gdp's Comments

Race Relations Project : Letter from an Inmate

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:27:06 +0000

This topic is pretty interesting to me. It seems like it could apply to a sociology course, and ethics course, and even more to a philosophy course. I think that it is fair to say that none of us are inherently good or bad. We are genetically predisposed to possibly being more or less physically strong, or more or less energetic or more or less violent. A greater cause to how we form into who we are is the environment in which we grow up in. If your parents are successful business people there is a good chance you will go to college and be a successful professional. If you parents are poor immigrants there is a good chance you will appreciate hard work. If your parents are angry and have a tough time scraping by there is a good chance you will grow up to be angry as well. I am not trying to say that our lives are fated but we control less than we usually attribute. An easy example is to see compare a child being born in the United States versus a child being born in Haiti. Most people can agree that there is a clearly a discrepancy; to a lesser degree this matters in terms of what kind of family you grew up in how much money you had and what the people were like that lived in your community. It is easy for us to judge and to say that we earned all we had and that people that may not be as successful didn’t want it as much but most of us know this isn’t true. Most lifers probably are people who deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives because of horrible things that they have done. Having said that, this does not mean that all of them did things that we ourselves or people we consider wouldn’t have done had we been put in similar circumstances. If you tell me that someone murdered another person I would logically think that this person is not someone fit for society; however, if I had been born into an environment similar to theirs and had caught the same breaks it is very feasible that I would commit the same actions. All actions committed by humans are either instinctual or learned. So really when we punish people it is based on either their instincts or learned action. The reason these people must be put away for a long time, the rest of their lives, is not because they are uniquely evil but because they are not fit for a society trying to strive. Essentially they are people who do not fit into the system or were pushed out. To comment on life in jail I think that I would probably go insane or need to develop a rote hobby. For a while I would probably reflect on life and past memories, but that can only take up so much time.

Race Relations Project : Christian Invaders - the turnaround

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:30:57 +0000

Beat LA

Race Relations Project : Christian Invaders - the turnaround

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:27:26 +0000

Last classes lecture had more of an impression than most. You can tell by the fact that most people were listening and that Sam took pride in delivering messages he found to be important. It was a very interesting lecture because it is a relatively recent topic but has had almost a decade’s worth of time to circulate. Almost all of the facts are available about this war on terrorism or whatever you want to call it and almost everyone has formed somewhat of an opinion about it. It is pretty logical to say that there were some men from the Middle East region that were threatening to the safety and welfare of the United States and the world. It is also logical to say that most of our commitment to Iraq had to do with oil. The average person knows this and is somewhat upside that they were misled about the original reasons for war but more upset that the United States may be sending their young men and women oversees and that we’ve invested a lot of money. Most people aren’t enraged that the United States of America is trying to control the price of oil and make sure our way of life is sustainable at a low cost we can afford. Most people want to be or at least think they are good ethical people. They think everyone deserves equal opportunity for health and happiness if they work for it. However once people become worried that they’re way of life could be threatened they start to care less and less about others. I do not necessarily think that this is wrong as much as it is survival instincts. The point is that pretty much all of us are self righteous hypocrites and on the scale of understanding we are pseudo communitarian. Most people inherently want to be happy and want others to be happy. When times get tough however ethics are lost and we suddenly begin to take care of number one first. Human beings are great in the sense that they are willing to die for great causes they believe in; the problem is that they only believe in great causes when they are for them. I do not think that Arab Muslims or American Christians are much different in terms of how they’d act in the same situation. However people are put in different situations. What Sam’s lecture did is remind us that we are on the side that has better resources and better military. America is not full of different people who deserve better things than anyone else but we are in a system that allows for greater success. Also in terms of the Christians the feel a need to defend themselves I understand where you are coming from the point of Sam’s lecture was to make you feel uncomfortable and kind of relate how Arab Muslims do not like to be compared to Osama bin Laden or how Phillies fans don’t like to be compared to guy who pukes on little girls at baseball games. Also if you get annoyed when Sam made an example of the reverse situation you should get equally annoyed when Islam is portrayed in a bad light which you most likely don’t because people pretty much only care about themselves.

Race Relations Project : I really want to know also...

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 23:23:20 +0000

I mean honestly I feel like it should it be assumed you are being honest and that the phrase is really redundant. This is one of those topics where it is cool that it was brought up to have opposing viewpoints just as its more interesting when someone in your discussion group is racist or ignorant. These kinds of discussions are fun because you can argue as opposed to always agreeing and repeating what someone else says. It is good that this question was brought up to help us reflect on what we’ve learned this semester. I don’t think that this class changed my life and caused me to want to travel the world and stop consuming certain products but it did help enlighten me on how problems are caused, how to avoid them and remind me that the problem is a lot different when it is yours or someone else’s. On the way of causing a little guilt the class reminded me that there are people around the world that could be and should be treated better if we only wanted to see what was actually happening. It’s kind of depressing that people who I consider generally good like most of the class and me feel bad about something but don’t really do anything about it. I want to do something when there is a problem but usually get overwhelmed since the problem is too big. This class reminds you that you only need to take one step at a time. None of the social or racial problems are going to be fixed overnight but we can push it in the positive direction so that one day it will be. I did feel like I knew the major gist of what was taught in this class but emphasized points like what has happened to Native American Indian culture/welfare, that within groups there is no unanimous opinion on how they like to be called/treated (essentially everyone’s an individual), and global/local slavery opened my eyes a little bit. I feel like overall Sam’s large Soc 119 class was not perfectly customized for me but it probably was good for a large percentage of people who may have been more closed minded but I can’t say for sure. The kid in the video seemed like he had some balls saying this. More likely he is suffering from low self esteem and intelligence. When he saw himself on the blog if he even did it he probably got really excited and wanted all his friends to know. Sam doesn’t deserve this disrespect, he’s my bro. On to my next point, this kid is definitely a frat bro or bra depending on your accent. You can see with his swollen red race and the fact that he is wearing Kemp supersonics jersey that he loves yelling day long season and playing horseshoes with his shirt off. He probably calls himself by another name and most likely it is David Moss. Who brings spaghetti to class?

Race Relations Project : I really want to know also...

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:55:32 +0000

Race Relations Project : Those Dolls Say Alot About Who We Are

Fri, 2 Apr 2010 21:22:51 +0000

I found this video to actually be a reason to watch the videos posted and to blog on. Most videos or topics have somewhat interesting topics but overall things that we’ve heard over and over again and are simply being reinforced. This video however was truly meaningful for me to watch because it showed something more different than usual and wasn’t a simple opinion or observation but a somewhat psychological or scientific study providing good evidence and facts for a pretty serious matter. As human beings it is pretty interesting to me how we either want to be exactly the same as the social norm in some cases but in other cases we want to stand out be different. For instance in fashion it seems that a lot of girls are similar in their winter attire with very similar boots, similar pants, and similar coats. People feel the need to converge in that instance. But at a prom or dance girls always want to stand out and have the best, trend setting dress. I think if it were a more natural world free of illogical biases and prejudices people who were naturally different than others would embrace this as a positive gift and almost show off their more unique special inheritance. But our world does not make sense. People who are naturally different to what the majority is or the expected feel the need to assimilate to this as much as possible. I would not call these people traitors to their heritage but more that it is engrained in them from an early age what they should and shouldn’t be. And if they are one thing or another they should think better or worse about themselves. We may call adults with years of experience and opportunities to see different views of the world racist or not accepting of others but a 4 or 5 year old kid is simply an observer of their environment. It is incredibly sad at such a young age that the kids in the video thought that one color was better than the other and that the color which was bad or less desired was theirs. It is so terrible that five year olds are ashamed or can’t show pride to who they naturally are. I would expect black kids to choose their own colored doll less than a white kid would but I didn’t expect the majority of black kids to favor the white doll over the black doll. People are inherently self centered so you’d expect people to like what they are. However what does on in the observable world around them in the few years of life they’ve lived has caused them to come to the conclusion that they would rather be white. According to what they see this is probably a reasonable conclusion, but the point is they should not be receiving that message and as a society we should not be sending that message. We have made some progress over time but there are many more steps that need to be made to solve problems like these that you can’t really measure with a statistic. This is one of those problems that in the grand scheme of things don’t seem like a problem but it is a problem since it stems to the ideology that our world wrongly portrays.

Race Relations Project : Is this just a few bad apples?

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:31:05 +0000

I don’t really know what the argument or topic of this discussion is trying to focus on but I that it is pretty evident that the people we are discussing are extremely dumb, ignorant and overall not good people. It is somewhat sad that such dumb terrible people take up so much of our time and the fact that I am even taking time to blog about them. There is no argument that can be made to defend these people or even to defend why they deserve the amazing rights and privileges that Americans receive. To say that it is respectable that they are using their right to protest and freedom of speech is pretty stupid as well. Saying that you respect that these people are using their right to protest is like saying you respect people with money using their right to spend it on dumb things that don’t help anyone. In fact it is more respectable when people waste money on bad things because at least they are contributing somewhat to the economy and giving the money to someone else. It is respectable do what is respectable as simple as that sounds. Sometimes not doing something is more respectable than doing something wrong. It would be very respectable if these people were using their rights in a fashion that didn’t hurt the well being of others and made progress in society. These people are using their ugly voices to make some fuss and if they are somewhat successful our society will only go backwards. On the topic of politics I have raised a question and I am not sure exactly how I feel about it. Should all people have an equal voice when it comes to decision making for our future? For instance, when we need to build a bridge we develop a team of engineers to take on the project. We trust these engineers because they have gone to school specifically to be trained in this field. Or when we need to have an operation we go to a medical doctor. These doctors have also gone to years of schooling. If we needed advice on financial or economic side of things we would ask an economist and so on. We would not take a vote from the average person to decide whether the bridge should be made of a certain material or a certain shape. We only trust the engineers. We wouldn’t trust untrained people to operate on us, and uneducated people to make our financial decisions. Why then when it comes to our society’s welfare do we stray from experts and let any given Shmoe have an equal voice. This to me is like sitting in the dentist’s chair and letting my friends vote on which instrument should be used to remove a cavity. Not everyone knows what to do for a given subject area. It scares me that in politics we don’t have professionals we can rely on but simply other Americans who at pressing times prove to be quite scary.

Race Relations Project : Does this rudeness thing cut both ways?

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:33:07 +0000

I also did notice that when during the text message responses there were different responses during comments that were offending black people versus comments that were offending white people. There was much more uproar when there were anti black comments posted by white people then when there were anti white comments posted by black people. It is interesting to note here that these types of questions posted on the screen leave out people who do not consider themselves to be either black or white such as American Indians, Hispanics, Asians, mixed race and others. Black and white conflict does seem to be the most prevalent race issue in the United States of America but just an important note to remember that there are still other issues and it is not as simple as black and white. Focusing more on the question, I think that the reason there is more uproar when negative comment is made toward Black people is partially due to history, white guilt, and the fact that Black people are in the minority whereas white people are the majority and seen as the predators. Historically there have been ignorant hateful white people who have oppressed black people and used similar phrases and reasoning as the people who made the rude comments. Because the comments resemble this time period it is seen as very mean and hurtful. The reversal however has never really come into play historically. Yes there are some black people who have been racist towards white people in an evil fashion, but on a whole the hateful black people have never had power over people that they hate. In terms of white guilt, white people usually follow the guidelines that political correctness tells them too, sometimes unconsciously. White people follow the rule that if they don’t want to be racist they should be extra careful to notice when wrong is done to people in the minority. White people have also become accustomed to accepting sometimes unjust comments made by black people since there reply to it may be racist. The concept of this question where there is a double standard depending on color of skin shouldn’t exist but in reality it does and is the cause for the disproportionate uproar when negative white or black comments were made. Logically this double standard makes no sense and we can say that we will not act on it but I know that I sometimes do act on it. For instance it makes sense to lock the door of your car after you park it. However sometimes when I am going to lock it and see a minority I have some weird sense of guilt. It feels that I am only locking my door because a certain person walked by not because I always lock my door. In some ways you could call the double standard trying to be more conscious of your decisions but in reality most of it is due to some misplaced sense of guilt for most of what none of us now have been a cause.

Race Relations Project : Prom or No Prom: Just Don't Let the Queer Students Dance Together

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:16:28 +0000

I think that this story on a southern high school reminds us that while we as a country may make incredible progress in many issues, these issues are not solved everywhere. Just as when we as a country decided all races should be treated equally, all races were not treated equally everywhere. Just as when we declared both sexes to be of equal ability there is still much sexism that occurs. The progressive part of our country has come to the conclusion that same sex relationships are okay, and that people should be able to be with whoever they choose, but this ideology is not accepted everywhere. Many people are either stuck in their old ways, blinded by religious beliefs, or simply full of hate. It is somewhat reflected by region which areas are more accepting, or at least politically based on marriage laws. For example we can tell that on average California is more on page with progressive ideology than Mississippi when the subject is concerning treatment of LGBT issues. The Mississippi school district most likely makes its decisions based on the pressure of its residents. On the one hand we note the ignorance of the school district to cancel a prom because of a lesbian couple that would be attending. The Mississippi school district also decided it was wrong to wear clothes outside of what they thought genders should wear. (Boys should wear suites or tuxedos and girls should wear dresses). These statements show much ignorance and lack of respect or acceptance towards the issues of LGBT. The world that many of these people live in do not have much light shined on it and is very backwards indeed. On another side of the issue it is interesting to me how there has been progress made in our society. Before a small Mississippi town may have solved problems of people being different than they wanted to be in a violent matter whether it be threats or actual violence. The fact that the matter is becoming a verbal/political conversation shows a lot to me. Fifteen or thirty years back it was probably accepted in many places that you would never bring a same sex date to a dance, now it is becoming a publicized debate, in another 15 years I think the problem will continue to get better and we will be worrying about other issues. Obviously when there are horrible things going on it is hard to be contempt, but I do think you can appreciate the fact that we are taking steps forward and making progress. Theoretically if we lived in a perfect world we will continue to progress and the problems we deal with will be about peoples characters or ethics and not their race or orientation.

Race Relations Project : Native Americans: Question Three

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:04:07 +0000

In terms of people not being as affected by the issues of genocide and unfair inequalities as it seems they should be, I think it has a lot to do with people simply becoming numb to tragic issues. Every day in the news there is something new and worse going on and it seems that we simply jump from issue to issue feeling bad but not actually taking the full time to digest it and reflect upon what should be and what can be done. Another reason people seem to becoming more apathetic to many issues is that it is hard to relate to someone you don’t know or have never seen and don’t know where they are from. When something happens in another part of the country, another part of the world, or in past history people can’t as easily relate. However I think that when you know or meet someone who is dealing with a particular struggle you are more likely to want to do something about it. A lot of the times I think that people need a face to relate a problem or see a distinct good and bad guy. With issues such as what happened to the Native American tribes when Europeans colonized America people are less likely to focus on possible wrongdoings because this is now the United States of America which many consider to be a great country in terms of opportunity and rights given to citizens. It is easy to ignore an ugly beginning when ultimately the outcome is an overall good thing. Also with the issue of taking land or stealing land I wonder when in history brute force went from the more successful group of people taking what they could get versus violent people selfishly taking what doesn’t belong to them. Now of course if we see peoples conquering other peoples and taking their land we find it to be unjust (as the British settlers did to the indigenous Americans). However way back in history such as the times of the Romans, the Roman Empire wasn’t considered an evil unjust society but the most successful and innovative. I think it is more complex then we make it seem when third world countries act like others acted in previous parts of history. We simply make them out to be pure evil when they are not actually evil but stuck in a system where that is allowed. It is human nature to take what you can get. Nothing about sociology is strictly defined and it’s always changing. When it comes to many problems and questions that are raised there is no right or wrong answer but mostly gray. Whatever society decides is ultimately how we evaluate but I think it’s important to remember that not everyone is on the same exact page and maybe the best solution is to get as many people on the same page as possible.

Race Relations Project : LGBT Class - Question Four

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:04:00 +0000

when he was saying that the homophobic people got more aroused by gay pornography than anyone else i didnt really believe him... but in your case i think six to midnight

Race Relations Project : LGBT Class - Question Four

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:51:42 +0000

In the context of whether gay people should be able to get married or have civil union or neither I find it very interesting. There are some who are more towards the homophobic side possibly for religious reasons or personal morals who don't think that gay people deserve any rights of marriage. There are also the more tolerant people who seem to be mostly accepting of everyone who think it is perfectly reasonable that gay people obtain the same legal rights of other people but think that their official relationship should not be considered marriage but a civil union. There are also the people who by indifference or open mindedness think that gay people deserve all the same rights and that it should indeed be called marriage. For me it’s somewhat sad that people can be so ignorant or hateful that they cannot understand why gay people deserve the same rights as others. On a lighter note it is really funny to me that for some people their biggest issue with gay marriage is the actual word composed of arbitrary letters. “Civil union, oh that’s okay but marriage no that’s only for straight people because it’s a religious institution.” What religious people have to realize is that whether or not the arbitrary word marriage began in the context of religion or not is that it has now come to symbolize a committed relationship which is both emotionally and legally important. It is not for religious people to decide what the government calls this union or marriage or whatever. We are not a country that is meant to appease specific religious peoples. Church should be separated from the state. Your church has the right to deny a gay couple from getting married at your church but the church does not have the right to decide any legal matters. Should businesses still be shut down on Sundays because your religious customs say so? Probably not. I also have to think that just because someone may be gay does not necessarily mean they are not religious. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are many different variations on the ideas of very similar religions. A gay couple may be religious and want to get married. In their views on religion it may be okay so even if marriage originated as a social institution it does not mean that every religious person thinks that religion prohibits the marriage of gay people. I personally am not very religious but I do respect the concept of faith. I think it is good to believe in something because there are many unanswerable questions. But what I do not respect is blind faith. If your religion said something utterly ridiculous like you probably would understand that it is a good idea to ignore it. But if your religion says something a little bit ridiculous like marriage is not meant for gay people you should have the ability to make a judgment call. Ideas coming from religious books were written within a certain context of human history. We do not live in that context of history anymore and maybe the book needs to be updated.

Race Relations Project : Why Is the Conversation Always About Black and White People?

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:13:05 +0000

I have noticed in most of the racial discussion groups I’ve been in that the dominant groups talked about are usually white or black. Most logical reason for this continual occurrence is that white people are racial majority in the United States and the race historically with more power and control. Because white people have been the majority there are more people that can relate to white people and there are more minorities who have dealt with white people. The probable reason black people are also discussed often is because historically white people have clashed the most with black people. The cause for most of the black white conflict originated with European and American slave trade. Obviously there is going to be resentment when there is extreme polarity in terms of power and economic distribution. The conflict made ground when slavery was abolished and the civil war occurred but would still have to wait to be resolved. Black American citizens went through the civil rights movement that was basically another war itself to finally get the rights they deserved. Gradually since then races are becoming more accepting of each other but there will never be complete resolution. The black and white tension that has built up historically is somewhat relieved by talking it out which is another reason the two groups may be more prominent. These are the reasons that white and black people are the dominant groups talked about but having said that I still think that there is a good amount of discussion represented by other peoples. Black and white people differ in their skin pigments and ancestry but are very similar otherwise. Most are Christian and speak English. When talking about diversity of religion other groups would have to be introduced into the discussion. When talking about people who speak different languages other groups would have to be introduced. When talking about people who are first or second generation other groups would be introduced. America is not just black and white. There are so many different types of peoples and backgrounds to discuss. People will obviously have something to say about their race and about the races of people in their discussion group. It is less likely that people will talk about Persians if there are no Persians in their discussion group. I think that the movie Crash is a good representation of the topics that would be represented in a discussion group. There are both good people and bad people within every race and even with those bad people there is some good. There is going to be socioeconomic conflict between higher and lower classes and race will be intertwined. There is are not a right and wrong when it comes to explaining things but only different perspectives that you should try to think about before coming to your opinion on the matter. In the outside world people have things about them that are different from other people and everyone has to deal with it. People are slowly becoming more accustomed to accepting things that aren’t as they are used to.

Race Relations Project : Avatar and the White Man's Burden

Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:22:56 +0000

I don’t think that any rational person would argue that James Cameron’s theme or plotline in Avatar is original. That being said the movie was not really meant to stun you with a new and creative hidden message; it was more a movie meant to blow you away with special effects. The movie itself was still suspenseful and fun to watch. The archetypal theme of a foreign imperialistic power coming to a new land for whatever reason and having conflict with the locals has existed pretty much since people existed. The movie reminds most people of Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves as even South Park pokes fun at how Avatar’s basic plot resembles so many others. The episode makes fun of this theme but replaces the natives as Smurfs and object of desire as their Smurf-berries. As a result the episode is called Dances with Smurfs. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1313 , referenced 12:50 til 15:30 and 17:45 til end). When interpreting the continuous theme of many books and movies in the context of race it is agreed that the white people are universally the ones who hold the power or advanced weapons and that black and brown or even blue people are the ones who are victimized. You could say that this comes with the bias of writers or directors but I would think that you might be putting too much emphasis on that. Many stories usually have some basis with history. Historically white people have imperialized whether this is considered admirable or wrong. Of course Pocahontas tells the story of white people invading American Indian territory because if they had American Indians invading white people in Europe that would probably seem silly to most and would be inconsistent with what actually occurred. I think that historically immoral and racially biased events have occurred but I would not call the history channel biased for simply reporting these events. You could argue that these reoccurring stories are biased since they seem to overwhelmingly have a white hero ending up with beautiful female of the natives. I would not dismiss this but I would ask is it not also true that there is a black, brown, or blue female hero that always ends up with the most physically fit and intellectual of his people. Maybe its possible that people are sexist and only see the white male as getting Pocahontas or Neytiri, but these women also get John Smith and Jake Sully. There are racial inequalities perceived throughout history. I am not sure if it is more offensive for a race to be perceived as peaceful and respectful without technological advancement or greedy and killing with technology. There’s the assumption that lack of technology means lack of intelligence which is not true unless in equal environments. Technology comes with the need for it. For instance warm clothes were invented in northern colder regions for survival. People near the equator would not take time to make this obviously. Much of this Avatar and white man’s burden blog is debatable but its definitely interesting to notice how some people have a completely different take on something someone may have taken as matter of fact

Race Relations Project : Racism Looks Pretty Mild on This Side of the Atlantic

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:16:48 +0000

It is crazy to think that just four years ago such ugly events were occurring publicly in sports. Racism obviously still exists and there will always be horrible and evil people but its hard for me as an American to imagine fans whether of the same or opposing team show such hatred towards players because of skin color. While I do think you will be more likely to find racism in Europe and countries other than the United States I don’t think that this means that the United States is necessarily the perfect place and rid of horrible peoples and backwards thinking. In the United States we make sure that our appearances are acceptable to society or that we sugar coat the original message we were trying to say so that it does not seem the way it actually is. The United States has a large focus on censoring and being politically correct. So while when you go to a Big Ten football game or a Major League Baseball game you are pretty safe from having to observe such obscene events that occurred at some of the soccer games in Europe four years ago, it does not mean that such evil thoughts don’t exist or that racism is extinct. There are still a large number of groups, which support white supremacy and Ku Klux Klan or Nazi ideology. Most of these people are bred from ignorance and thus more likely to be located in smaller towns and outside cities in which case they are less publicized and less likely to show up in the media. But to give the United States some more credit, the fact that we do censor things and hide them better does help impressionable minds who if they saw certain actions may have tried to repeat them or think that it a certain people should be blamed for whatever reason their lives are not as happy as they want them to be. We also have the luxury to not have stadiums polluted with people who are publicly racist. You can take your family to a game without hearing racial slurs or inappropriate phrases aside from some swearing. I still agree that Europe has more racist people than here but I do not think that it is as polar as is represented through television since we do a better job of hiding certain things. Reasons for Europe tending to be more ignorant about race and tolerance is probably due to the fact that there are many more different nationalities, cultures, and ethnic groups concentrated in the same amount of land in which we have our entire country. While the Eagles may be rivals with the Giants, people from Pennsylvania do not hate people from New York as neighboring European countries might. Also in America we have a more diverse assortment of people than the average European country due to how our country was formed from many immigrants. We are not caught off guard when we see someone who looks different than us. I don’t think that Europe will remain how it currently is forever, but that it is just behind America in terms of the tolerance learning curve.

Race Relations Project : Last Name Begins with "R"

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:21:10 +0000

anything

Race Relations Project : Haiti's Calamity

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:24:58 +0000

true dat

Race Relations Project : Harry's Negros

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:22:12 +0000

When discussing this topic I think it’s important to remember what is actually being said and to keep it in context. Harry Reid did not say anything about Obama being a good or bad President based on his appearance or speaking patterns. He said that he would more easily be elected because of these reasons. It was unclear to me whether the commotion made about these insensitive comments were due to what he was trying to say or the actual way he said it. Anytime you talk about race or skin color it is almost impossible to be politically correct. The fact that we are discussing politics and that he is a politician definitely makes this an issue. Because he is acknowledging that race may have played an issue in people’s minds, emotions are going to be stirred. For me personally I don’t disagree with the opinion which he was trying to portray in the sense that artificial things do affect how people think of other people and vote. With this situation I see a lot of parallels to John F Kennedy election. Looks are obviously not a determining factor when deciding if someone will be a good leader or not but because John F Kennedy’s election debates were on television which people could visually see and not just here as was before with the radio gave him an advantage. It is probably more subconscious, but for some reason just like John F Kennedy’s looks and speech helped him win his election so did Barack Obama’s looks and speech. It is more difficult to talk about because previously it was white versus white and so seeming racist or insensitive was not really an issue. No person that I would consider rational would say that they personally vote based on looks rather than policies, but I think people would agree that looks and speech do play a role in how people vote. This is somewhat out of context, but in terms of someone who did not have “light-skinned” appearance and who may be considered to speak in what Reid was describing as a “negro dialect” is the artist Fifty Cent. I remember when Fifty Cent was supposed to be one of the performers at Live 8 charity event, but the people in control did not want him. I think the fact that they did not want him to perform was due more to his bad publicity but still someone with lighter skin and different speaking patterns may have been given the opportunity more easily since you are not reminded of his ‘hip hop” culture (which is associated with bad things in peoples eyes) by simply hearing him speak. Will Smith, on the other hand, with more acceptable speech and lighter skin did perform. In terms of people who are offended by Harry Reid’s comments I do understand if they are offended by the words he decided to use to describe like “negro”. I personally don’t know if this word is very offensive or not but if it is it shouldn’t have been used. I can also understand if people are offended by the fact that he thinks Obama changes how he talks depending on his audience. I don’t know if Obama talks with a different accent in different situations or not, but that accusation makes him seem artificial and is not acceptable unless known to be true. However, I do not think people should be offended by statements of truth that Reid is saying out loud that people don’t want to hear. No one wants to hear that a portion of America votes superficially but it is true and it’s not the messengers fault.