I'm a little confused, and baffled... are you trying to say that it was unfair that immigrants took the jobs that high schoolers usually held at the beach in the summer? Unfair, you say? In the perspective of a business owner, you must think of what kind of employee you want. You outlined many reasons why owners would prefer immigrant staff over high school staff. But then you say that Americans are more driven and hard working than "these people". While you perceived that you worked harder than any of the immigrants at your summer job, it must be put into perspective. The immigrants probably were working more in the long term than you, just there for the summer, so why bust their ass? Also, it's the least of our concern that high school students are having trouble finding jobs. We're a bit more concerned with people's careers than someone's summer job. Also, I'm sure if your friend with the lawn mowing job integrated the immigrants into the business, it wouldn't have failed. I just think you have a very one-sided view of this controversy and should definitely devote some time towards changing that.

Anyways.

I completely understand why so many immigrants come to this country illegally. It's very common for a father in Mexico to come to the US to make money to send back to his family, and hopefully eventually bring them to the US. So it makes sense that one would immigrate here illegally, because it's not sensible to go through the legal process without assurance that a better life lies in America.

Like many others have expressed, I really enjoyed this post and was glad to see the Rockview lifers come up in topic again. What struck me within the first few sentences was how eloquently this man writes. It's a beautiful mix of simplicity & complexity; easy to understand yet sophisticated and elegant, which is a style that most writers strive for. Anyways, I'm sure he's attained his writing skills over time, which of course, he has a lot of. That's one of the things about prison that really intrigues me, that many inmates attain an education they probably never would have if they weren't convicted. I remember watching a segment on TV about a nonprofit, I believe in New York, founded by an ex-con that provides services to newly released inmates in helping adjust to society, get a job, etc. The founder said that many, many inmates earn advanced degrees during their prison time; some even have PhDs upon release, yet they need just as much assistance as any former inmate in adjusting to society. I'm sure most people have seen Shawshank Redemption (one of my favorite movies!), and know the theme of "not surviving on the other side". Can you imagine what it would be like to live in a prison for several decades, fully accustomed to a structured lifestyle, then being released on parole? I'd be scared shitless! What do I do now... getting a job will be near impossible with my criminal history, and with the degrees I earned in prison I could get a real job and legitimately turn my life around. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. I think there is a dire need for service agencies that assist ex-cons, because if the purpose of their imprisonment was to be rehabilitated, they deserve a chance to start over.
Anyways, this might be kind of silly, but I truly think there should be a reality TV show focused on lifers. I think it would be terribly interesting and would alter societal perceptions on prison life. Maybe that'll be a project of mine in the future, because I think as we all have realized, there are a lot of things we could learn from lifers.

I enjoyed yesterday's lecture mainly because it covered a topic I unfortunately don't know too much about. When Sam asked us what we know about Arabs and Muslims, how long we could talk for if we spit out everything we know, I was thinking "hm... probably about 10 seconds". Which is embarrassing. The lack of knowledge I have about anything going on in the Middle East or past relations between the US and the Middle East is, again, embarrassing. So I appreciated this lecture because it was a fresh topic compared to what we've been discussing in prior classes.

So I notice that many people are getting all hot and bothered that Sam portrayed the war in Iraq as a Christian Invasion (typical Christian reaction). Which shows how many people failed to understand the point of the lecture: Arab Muslims in the Middle East see Americans as coming to 1) take control of their resources and 2) spread their religion. Which, as we saw, is the result of misrepresentations of American culture that Arab Muslims are exposed to. Just like the misrepresentations of Arab Muslim culture that we are exposed to.

I must admit, the main reason I enjoyed yesterday's lecture was because I left feeling one of my strongest beliefs was completely supported- that religion is TOXIC to our world. I don't mean religion in it's entirety... in fact, I'm thankful for the morals that have developed in societies that stem from religion and prevent mass chaos of murder and so forth from occurring. But I do believe that when the duty to convert people is an important characteristic of a religion, that is when things go downhill. There is no reason for masses of people to follow the same religion, because religion is between oneself and his/her God(s). The goal of religiosity is completely, 100% selfish- to assure one's life and afterlife will be pleasant. Again, I do not believe there is ANY reason for a religion to have as many followers as possible. Perhaps when a religion is founded, recruitment is necessary to spread awareness of it's existence, but no need for WORLD DOMINATION. I would be interested in learning why religions like Islam and Christianity honor the idea of converting as many people possible, because I don't know. What I do know, is that there's nothing I hate more than people trying to push their religion on me. I DESPISE missionaries. And "despise" is putting it lightly. Especially when there are missionaries on campus, who trick you into conversation by asking where Chambers Building is then changing the subject to the Holy Father. If there are any missionaries out there reading this, let me tell you something- I don't follow a religion not because I've never thought about it, or live under a rock. If I wanted to begin following a religion, I would seek out the information myself. So if you really want to be useful in your work in life, post some flyers onto a community board and start a 24/7 information hotline. Because that way, if there are people who are slightly intrigued by your religion, they can easily contact you for more information. Anyways, back to my point on religious conversion, I don't know who these missionaries in Iraq think they are to go into a Muslim country and attempt to spread their religion. Seriously? Do you really think if Muslim missionaries were to come to your door and try to talk you into loving Muhammad, you would go along with it? I just DON'T GET IT. I really don't. And thanks to these radical Christians in our country, Arab Muslims in Middle East have a completely skewed perception of Americans and see us as a threat. So basically, I blame religion for that. Sorry if that offends people, but.... you can't exactly deny it.

I completely agree with what this girl is saying, and I was thinking similarly in class on Tuesday. There is no single standard of attractiveness and femininity when it comes to the female body, and this is reflected in Hollywood today. Kate Hudson for example, has a borderline concave chest. Yet she's absolutely stunning and exudes sensuality and femininity. On the other end of the spectrum, Sara Ramirez (Callie Torres on Grey's Anatomy) is extremely curvaceous yet equally stunning, sensual and feminine. The thing that these curvy and curve-less women have in common is their mindset. They're comfortable in their bodies, embrace their womanhood and it consequently emanates from their presence. When we stop questioning our "flaws" and appreciating what we have, we begin to carry ourselves differently throughout the day. Like when you buy a knockout dress and wear it out for the first time, you walk like you own the world. Being able to appreciate our bodies will have the same effect, and it is very, very noticeable to people who walk by. When I walk through campus or downtown, I can pick out from a crowd a woman that really is comfortable and confident in her body, and she's always the most womanly and feminine female around. So what do I think feminity is? The confidence to work "what our mommas gave us".

Good call... you're right, I didn't know the actual statistics of reported rapes in Japan. Actually, I was mostly thinking of Japanese brothels, which as we read in Disposable People are common (yes, "extremely common") and many Japanese men prefer the youngest girls possible. And while it may be a matter of opinion, I consider men paying to have sex with a young girl who is far from wanting to be there as rape. So anyways, I just wanted to clarify what I was basing my knowledge on, because it wasn't manga.

I don't think the point of this post is to say that Mandarin is to become the future language. The point is, in the future job market for global industries, or just businesses that have international partnerships, any job candidate who can speak a foreign language will have a great advantage over those who cannot. Even though it's true that English is the primary language used for business interactions, and the Chinese adhere to that, it's obvious why an American fluent in Mandarin would be beneficial. Think of it this way.... for an American company that wants to land a huge deal with a Chinese company, having a Mandarin-speaking employee as a correspondent is arguably their greatest strength in securing the deal. I just think that it's ignorant, and ethnocentric, to stand back and assume there is no need to learn a foreign language because English will always be the dominant language for international relations. Especially in today's job market, we need every unique, desirable quality we can get to secure a great job.

Although disgusted by these rape video games developed in the Japan, I can't say I'm surprised. In context, it was only a matter of time before this type of game came along. While I don't know what the social feelings about rape in Japan are, I know it's EXTREMELY common in their society. So like Grand Theft Auto emulates a common occurrence in American society, thievery, and the "bad-ass" feelings associated with it; it makes since that Japanese game designers would come up with this plot line. My brother is a game designer and from him I've learned that today, consumers prefer games that are realistic, but have the gamer engaging in some awesome/dangerous/taboo acts ranging from superhuman powers to murdering other characters in the game. Anyways, I think this idea that realism is enticing in the gaming world, explains the development of this rape game. As we read in Disposable People, brothels are commonplace in Japan. And there have been loads of Manga comics that portray graphic sex scenes and rape. Culturally speaking, the rape game makes sense in Japan. But I'm glad that the games were taken off the market.... hopefully they can be controlled on the internet too.

I think the whole concept that was presented by the LL Bean catalog is one of the main obstacles toward people reaching equality, or at least the humanitarian phase. It is a lose-lose situation, because white people, having a "similar-to-me" mindset, would be much more comfortable with black people who dress like them than those who dress differently. In fact, regardless of skin color, we are always more likely to feel comfortable around people who portray an image similar to our own. For example, us college students tend to share a basic "uniform": jeans, T-shirt, flip-flops or sneakers, sweatshirt, etc. Is it untrue to say we would feel slightly uncomfortable around a student who wears a 3-piece suit to class everyday?
So then to turn to people of color wearing "white" clothes- what message do people perceive from it? Is this person trying to be white? Are they trying to gain approval from the majority? Do they simply enjoy wearing khakis, boatneck sweaters, and loafers?
It upsets me that people of color do have to consider what message their attire portrays more than white people do. I am a true believer in the power of dressing nicely, that 1) it makes the wearer more confident and 2) people see you in a more respectful manner. And at this point in my life, mainly because I'm in a college setting, I don't see many people who are really put together when I'm walking to class. And when I do, I always notice them. In this sense if I were to see a girl or guy of any color dressed nicely walking down College Ave, I'd instantly have respect for that person. And their skin color has nothing to do with that perception- I just think it's great that there are people who aren't lazy bums and roll out of bed and walk straight to class.
Overall, I've never thought about how people of color perceive other people of color who dress "whitely". Just like we all have equal rights as individuals, we all have the right to our own taste in fashion and our racial identity should never create barriers to that.

Definitely agree. I think if they are going to ask people to identify themselves as Puerto Rican, Guatemalan, Mexican, etc., WHY don't they do the same for European countries that people have heritage in? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that there's a bigger difference between Guatemala & Mexico than say, French & German. In fact, the more I think about it, the more angry I get. I was filling out the census last night (well actually, I was filling out my friend's census for her since she and her roommate hadn't done it yet), and the feeling that comes over me when I get this question is basically disappointment. How boring and sad is it that out of all the other races listed, I have to check off "white"? It's like eating pasta with nothing on it. Bland. White. I hate that! I would love to be able to check off Irish and German, cause that's my heritage. My friend's heritage is Japanese, so I could check her off for that, but I'm stuck with that damn "white" box. It just goes to show how deluded the world is to the concepts of "race" and "heritage"- in different situations, heritage will constitute as race or skin color will, and that is not ok. Seriously, if they're going to put our race as "white", that technically could excuse other races being described as "yellow" or "red". And that's not OK. I really don't know why they can't replace "white" with something that's not a color.

I agree that being part of the majority doesn't mean we hold our heads high with the idea that we are STRONG WHITE PEOPLE. As we've discussed in class, most white people don't even acknowledge the advantages they have due to their skin color.

So the fact that minority births are fast-approaching the majority, to me, is a prime example of "not news". I don't think anyone is surprised at this change in our demography, nor are we "concerned" about it because most of us were raised to accept all colors of skin as equal. Sure, some of our grandparents would be disgusted, but that's due to generational differences and they'll be dead soon anyways so no problem there. Personally, my friend-base growing up included very few minorities and I'm so glad that my children in the future will have the opposite experience, most likely.