I think it is easy to distance yourself from situations that you never have to see. Everyday there are bombings in Iraq that kill groups of people, but we don’t look twice at the headline. Meanwhile, there is an explosion in a mine in West Virginia and America stops to help. I’m not saying that this is a bad thing, but it’s just not a prevalent thing. Ultimately, people are concerned with the things that will directly influence them. In the case of the Haiti earthquake, people either don’t realize how it affects them or realize that it really doesn’t affect them. These scenarios rely on people helping because they want to help, not because they need to. Unfortunately, there aren’t that many people that feel that want.

The recent controversy surrounding South Park grows more ridiculous by the day. Once again the beacon for free speech in America, a cartoon that originally featured cut and paste animation, articulates what everyone is thinking. South Park is always pushing the limits of decency and satire, regardless of who the target is; therefore, only the most disconnected groups take serious offense at the show. Now there are fundamentalist Islamic groups calling for the murder of the South Park creators just as we saw a few years ago when the Dutch political cartoon featuring Muhammad spurred outrage. I’m happy that South Park chose to take on this issue again because it truly tests the boundaries of free speech.
The most outrageous aspect of this fight is that South Park does this all the time. Almost every season South Park takes on some religious group in a serious, while ironically hilarious way. Furthermore, South Park has challenged fundamentalist Islam before. In a previous episode, the question was whether or not Comedy Central would allow an airing that would incite so many people. Ultimately South Park lost that fight, but not for lack of trying. Even more ridiculous is that prior to that episode, South Park had already shown an image of the prophet Muhammad. Literally, they aired his image in a throw away episode that aired prior to 9/11. In that world context, the episode blew over without incident, even leading to an appearance in the opening credits one entire season by Muhammad. However, in the culture of fear that has popped up around the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there is little room for jokes.
The South Park creators are in a unique position to take on this fight. Their entire careers have been defined by stoking fires and angering public figures by making them look ridiculous in cartoon form. More importantly, South Park achieves something that most satirists do not; a marriage of humor and rationality. The reason that South Park is still on the air is that so many people find it funny. It has been chastised as immature, yet the themes are typically sophisticated and reasonable. Now, after years of poking fun at everyone from Bono to Jesus, South Park is able to honestly say that they have no bias toward Islam. They are not religious nuts trying to stifle the word of Allah, they are just people who recognize irrationality.
South Park stands as a major defense of free speech because they continually take on the powers that be through the medium of communication. They have satirized their parent company, Viacom, other celebrities, political figures, religious figures, even dead people. Rarely do the episodes seem in bad taste because rarely are they ill thought out.

For years, I have felt that if I am to learn a language, I might as well learn Arabic or Chinese. Both these languages seems to have continued relevance in our world. Unfortunately, I have since realized that language is not my strong point and even Spanish is too hard for me. Nevertheless, it is obvious that traditional languages like Italian or German are on the fall because they are not spoken predominantly in the world marketplace. Just as English is the world language, so is Chinese. It is just another case of economics dictating how we think about and perceive the world.

Obviously men are forced to conform to society like every other conscious being. That’s why we don’t see men walking around with pants on their arms and shirts on their legs. Women assume that because they feel compelled to wear make-up and heels to like nice, that men completely disregard the opinions of those around them. How many times do you see guys obsessing about lifting weights? And when was the last time you went to a frat house that was exclusively serving Smirnoff Ice? These are all expectations that men must adhere to in order to fit into society. It’s not just men, or women, or black people, or gay people, it’s everyone.

It is hard to visualize what the point of race relations is in the short term. There are so many conflicting views and people that the baby steps that we talk about in class seem to be purposeless. After all, Sam does answer 50 percent of questions with the declaration that he is “going to die”, so that is what he is worried about. Unfortunately, this view point does not do much for those of us concerned with living well. Basically, race relations is an incredibly long term endeavor, the benefits of which we will probably not see; however, the promise of race relations is that we are capable of making a change that will drastically improve the quality of life for future generations.
In actuality, the betterment of future generations is why we do almost everything in life. We go to school to ensure our own well being, but also to ensure that our children will be looked after, or at least the children of our loved ones. Arthur C. Clarke’s novel Childhood’s End, depicts a world coping with the reality that they are the final generation of people to inhabit earth. The world’s population deals with the situation differently, but in general chaos and disorder ensue. This scenario reminds me that we are truly living for our children.
With this in mind, the measures we take to improve the race relations and general equality in our world seem actually to be hopeful goals. In our time we may see some small steps, like civil rights bills being passed, or gay marriage becoming universal; but these are simply ways of changing the consciousness of the world, the effects of which will only be felt later on. In order to achieve different abstract systems of thinking, there needs to be concrete development in reality.
Unfortunately, the promise of a better world for our children is typically not the best motivator for action in our time. But one must always remember that without the actions of past generations there would be no progress. In an attempt to rationalize life, progress is typically a goal or motive. Progress is made in small steps, like what we have talked about in class. Ultimately there must be a decision made by individuals. They must decide if they feel that they want to participate in the betterment of our society (meaning the extension of equality and peace as far as it can go) or if they feel that life is not progress based. Many people would and do choose the second option because it is a reasonable conclusion to make. The hope of race relations is that society can put the future before the present.

Sam says a lot of stuff that I agree with and every so often he says something with which I completely disagree. But the question is, “Is there anything that has really changed my opinion?” and I’d have to answer “Yes”. Sam’s lecture on LGBT awareness was pretty enlightening. This was somewhat what of an affirmation of my own beliefs, but his viewpoints were unique and really changed how I viewed the entire issue. I think his constant insistence that we do not live in a binary world where one view point is pitted versus another, or there are only a set number of ways to view something resonates significantly with me. Sometimes I feel he’s wrong, but his push for consideration as the route to answers is inspiring.

The interactive game based on rape is a pretty disturbing glimpse into fetish culture. It falls into line with games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty that glamorize violent and degenerative behavior via virtual realities. However, in order to produce a video game of such importance that CNN is compelled to run a special report on it, there must be a market in which to sell the product. As with all media and consumer goods, the public is what drives innovation and new frontiers to be developed. In other words, this game wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t being consumed by a population. Like gangster rap and heavy metal music, video games tend to be representational of the cultures producing and consuming them. This is not to say that Japan is a morally depraved culture; in this age of technological globalization video games are a universally injected drug into the veins of our youth. This is to say that the first world culture could use an examining to realize why rape has become an object of gamer fascination. In situations of controversy and free speech, silencing the accused is never beneficial. Therefore, the call from various groups to ban games featuring rape, either as a byproduct of game play or as a main goal, are misguided and reactionary.
I think the gangster rap example is particularly related. Out of catchy hip hop in the late 80’s came a new form of violent, incendiary music that was both controversial and strikingly honest. Rappers sang songs about killing police officers and slapping bitches as if it were culturally acceptable, all to a chorus of critics concerned with the effect the music would have on youth and society. Calls for censorship and bans came in flocks. Indeed, most of the music was reckless, delivering messages that were geared for violence. However, some artists and albums were spot on in their description of life as a poor black person living in poverty. What was accomplished, regardless of the implications, was a picture of a life so desolate and real that it sparked outrage by people not even living it. These were voices that needed to be heard in order to provoke change or at least recognition. Most importantly, many of these rappers were and probably are unaware of the role they play as defenders of free speech. They are most likely just producing the brutal music that attracts listeners. Nonetheless, one cannot pick and choose free speech. It allows society to fully understand life as it is instead of pushing unsavory details underground. A video game glorifying rape has no merit as artistic expression, but it does offer insight into what people are viewing and experiencing. The producers are most likely not “good” people; but they do have the right, the duty, to show the rest of the world how “bad” they are.

It seems that the end of the white majority should not seriously affect our lives when it actually happens. In reality, we’re moving toward a color blind world more and more each day, so when white is not the majority, it will not be a major issue. However, humans always seem to find a way to alienate some group of people for one reason or another. Be it religion, or hair color, or cell phone network, humans always have a way to spot differences. I have no doubt that by 2050, there will be some totally new distinction that people will use to disenfranchise other groups. Race, however, will most likely not be the deciding factor.

Sam is right when he says that we should never stop questioning. Periods are gross to talk about and it is irrational to not discuss why this is the case. However, loads of things are gross to talk about and we are well aware of why they are taboo in common conversation, but that does not mean that it is evidence for why our culture is covertly unequal. In general, talking about poop while people eat is considered gross. If we analyze this, we don’t find that it is because we live in a world where antibacterialists have disenfranchised fecalists; people simply are uncomfortable talking about turds. The same ideas apply for periods. I’m aware that men do not menstruate, but I’m also aware of what it is. My sense of modesty, which according to modern standards of anthropology is a cultural universal, is what makes me not want to discuss bleeding with people I don’t know.

I read somewhere that the general rule of civilization is that you can judge a society based on how the people at the bottom of that society are treated. In a feudal system, obviously the serfs are treated terribly, thus the society is visibly unequal. America, however, has several mechanisms in order that attempt to provide for disenfranchised people. Social Security, Unemployment, and Welfare, among others, are some such institutions. If welfare was discontinued, it would most likely by at the expense of the current stability it provides. Welfare is a decision by the American people to sacrifice is fraction of their income for the betterment of society as a whole.
The main concern in terms of Welfare is always that the recipients of the checks will be more inclined to not find steady jobs because of the ease of living off peoples taxes. Sam, however, addressed this deftly in class. A majority of the people living on welfare are children, which in and of itself means that these are people that cannot possibly find work. Furthermore, this also means that a large portion of people on welfare are parents attempting to raise children on meager incomes. Of course there are inevitably people who abuse the system, receiving checks casually with no immediate intention of getting out of welfare payments; however, I posit that this is a slim minority.
Many welfare recipients are embarrassed by the status and would prefer almost anything but. These people would likely do anything possible to drop the government assistance and continue living as average citizens. The money received on welfare is not a considerable amount and most rational people would rather live on their own means. I think that this is a classic case of a few bad apples spoiling the system for the majority.
Lastly, the people paying for welfare are the tax payers. Tax payer is a bizarre term because it implies that everyone that pays taxes is capable of being grouped together when in reality this is a huge and eclectic mix of the American people. Nevertheless, I think the most Americans would be happy to provide help to those in need if they truly believe that the money is being put to good use. This is evident from the billions of dollars donated to charities every year. Charity is good analogy for Welfare because they are really two ways of saying the same thing. Charity is simply the act of giving to those that you believe are in need of help with no concern for reciprocal action. People are just afraid of making the United States government the mediator in this exchange of money. I can’t say, however, that this is really that irrational of a fear.