I’m so glad this letter was shared on the blog. Since Sam mentioned his interactions with lifers in prison, I’ve been thinking about it and challenging my preconceived notions about inmates and what do I really think about them and their circumstances. It’s not that I had a really intense disliking or hate toward inmates, but my thoughts were generally that they had made a mistake and there is a lot of things they will need to work out while in prison. This was not formed on the basis of knowing anyone in prison or interacting with an inmate, but mostly formed from movies and TV shows depicting inmates. I am definitely intrigued with the process that they undergo while in prison. For some inmates it seems that their time spent behind bars is used to deepen their hate/convictions and continue in a downward spiral of excuses and pain, taken out on anyone/anything but themselves and ultimately not really dealing with the act they committed. For many others, the exact opposite can occur – they use their time in prison devoted to self reflection, asking tough questions and being active in a search for who they are, and what has made up their past to determine how it will affect their future. Why do some inmates choose one path over the other, and especially in the case for lifers, what encourages change within them and why would they want to change, because they already know how the rest of their life is going to be spent to some extent?

The guy who wrote this letter has obviously spent a lot of time reflecting not only on his own life and the choices he has made but you can see how this change within his life is allowing him to see life around him completely different. It is almost poetic to hear him describe this encounter of his fellow inmates – the breakdown of prejudice and hate for a moment of pure love (I have no idea if the guy who wrote this letter is a Christian but I feel like his description is such a testament to the way Christ loves his creation but anyways …) I don’t know, I think this letter just really shows the potential and hope that is still possible even when everything seems gone and that life really is dependent upon what you fill your time and mind with because that directly effects the outcome of how you use that time and view your circumstances. I think this is a cool way to wrap up the semester of soc119 and see how dramatic of an effect looking outside your own world (ethnocentrism) and breaking down walls of prejudice and judgment. Between talking about these things and actually taking strides to make change (whether it’s individual or within your community) does matter and makes a difference.

Similar as to what other people posted – I agree that these marketed games are really disturbing and their continued production within the gaming industry in Tokyo is a big problem. I understand the idea of escapism and the fantasy aspect that people desire out of these games, but I definitely think a line is crossed when sexual violence is not only encouraged but clearly the sole purpose behind some of these games.

It seems Japan has pretty lax rules regarding game regulation, but considering the behavior these games promote, monitoring game manufacture’s content as well as creating restrictive regulations for games made and sold would be appropriate. There are a ton of issues that are brought on by developing monitoring/restrictions to these game developers, but I think the level of violence (physical, sexual, emotional) are so intense in some of the games produced not only in Japan (as illustrated through CNN’s story) but also within the U.S. I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to infringe on peoples creative rights in such a strict way, but when creativity produces behaviors that create more harm than good, action should definitely be taken.

I don’t play video games so I won’t pretend not to be biased on their effect but I think it’s still good to bring an outside opinion on what these games are fostering within their players. Considering kids of all ages can have access to these games is also troubling. Without reinforcement of these behaviors being wrong or hurtful, they will continued to be built up and most likely expressed at some point as those kids get older and placed in compromising situations.

To not only protect the welfare of young kids, but also impressionable adolescents and adult gamers, it’s important to set a precedence that these games and other forms of entertainment filled with this content is really not ok. Just because it’s in the “privacy” of your own home and you aren’t hurting anyone by just playing a video game – the message that these games send out and the behaviors that encourage speak so much louder than just the simple action of playing a game. How is it possible to say that these ideas can be kept separate and isolated from day to day behavior, when gamers are surrounded by this type of content all the time (I don’t think it is possible for them to be separated) and these behaviors/attitudes will eventually surface in some sort of conflict or issue.

I was encouraged by women’s groups advocating for bans as well as restrictions to the selling of these games but I definitely think more groups can lend their support, especially men. I know penn state has a group on campus, Men against violence to women (or something to that effect) and if these types of groups were also to show their support, it would speak loudly to men involved in developing/designing these games as well as men who play them.

When this video was shown in class, I was completely struck by it. Even four days after class, I’ve still found my mind wandering back to the video and the deep issues it addressed. I was even talking to my roommates about it – asking if they had seen it before or even heard of the original study that was done with the dolls. I definitely agree with the assessment of the video being disturbing, as mentioned by Sam before we watched it in class. I feel like there are so many things that need to be unpacked from this video: not only is there the overwhelming issue of race, but it also brings in thoughts on what is good? What is bad? What is beauty? I especially found it interesting that the age of the girls interviewed and the film maker were all young (high school age 14-18, and of course the little kids interviewed) and it’s crazy to see these kinds of identity issues so young. Granted high school and college years bring on a time of a lot of self identity discovery but it is clear there are other influences at work within these girls’ minds.

I’ve never been confronted with the blurry line involving race and beauty as drastically as some of the girls mentioned in the video, such as talking about taking baths in bleach, young daughters forced to use lightening cream by their mothers. However I think being a woman in today’s culture you are forced to confront race, body image, and sense of self at an even younger age. Depending on the type of environment you are surrounded by, these issues can either be brought out in a positive way or in a detrimental close-minded way

It definitely hurts you heart to see the burden that these girls carry, thinking they are not beautiful because of their racial features but the notion of this is being based on what? Where do these ideas and standards begin? How are they perpetuated? Especially in those little kids involved in the doll study, what is causing them to see black as bad and white as good, and are they applying that to themselves and form their identity around it?

Having a young girl select the black doll as being bad, and then asked which one she most resembles, she selected the black doll – that is crazy. Granted she is a young girl and maybe had a disconnect between the questions, but at what point did she develop these thoughts and feelings about race and values. Is it from her parents? Did it happen at school? Are her friends putting these ideas in her head? So many questions, with few answers but clearly it’s happening and needs to change.

Similar to what others have mentioned in their blogs, when considering Hawaii, I’ve never taken the time to question what has happened to the native peoples of Hawaii. I’ve just associated the state as an awesome vacation destination. I’ve heard from people who have traveled there, as well as seen various documentaries, that Hawaiians generally show a dislike toward tourists and those who are not of Hawaiian decent. I figured this was just a result of mass tourists ruining their laid back lifestyle but after reading this article, I can understand that this perceived dislike is rooted deep within Native Hawaiian history.

It is clear there has been a lot of pain, distrust and deception experienced by the Native Hawaiians, not only through their early conquering in 1893, but as their history has developed, their prominence and stories have diminished and have been left to fend for themselves. Reading about their current plight, it appears so similar to the treatment of Native Americans within the contiguous United States and I can’t help but feel guilty and saddened. Not only have they been disadvantaged from the start, but it has perpetuated throughout generations, leaving these native peoples with nothing left to succeed or fight back. And what does it say about our country that we let them live like this for so long?

This legislation however is a small light in the dark for this conflict. By earning federal recognition as an indigenous group, Native Hawaiians would be able to receive much needed power, land and money to help elevate their status and start the process of recovery and perpetuate hope for their people. Considering the massive amounts of drug abuse, violence and poverty within these Native Hawaiian communities, there is a lot of recovery work to be done, and the sooner they can start the better.

One of the quotes mentioned from a grassroots initiative in Hawaii was that “It is not the role of government to try and make up for past wrongs”, citing that it would give Native Hawaiians special treatment at the expense of wealth tax payers. I can understand both sides of this argument, but I feel that inevitably you cannot ignore the massive injustice that has been experienced by these native people for so long. Looking past the political agenda, economic issues, and money tied into such a heated debate, it is important to consider the basic needs of these people. While tourists are fueling a bustling vacation industry, just down the street from all of these glorious destinations, lies homeless Hawaiians who are unable to support themselves because not only are they given less opportunities, but are virtually passed by as nothing.

This article was eye-opening and I’m encouraged with this legislation, which could be really ground breaking for Native Hawaiians and hopefully they will begin to rebuild upon their historic foundations to create an even stronger and supported nation.

Natalie Randolph is awesome. I saw this news over spring break and I was really encouraged by it. She is a confident, respectful, educated woman looking to pursue her passion without stereotypes holding her back. Women in the realm of football has been around for awhile: seldom high school women players, small professional leagues, as well as assistant coaching jobs, but Randolph as Head Football Coach is a great accomplishment in the development of women within this sport. I think it’s interesting kind of the “juxtaposition” that is between her profession (science teacher) and this coaching job. Traditionally roles for women have included teaching and I like that she incorporates that “stereotype” by breaking the mold and coaching a high school boy’s football team. I can only being to imagine the scrutiny she will face from overzealous football parents and members of their community, but I also think this is a great opportunity for this area to embrace change and question why they feel a certain way about gender roles and if they really matter. If this curiosity into gender roles can continue and foster discussion then this coaching job will serve and even greater purpose than just a new job, it will let people outside of their “boxes” and relate to one another on another level rather than just gender, or race.
Randolph mentioned that she had played on tackle team (The Divas) and that in itself shows the strides women have made in the realm of this male dominated sport. Randolph is confident of the continued emergence of women within the sport over time – she clearly has a vision. She is focused on coaching these high school kids and not being outdone by the scrutiny that she is a woman or that her skills or knowledge are not up to par. Personally her football resume can speak for itself, especially because she is a woman and has had such a willingness to continue to play and be surrounded by the sport.
I found it interesting also that her family was not initially supportive of her love of the sport while in high school and didn’t let her play. She clearly didn’t let that stop her and found a way to play and coach. When describing her “challenges” I really liked how rather than pointing people out or placing blame, she described it as all the pieces aligning together and she works hard regardless of who’s paying attention and works to meet the demands she places upon herself. (I wonder though, if she places so many demands on herself, because of the pressure she has felt overtime because of her involvement with the sport)
In terms of being treated fairly, I thought her assessment related to what we touched on in class today. She said she gets why her treatment is sometimes unfair, but chalks it up to the fact that life is not fair for anyone and she doesn’t see it as something to hold her back.

Great question. I’ve never watched the bachelor so I cannot speak from personal experience about the show, but after looking at the photos from previous seasons as well as talking to friends who follow it religiously, it’s clear the show consistently selects white bachelor/bachelorettes and white contestants. There are many possibilities why this selection happens. I agree its producers could be trying to cater to an older audience and to do so they need to select a less diverse group as to not create “controversy” with diversity. It could be that the bachelor or bachelorette requests a specific race when profiling who they are attracted to. And in terms of addressing the title of this post, maybe white people are more willing to “humiliate” themselves because the repercussion they experience are far more underwhelming than if it was someone who was black or brown. Specifically, I was thinking about other dating shows showcasing Tila Tequila and Flava-Flav for example, and how much scrutiny was placed on the lifestyle and actions they took part in with their contestants. A lot of this same behavior can be seen on the Bachelor but it hasn’t nearly taken as much heat as these shows did. This could be an issue of race or it could be something totally different depending on the demographic of who’s watching and their attitudes. I have no idea if these are valid possibilities but definitely interesting to think about.

It’s also interesting to compare this show with other popular shows such as American Idol and America’s Next Top Model. I’ve seen these more frequently and it is obvious they show a variety of different ethnicities with its contestants. I am not sure if it is because the shows have different producers, are shown on different networks or if it is because they are appealing to a different generation. These shows also include black and brown hosts (Tyra Banks, Nigel barker, randy Jackson etc.) which could draw more of a diverse crowd when it comes to try-outs for contestants. It would be interesting to compare viewership for each show (ANTM, American Idol and The Bachelor) and see the demographic break down of the audience. My initial thought would be that more black and brown people would watch America’s Next Top Model and American Idol compared to The Bachelor, merely based on relating to the contestants and/or hosts. But that could be incredibly narrow minded to think that, and who knows more black and brown people could watch The Bachelor and relate well to its contestants.

It’s hard to believe that I haven’t noticed the incredible lack of diversity on shows such as the Bachelor but I guess now after thinking about it, I will be more attuned to notice. And I wonder if I have been more apt to notice diversity on ANTM and American Idol because it is so seldom seen on other mainstream shows.

I can understand your point completely. How are immigrants in addition to Americans (generations removed from the time of Native American genocide) supposed to take responsibility for these acts we did not commit or even realized occurred to the degree in which they did. In one sense I agree with you and feel like it is not our place to acknowledge these acts because we did not physically take part in them but the majority of my thought lies on the fact that if we know this is what history has depicted and has dramatically shaped the injustice toward the Native American culture we see today, how can we just sit and say “well sorry, it is not my fault”. That is troubling for me – not only in terms of trying to place yourself in their shoes, but also just considering that mentality itself, is a very selfish way to go about our lives. Waking up every morning and having no concept of how your actions affect others, how your ability to do something or not to do something could have a huge impact on not only those whom you come into contact each day but also a more widespread impact of a decision/implication being carried throughout society. I think it is common however for most people to default to that reaction because the history of Native American genocide has been kept under wraps for so long and by bringing it up, it just opens a Pandora’s Box, complicated, messy and deep. Placing guilt and blame is not a good way to solve this issue of neglect and wrong but I agree with the point made that education is a huge step in the right direction. When I think back on the education I received in terms of Native Americans the image that was crafted was about Pocahontas and John Smith, as well as the first Thanksgiving between the Indians and Pilgrims. As far as I knew, Native Americans welcomed us with open arms and everything was just great. This is very naïve and so far from the truth, but it is sad to think that this is how that image has stayed with me until now and really discussing the truth behind the issue. I think it’s important to start this education at an early enough age so that it will be remembered but also appropriate enough for its “graphic” nature. I think equating it to the teaching of the holocaust is appropriate because you want students to know the truth so they are not deceived but you also want them to be old enough to be able to handle the material with maturity and actually understand its implications. Setting the tone of this issue with education is only the first step. Once people are educated it is then up to organizations to set up means to help Native Americans in terms of giving them more resources to actually live life and more opportunities for their culture to be accurately discussed and more chances to advance and have their voices heard.

I really like the point you’ve presented. The idea that race conversations are always returning to black and white is a reality, and I’ve definitely noticed it in class as well as in our small groups. I feel like the discussion group I attend has just started to scratch the surface of race and what it means in the context of our group and for our culture as a whole. In terms of black and white on a larger scale, I think there is an un-discussed notion that it is a responsibility as a part of the white American culture to recognize the brutality of slavery but then to not talk about it because it brings up too many complicated and difficult issues. That being said, when in a discussion of race, I can understand why white people tend to take a back seat in the conversation as not to provoke or push buttons. We’ve talked about this in class before and I’ve definitely been more attentive to it in terms of the discussions outside of class and around campus. I also liked the point you brought up regarding the difference in discrimination with black compared to brown races. Segregation within the United States had a front row seat within the media, depicted across newspapers, radios and televisions. As a result of so much exposure during this tense time, whites and blacks were very familiar with the issues at hand and either confronted them head –on or just left them alone. In comparison, discrimination towards Native Americans, Mexicans, Indians or other races within the United States has been treated very hush-hush, not acknowledging its existence but not denying it has happened or continues to happen. Because of this stark difference in treatment of these discriminatory behaviors, it creates different stigmas attached to them. These stigmas then create altered perceptions and pre-conceived notions about race and place restrictions and fencing around what’s appropriate to talk about. That is one area where I think this class has begun to help me grow a lot in terms of challenging these “pre-conceived” notions I’ve developed. Being able to define what I think about different races, why I think them and if it is just a stereotype or truth based on my experiences and interactions is huge in terms of breaking through the race barrier. It also creates more comfort and vulnerability in tackling these sometimes awkward issues. Personally I’ve noticed myself being more comfortable in bringing up race within conversations and not being as timid in talking about the different issues race inevitably brings up. I’m interested in seeing as this class progresses, how my discussion group changes in terms of discussing race and as well as our class lectures becoming more direct and up front about current race issues.

Andre Bauer’s excuse of an apology is embarrassing. ““Do I wish I’d used a different metaphor? Of course,” he said. “I didn’t intend to offend anyone.” First of all that is not an apology and it brings us to the idea of constantly placing blame that we discussed in lecture the other day. Bauer is not taking responsibility for his choice of words, the fact that he actually spoke them in a public venue and that it wasn’t his fault because of his “uneducated” grandmother. Not ok. I can understand how Bauer has fostered a stigma of those seeking government assistance, based on his personal experiences, but that doesn’t make it correct to assume this general attitude for all government assistance. It’s sad to expect that someone is his position, could research and have a greater understanding as to where government assistance is going and the type of people who are receiving it. What frustrates me the most about his comment, is how nonchalant it appears (granted I didn’t see the actual interview, just the text of his quote). Yes we all make mistakes and especially under the pressure of public speaking, anything can happen. When in a position such as Mr. Bauer, Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, it’s not inappropriate for him to be equipped with speech writers and training at his disposal, so that when he gets into awkward situations, he will know exactly what to say. Looking at the larger context of this issue, the stigma attached to government assistance has been misinterpreted for a long time. Considering the economic hard times our country has been under within this past year, the standard idea of welfare and government assistance has changed; more are seeking aid to keep up with debt, job loss and other issues. As mentioned in your blog, considering the word association with poor and rich, which is more often associated with government assistance, and which one actually reaps the benefits of it. The political red tape that surrounds government assistance programs is so crazy and I’ll be the first to acknowledge I know very little about it, but from my experience it seems generally the people who need it the most appear to never be able to receive it or when they do, it is such a struggle to obtain it, it virtually brings them back to right where they began, not worse off, but definitely not better. I hope Andre Bauer can really analyze this situation that occurred and use it to bring positive change whether that is found in: acknowledging his fault (genuinely accepting responsibility), brining awareness to the stigma/pre –conceived notions tied into government assistance, or what the structure of government assistance actually looks like for the people involved (on both a national and state/local level).

Brooks’ article was great at provoking some interesting thoughts. I saw Avatar over Christmas break and it probably was not the best move I have ever seen but I enjoyed it. When it first came out, it seemed everyone was captured by its revolutionizing technology in the film making process as well as the furtherance of 3D viewing, which in my opinion was really cool to experience. Once these changes were praised and celebrated, I felt the next stage for Avatar was a transition into analyzing the actual storyline that was being presented, in addition to what its characters were representing. My initial interpretation of the story was not reactive; I just took it for its typical heroine plotline, as in the majority of movies made today. Until I started hearing some contemplative commentary in terms of what the movie was promoting, I really didn’t think twice about it (which is probably the point). I have heard various political and religious organizations and other popular media figures throwing out these various “theories” including: The White Messiah, the figure of Mother Nature and other “religious-offensive” critiques. I really appreciated Brooks’ tone throughout the article, especially when describing the plot of the film. With Avatar gaining so much acclaim, it’s easy to jump on the popular culture band wagon, but Brooks managed to maintain a defensive, mocking attitude. Although I don’t share his same mocking sentiment, I appreciate his humor and ideas. I enjoyed his last part of the article where Brooks’ described the idea that “It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic” because it really allows the viewer to question their culture and see if this idea is something they really believe or they just understand because that’s what they have been taught. In the end though, whether you have seen the film or not, and whether you took note to its plot, as stated by Brooks’ “It’s just escapism, obviously, but benevolent romanticism can be just as condescending as the malevolent kind.” Leaving the film with that understanding is key and where I also find myself at this point. Yes it is just a movie but it is important to consider the over arching themes being displayed and discuss them to the point where you can confidently make a decision as to whether you support them or not. This decision can then propel you toward the formation of opinions or even to the level of activism. Activism is a tricky, relating back to Brooks’ point of escapism; because really when you get down to it, it is just a movie and you can always just watch another one.