I really wasn't at all surprised by this letter. I find it interesting that so many people who responded to this post were shocked that inmates and "dangerous" convicted felons could actually have souls and experience compassion. The question I have to ask is when and how was this compassion and emotional range developed? Before or after murdering or raping and becoming felons and receiving life sentences? I guess most people in society have a preconceived notion about felons and those in jail being "bad" and deserving to be punished, however, they're people just like the rest of us. They have families, they lose children in car accidents, and they clearly attempt to lead lives as normal as possible for their situation. One of the most striking things the "lifer" above said was the following: "Even in this dark place of hate and misery, you find compassion. You see human beings helping one another simply because seeing another suffer touches their soul. Such compassion is not a commodity held only for the innocent; it is the heart’s recognition of pain in another and the soul’s demand to provide succor—and to any human being no matter their circumstance." Finding compassion in a "dark place of hate" is something so rare and so beautiful that one should never take for granted. So does being sentenced to a life in prison honestly change a man? Does he see the light? I suppose knowing that was your fate and that it could never be altered in any way, with no hope of appeals or release or probation, would make a person attempt to change their ways. But why does this happen? I would imagine the actions that led a person to get sentenced to life in jail would be so horrendous that a person's character would have to be severely flawed to not experience any kind of spiritual or emotional change. But man is known to be compassionate -- there are very few people I know that don't live by the golden rule "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Everyone hears horrible stories about men (and women) in prison - being the "bitch" of the block, getting raped, warnings to not drop the soap, etc. But when tragedy strikes, people band together no matter their differences. Genuine acts of kindness can truly be a relief, no matter from friend or enemy. I personally believe that these "lifers" who show such great strides in character development should be able to appeal their predetermined fates and that they would honestly be able to function normally in society, but people are so quick to judge others that it would be hard to re-assimilate into jobs, family life, etc.

At first, I was totally pumped to take this course. I was excited to experience life on the other side of the spectrum: I'm a white female who grew up in Smalltown, USA and attended Catholic school her entire life. I was looking forward to the "shock factor" and to hopefully better understand those of different races which I was so unaccustomed to until stepping foot onto Penn State's campus (which is saying something, considering the majority of the population is Caucasian). Then, slowly but surely, I stopped listening as carefully to what Dr. Richards had been saying in class over and over and over again; it was all so monotonous to me. That is, until yesterday. This class was the perfect example of the class Laurie was talking about when we can finally put someone else's lenses on and see the situation through their eyes. I personally think this trailer was extremely well done, and very effective in grabbing the attention of those who were starting to drift from the class. What struck a particular chord with me was when Sam makes the statement "I am not saying that the insurgency has a right to go after American soldiers. What I am saying, as a sociologist, is the following: I understand." Putting myself in the place of the Afghans living in fear of the war going on right outside their homes knowing that the American soldiers are pillaging their country for THEIR oil truly helped me better understand the situation. I walked away from this class contemplating how much my warmth and mode of transportation and similar luxuries truly are worth. Is it worth my own soldiers terrorizing Afghans for taking a few pieces of wood to stay warm at night? Destroying their car and chasing them off the street and then defending their actions by saying that when you loot, that's what you get? Yes, I am well aware that not all soldiers are like that, but as an Afghan, it is hard to see the good. In class, Dr. Richards stated the statistic that it is considered okay for 29 civilians to die in combat/war per one terrorist or opposing soldier being killed. 29 innocent lives. Would I be fighting like hell to get these "Christian Invaders" out of my country and away from oil that is rightfully mine? There's not a doubt in my mind I would be joining the insurgency. Once again, in the mindset of an Afghan, all I hear about the war is terrible things that the Americans are doing. I hear the Christian US leaders telling the public and militia to chase us back to our caves. And for what reason? Religion is an extremely controversial subject, everyone knows that. But how is it fair for these "Christian Invaders" to walk into my country and punish me for being Muslim and having oil? It's hypocrisy.

As Dr. Richards pointed out in his summary of thought about the CNN video link posted above, I agree with the statement that the development of these degrading, horrific video games lies in a more deeply rooted emotion that connects us all in a way no one can seem to figure out. How has this hatred spawned into such a violent affair that, in almost all cases, is directed towards sexual abuse and even the rape of women. I find it shocking to see the statistics about how many women will suffer from sexual misconduct, and even more shocking is how many women put up with it. Honestly, how many of you women can say that every time you've heard a catcall walking down the street you did nothing about it, said nothing about it, just kept walking? Or how about anytime a frat guy starts dancing with you just a little too closely or grabbing you a little too tightly and you just brush it off as 'he's drunk' and laugh it off? That's what I thought. Now, this particular subject hits an extremely personal chord with me. At the beginning of the semester, one of my closest friends and roommates was raped after she went out one night. The guys who did it was someone she considered a friend. I know as an outsider to the whole ordeal, the anger that arose from experiencing her pain and seeing any of her faith in humanity completely deteriorate was heartbreaking. To even begin to fathom that a video game was created where the sole purpose was to grope or repeatedly rape a woman, and consequently cause this destruction of her own, personal (albeit fictional) world is absolutely and truly disgusting, especially because I've been a part of that destruction and am still currently trying to help pick up the pieces. I propose that everything possible be done to prevent these games from ever circulating through the hands of gamers everywhere. The Japanese government needs to ban games like this from being created and therefore ending up on the Internet. Further, whoever approved these games to be download-able and therefore all over the Internet (if this was the case, I understand things like this video game can get "leaked") should realize how destructive these games can be to women and their families. Exactly as Dr. Richards stated, can you imagine any male sitting across from someone they truly care about or love knowing that this violence is directed to their loved ones? So why do males continually buy and play these games? Many excuse this as purely a form of entertainment, but just as the Grand Theft Auto phenomenon has imitated young American society's thoughts on felony, I believe rape and sexual is assault is so much worse, and hence teaching today's youth that this is acceptable behaviour. Where does it end!?

I agree with what the student above says, to a certain extent. I don't fully believe that affirmative action completely diminishes the quality of care throughout the medical field or law practices, etc. However, I do believe that nepotism has a more potent impact with this issue. It's a pretty well known observation that colored males, females, and then white males are the preference for medical residents and practices due to the quality and rigor of education outside of the United States. So if the majority of people practicing medicine are not of European descent, how can we adamantly state that affirmative action could possibly cause a decrease in the health care field in the future, or even presently. Nepotism, on the other hand, plays a large role in most areas of the work force for people receiving jobs, especially in the declining economy while people are so desperate for a steady income. Coming into Penn State, the students and professors always boast about how large the Alumni Association is and how we should always use that to our full advantage. It's about knowing someone who knows someone or being lucky enough to be related to a big shot in one of the more important fields that our country so vigilantly relies upon. Further, I don't fully believe that we will ever be able to completely abolish affirmative action or nepotism. These unfair advantages will always exist, whether affirmative action be the result of guilt from past actions or nepotism just the unfortunate benefit of having many acquaintances. How can we even begin to put an end to these things? Putting an end to fulfilling quotas or requiring a check for acquaintances in a company or practice, etc. doesn't seem to be enough. I do believe that this was a good topic to bring up in relation to the class topic this past week since no one ever wants to say that this is wrong. But I feel that going to job interviews or taking medical boards and exceeding at these things but then not getting the job or residency position due to quotas, affirmative action, or nepotism does not inspire one to continue to strive to succeed. So what happens next? What exactly can we do to "level the playing field?" Yes we have SATs, MCATs, and LSATs, but can we solely base intelligence, personality, or hard-working and determinant qualities through paper? Does removing photos from applications or leaving out gender/race check boxes improve the odds? Maybe we should all be given numbers instead of names so no one can personally identify with anyone else. But is that what society should really come down to?

Most of the above posts pretty accurately describe my thoughts about the past two class periods (no pun intended, I swear), but this one definitely made an impact on my thought process. The conclusion I came to following the discussion of Laurie's bleeding was that we as a male-dominated society would not be uncomfortable if a woman's menstruation cycle wasn't considered disgusting and foreign by most males out there. To be straightforward, I personally have always felt uncomfortable talking about it; but, in general, I am an extremely private person. This in particular has always been something that's been personal and private. Yes, I have rejoiced in the fact that I can now sexually reproduce and create beautiful children (though hopefully not anytime in the near future), but do I need to share in that fact and openly tell my group of friends, which is male dominated, every time I'm "bleeding?" I don't think so. I do, however, believe that discussing this topic with women is completely different. We all like to bitch and moan about how much it sucks: we get bloated, our breasts hurt, we're irritable and emotional, we can't have sex for said number of days (unless you're into that), and we crave things that we normally do not eat on a regular basis. And I think that is the sole reason behind all the uncomfortable whispers and the reasoning behind people getting up and leaving the lecture hall. We talk about how much is sucks and how strange it can be. And as the author states above, in a roundabout way, bearing children is the one true thing we can hold in the power struggle against men in the society in which we live. So yes, in general, talking about "bleeding" and ovulation and having babies can be awkward and foreign to many males, but who has made it that way? As I've said before, I am not one to advocate for women openly and frequently talking about their menstruation cycle, but I suggest having this natural process seen in a much more positive light. Men, stop joking about it when your friends or girlfriends get bitchy or mean. It isn't the sole reason behind our sometimes poor attitudes. My father is in a house with three women and a neutered dog; all of my guy friends joke with him that he's "drowning in the estrogen ocean and even the damn dog isn't a guy." The conversation usually ends with "You know [insert name of friend], without that estrogen, you wouldn't be here." So in conclusion, if we ourselves put aside our awkwardness and stop struggling with the thought of this natural process occurring to ALL women, we won't have to have this "go for the jugular" conversation ever again.

I have to say this is one of the questions posed during any of the classes that ever truly struck a chord with me. I completely agree with Dr. Richards in the statement he makes about white people having a deep rooted shame from the past actions of our ancestors. And I must say I am truly tired of being held responsible for those thoughts or actions of my previous generations. Yes, the time of slavery and belief in white power was absolutely awful and has destroyed relationships between those of white skin and those of color. But I can say without hesitation that I was not raised to be prejudice or to think negative thoughts towards those that are different than me. I went to Catholic school for 14 years and if anything has been drilled into my brain it is to be accepting of others, no matter who they are. It is clear that Caucasians deal with this guilt (or lack thereof) in many different ways: some lash out, some shy away from others of color, some try to mend the hurt feelings. I just wish that we could accept what has happened in the past and realize that the actions of our ANCESTORS and not US (although there are the exceptions) are the main cause of this diversity. And diversity, which is rarely a bad thing, has led to the remembrance of bitter memories and feelings. One way I believe we can jump start this movement would be not to rewrite the history books but to alter the dominant view of white supremacy that has always been taught, just as my classmate above has suggested. Children in elementary and high school are very influential, and the knowledge of the period of time before Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Jim Crowe laws has always been portrayed as one of the worst times in American History. Yes, it sucked, yes white people did horrible things. But that view of supremacy had been instilled in the minds of those people through improper education of a distorted world view. I believe at a school as big as ours, the knowledge gained from this race and race relations class definitely has the ability to shape the way each ethnic group sees one another and can maybe help us be a little more understanding about where we came from and, more importantly, where we are going. As my father always says, "water under the bridge." And although I do believe we must recognize what has been done to belittle those of color in the past, if we can never let go of those feelings of hate we will NEVER be able to move forward as a society and learn to better accept one another.

I completely agree with the students' responses in the videos posted above. Tuesday's and Thursday's classes have definitely been the most eye-opening and intriguing classes for me so far. It still amazes me that blacks and Native Americans are discriminated to this extent today. And knowing that there are people out there in the world that think we have no responsibility or believe that it isn't "our place" to step up to the plate and defend what we know to be morally right. I was raised Catholic and have attended 14 years of private Catholic schooling. I've had religion shoved down my throat to such an extreme that I can't really imagine turning my back on a situation like the Muslim woman experienced - no matter the person's race. However, as a Psych major, I know better. There have been numerous studies done that show people stepping aside and not helping out in dire discriminatory scenarios. It takes a rare breed of being to actually gather enough courage to say what's happening isn't right and needs to stop. A situation that immediately comes to mind is a particular scene from one of my favorite movies - Remember the Titans. During move-in day at football camp, there is a scuffle between a white and black roommate. The black character, Julius, has a poster in his room of a black athlete on the first place podium after some event with his hand held high in the air. The white roommate, Gerry, tells him to take the poster down because he isn't looking at it for two weeks. They start a fight and a passerby strolls down the halls. Upon seeing the fight, he chooses not to break it up but instead call the rest of the team's attention to it. This results in a massive, team scuffle. I feel as though this is what happens in many discriminatory disagreements - something happens, a person draws negative attention to the situation (or does nothing at all, which is the most common response), and then increases the problem exponentially. So if those of you out there who believe that it isn't your place to do something to stop this unruly, horrendous chain of events, you are wrong. HOWEVER, one student in class (I believe on Tuesday) stated that they wanted to know when this cycle of blame that is constantly placed on us and our ancestors stops. I'm sure my grandparents in their day were raised to be prejudiced, but I can truly say that I grew up in a home very tolerant of other races. I was always taught to be respectful of others, no matter the color of their skin. So where does this vicious cycle of blame end?

First off, I would like to state that I completely agree with the statement being made behind the posed question, that society in general is much more accepting of lesbian couples than homosexual male couples. Many of the previous authors of these comments are basing their opinions off of the well-known fact that lesbians, and women in general, are a much more accepting gender population, especially about sexuality and the liberty of making free choices, than men and gay men. And yes, women are notorious for being maternal and obnoxiously caring at times, and although men are not known or respected for this character quality, I'm not saying that men in general are apathetic or uncaring. And this point of women being naturally more accepting than men in general doesn't even answer the question posed in the video. The question inquired as to why lesbian couples were generally more socially accepted compared to gay men. To answer this, I would first like to state that I believe the societal norms we place upon each gender is a vast separator that distinctly places homosexual male couples into an uncomfortable spotlight. Think about this: as little children, we are thrown into what can only be called stereotypical norms. Girls wear dresses and play house while boys roll around in the dirt, draw some blood, and punch each other to show each other how tough they are. If little girls would ever been seen displaying this behaviour, they would be immediately reprimanded. Young boys, however, are rewarded and praised for showing dominance and "manly" instincts at a young age. From such a young age men are taught not to cry or be ultrasensitive to anything. And although there are probably hundreds of reasons why lesbians are more widely accepted than gay men, I believe the norms pushed onto us from birth is one key piece of evidence to this unfair segregation. Can you imagine growing up in a family that pushed and praised you for being a boy only to have to tell them you're homosexual? These stereotypes are probably some of the most difficult to try and break through. Growing up as a woman, who to this day still drunkenly holds the hands of her friends and kisses them on the cheek for taking care of her, I know full well how easy it would be to simply be mistaken (and accepted) for being a lesbian. And guys, it doesn't help that you cheer on girl on girl make-out sessions at parties. If we ever pulled that one on you, you would be mortified.

After reading the article and the comments by Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, I am completely appalled. I think this article is extremely relevant to the classes this week. Governor Bauer was most likely raised in a wealthy, Southern home, attended private schooling, and had family or close friends in politics that were able to hone his political skills and career. These attributes most likely led him to his distorted beliefs about those in need of welfare.

This is exactly what Professor Richards was pointing out to us all week - we follow in our parents footsteps, and our birth and social rank are predetermined by that of our parents. We normally follow in our parents footsteps: we like similar foods, music, movies, and although we rebel, we come to enjoy the things that are familiar and comforting to us. Clearly, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer is comfortable with degrading others. And as Sam also pointed out, most of those that are on the welfare program are children. So how can he direct his negative connotations of those on welfare as animals towards children? What have they ever done to deserve being called animals? Infants and children have no control over their current situation. Granted that the welfare system is a government program and many people can weasel their way unnoticed and abuse our tax dollars, there are those that truly depend on welfare as a means of sustaining life. Should these human beings that need welfare to survive be considered animals? Or should these negative comments be directed towards those that abuse this government system? This brings me to my next point - calling out those that abuse welfare is a completely different situation compared to degrading those that need it to live. Those that truly are lazy and have zero motivation to go find a job are now even less likely to be responsive to government officials and attempt to look for employment.

Further, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer should have seriously considered what he was about to say before he gave his speech, and seriously reconsider who his speech writers are. How could he have read his speech and given it, knowing the aftermath would have severely altered his political appearance. Politicians such as Andre Bauer cannot continue to make insensitive, degrading comments and expect to skyrocket their political career into the Senate. Especially as Mr. Bauer is attempting to take over Governor Mark Sanford's place, you would expect someone that was going to be constantly thrown into the political spotlight would much more carefully choose his words.

Before Avatar came to theaters, I can remember seeing the previews and admittedly showing my lack of desire to see the film. However, after the film came to theaters and was a blockbuster success, my intrigue was piqued and I continually made plans to see the movie with friends, but conveniently each time the plans fell through. After about a month of this, I stopped making weak attempts to see the film, figuring I would just rent it whenever it came out on DVD.
Upon reading the article "The Messiah Complex" that Mr. Brooks wrote, I feel as though he makes a good, valid point; however, I disagree with what he has to say and believe that he brought to light a point of view that isn't intentionally degrading or whatever you want to call it. He points out that many movies such as "Pocahontas" and "Dances With Wolves" have the same white superiority savior mentality. What about movies such as "Blade," "I, Robot," and "I Am Legend"? Every one of these movies have black protagonists that are attempting to save the world, or at least their own race against vampires or robots. And even "Men in Black" (Will Smith seems to have recurring roles in these types of movies) has a duo of a white and black person fighting together against aliens.
Further, I believe Brooks's statement "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," is offensive. I do not believe that these "native victims" would deny help from anyone, but that conveniently the so-called "heroes" happen to be white. How can anyone prove that this is an intentional jab at any race beside Caucasians? You can't. And although the White Messiah complex seems to be a recurring theme, I find it hard to believe that all the directors in Hollywood sit around their casting room thinking 'I'm going to make the protagonist in my movie white because white people always save the day.'
Finally, I think that many people are much too quick to play the white messiah complex card. What happened to comic books, movies, music, and video games just solely being a form of entertainment? I'm astounded at some of the responses stating that teacher's strive to find sexual undertones in McDonald's commercials or violence in new music and movies. If anyone is at fault, I think it is the people that dissect these movies and find this White Messiah complex to be true. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't completely lost all my faith in humanity just yet.