I am a Christian. And I actually thought this was a really good lecture. My only question on reflecting back is why Sam when asking if we had any questions about this lecture only asked Christians if they were cool with things? Why not mention Hindus or Buddhists or Atheists or any religion for that matter? That was pretty much my only question. Other than that I thought this lecture was a great demonstration of ethnocentrism. While I could not seriously picture myself as a Muslim I did have one of those “ah hah” moments where I thought I can completely understand how they would see this. I was not offended in the least by the material presented. I really thought that the media examples were great because they are a huge part of what shapes our views of the other side. It really saddened me that in a world so advanced there is so much misunderstanding between people. I also got really annoyed that some Christians took this lecture as a personal affront. This is not about you. This is about trying to understand how other people see things. Sam isn’t trying to force this view on us either…he is just trying to make us think. I am a firm believer that you should not really voice your opinion about something if you do not have a complete understanding of what you are saying and are able to argue it from all sides. If you can say ok I understand your vision and this is what makes mine better then it is ok. Instead some of the backlash from this lecture really came from the people who just could not get over themselves to see that this is just an opportunity to enhance your opinions and views because you have more knowledge. A little off topic now: the video about Muslims wanting to take over the world. Sam said he actually gets scared watching that video whereas when I watched it I thought what a ridiculous bit of American propaganda. I feel like videos like that are what give Americans the ideas that anyone who practices Islam wants us dead. Videos like that just foster ignorant opinions. The Jesus camp video on the other hand actually scared. I had previously watched the whole documentary on HBO and it is more frightening to me that there are people in any society who can practically brainwash children with beliefs before they have the time to develop opinions themselves. I am less afraid of adults who have hostile beliefs than children. Because at least in my mind those adults lived through experiences that helped them shape their opinions. These children are just being told these things instead of experiencing them. To sum things up I really thought this was a great lecture and to those who can only take offense with it…get over it because it is not about you.

We live in an androcentric world: meaning that being male is the norm. From a female perspective men have to conform but not nearly as much as any other group in society. I think the way men conform tends to be more in the shape of gender stereotypes dealing with jobs and statuses whereas women appear to conform in every way possible. I am not saying that all women conform to society but there is definitely an increased amount of pressure on women to do so more than men…because again men are the norm. If you think about the professional world a man can conform to societal needs and get the top exec job and be happy but women need to claw their way to the top while maintaining their femininity if they do not want to be looked on unfavorably by their colleagues. It also seems that men conform on a more individual level, based on their friends and what is immediately going on around them. Women do it on a more macro level. Like I may see a picture of a model on a fashion magazine and think that is what I need to look like even though my friends and family might not look like her at all. In my opinion I do not think that men are as concerned about it at the big level. I think the other problem is that typically men are not raised in an environment where they really question themselves. Whether it is done consciously or not by parents girls tend be curbed more when they are growing up. I think growing up with the constant need to keep yourself in check makes women more sensitive to checking what is around them as well. I really think this is a hard topic to comment on because I do not want to sound like I endorse these gender stereotypes about women and men and society. So this is just my opinion based on what I have seen. One thing that springs to my mind is that there are studies done about boys and girls and choosing gendered toys when they are younger. Boys tend to choose the gendered toys that a same sex parent would choose whereas girls choose all types of toys. I think what I am trying to get at with this is that boys from an early age conform and don’t have to think much about it because society is run by men thus making it easier. If there is a need to for men to conform then they do snap to it quickly. For women conforming is a more lengthy process because there are so many things to choose from that they focus on. So men do conform but nowhere near what women do.

So for honesty: I think Sam’s class is overrated. When it first started I thought that this was a professor that really made me want to think about things that were always on my periphery. I was so excited about the class that I even considered finding about being a teaching assistant. But then I found that over the weeks of attending class I was greeted with the same lecture over and over and over again. It started with some thought provoking subjects but I always find that the subjects segue into Sam ranting about something. Then instead of focusing on the topic I leave class more focused on Sam’s behavior. I think if the material were presented in a way where I feel like I am not being lectured by someone who constantly reminds us how experience he has it would be easier to keep the thoughts churning in my head. I will give the class props for bringing these subjects in front of my face instead of on the periphery but I do not know if I will change my opinion about anything. For instance in lecture today we were shown a heartbreaking video about slave children working on cocoa plantations. Sam did an exercise where we are told to eat one piece of chocolate, watch the video, and then eat the second piece. Of course after seeing such horrifying events people do not want to eat the second piece and yet Sam is like just do it- you wouldn’t pass it up otherwise. I did not really get the exercise other than the fact that it made us even more aware of how many products we used are affected by slavery. I would have been interested in hearing more about this subject but instead my attention was shifted to Sam ranting and railing about the things he has seen so incoherently that I really was not thinking about slavery at all when I walked out. I think my point in all of this is that there are so many interesting things to talk about in this class and it would be possible to change my opinion- if in fact we talked through them. Instead I sit through seventy-five minutes of having a topic introduced to me and then I sit through my professor talking about all of his experience and not really giving me food for thought that would change my mind. Sam reiterates that coming to the race table is all about conversation. I find however that the format we are learning in does not really put much out there for conversation. I want to know more information so I can either support my current opinion or form a new one. Sam’s anecdotes are not the answer and that is one opinion of mine that is not going to change.

I think the hardest part of watching this video was seeing the pain in the eyes of the children who had to choose between the dolls. To be so young and already aware of race is such a shame. I know at that age I was not thinking about which doll to choose. My mom told me a story not long ago about how when I saw a black person for the first time I asked my mom why his skin was dirty. When she told me this I felt shame but she said to me that at the time she just explained some people had darker skin and I just said ok and accepted this. I mean I was just so unaware of race as a child whereas the kids in the video just knew about it. I know Sam told a story in class about kids asking about dirty skin and so I want to say this really did happen to me. At this point in my life I did not think I would be feeling any white guilt. I thought I had a fairly good grasp at race…or at least looking at people equally. When I watched this video I started to feel guilty. What had my people…the white people…done to make it so a two or three year old kid thought that a doll that looked like them looked bad. I am only twenty but I am of the mindset that kids should not grow up too fast. That they maintain their innocence as long as possible. I feel like for the little kids in the video their ability to just be a kid was taken early from them because of their race. I have never to think about race when I was little. I could just pick the white doll or play with legos and think nothing of it. These children can pick a doll or play with legos but as shown in the video they know there is a difference between them and the doll they want. I don’t know what to say other than that I feel bad. I wish I knew a way to change this. It makes me wonder whether my black and brown friends when I was growing up had the same feelings. That the doll that looked like me was better than the one that looked like them. This video also made me wonder whether the people in class who said they would pick the colored doll actually mean it. I listened to them and they said all of the black and brown dolls looked wrong, they were ugly. So would you really choose a doll today if you thought it was ugly just because your skin is the same or would you still truly choose the white doll? I really want to know. In the meantime I hope there is a way for people to realize that all skin colors are beautiful…at any age.

I went to a grade school where we did not even learn about reproductive organs or were given any kind of health or sex education. From what I have seen through my school experience is that the reason menstruation is not mentioned to both boys and girls is that it is not the boy’s problem. Women are responsible for menstruating, ovulating, and carrying the babies. Men would never physically undergo anything like that naturally. So why should that bother right? However I think it would make more sense to educate children equally about bodily functions. There are a lot of psych studies done about how boys and girls fair in school based on the way teachers treat them. Results show that teachers tend to call on boys more and give girls the back seat which can make them less willing to ask questions. I think it is kind of the same thing with talking about periods. If our educators gave more time to menstruation or at least equal time as male body functions than the subject might fare better in everyday conversation. Basically if someone started talking about being on their period it may not elicit all of the “ewws” and “that’s gross” comments. All of that said when given a choice I would rather not talk about my period anyway. I just prefer to keep things dealing with my body private. I don’t really care if other people mention their periods or guys make references to what they do. I do however think that for those who feel the need to comment they should be able to do so without any repercussions from the opposite sex. Guys can talk about jerking off as long as girls can talk about their periods. I think one thing that would be helped by guys hearing more about menstruating is the insults that girls hear whenever they are cranky or pissy. Statements like get off the rag or just assuming she is on her period when she isn’t in the best mood. I think if guys really knew what women went through they wouldn’t say things like that so readily. As for the tampon comment: while it was slightly off color I think I know what she is getting at. Men are the dominant group in the world and if these powerful creatures actually experienced the pain and annoyance of the period they might try to make tampons free to make it easier on themselves. I don’t think the comment was made so we could all then debate the similar products that women and men share. But that is just my perspective on it. Personally I don’t really know why I am spending my time talking about this. If anyone could clue me in on what it has to do with race relations I would be really interested to hear.

I think this is a really great question to ask. It seems like in a race relations class all colors are supposed to confront the issue of race equally but instead we just have this self-fulfilling prophecy of people acting in ways we expect them to. In this instance when the whites answered the texts were modest and sometime self-deprecating and when the “black and brown” people answered they responded with the same words we have heard over and over again: rich, privelaged, advantaged. I have to wonder why? I mean we all saw the video about the white woman Tammy and although we see the graphs where white people have more money than other race groups what Sam never seems to mention is that 48% of people living in poverty in the US are white. That is about one half of the population. If everyone in this class knew that statistic I wonder if they would give the same adjectives when describing what they think it means to be white. I think if it is ok for the black and brown students to make certain comments about white people then it is ok to make certain comments about black and brown people. If we don’t treat each other equally then it is racism. We talk about white guilt in class but what about the black and brown people? Shouldn’t they feel bad for saying stereotypical things about white people? And if you think no then why not? For a community that has fought so hard against the injustice of racism it is completely undermining to the movement to allow it to permeate through its culture in regards to other races. I think what Sam said in class is completely right: if you can’t say out loud what you are going to text then you shouldn’t say it. If when Sam asks the black and brown people to write about whites and the white people are not allowed to be offended then it should not be done. Or better yet if a white person responded with a stereotypical answer about blacks then the blacks should just laugh it off. Race relations are not going to progress if only one group can insult the other. Sometimes I think this class is great for opening my eyes about race and at other times I think it is not doing what it is meant to. Instead by splitting people into groups I feel like we are just reinforces the wall that is there. Us against them. I really think when asking questions we need to stop splitting the class into race groups. Maybe Sam can find a group of students that are really comfortable talking about race and give a demonstration in front of the class. Anonymous texts aren’t going to get us anywhere with this. It’s just going to be an annoying distraction.

This remind me very much of issues that plagued my high school. I went to Catholic school for 13 years and met and saw much prejudice during my time. My bad experiences were due to the fact that I was not Catholic but when I was a senior in high school I knew of a lesbian couple that could not go to prom together. They had to bring other dates just to be able to get to spend the night together. That was the other problem with my school: you were not allowed to attend prom unless you had a date. Having been at a school where something like this occurred I cannot say that I am surprised but I am upset by it. It’s horrible to think that the institution which is supposed to teach and help shape kids is responsible for perpetuating discrimination in this time. What’s worse is that the adults who are responsible for teaching these kids are the models that kids shape themselves after. So add it all up and the school system is responsible for teaching its children to discriminate against gay couples. It is appalling. What I have to wonder is why this school which is secular chose to do this? While I do not support my school’s decisions I can see why a gay couple would not be allowed to our prom because my school is following the beliefs of the church. But with an agricultural school decisions like that should not even be an option. I actually read another article about this incident earlier today where Constance McMillen had to return to school and she was greeted with a lot of hostility including someone thanking her for ruining their senior year. It is because of the school boards decision that kids think it is ok to blame Constance for trying to live her life as she is entitled to. The students won’t see Constance as just a girl who got prom cancelled but a GAY girl who got prom cancelled and this identity can give them negative opinions about all gay individuals. It’s like negative punishment. Try to do something the board doesn’t like and they take away your prom to keep you from doing it again and being that way. It is a shame to think that in a time when children are most vulnerable they are basically being stoned by the institution that is supposed to protect them. I am honestly so sick of hearing about how much more my country is regressing every day. We are a world super power and yet we have to keep struggling to ensure everyone has the same human rights. If we can’t treat ourselves as equals then we have no business interfering in the rest of the world.

This video does highlight another reason the right for gay marriage should be passed. This story reminded me of a heart breaking video I saw in another sociology class called Freeheld. It is the story of a New Jersey police Lt. Laurel Hester who had a domestic partner and was suffering from terminal cancer. The couple was trying to arrange for Laurel’s death pension to be given to her partner Stacie since Stacie could not afford their house without it. They struggled with a board of 5 men who simply had to decide to change the policy about domestic partnership. Instead the men who saw Laurel was dying from cancer repeatedly said no. It would threaten the sanctity of marriage they argued. Finally over a year after beginning the battle for her rights Laurel’s pension was able to be awarded to her domestic partner. Laurel then died less than a month later. It’s hearing all of these stories that make me so angry we can’t just let the Gay Community have their rights. Is it so threatening to our society that we allow people in love to have the same federal rights as the rest of us? Or is it going to be the end of the world? I do not think so. I was looking around for the definition of marriage and on Merriam-Webster the third definition states marriage is an intimate or close union. Is that not what most humans strive for in life? To have their soul’s counterpart recognized? It is because of the close-minded majority of our society that incidences like Laurel Hester’s pension battle or the disruption of Jay and Shirley’s family occur. I think it is horrendous that we would have children grow up in a single parent household instead of a two parent household because their parents don’t have the right to marry and protect each other. One of the big things that I always think about when I think of marriage rights is the supposed separation of church and state in our government. Government officials should not be guided by their religious upbringings when making decisions about gay rights but it is inevitable. It is not their job to worry about what will happen to their citizens when they meet their maker. If marriage is a union in front of God no one has the right to judge that union except for God. I guess I just wonder where in a country that began because of the injustice enacted on it why we have to continue the cycle of injustice on our own citizens. Everyone deserves the right to be happy. Everyone deserves the right to love whomever they want. Everyone deserves the right to protect their families. Just not in the super power called the United States I guess.

I guess the first question that comes to mind is what is the point of bringing this to light? Or rather why is Sam asking us to take a look at sexual innuendos in the bible when he says that he has no inclination to study them anyway. I am not overly religious and certainly do not adhere completely to my Episcopalian roots but I find it annoying that for something we are not meant to take literally anyway we are asked to look at how Eve may have been “born” just because it is sexual. I personally do not care what the direct translation is of tsela is. They are just stories for us to take meaning from about how we should live our lives. I also do not understand why it would be a big deal anyway even is tsela was originally meant to indicate Adam’s penis. I mean it would be more scientifically correct for another being to be generated from a penis anyway. It is not as if people who lived in the ancient times did not know where babies came from. Maybe I am just taking this article too personally because it always seems to be the people who claim to be agnostic or atheist that are the ones that bring up the tiny details that might uproot something. What is to gain by doing it other than having a deeper understanding of ancient languages? On the other hand of thinking about how the authors of the bible are inspired I always like to think about what I learned in high school about the gospels. How all of the writers had their own style and that it probably reflected more their lives than a spirit influencing them. If anyone is familiar with the bible they know that Luke’s gospel is particularly friendly towards women. He mentions them the most and generally softens the stories that are displayed differently in Matthew, Mark, and John. It would be great to think that the authors really draw from their experiences because it would give Bible readers a feel for the time. At the same time maybe there is a higher power that is the inspiration because why would a male (Luke) write about women and put it more in a woman’s perspective in a time when women did not have rights and probably had a lesser status than the animals? Again to me it doesn’t matter. I just don’t like to put too much stock into word play when the bible is a book I don’t take literally anyway. If Eve is made from penis or rib who really cares? How could that possibly change religion now?

This article really hits a spot with the recent classes we have been having about inequality. As Sam keeps saying long ago everyone was playing King of the Hill and one group made it to the top and they made all the rules and thus are the advantaged people who have all of the resources and power. Then those at the top convince themselves and everyone that is lower than them that they deserve the best resources because they were the quickest to the top. How can we as a society or even those who are fortunate enough to not be on welfare take all of the power and resources and then blame the people who didn’t get them for needing help? Sam also talked about the luck of the draw on Thursday. Some people were born lucky and others unlucky. The fact of the matter is poor people will stay poor and rich people will stay rich. I think it’s wrong to refer to those on welfare as animals because some of those so-called animals may have been working hard their entire lives but because the cycle of poverty is cruel they just couldn’t make enough. I think what is particularly offensive about this statement is that this is a man of power. One of the kings of the hill and it is as if it isn’t enough to be up there. He has the power to change society even on a small scale but I guess social inequality and degradation are more to his taste. I am one of those fortunate people who came from a financially stable where my parents are able to provide for a family and help me whenever I need it so I can’t even imagine how awful it would have been to hear that you are considered an animal because you are on welfare. Imagine that you are a single parent and you hear that people with ten times more than you consider you an animal. It has to be so disheartening. This article also reminds me of the idea of moral entrepreneurship in criminology. Basically those who are in the power to do so pick a problem in their society and label a specific group as the problem causers. They use them and whatever issue they choose as scapegoats to distract everyone’s attention from all of the other problems. Their theory is that if they remove the people and the problem then all of society’s problems will disappear. Another part is that the moral entrepreneurs use this platform as a way to have their financial motives met or in Andre Bauer’s case to become governor. I think in this instance Bauer’s statements backfired on him and if there is any justice they will cause him his gains. Maybe knock one king of the hill down.