I never thought of the war from the enemy’s perspective. I guess because the war doesn’t affect me in my everyday life, I rarely think about what is happening on a day to day basis. We go to school and live our lives without the threat of being shot while on the way to the grocery store or being assaulted while walking the dog. These small every day activities we take for granted. However this is a bitter reality for the innocent bystanders in the Middle East. Our actions enflame and exacerbate the threat of the very policies justified in the name of fighting Terrorism. These threats include invasions, occupations, bombings, lawless detentions, etc. and as more and more people become involved, with or without consent, in the effects of this war, we are just making matters worse. Plenty of people have been victimized by this continuous battle and feel a right to avenge what has happened to themselves and their families. And this justification I can understand. If people I deemed “the enemy” were in my territory killing innocent people, especially if these people were my family and friends, I would feel the need to retaliate as do the people in the Middle East. The United States is seen as such a civilized and democratic society, so we should act this way towards others in the world.

And we think paying the family $2,000 for the loss of each family member is going to make everything okay? You can’t buy humans and you can’t bring back the loss of a life. It is not surprising that the 80-year-old patriarch of a family who lost two sons, two daughters and a granddaughter in an innocent attack would want to take revenge for his disastrous loss. What interested me in this article was the statement said about the American media. “And had this man carried through on that threat, American media -- as always -- would undoubtedly have depicted it as some sort of senseless, irrational act of religious fanaticism underscoring yet again how primitive, violent, and full of baseless rage those radical Muslim Terrorists are and how vital it therefore is that we stay and defeat these Evil Enemies.” Even though this statement is crude and defies our society, it is interesting to comment on how our information is censored. We didn’t hear about the random attack which killed innocent citizens, but we would be bombarded with information on “a crazy old man who took revenge.”

This article continues to repeat the fact that our actions consistently create more and more anti-American resentment. And the suicide bombers tend to be what gets produced when foreign armies kill people's loved ones. Because we are waging war in countries where the enemy is composed of a substantial part of the population, inevitable incidents will occur and worsen the Terrorist problem we are allegedly trying to combat. So why do we continue to generate these enemies? Why do we insist on performing random attacks which injury innocent bystanders when we know it will breed more anti-American sentiment?

It’s not that Sam has dramatically changed my opinion on certain matters but rather he has opened up my mind to different aspects of things. I don’t think Sam’s intention is to brainwash us and make us believe everything he advocates but what he wants to do is to get us to think about what he’s talking about. Most of what he says is to challenge the mindsets of most people and to get them to question what’s really going on. I know he has made me question things many times.

For example, Sam opened up new doors for me on the issue of affirmative action. I didn’t really know the background of this topic until I took this class and learned the actual statistics. Sam also opened up my eyes to different ethnic and racial prejudices. I was very naïve before this class and didn’t realize many diverse issues that were occurring around me. Now, I realize that not every Asian decent looks exactly the same. Or even, people who look similar are definitely from the same continent. These subtle observations have allowed me to open my mind and become more knowledgeable about different cultures and races. And I think that is the point Sam is trying to express. I wouldn’t consider myself ignorant before this class because I wasn’t set on my ideas or thoughts but moreover, I was immature about the different concepts and depths of racial and ethnic issues.

Although some of my ideals have been slightly altered, it isn’t always to match what Sam says. When Sam kept talking about the “King of the hill” concept I found myself continually disagreeing with what he was saying. He said that we are only in our position because of our racial background or because of our parents and/or ancestors. But I find myself disagreeing with certain aspects of this. Even though I’m obviously in Pennsylvania because of my parents and am economically well off because of my parents, I also worked hard to get to the position I am in. I could have slacked off in high school and only been able to get into a community college, if I even would have attended college at all. But instead I worked hard and was able to attend the college of my desire. In this sense, my opinions weren’t changed by Sam’s lectures but instead strengthened and deepened by different topics he addressed.

I have also retained new information from my recitation sessions. In these small group settings I am able to discuss racial and ethnic issues openly and listen to what others think or have been speculating. The differences between people in my group allow for a diverse mix of voices and opinions which serves as an interesting setting. Some people have stronger opinions than others which lead to exciting and intense conversations. And I think getting involved in these debates has allowed me to grow and understand more on these controversial topics. Overall I think this class has just been opening my mind to different things rather than radically changing and altering my opinions.

This article is very interesting to me. It states that “births to Asian, black and Hispanic women in the United States are on the verge of surpassing births to non-Hispanic whites.” And although this census alone is interesting, the consequences of this change will be the most intriguing aspect of this oncoming transformation. I do not mean to use consequences as being a bad thing; I used it for lack of a better word. The results of the increasing birth rates to minorities may make them the majority. What I wonder is how this will alter the possession of power and the “king of the hill” scenario which we discussed so strongly in class. In my personal opinion, I do not think that because the white race is becoming a minority, they will give up their socioeconomic structure. I think white people will continue to dominate their industries and continue to work for their positions. It seems to me that this article thinks since non-Hispanic people will be the minority now instead of the majority, they will just lie down and let the new majority take their places. I do not find this to be the case. What I am also interested in is will the accusations of blame be shifted as well. Today, much of the blame seems to rest on the shoulders of non-Hispanic people for their actions in the past. Since the white race will soon be the minority, will the blame be shifted onto the new majority? Will black or Asian people start to be ridiculed for their past faults or actions? Will the new majority be accused of suppressing the new minority? These questions are interesting when considering how the new shift will affect our lives.

Also, this article seems to state that because white people are becoming the minority, that people of color will become the leaders and rule as a majority. But this seems to feed into the racism we have been learning about. This shift will not make us equal… it will only continue to feed into the boundaries of race. Since Asian, black, and Hispanics are becoming the majority, will they then suppress the minority as they suggest the white race has done or will they start programs similar to what the majority now has done, such as affirmative action. It does not surprise me that births to minorities are approaching majority in the United States. What does spark my interest is what will come about due to this shift in birth rates. It will be interesting to see what this reversal of power does to the American economy and how we act as a whole.

I hate how everything is always directed towards white people and the white race being such horrible people. Although it may be true for some of the people in the white community, it is also true for the black and brown teams as well. When Sam discussed the concept of white guilt, it brought up some interesting concepts for me. Even though I myself am white, I do not necessarily feel guilty for what has happened. As someone stated in class, what people did hundreds of years ago was not caused by our actions today so when do we stop placing the blame on ourselves when we have no control over the past. If I were to go to an Indian reservation and see how poorly this culture was living, of course I would feel bad. But I would not feel that my actions were the cause of their mishap. I do however feel very fortunate for my well-being. Sam always discusses that where we are is caused by the actions of our ancestors and that because I am white, my family and I have it much easier. But my parents came from nothing and worked to get to the positions they are at today. My grand-parents did not go to college and my parents had to work hard and pay their way through college to get where they are today. They were not handed a diploma for being white, they had to work for it as we are all working for our college educations today. Although I am very lucky to have the opportunities I have, I also work hard so I can achieve an education and a better life after graduation. I do not feel guilty that I am here rather than someone else, moreover I feel blessed to be here.

However it is interesting how she brings up the history we are taught in school. This greatly affects how we see the world because we are grown up learning certain facts and certain events which manipulates our viewpoints. I believe that this causes our national ignorance and the fact that people do not realize what happened in our past. This may be the start of the white guilt. Where people feel guilty because they learned what happened during the civil war era or to the Native Americans. But if people do not know about the basis and underlying actions during these times, they may not feel any reconciliation at all. I feel the best way to resolve this guilt is to become knowledgeable about these topics and find out the real history and make decisions for ourselves rather than base it off of our history textbooks. If people do not take the time to learn about our nation’s past, then we will continue to see the ignorance of peoples.

The point this student makes seems very accurate in my opinion. In class, when Sam told only white people to respond to the question, everyone was reacting to the rude comments that were unfortunately said but when only people of color could answer, there wasn’t as large of a retort towards their offensive comments towards white people. Some of the responses were that white people are stuck up, rude, ignorant and sorority sluts. And although I may be biased because I am a white person, I find these comments offensive as well and it’s not right that they can make these comments without getting an uproar of discontent. Less people were shocked when people of color called Tammy, from the video, white trash and worthless but if it had been a person of color in that video and a white person had made some vulgar comment about the person’s economic condition, and then there would have been an outrage. It is as if white people feel a need to censor their opinions but people of color can express themselves freely and not have conflict afterwards. Or maybe white people are just more susceptible of comments so there isn’t an immediate reaction when derogatory things are said. Maybe people of color take more offense to comments and feel the need to be offended by things said. But still, I feel as though rude comments should be offended on both sides, it shouldn’t be one party thinking the other is totally racist.

However, what I wonder about all of this is… are we really offended by these comments or do we feel the need to be offended? If we hear an insulting comment being made are we automatically offended or do we hear it and think, “Wow I should feel offended by that” so then we take it personally. This may be the reason why many people react to the harmful comments made by white people during class. When white people were calling people of color lazy, loud or even just the comments made about “the black clusters in the hub” this was seen as offensive and strictly rejected. While the people of color commented on white people by calling them unaware and undeserving but this is a prejudiced assumption about the white race and can be seen as offensive. So then white people as a whole are being judged as well. Not every white person is privileged, as we saw in the case of Tammy, or ignorant, as Sam our professor proves. It is just by luck that we are born into our specific situations and we should not judge others for their circumstances. Obviously if all of us are sitting in the same classroom at Penn State we are all privileged and should be thankful for our fortunate situations and not judge each other based upon our differences.

Through personal experience, I’ve seen that themed parties rarely ever target race. The theme parties are usually holiday themed like ugly Christmas sweater party or State Patty’s. There are also sexist parties like CEOs and Corporate Hoes or Golf Pros and Tennis Hoes. Even a bloods vs. crypts party isn’t targeted towards race, moreover it is depicting cultural groups. And although I have never personally experienced a ‘race themed party,’ I recently learned about a school which had an offensive themed party which has caused uproar across the nation.

In my discussion group we talked about a theme party at University of California San Diego where there was a themed party called “Compton Cookout” which was targeted towards the black race. Although this party may seem ‘to be just fun’ it crossed the line between what is appropriate and what is not. There was a facebook invitation which explicitly explained the details of the party. The invitation starts to get derogatory once they start describing the dress code for girls attending the party. “Ghetto chicks usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama and wear cheap clothes… they also have short, nappy hair, and usually wear cheap weave, usually in bad colors, such as purple or bright red… Ghetto chicks have a very limited vocabulary, and attempt to make up for it, by forming new words… cursing persistently, or using other types of vulgarities… the objective is for all you lovely ladies to look, act, and essentially take on these ‘respectable’ qualities throughout the day.” These are stereotypes which negatively depict the black community. Saying that the “ghetto chicks make noises, such as “hmmg!” is offensive and insulting to people of that race.

Even though some people try to explain that this party is based on lifestyles rather than race, I feel as though this explanation was undermined when they started the invitation “in honor of black history month…” Another fact which makes the party seem skeptical is that around 97% of the school is white. So this cookout consisted of mostly white people openly making fun of people who they depicted living in Compton. Imagine if blacks or Latinos or Asians started a party mocking white people who live in trailer parks.

This party is defensive because it is enforcing the stereotypes about the black race, saying that they are ‘thug’ or ‘ghetto’ as if this is all that resides in Compton. One black woman, who was outraged, expressed that there are also doctors, lawyers, and business people who come from Compton but this themed party totally avoids this.

So I understand why most people think that themed parties are based towards cultures and holidays, rather than race… until I learned about this story in California and it makes me wonder, where do we draw the line?

Although this abundance of industry and oil refinery may be beneficial for the Three Affiliated Tribes economic status, I feel as though all this work is against what Native American ancestry originally believed in. The Indians felt embedded in nature and that they had to preserve the land they lived on. Drilling holes into the ground and extracting oil isn’t exactly conserving the nature. If ancient ancestry came back and saw what was happening on this “red land” I don’t think they would be extremely pleased. This new industry is bringing in excessive business. The casino is also helping in bringing in industry. Roads are now sometimes clogged with traffic, including Hummers and expensive pickup trucks. The local casino is buzzing with free-spending locals. I feel as though these materialist elements are against the Indian’s culture and yet no one is bad tempered now.

The government continues to pour millions of dollars in federal aid money to these tribes, as well as the money they are receiving from this oil extraction. I don’t understand how they are justifying this. The tribe officials say the oil has helped right a wrong done to the tribes in the 1950s, when more than a tenth of the reservation was flooded by the federal government to create Lake Sakakawea, a 180-mile-long reservoir. But now the government is drilling under this lake to obtain oil and no one is complaining. Is it because this has created jobs and an industry for the Native Americans on this land? They even said that if it was known that oil was on this land, the Indians never would have been placed here in the first place. This article states that 28 percent of people on the reservation were living in poverty in 2000, the latest figures available. More than 40 percent did not have a job at that time. But now, “Anyone who wants to work can work” said Marcus Levings. This excess of jobs is good for the impoverished Native Americans on this land, I just feel as though it is against the Native American beliefs.

And I don’t mean to badger the Native Americans on this land because this newfound oil has brought jobs, millions of dollars and hope to the long-impoverished tribal members who have struggled for more than a century on the million-acre Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. But I feel as though this has gone against what the Native Americans originally believed. Giving up their faith for money in this economic boom does not seem justifiable. One Indian who lives on the reservation, Levings said, “This is an opportunity for us to help ourselves as much as we get help.” So I wonder if the Indians are using this oil surplus as a way to get back at the government for years of discontent and abuse.

This is frightening. Are old, creepy men really that desperate? Why would you need a fake talking toy to have sex with… we aren’t experiencing overpopulation or anything right now so I guess this is necessary. Although this may be advanced technology, I think the creator, Douglas Hines, should be doing better things with his time… maybe enjoying his own wife instead of creating one for other people? If Hines is as technologically advanced as it seems through this product, then he should be working on something to better the world instead of pleasuring unhappy men.

The scary thing to me is how many people are actually buying this toy. If you have enough money to go out and purchase a 7,000 sex toy then you should stop working so hard and go out and have some social interaction. I can only imagine the type of person this sex toy is targeted towards. I’m not implying that every man, lonely or not, who pleasures themselves is a creep, but the men who are truly interested in spending this much money for a sexual device must be creepy and strange. The market where this is being shown at is porn conventions if that explains enough. It seems as though this product can be dangerous if gotten into the wrong hands. This toy can be manipulated to be put into any position desirable and can simulate an organism. I feel as though this will be a hit with sex offenders or pedophiles. These people are already unstable and having the unlimited power to manipulate this toy will only emphasis their need for control. Overall I think this product is a bad idea for our society.

Hines even says that Roxxxy is targeted towards “shy, awkward or older men who ‘have trouble meeting girls.’” This product is not going to cure their awkwardness; it will only make it worse. The people who purchase this toy are going to become attached and have even less social relations. These men, or women, may become affixed to this inanimate object and become distant from the real world. I feel as though this toy is a scapegoat for people who have not found a satisfying partner. It seems as though they are giving up so they are just going with the next best thing. If someone truly wants to find a partner, they won’t settle for a talking doll.

Although men and women may have completely different sex drives, it is saddening to see people this desperate. The blog states that a probably “few straight women wish that they had a Roxxxy to take over the bedroom chores when the begging got ugly.” I disagree with this statement. Although sexual drive may be different, everyone has their own needs. In my personal opinion, I wouldn’t buy a toy to take care of my bedroom chores; I’d rather spend $7,000 on a toy that did actual household chores like clean the kitchen.

This topic is very interesting to think about and I have never looked at it in this way. When I was first listening to the recording of the last speaker of an ancient language in India's Andaman Islands I was texting and doing other things, but when I read the excerpt “nobody will EVER hear these words spoken…ever again,” it got me thinking. I set down my phone and listened to the recording again but this time… I actually listened to it. It is very strange to realize that something we take for granted everyday is being lost by people of other cultures. We communicate with each other daily without thinking twice. However, there are people like Johnny Hill, Jr. the last known speaker of the Chemehuevi tribe of Arizona who cannot communicate with others in their known language. “I have to talk to myself,” he explains resignedly. “There's nobody left to talk to, all the elders have passed on, so I talk to myself... that's just how it is.” This is disheartening to think that so much rich culture which makes up our world is being lost due to neglect and as the article states, globalization.

The changing world causes ancient cultures to feel left behind. The world is becoming so technologically advanced that most people depend on their cell phones and televisions rather than enriching themselves in other cultures. And although I myself am as guilty at this as the next person, I find it very interesting to look at this topic in this way. To think that once these last known speakers pass away, the language and culture will never be shared or known again. It is as if it never even existed.

I always thought that if cultures or languages were dying out, then the existing members could just teach their children or other people in their tribes or in surrounding areas so it could continue. But as Johnny Hill, Jr. states, “they say they want to learn it, but when it comes time to do the work, nobody comes around.” This statement really set me back. It is very sad knowing that half of the world's 7,000 languages are in danger of disappearing. This is bigger than I thought because not only is it just a language that is being lost, but all the traditions and stories and history behind these cultures are lost too because no one is there to share or express the customs. This problem is difficult to address however because no one is going to go around learning every last language or trying to save every culture. But I think if we just appreciate the diversity in people and understand this particular mystery, then we can at least acknowledge that there is something happening even if it is out of our control to stop it.

This article annoys me to a point. Although American voters can be biased and “idiots” as some people have called them, it does not serve right to totally dismember the democratic system. The issues I see arise from people voting for the popular candidate instead of looking at the major issues. The article states that “it is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises” but there are also issues with the voters themselves.

This past political campaign many people were quick to jump and say who they were voting for. Most people on this campus would assert that they voted for Obama or McCain but if you questioned them why, then most would have no reasonable response. Some vote for the favored candidate without looking into the true issues and stances of that party. This, I believe, is the true fault throughout the presidential campaigns. People are either too lazy to look into issues or do not care. Others are rationally ignorant, which means they do not have time to look into every topic of debate so they just focus on the issues of importance to them. And some few just vote for the preferential candidate.

However, what truly bothers me about the BBC News article is that the two exasperated Democrats are taking direct stabs at the Republican Party. They are denouncing the party and its voters by expressing reasons why people vote this way but their reasons can actually be used against the Democratic Party. Drew Westen states that "Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him." The fact of the matter is that people are not necessarily blaming Obama for the economic situation we are in now, moreover they are begrudging Obama for not getting us out of the economic crisis as was promised. Obama promised change but as many voters are now beginning to see, change is not that easy or as readily available. Another slander towards the Republic party comes from Thomas Frank, who says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different. But in fact, this has just occurred with the Democratic Party this past election. We were promised more jobs and that we would be out of this economic crisis. But as we can see, we have lost thousands of jobs and are still in an economic slump. According to Thomas Frank, “if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.” Is this the reason Obama obtained so many followers in the past election?