It is slightly unfortunate, but everything that Noam Chomsky is saying in this video makes perfect sense. In life, in the United States, at home, and especially in school, we are taught from a very young age that in order to do well in school or to succeed in life we must “follow directions.” We must listen and obey the rules. It is evident from the very first homework assignment we receive in kindergarten. On the very top- “directions.” If you do not follow the directions, you get a bad grade.

It has been said many, many times, that the “biggest scam in this country is education.” And this is sadly true. We are told that if we do not do well in high school, we wont get into a good college. And if we do not go to the absolute best college- and hopefully grad school- that we possibly can, we can never get a good job. And the funny thing is everyone in our entire society has fallen for it. Yes, I do believe that college is important to broaden our patters of thinking. Yes, I do go to college because I do believe that I will get a better job with a degree. And yes, the reverse is true as well. If I were hiring someone for a position at my company, I would probably not even consider hiring someone who didn’t go to college. However, do we believe this because people who go to good schools are actually smarter? Or are they just conformists who are made to believe this way because the education “industry” rakes in billions upon billions of dollars every year? I hate to say it, but I believe it’s the latter.

However, saying that this system is breeding conformity is a little harsh. He is right,though, that we need those people who are brave enough to challenge authority and to think outside the box. Those are the people who transform society, who change lives, and who create new ideas.

The problem is not that these people are too scared to think differently, it is that they don’t even know that they can.

On a separate but similar note, there have been many times throughout history where people were scared to challenge the societal norms (ie: slavery, segregation, the Holocaust…) and all it takes is one or two people to stand up and start making changes. More people will follow. Our education system happens to be very strong, and I think it is extremely important for shaping the way in which people think. But Chomsky might have a point….

I really thought that this lecture was so very insightful and it was so based on truth that it is almost ironic that no one has thought to say it like this before. In reading a number of the other comments from my peers on this page, I can see that Sam’s calling the war the “Christian Invasion” has offended a number of people, not surprisingly. Unfortunately, many people do not understand Sam’s point in its entirety. He is obviously not denouncing Christianity, but those who do not see what Sam was truly trying to say merely underscore his point even further. People are so loyal to their religions that the mere thought of it being spoken about in a negative light make every other point moot to them. This is the same thing that happens with Muslims, especially those radical fundamentalists who take it another extreme.

Religion is a scary thing. It is extremely personal and subjective and everyone has different beliefs. Saying that this is a Christian Invasion actually makes a lot of sense if we are comparing it to the so called “scary” Muslim invasion coming from the middle east. What exactly is the difference? Just because the majority of the people in the middle east who we are told to fear are Muslim it’s a Muslim invasion. That is the same exact thing when flipped the other way and looked at it from the other perspective. Just as Sam made us put ourselves in the shoes of the Iraqi Muslims, they are told or taught or shown to fear us just as we fear them. And us Americans are mostly Christian so couldn’t it be seen the same way? The radical fundamentalist religious people one way or another.

Furthermore, I do know that it is a painfully scary thought to believe that your country, your government, even your religion does not represent the “good guys” in every single situation. And we may not be the “bad guys” because there may not be a clearly defined “bad guy” and “good guy” in this case. This lecture was probably extremely frightening to many people, especially those who have been fooled by the façade of the American government for all of this time. Hopefully for many of these people, the lecture was more eye opening than negative, but I do understand the fear that this lecture could have instilled upon many people.

I really thought that this lecture was so very insightful and it was so based on truth that it is almost ironic that no one has thought to say it like this before. In reading a number of the other comments from my peers on this page, I can see that Sam’s calling the war the “Christian Invasion” has offended a number of people, not surprisingly. Unfortunately, many people do not understand Sam’s point in its entirety. He is obviously not denouncing Christianity, but those who do not see what Sam was truly trying to say merely underscore his point even further. People are so loyal to their religions that the mere thought of it being spoken about in a negative light make every other point moot to them. This is the same thing that happens with Muslims, especially those radical fundamentalists who take it another extreme.

Religion is a scary thing. It is extremely personal and subjective and everyone has different beliefs. Saying that this is a Christian Invasion actually makes a lot of sense if we are comparing it to the so called “scary” Muslim invasion coming from the middle east. What exactly is the difference? Just because the majority of the people in the middle east who we are told to fear are Muslim it’s a Muslim invasion. That is the same exact thing when flipped the other way and looked at it from the other perspective. Just as Sam made us put ourselves in the shoes of the Iraqi Muslims, they are told or taught or shown to fear us just as we fear them. And us Americans are mostly Christian so couldn’t it be seen the same way? The radical fundamentalist religious people one way or another.

Furthermore, I do know that it is a painfully scary thought to believe that your country, your government, even your religion does not represent the “good guys” in every single situation. And we may not be the “bad guys” because there may not be a clearly defined “bad guy” and “good guy” in this case. This lecture was probably extremely frightening to many people, especially those who have been fooled by the façade of the American government for all of this time. Hopefully for many of these people, the lecture was more eye opening than negative, but I do understand the fear that this lecture could have instilled upon many people.

I really thought that this lecture was so very insightful and it was so based on truth that it is almost ironic that no one has thought to say it like this before. In reading a number of the other comments from my peers on this page, I can see that Sam’s calling the war the “Christian Invasion” has offended a number of people, not surprisingly. Unfortunately, many people do not understand Sam’s point in its entirety. He is obviously not denouncing Christianity, but those who do not see what Sam was truly trying to say merely underscore his point even further. People are so loyal to their religions that the mere thought of it being spoken about in a negative light make every other point moot to them. This is the same thing that happens with Muslims, especially those radical fundamentalists who take it another extreme.

Religion is a scary thing. It is extremely personal and subjective and everyone has different beliefs. Saying that this is a Christian Invasion actually makes a lot of sense if we are comparing it to the so called “scary” Muslim invasion coming from the middle east. What exactly is the difference? Just because the majority of the people in the middle east who we are told to fear are Muslim it’s a Muslim invasion. That is the same exact thing when flipped the other way and looked at it from the other perspective. Just as Sam made us put ourselves in the shoes of the Iraqi Muslims, they are told or taught or shown to fear us just as we fear them. And us Americans are mostly Christian so couldn’t it be seen the same way? The radical fundamentalist religious people one way or another.

Furthermore, I do know that it is a painfully scary thought to believe that your country, your government, even your religion does not represent the “good guys” in every single situation. And we may not be the “bad guys” because there may not be a clearly defined “bad guy” and “good guy” in this case. This lecture was probably extremely frightening to many people, especially those who have been fooled by the façade of the American government for all of this time. Hopefully for many of these people, the lecture was more eye opening than negative, but I do understand the fear that this lecture could have instilled upon many people.

I think that the so called "issue" of whites eventually becoming the minority one day is not actually an issue at all. One can only hope that some day none of the minority and majority and power and control issues will matter at all. Unfortunately, as we all know, that is not going to happen any time soon. However, I do think that what is promising is not that the percentages and ratios will change. I do not personally believe that the number of how many people there are of a certain given race or ethnicity, but what does matter is that the perceptions and the expectations could change. I do not see it as a problem if the “minorities” some day become the majority. I know that some, probably many, white people will probably be terrified at the very thought - as if its a bad thing when people who do not look like them move into their neighborhoods. I do think it can have the potential to be an extremely positive thing for the society as a whole. I just hope that the numbers are not the only things that change. As with affirmative action, debatable as it may be in the short, it has the potential to have significantly positive effects in the long run for minority groups, specifically those considered by many to be "less advantaged." And affirmative action may or may not be relative to the whites becoming the minority by the year 2050 but all one can hope is that along with an increase in the populations and ratios of many of these minority groups, that possibly some other percentages, such as class power, monetary issues and opportunities and the like will rise as well. Additionally, I would hope that just because there is a shift in numbers that rather than it providing a change in power it provides a balance of power. So that some day, if we are lucky, things like race and class will lie only on the surface and will not need to be discussed as major issues anymore. I do not know if I feel any specific way about this but I know that it does not scare or anger me. I like to be optimistic about these types of issues so I do not know if it is my own false hopes or beliefs but I would like to think that maybe this could be a positive thing, if more whites or more people in general would be willing to open their eyes up to what is really important.

I have watched this study before, and do remember being quite saddened by it.

Hearing about what the study was going to consist of, and before having seen the study, I had assumed that all of the children would simply choose the dolls that looked the most similar to them. When so many of the black children chose the doll that was white, I realized that they are socialized to believe that that “black” is bad and “white” is good. Whether or not this relates to black and white PEOPLE, the colors are often used to represent good and bad. Even in the TV show LOST, the “bad guy” is know as “the man in black” because he wears a black shirt, and his nemesis wears a white shirt.

I showed this video to my friend, who happens to be white, and who had never heard of the study. She has also never taken any sort of race-relations class and is not very well informed about these types of controversial racial topics. Her reaction was so sincere and so significant that I was reminded of how most people probably feel the first time they see this video. She was utterly shocked. She said that she, too, had originally assumed that every black girl would choose a black doll and every white girl would choose a white doll. However, the one thing that she said that had stuck out in her mind was what each responded when they were asked why they chose the respective dolls. When one black child was asked which doll they thought was the bad doll, and they chose the black doll, they said that it was bad because it was black. This was of course the most shocking thing. My friend did not understand that these children were socialized to believe that black equals bad and white equals good. I think it is so sad that we really haven’t come as far as many people think- or would like to believe.

I read some other posts because I wanted a black person’s perception on this topic. One black girl said that she had both black and white dolls, but that she typically favored the black dolls, and that her mother may have encouraged her to buy black dolls most of the time. This is something that I think is important. I hope that black people continue to encourage each other to embrace their color and never think of it as “ugly” or “bad.” This encouragement must come from white people as well. I think that it is horrible to hear of black girls preferring the white colored skin, before they even have the cognitive capacity to realize what they are doing or why they think the way they do.

I find it interesting that most white people claim that they do not feel the “white guilt.” Although some may in fact be
complete sociopaths, I do feel that most white people feel some sort of guilt. I can relate the "white guilt" to many things from Native American genocides and American slavery… However, I feel a good example of classic white guilt can be seen from the aftermath of the Holocaust. Although the Holocaust, among many of these incidents was one of the most horrific events in human history, it is impossible to say that Germans do not feel some sort of guilt about it. I read a book about the Holocaust called "Those Who Save Us," and it reminds me of the issue of white guilt because it involved a series of interviews of German women who were alive and living in Germany during the Holocaust. Many of them refused to even talk about the topic. It is well known that this is the case in real life as well. The book discusses the fact that many people who may or may not have even been involved with the murders of Jews, they refuse to talk about it because of the shame they endure. Although they never admit their guilt, it is clearly evident that they are ashamed of the actions of their people by their inability or refusal to talk about it. This is a universally applicable concept and can be seen in issues of American "white guilt" as well. Many people do not want to feel responsible and do not want to feel guilty and so they either justify the actions of their ancestors or create other psychological defense mechanisms (ie: denial) in order to ease their own cognitive dissonance. This may explain why many white people say that they do not feel guilty but then continue to deny, justify, externalize or project their feelings onto others.
Additionally, in a race relations discussion group that I had last semester, one girl (who was white) would bring up her family and her parents on every issue as if they were perfectly innocent. When we were talking about black people and the Ku Klux Klan she told a story about her grandparents who were approached by the KKK and were so adamantly against them. She then also said that she had relatives from Germany who she "knew for a fact" had absolutely no relations or involvements with the holocaust. While this may be true, I have to think that a part of the reason why she was so incessant on her family being completely antiracist was in part because she felt some sort of this classic "white guilt,” and felt the need to ease her own guilt.

I just think it is very interesting. You brought up a very good point about the complacency of so many Americans who feel it is not their place to say something. I have always been a rather non-confrontational person, however; it would be very hard for me to see an injustice and not be able to say something. Although in some instances I may be too timid to speak up, I feel very passionately about certain things and seeing the video in class I do not think I would be able to not say anything at all.
What I found particularly interesting about your comment was the fact that you said that you feel that as Americans, many people feel that complacency as if it is a common American think to not step in. I think it is very interesting because although that may be true of many individual Americans, it is certainly not the “American way.” As a country, America likes to think of itself as a “peace-maker.” When we see injustices (for the most part,) American feels it has an “obligation” to step in. (although it could be argued that America has its own ulterior motives for doing so) I just find this interesting because one would assume that Americans on an individual level would also feel this way because it should have been imbedded into our culture to believe that it is our obligation to stand up for the injustices we see in the world. Unfortunately, this is not the case, which leads me to believe even more than America has ulterior motives in all of their “efforts” to help the world.
I think it is important for individuals to step up and speak out and try to help out our fellow Americans. If it hadn’t been for people standing up for each other in our past we may not have been able to come as far as we have in terms of civil rights. There will always be those people who like to “butt out.” But as Sam said, I think it is important that we look at the “glass half full” and recognize that there are a select few who will get involved and it is those few that help us make so much progress.
Even in America’s past, we have had many instances in which injustice, racism, and other forms of hatred have taken place and it only takes those special few to help put a stop to it. What terrifies me is when nobody speaks out because of fear. When thinking about incidents such as the Holocaust, the reason it was able to go on as long as it did and to the extent that it did was because nobody spoke out against it, or if they did they would be killed as well. I just think it is important for a few people to be bigger than the rest and do what it takes to rid the world of such horrific conditions.

I still can not believe in this day in age that gay marriage or civil unions are still an issue. Call it whatever you want to call it, say that its because of “religious beliefs,” whatever the issue may be, it is absolutely horrific that in 2010 families are being torn apart (and this is not the worst case the country has seen,) because gay rights are not valued or upheld.

I have read some of the comments about this video, and I did not even think about it at first but I do think it is ridiculous that videos like this are being posted because they do simply pull on emotions and we are not met with any of the other information that could potentially change the circumstances. However, at the same time, these videos are necessary and they need to be emotional so that people realize the importance of these situations and how much they affect real people and their families.

On a separate note, the one thing about gay rights that offends me to no end is the religious argument against it. The Christian argument that homosexuality is against their religion is a valid argument and has sustenance TO THE INDIVIDUAL. I completely support, understand and respect the religious arguments against homosexuality on a person-to-person basis. However, when religion is used a supporting reason against legislation for gay rights, it is my personal belief that it is hypocritical, unnecessary and under-representative of the American population as a diverse nation supportive of various values and beliefs. If homosexuality is against one's own personal religion then it is understandable, even important that the individual does not support gay rights and is not gay themselves. However, this country was founded on the principles of separation of church and state and no established religion. Therefore, religion is not a valid argument for any government policies or legislation, or at least it shouldn’t be, when the entire country has a multitude of different religious beliefs. What about those people who do not believe in Christianity and do not feel that homosexuality is against their religion? If they so choose to be gay, why can’t they? Their religious beliefs do not tell them that it is a sin.

Technically, a lot of things can be against your religion. If you are Christian, then wearing a yarmulke is “against your religion.” If you are Jewish, praying to Allah is “against your religion.” If you are Muslim, celebrating Channukah is “against your religion.” Should all people who hold different religious and spiritual beliefs be denied basic human rights (like marriage) as well, simply because it is different from the general majority? It is just hard for me to see the side against legalizing gay marriage, especially because of the main argument on the basis of religion. Not all gay people are of the same religion. Not all gay people believe in religion at all. Not all PEOPLE believe in religion. People are people when it comes down to it, gay, religious, or otherwise... the government has no right to interfere with people's lives, especially involving religion, when individual actions are not causing any harm. Gay marriage should be legal based on the fundamental values of happiness. That all families have the right to happiness, and the government has the responsibility to protect that right.

This video is just another example of how strongly people are affected by simple laws that we all take for granted, including all of the important basic human rights that come along with a simple government document regarding an individual’s “marriage” to another.

Although as I initially read this article I was slightly disillusioned, the more I read the more I became both shocked as well as understanding at the same time.

It is interesting to me to hear that the term “negro” is still in use at all, especially as officially as in an official US census. To me, the term just seems rather archaic and outdated. I identify the term with elderly people who grew up before the civil rights movement and when the term was actually in such large use around the country. To read that it is, in fact, not this actual population that appears to be utilizing with the term and it happens to be black people who identify the term was quite surprising to me as I read the first two paragraphs.

As I read the article, I have to say that although I deemed the term as archaic, which I still do feel applies, I understand the Census Bureau’s reasoning for keeping the term on the census. It could potentially change the outcome of the survey if a key racial identification term is not available.

Another thing I found interesting, and at the same time a way of taking a step forward, was the addition, in 2000, of the ability to check more than one racial box. I think it is interesting that it took so long to allow that considering how many racially mixed and diverse people there are in the United States. I do think it is an important step to furthering the census because it is necessary and important to realize that people are not only one race anymore. It makes sense the way the article worded it when they write, “A popular rally cry during the push to allow multiple races was, Why should a person with one black parent and one white parent be forced to choose between them?” And why should they have to choose? It doesn’t even make sense to have a choice because a person who is mixed is neither black nor white. Or Hispanic or non-hispanic. They are both.

I think that in all this is very interesting. The census brings up many questions about race and ethnicity and who is what and what is “politically correct” and it is interesting to see and to think about the fact that people are just what they are and some like to be called one thing while another may think it is offensive. The hope is that one day we should all be just “American.” And although in many ways I do think it is important to find out if certain racial groups are being misrepresented, I just think its funny that that’s even an issue at all. All people should just be represented because they are here and they are American no matter what color skin they have or where their parents are from. I like their closing sentence and I think I’ll close with it as well, “Census categories reflect perceptions. But they also forge them.”