Before class, when Sam asked us if being gay was a choice or if people are born with it, I said that they were born with it, but I really questioned that at times. I felt that environment had a lot to do with it as well; however, after class I have changed my opinion to fully support that gay people are born with their orientation. LIke Sam said, some people CAN choose what they prefer, and they can choose to go back and forth, but for people who are truly gay or lesbian, I believe that they are born with it. And after he explained this, I was able to reflect on my little nephew who is only four years old. He wants a sewing machine for his birthday. He would rather carry a handbag than an action figure, and he has a very feminine attitude toward him. I think that all of my family knows that he is gay, and yet he has a brother who is only two years older who is absolutely straight. The older is really into sports and other predominately male things, and yet he was raised the same way as the younger one, with no change in environment. His mother obviously did not raise him to be gay anymore than she raised the other one to be straight, but that's the way that it turned out. So it made me doubt even that environment played a role in it. And as for the question asking whether having anti- or pro-gay people in your life can influence your sexual orientation, I really don't think so. I think that it can make people either more accepting of it, or more scared to admit it if they ARE gay, but I don't think that it MAKES someone gay. And as for religious people who say that being gay is wrong, I 100% agree with Sam on that part. Why is it okay to lie, cheat, steal, have sex, etc. but it's NOT okay to be gay? The lines prohibiting all of those things are in the SAME VERSE! I'd really like to pick that argument with a religious person someday. Who really cares if other people are gay? It's not affecting you, so why do people make such a big deal out of what other people are doing? It's gross when people make out in front of you regardless of whether they're gay or straight; I think we just give it more attention when it's a gay person, because it's more unusual to us. I think that the overall message is that people are really contradictory when it comes to religion, and if people are going to use that as an argument, then they better make sure that they are not engaging in any form of hypocrisy when using it.

I'm not gonna lie... I was incredibly surprised when he said that there are only 100 child abductions in the US per year. I thought that it was a lot higher than that. And then that made me think about all the people that I know who are so cautious about letting their children go anywhere alone, and who take what now seems like wild precautions. I actually find that statistic so incredulous that I am actually inclined to almost doubt it... There's no way, with the way that almost every crime show portrays it that there can be only 100 child abductions per year. There are 100 child abductions in a Law and Order season alone! And then I questioned all of the precautions that I would expect myself to take with my kids. I would not be comfortable with them walking to school or walking around town alone, even if it was in a nice area. But maybe I should be okay with this. I told this statistic to my sister, who is a stay-home mom with two kids. The kids (5 and 3) aren't really old enough for her to demonstrate how protective she is about them, but I definitely see her as a protective mom. This proved correct when she was talking about getting her 5 year old son a cell phone with a GPS installed in it. I told her this statistic and she was surprised as well... although I don't think that it did anything to change her mind about the GPS. But that's the thing about fear... once it's there, it's there to stay. Like even if you moved to a place where you would be guaranteed that no one would break in to your house or steal your stuff or anything, most people would continue locking their doors. Once they know what there is to fear, they fear it and not a lot of statistics can strip them of that fear... because they will always think 'what if I am one of those hundred people? What if?" It's the same reason that people continue to buy lottery tickets. There's always a chance. And after all, isn't it better safe than sorry? And how much of your life are you really sacrificing by taking precautions? Maybe for those people out there who are afraid of electricity, or beds, or really common objects, then I'd seek help... because that's kind of weird and it is something that will actually affect how you live your life. But when you're being cautious about something else, isn't it different? But I think that Sam is right... fear really does rule our lives. But what if we just abandoned all sense of fear? What would our lives look like? Maybe the reason that these child abductions are so low is because people ARE cautious. I'd be interested to see how much the statistics changed if everybody knew that there are only 100 kidnappings per year.

This is a question that I often think about as well. I was raised Catholic, going to church every Sunday with my mom and sometimes my dad (when he didn't feel like sleeping in instead--so unfair that I had to go but he didn't). I had to go to CCD classes and to communion and confession and all that good stuff until I got what's the word... geeze I can't even remember it... CONFIRMED! that's what it is. Until I got confirmed in like 10th or 11th grade. Then I didn't have to go to those classes anymore. And don't get me wrong, I'm happy and proud to say that I"m confirmed, but now that I think about it... what was the point? I honestly don't even know what a confirmation is other than you take another middle name in the form of a saint that you choose. And Jewish people do the same thing, in the form of Bar or Bat Mitzvahs, where they have to memorize stuff and do basically the same thing. And how truly religiously meaningful or spiritual can something like that be for a person who is only like 13 years old? I think that people should wait until later in life so that they can decide if it means something to them without their parents pushing for it so obviously.
But as for a priest or a pastor or any of that stuff... I never got it. I personally don't go to church anymore, because I have developed my own relationship with God, where I talk to him on my own. In Church, I always found my mind racing to what I was going to do later that day or week, and I never talked to God there. SO what's the point if I can talk to him other places? And the idea behind confession is not so much telling the priest your sins, but I think that it's the repentance that he offers by telling you to say ten Hail Mary's or something that is actually why people go to confession. Also, I think that Priests or Rabbis are kind of like psychiatrists--you don't really NEED them to solve your problems, but they are helpful to talk things out with so that you can better understand your personal relationship with God. I don't think that speaking with them is a mandatory part of being religious, but I think that it's important to maybe understanding your religion better. It's funny, because I went into this all ready to argue the fact that priests and rabbis and other religious positions of prestige are irrelevant to the religion, and it's almost annoying. But after writing it out, I find that they are a detrimental part to religion, because think of all the converts who are now more religious than people who were born into that religion. They got that knowledge and that faith through a religious leader or mentor. THey are basically there to help people understand religion. And so few of us truly understand our religions, that it is helpful to have someone to talk to.

I thought that that video and the questions that it provoked raised a lot of interesting issues. First off, I think that was pretty f-ed up of a news station to even think about running something like that, and I'm glad that they were hold accountable. Next, the main question is: is it funny, or is it not funny? And who thinks it's funny and why? I personally think that it was funny, because I think that the purpose was to point out how ignorant Asians are about US sports. But why shouldn't they be ignorant about it? THey're not in this country to watch guys tackle each other or throw balls around... I honestly think that it would be just as funny if you asked a bunch of girls, and they responded in a similar fashion, or asked any other stereotypically-sport-ignorant group of people. I don't think that it has to be all about race. However, I think that the news was tackling more than just sports ignorance among Asians. Like the kid in class said, I think that another part of the intended humor was the language barrier and the accent. That is the part that I think it is unacceptable to laugh at. I just think it's so rude and inconsiderate. I mean, these Asians clearly want to be here, and they are obviously trying to learn English (I think), so cut them some slack... how would you feel if you went over to another country and the freaking NEWS was making fun of you for something that you were giving an honest attempt at? Personally, I would feel ostracized and discouraged from learning more. I think that video was a disgusting example of why foreigners (rightfully) stereotype Americans. I think that people would probably still find it funny if it was a white European, but maybe not as funny, because they do not have as obvious physical characteristic differences as Asians do. In the video, if you pulled out of the crowd a bunch of people who all looked American, but spoke differently, it wouldn't be as I guess powerful as the Asians, since Asians all have an obvious different look to them. So maybe the accent would be funny, but it would lose its other "funny" elements. I just think that, socially, Asians get a pretty bad rap in America. There are so many stereotypes about them, but I think that if Americans would just take a second to try to understand their culture, then maybe we wouldn't be so harsh, because then we could start to understand why the Asians do the things they do the way they do. And of course all Asians hang out together! If you went to another country, wouldn't you naturally gravitate to the other Americans there? Yes, you would, even if you spoke some of the other language. And why? Because it's easier and you initially have more in common. So why do we freak out that Asians act the same way that we would in their situation? They make more attempts to adapt than we do when we travel... Think about it. If you've ever been to Europe, did you make an honest attempt to learn the language before you went other than buying a "Survivor's Travel Guide" that may have a couple of key phrases in it? I highly doubt it. We expect everyone, even in other countries, to know English. And how are we supposed to appreciate different cultures with this mentality? Asians know our language, but maybe they prefer to speak their own. Can you blame them? I think that people seriously need to lay off Asians for a while.

I thought that this idea of the different stages is really revolutionary. I know that it happens for people of all races, but it really hit home when the guy (I forget his name) discussed the different stages that black people went through. For some reason, it was almost easier to understand (even though I'm white). And I think that this is because there are more black people that are in later stages than there are white people. I think that most white people are in stages 1 and 2. Often we don't think about it, because we take our whiteness for granted. It's the whole white supremacy idea... we think that we are aware of it, but we aren't because it is just so innate and built into us, so we rarely ever really get into a stage 3 or 4. I really do find the third stage the most interesting, though. Because that's when you start to get mad about stuff. I think that people of all different races can identify with this stage. Black people, for example, definitely have reasons to get angry, due to the fact that after all, we are still a racist America. ---On a side note, I thought that that part of the lecture was so fascinating-when he said "imagine what a racist society would look like," and we fit all of the descriptions he proposed. I guess it just makes you think. Because we think that we are so much better off than we were fifty years ago, which we are, but something like this is humbling and it makes you realize how much more we as a country have to do to get to a truly equal country. ---- But anyway, people of all races can feel the anger stage. Black people, for example, could get angry about that disgraceful cop situation with the cop who is still not arrested. White people, though, could get angry about maybe a black man mugging them. But the main thing is how we handle this. People in stage three tend to take it out on all black or all white people. But the transition into stage four is realizing the hypocrisy in these. How do you handle the fact that you "hate white people," but yet you have white people that you love? Or, like he said about how most of the black-proponent rap bands have predominantly white followers? How are you supposed to handle stuff like that? And then how do you move into later stages? That's what I'd like to know... how do you push yourself to get into that fifth and sixth stage? I actually saw one of my friends go through these stages. She is Jewish, and one of the few Jews of our high school. We have been best friends since I was five, and at first she didn't really differentiate between people of different religions. In a way, I think that the first stage and the sixth stage are very similar in how you act--with indifference; however, it's a matter of ignorance or understanding. Although they look alike, the sixth stage is defined by that of enlightenment. Then she kind of graduated into the second stage when she moved to my elementary school in fourth grade (most of the people in her school until then were Jewish), and she realized that we celebrated things like Christmas instead of Hanukkah, and we didn't get off school for things like Yom Kippur. Then, during the summer before college and during her first year in college, she began to get really really into her religion. She became immersed in a group of Orthodox Jews, and it was hard to even carry on an openminded conversation like we used to, because she was so defensive of these Orthodoxes. I think that was her third stage--she wasn't exactly angry, per se, but anytime we tried to talk about religion, even though I'm not really religious, she would almost make fun of my religion, and I saw this as a act of defense, even though she really had nothing to defend herself against with me. But now, more recently when I see her, I can tell that she has entered into a more enlightened stage, where she has realized the contradictions and she is at least attempting to sort them out. I think she is now at stage 4, and I think that soon enough she will be in stage five if she continues her attempts to understand as she is. I guess that I just think it's cool how even though these stages are kind of theoretical, I can see evidence of them in my everyday life.

After the class discussions, my ideas on war have been totally reinforced. I think that there are so many misconceptions about what is going on over in Iraq and what has been going on for the last ten years, and I don't think that people should pretend like they know what is going on or pretend to have strong opinions about it unless they have actually been over there and seen the conditions firsthand. War is so overgeneralized, and I think it's a circular problem; there's really no right or wrong to what's going on, because it can be looked at from so many different perspectives. One thing that is for sure, though, is that it sucks for people on both sides. War benefits very, very few people. Even on the winning side, people are still being killed and sacrificed for their countries. If your "team" lost 17,000 people but won the war then how much of a victory is it really? Even if you win, you lose---except who determines how many people are worth losing in order to win a war? How many people is okay to lose? Apparently for Japan, it was okay to lose over 180,000 innocent civilians in World War 2 before they surrendered. Like seriously? ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND (at least) people. Think about all of the people that you know. I personally guarantee that you cannot name me a hundred and eighty thousand people, so imagine you're from hiroshima and you go on vacation to europe for a week, and in that week hiroshima is bombed and you lose EVERY SINGLE PERSON you know. every person that you see on a daily basis. Is that worth it? Is that okay to sacrifice for "the cause"? I really don't think so.
One question that I did have is in regards to what Sam said about how according to Americans in war, one American life is worth 29 foreign lives. Do other countries think like that also, though? In Iraq or Afghanistan, is one Afghani or Iraqi life worth 29 American lives? Do other cultures think like that too, or is America really just that arrogant? When Sam asked the kid in class how many people would have to be killed to save his brother, and he said "as many as it takes," I think that's different than the 1:29 perspective. If we are talking about people that we know on a personal level, then sure we are going to say as many as it takes. But this 1:29 ratio is not developed by the people who are fighting the war, saving their metaphorical brothers. This is something that is founded by people who don't know anyone personally, and that is the upsetting part, that we think that people who aren't our brothers--- just random Americans, are worth 29 other lives apiece. EVEN if this one American is a really crappy person and half of these Iraqi people are really, really good people. Like I said, war is so overgeneralized, and it is near impossible to make accurate generalizations about what is "right" and "wrong" when it comes to war.

I took Soc119 because my advisor recommended it and everyone that I spoke to about it said that it's "one of those classes you have to take before you graduate." I needed a US history credit, so I figured why not; however, I was really skeptical upon learning that it was based on race relations. Before this class, I hated talking about race. As a white girl, it has never really affected me that much in my life (or at least so I thought until the White Supremacy lecture). I thought that it was a known problem, but what can we do about it? We've come a long way in even the past few years, so clearly whatever we're doing is working in some form. I often harbored an unspoken belief that black and brown people often over exaggerated the racism situation, and that a lot of time people used it as an excuse or an easy out. After taking this class, though, not only have my opinions changed drastically, but I also found that I actually enjoy talking about race. I really enjoy it. Class opened my eyes to a lot of different things. First, I realize how ignorant I was in truly believing that race doesn't affect me at all. My whole life is the way it is, basically, because of racism. I don't think I've realized how many advantages (as unsettling as this is) I've received solely due to my skin color. And Ive never realized all the small areas where racism is embedded in. This is going back to the white supremacy idea, that it is just part of the way that we live. Sam has definitely opened my eyes to how racism affects me. I spent the whole weekend before the midterm doing the readings for the class, and I thought that they were going to suck and be completely boring, seeing as they were all articles; however, I found myself breezing through them, and the information actually stuck with me... and kind of changed the ways that I approached things, especially in regards to immigrants. This week I found myself talking to a Philippino friend from home, telling him all about how his people are doing in America in respects to economics. Another part about lecture that really opened my eyes is all the myths that he has cleared up for me. Before this, I definitely believed that Asians were all math and science when, really, that's not true. Also, when Sam was talking about how black people actually don't tend to blame their misfortunes on anyone but themselves, I think that things like this--busting myths that make us harbor unpleasant feelings to certain races-- are a key to accepting other races. He also cleared up a lot about immigrants "stealing work" for me. I never really thought about it too much, but he's totally right... they take work that Americans are too lazy to take in the first place. I definitely have had my eyes opened for me as a result of this class, and I guess that as a result of everything I"m kind of left thinking, 'well... now what?' Like, we know all the information to go forward, but what do we DO with it? I guess that's my question. How do we put all this information toward solving the greater problem?

I think that the fact that a white person with the exact same resume as a black person is 50% more likely to get called back for an interview based on the name alone is really upsetting. This leaves the black person with two options: like the girl in class said, she could do more to create a better resume than the white person, or she could change her name to a racial-neutral name. Both of these are terrible, and no person should ever feel that this is what they have to resort to. Giving up your name is giving up part of your identity, which you should never have to do for anyone or anything. (Plus, would you really want to work for a place that cares that much about your skin color or name?) And people should not have to increase resumes just because they are of a different race. If you have the same qualifications as a white person, then you should have an equal opportunities. However, I don't think that the way around this is to give people of different races "extra points" to boost them up. For example, I hate when colleges and other institutions have quotas that they have to meet for certain nationalities. Like in colleges when they are required to hire a certain percentage of Asian or Hispanic or whatever people in the school. I find this unfair, because what if there is a white person and a black person, but the white person happens to be more qualified, but they hire the black person to fulfill the quota? This is not fair for the white person. And things like this happen a lot. So it's almost like racism can go both ways here. Ideally, if there was a way to hide your name and sex on applications, then people would have no way of discriminating against you based on your application alone; however, that does not carry over to the interview. In interviews, I think that people will hire who they like the most, or who they identify with the most. I don't think that this is grounded in race, but more culture. A white person will most likely identify more with another white person than with, say, a person who does not speak English as a first language. I don't think that this is purposeful, but I think that the white person will be more standoffish and cautious of what he says, because he may be aware that he is ignorant of the culture of the applicant, and maybe this makes him nervous. Maybe the white person doesn't want to offend the other person, and the way that he demonstrates this is by being reserved and distant. And if this is the case, then I think the answer to it would be to make people more educated on different cultures. For example, I know nothing about the middle eastern countries or the religions that they practice, or anything about their culture, and I like to think of myself as a fairly educated person. I can only remember learning about different religions for a very short time in maybe 10th grade for only one unit. I think that these subjects should definitely be more involved in the curriculum. I honestly think that the best way to prevent what people perceive as racism is to reduce ignorance and promote education.

I think that Sam makes an awesome point here, when he talks about how people who believe in evolution can't just shoot down creationism without looking totally ignorant if they don't fully understand the different inherent concepts of creationism. Especially for "atheists"... unless you have a deep understanding of each religion and you truly do not believe in any of them (there are a wholeeeeee lot to look at), then you really should not declare yourself an atheist. Ignorant may be a better word for you. But that goes both ways... even for diehard religious people (of any religion), you shouldn't just blindly follow everything your religion tells you to do unless you actually understand the background reasons as to why you are doing it. For example, I have spoken to people who do not know the reasons behind religious 'holidays' such as Lent, Passover, Yom Kippur, etc., and yet they participate in them anyway! Seriously what is the point of giving something up for a period of time, or fasting, if you have no idea what it is for? People do it just because they are told. Like seriously? People always refer to the Bible, but how many people have actually read the Bible? Christians don't identify with Jews, even though fifty percent of their religion derives from the SAME SCRIPTURE. It is to the point where some Muslims actually shy away from telling Americans their religions. But what do many Americans actually know about the religion itself? If people are so hard on others' religions, why can't they actually take the time to study them to figure out if they actually are against these religions. But not even just that... if you've never studied other religions, how do you know that yours is right? Because your parents believe in it? And their parents believe in it? And Sam is right... this could all go back to some crazy person in your family who made a stupid decision. And people base their lives on this? I respect people who have switched religions and are now devout way more than people who have practiced one religion their whole lifetime. I'm not trying to bash Muslims or anything, but they tend to live their lives around their religion more than any other religion that I have been exposed to. But most Muslims do it only because that's what their parents do, and in some communities you'd basically be shunned if you were to do anything else. But in that situation, more than ever, wouldn't you want to know more about what is being shunned? How is it possible that out of the millions of people who live in the Middle East, that almost ALL of them just happen to believe in the same thing? If they exposed themselves to other religions and weren't scared to believe in anything else, then there is not a freaking chance that all of them would believe in the same thing. It's definitely not only Christians who need to start seeing things from other perspectives. It's whole countries.

I definitely agree with Sam on this one. I think that no matter where our features came from, they were selected for a reason. First off, if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, your features were naturally selected. Even if you have a really wide nose that may not be "up to beauty standards" here, I think that it's really interesting that if a white, "pretty" person went over to a country like India or Africa, the people there may not find this white person pretty at all, and they would prefer the person with the wide nose any day. I think that a lot of people do not realize this, because we are so sucked in by the media. The media offers a very specific criteria for a person to be considered pretty. However, the amount of people who actually have those characteristics is very small. You would think that if those characteristics were actually preferred, everybody by now would have them, right? Well that is obviously not the case. There are still people out there with large noses, different heights and weights, and many other characteristics that are not considered "pretty" in our culture. What if the media wasn't there and it was left to ourselves to define the word "pretty"? Every person would be different and prefer something different, and I think that this is evident by all of the different features out there that exist. I think that before the media, even in the early 1900s, people were free to choose for themselves what they think is pretty. And judging from how different everybody is out there, it definitely didn't follow the media standards.
As for the creationist aspect, I think that Sam is totally right in that as well. God created each of us and distributed different features to each person. By being unhappy with these features and wishing for something new is basically saying to God "Hey, I'm unhappy with your work." But it's kind of like this: say your aunt gave you a present. And you didn't like the present. Regardless of whether or not you like it, she still GAVE you a present. Would you rather have no present at all? Regardless of whether or not you're happy with it, God GAVE you a nose, he GAVE you legs, he GAVE you arms, and he GAVE you a life. There are people out there who are not as lucky. By cursing what you were given, you are basically not only offending and being rude to God (imagine telling your aunt that you want something else instead), but in the eyes of disabled people, say, who maybe weren't given an arm or a leg, you are a complete snob. Instead of being ungrateful for what you don't like, be grateful for what you have. Right on, Sam.