying messages that the director puts in intentionally to make its viewers more aware of a situation or an opinion, but I don't see that happening in Avatar. I think James Cameron made Jake Sully a white male not because he wanted to show the world that white men are the heros of the world, but because that's what Americans are used to seeing. It's still bad, but not as bad as Brooks' opinions. If Jake Sully were not white, then the movie might not have been as successful. It may sound wrong, and it is, but that's just how it is. If Jake Sully were an Asian man, would people have loved Avatar as much as they do now? I think if Jake Sully were Asian, the movie would've been called Ninja Assassin instead of Avatar. In the end, it's just the image that Hollywood has created about men of different races, not about white supremacy or the white messiah fable.
I say, just watch the movie for what it is – a form of entertainment.

I remember a conversation that I had with my friend once about this. We thought that the only reason why it threw people off as being “wrong” was because it seemed “scary”. To those who don’t know that the women do have a choice in wearing burqas, it certainly does look weird and scary. Just like to those who don’t know about geisha could be afraid of their pale-white makeup. But obviously, ignorance doesn’t give anyone the right to make judgments. Unfamiliarity brews contempt. However, from others’ comments I found out that many French people are Muslim. Then, why don’t they understand that these women have the right to express themselves? Why must this ridiculous decision to ban burqas have to surface? Just because someone looks different doesn’t mean that they’re wrong – it just means that they express themselves in different ways. I would expect that the French people, and the government, should be familiar with the wearing of burqas, unless I’m expecting too much from them. The decision for these women to wear burqas is just like how some women in America choose to wear a lot of makeup while others choose to wear no makeup at all, and how some women wear skirts and dresses all the time while others wear mostly pants. It’s all personal preference. It’s a way for the women to express themselves! It’s taking freedom away!
I also remember watching the news and seeing women’s rights movement groups claiming that women should be allowed to show their faces instead of hiding them behind burqas. Back then, I thought that the women were forced to wear them and that the women’s rights movement groups had to be correct. I now know better, but there are many people who don’t. So the French people who think that women shouldn’t be wearing burqas may have a somewhat of a valid point in that they don’t know what they’re talking about, but the government? Shouldn’t they know better? But then again, what can you really expect from any government of any country? Banning the wearing of burqas is like banning women from wearing pants! Maybe not exactly, but you get what I’m trying to say. I think the banning of burqas is the same as banning freedom of expression. The women are choosing to wear what they want, so they should be allowed to do so. If someone told me that the government was going to ban the wearing of pants on women, I would be very angry, so I can’t help but sympathize with these women. Besides, it’s much better than seeing women walk around with little to no clothing on their bodies! Let these women wear whatever their heart desires!

Tuesday

Watching Pat Robertson's stupid remark made me really angry. Of all the things to say about the horrible earthquake that happened in Haiti, Robertson chose to say that the earthquake happened because of a pact with the devil? He could have talked about the many missionaries that are in Haiti in aid. He could have talked about many churches' attempt to collect money and goods for Haiti. He could have talked about anything! Anything else would have sufficed. But no, he chose to talk about a nonsensical pact with the devil! “True story,” he said, but really? It makes even less sense than unicorns and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. What factual information can he provide to back an outrageous statement as that? A lot of people above me have also commented about how stupid he is, but I can't help but reiterate. I mean, how else am I supposed to express my frustration toward this stupidity?
As a Christian myself, it makes me cringe to think that there might be people that associate all Christians with a guy like Robertson. There are so many Christians that are doing their best to aid Haiti – providing aid by both volunteering and sending help from far away. It's not just Christians that have offered to help Haiti – it seems that everyone in the world except a “select few” like Robertson are concerned about Haiti and its people. So why must Robertson taint his title as “Reverand” and accuse Haitians of dealing with the devil? Even if it were true, which obviously is not, such a thing is not necessary to say in midst of a devastating situation. Even if the devil told Robertson himself that there was a fact, it was the most unncessary comment to have been made. Olbermann was rather colorful in the words he used to talk about Robertson and his statement, but I think every word of Olbermann's was necessary in describing this guy – he's a disgrace to Christians and human beings in general!
It also shocks me to think that there are other people in the world that view tragedies in the same way Robertson views them. And the problem is that there's no one around them that is able to correct them – whether it be because they feel the same way or they're too intimidated by the person's status to say otherwise. The saying “ignorance is bliss” certainly does not apply in this situation. It makes me glad that I am able to receive education that allows me to think for myself but also lets me to intake others' ideas. Instead of being force-fed information, I am able to digest it and make it my own.