I am happy that Sam put this letter up for us to see. What this man has written has really changed my perspective on prisoners, especially lifers. Ever since most of us were young children, we were taught to view prisoners and criminals as inherently bad people. Whatt I feel like we neglect to see is that people can change, the way they act and the way they think can change. From this letter, we see that these "lifers" now have a genuine soul, and some of them may even have a better outlook on life than some of us. I guess I never really stopped to think about how life would be for those who were forced to remain in prison for the rest of their life without paroll. I mean if I had to think something before I read this letter I would have thought that those people were miserable and hostile. Here I see that for some, it is quite the opposite. The prisoners have gained friendships, good friendships at that. I think its nice that they give each other their phone calls on family members birthdays and that when something bad happens, they are there to support one another. I think from reading this letter I have seen most of all that good people can make bad decisions. Or people who were not "good" at one time can change.

I am not sure how I feel about letting these people back into the real world though. I mean, yes these people have made huge improvements in their attitudes while in prison, but what is the guarantee that they will still have these positive outlooks on life in the real world. I mean it has been so long since they have been out there. Things may be a lot different than they remember them. Also, How do you check a person’s mental stability? Looking at this from the family of a victim, I would be devastated If they let the person who intentionally killed my family member out of jail. I do not think it is fair that they get their public life back, but the victim will never walk the streets again.

Maybe the media has swayed my opinions a but, I am not sure. In the media we only hear of the criminals who are released from prison and continue to commit violent crime. We see in the movies the stereotypical prisons. This reminds me of what Sam said in class, that a few bad people can ruin the reputation of the whole group. There probably are some lifers that are ready to be back in the real world, but there is always that chance they could go back to their old ways. I am glad that they have this happy, upbeat life in prison, and that they are not all miserable, I’m just not so sure they should be let back in the real world. I think I just talked myself into confusion.

This lecture really got me thinking today. It was definitely the best lecture we had in class this semester. When the lecture first began, I thought, "Oh, great, another lecture on war and terrorism and Iraq". But, as we progressed further into the lecture Sam had my full attention. When we had to put ourselves in the Arab Muslim mind set, I really began to see their understanding of things much clearer. Sam said that people our age in the Middle East just want food, money, a family, happiness, PEACE, and to control the resources in their land. After all, the war is supposedly about oil right? That IS their oil, not ours. I would be angered if somebody came in to control one of my major resources. For example, Sam gave the example of the Chinese taking our coal and gaining wealth. Technology and the media play a huge role in the thought process of Muslims in the Middle East. Of course when people say the war is a crusade, that the oil in the Middle East is comparable to children playing in F.A.O Schwartz, or that their Muslim god is a fake god people are going to take offense. Similarly, the videos of the American soldiers, or "Christian Invaders" running cars off of the road, smashing cars, and talking in harsh tones to the civilians, belittling them, disturbed me. Of course when word gets around about the way certain members of the army are treating people, Arab Muslims would be offended and start to gather certain opinions about the troops as a whole. Sam was right when he said a few people can ruin it for everyone. It is easy to see now, how Muslims in the Middle East can have the belief that all the United States Christian Invaders want to do is to convert them, take their oil, and kill them all. The statistic Sam brought up: "29 civilians are allowed to die just to capture one bad person" may not seem too rough when you are a citizen of the United States, but now i can just picture myself in the Middle East. What if one of my family members or closest friends was one of those 29 civilians who were killed? In this sense the "Christian Invaders" really can come off as bad people.

My understanding is that most Arab Muslims in the Middle East are not fundamentally radical. It is those select few who willing to hijack and suicide bomb to defend their faith. After hearing the lecture today, I did not respond to the question by saying I would join the insurgency, because personally I am not for war. However, I do understand where these people are coming from, and see their points of view.

Sam was not exaggerating when he said this would be one of the most disturbing videos we would watch all semester. This whole video upsets me. Why is it that light skin is considered beautiful? Why is straight or naturally waved hair paired with light skin considered the most beautiful? Every girl should feel that her own race is beautiful. It is a shame that the media portrays beauty the way it does, because media has such a huge impact on the way people think.
Now, about the dolls. For some reason I always thought that younger children played with dolls of their own racial background. I must be so naive. The outcome of this video really shocked me and brought a sort of sadness, along with shock, from inside me. I never thought for one second that fifteen out of those twenty one children would have picked the white doll to play with because they liked that doll best. Some of the children even picked up the white doll before she was finished asking the question. Has it become that much of a natural instinct in children that white has to be better? Second, when asked to pick the "nice" doll, they pick the white doll also, and when asked which doll is bad, the response was the black doll. The reasoning was simply because "she is white", and "she is black". This confused me a little because often white people are seen as discriminatory or racist, but yet to these younger children the white doll is still seen as the nicer doll of the two. Perhaps it has to do solely with the belief that light skin is more beautiful? I believe they are basing their decisions off of social norms.
After the children made their decisions about the dolls in the first two questions, they were asked to choose which doll looked like them. This next response was honestly the most heartbreaking for me. The young girl looked like she was in such distress before she pushed the black doll toward the woman across the table. I could imagine why. These children were just sitting at that table saying that white was nice, and black was bad, but yet they all looked like the black doll. That look on that child's face when she chose the black doll really touched me, and not in a good way. I really hope than one day we can over come this color obstacle, if anywhere hopefully it can start in the toy industry. Young children should want to play with dolls of their own color and not feel like the doll of color has to be the bad or mean doll.

This is an interesting question and topic. I really do believe that deep down most white people, the ones who have any kind of soul, feel some sort of guilt about what has happened in the past. Similarly, even people today may feel some kind of guilt about certain issues, for example, the hiring process. Guilt may not be the right word, I see it more as feeling bad about the situations at hand, but because we personally did not contribute to the past, we do not necessarily feel "guilty" about the situation. What happened in the past with slavery, Jim Crowe laws, lynching, etc. was definitely wrong, there is no arguing that, and yes as a white person, I do feel awful about everything that happened, I'm just not sure I can classify my "feeling bad" as guilt. I have never personally done anything intentionally to hurt a person of another color, race, or ethnicity, but I do think it was wrong that those situations ever took place in the 1920s-60s. Some of the videos we watched in class really disturbed me. The video of the little black children picking the white doll as the good doll. I had no words to explain how I felt about that. That was really disturbing, and it breaks my heart that little children do not see their own race as "good" or attractive. The video of the man doing the different accents was equally as disturbing. Just because the woman on the other end of the phone thought that the man was black, latino, chines, or indian she would not even give him the time of day. Then when the man spoke in a White American accent, she was fully willing to work with him. That is so unfair, and it hurts my feelings that there are so many people sharing my race treat different races poorly.

Wouldn't it be pretty difficult to write a "White History Book" without including people of color anywhere? I believe Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement is also a part of White History. After all, the white people were the ones discriminating and treating other races poorly. However, I think if the text books were changed to only teach about "white history", leaving out people of color completely, that yes maybe the white guilt would disappear. At that point I believe that white people's eyes would not even be open to the racial issues in past or present society. It would take a class like Soc119 where racial issues are "brought to the table" to open people's eyes. So maybe we could say the "white guilt" and feelings of shame would begin to occur later in life. Completely getting rid of "white guilt"/feelings a sorrow/feeling bad is nearly impossible.

I am glad that other people found this offensive as well. It seems to me that "people of color" can almost get away with saying anything, and when a white person says something "inappropriate" it is a huge controversy. I do think that this should work both ways. If one group is going to be reprimanded for the inappropriate racial comments they say, the other group should be treated the same way. When a white person sent the text message about the annoying loud black girls in the computer lab, I will admit, that even as a white person I believe that statement was wrong and inappropriate to say. That statement caused problems in class, but when a black person relates uggs, stuck up white girls, ignorance, sorority girls, north faces, orange skin, tanning beds, being bad at sports, benchwarmers, etc. to whites it is all seen as a funny joke. White people may take offense to those comments, but the test messages kept rolling down the screen, and nothing was said to stop them. I do not see how it is fair to be allowed to degrade one side/race, but not the other. Why will whites always been seen as the racists? We need to let everything from the past remain in the past. We have come a long way since the Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement. It is time for all races to start taking responsibility for our own words and actions, to understand what words and expressions are socially acceptable and what statements people of another race may find offensive. It is also our responsibility to see that not everybody in the world is a racist. Not every white person sets out in society to degrade a person of color. I am sure it is the same the other way around. We were posed this statement in class: Maybe the people who go out in the world looking for racism are the ones who are inherently racist. I firmly believe this statement is one hundred percent true. If you think about it, many of our problems would be solved if people did not take offense or read too much into people speaking their minds. For example, yes there are obnoxious loud black girls out there, and there are also white girls who are more loud and more obnoxious than they are. There are white and people of color who wear uggs, who have a lot of money, who are in sororities. There are black boys and white boys who are not good at sports as well. We need to stop playing the race card and see each other as individuals on an equal playing field. So basically what I am trying to say is, we need to delete the stereotypes from our minds, and we need to realize that it is just as inappropriate for a person of color to say that white people are stuck up as it is for a white person to call a black girl loud.

think that both of you are correct. If you feel strongly about something you should stand up for it, especially in the situation the of the Muslim woman in the video. I understand how sometimes people may feel that it is not "their place" to say something because they do not know the person discriminating or the person being discriminated against, but if people do not speak up against what they think is wrong, then we are never going to move forward as a society from where we are today. When watching the video I felt so happy when the people stood up for her, it actually made me smile. The people who just walked out made me angry for a couple reasons. Yes, maybe they were trying to get their point across by not buying anything and leaving, but that did not do anything to actually help the situation. We will never know how they felt. Maybe they were indifferent about the situation, but that is not a good sign. Communication is the first step to making things better. As we learned in our reading, individuals having conversations with one another is the start to making society take a look at racism and discrimination and what can be said and done to begin to fix the problem. It is every one's "place to say something". People need to speak up regardless of if they know the person or not. Why is it that people are not afraid to defend family members or best friends, but as soon as it is a stranger we back away? We need to treat everyone equally, stranger or not, their feelings are still hurt by discriminatory acts. I know there may be a fear of how the person we are defending will react to our rebuttal sometimes, but that is a chance we should be willing to take. We would know in our minds that we did the right thing. The girl in the video who was very angered by what the cashier was saying was speaking her mind because her friend standing next to her was Muslim, just not dressed to show it as the other woman was. What are the odds that she would have spoken up if she had never met her best friend that was there? Don't get me wrong I think that it was great that she defended the woman, but I just wonder what could have happened. Discrimination may not stand out as much now as it did in the past, but we still have a long way to go. The fact that people still refuse to serve and hire certain races, religions, and ethnicities is proof that there is much room for improvement.

I do believe that race plays a big role in the length of the sentence for a crime, but I also believe that it is correlated to the amount of money that person or family has. More African Americans are convicted of committing crimes, but are they really committing that many more crimes than whites or other nationalities? Probably not. In my opinion, I strongly believe that a judge can be bought from the beginning. Money plays an important role. If a white wealthy male and an average black male are tried for the same crime, of course the white male will have a better lawyer, and a better chance of not being convicted. If a rich black male and a poor white male were tried, I think that the court order would be flip flopped and the black male would be off free. The crime that was committed also plays into this. If a person stole a bi store, and the other person sold illegal drugs. Regardless of race, the person who did the greater crime would be punished in a harsher manner. I learned in my section; however, that in society, if a black, a Hispanic, and a white were all applying for the same job, and all three people were equally qualified, the white person has a much higher chance of getting the job. It is similar in the situation of names. A person with a foreign sounding name is less likely to get a call back that a person with an ordinary American name. In shopping malls, pharmacies, and convenience stores, I also learned that the people behind the surveillance cameras and the workers will pay more attention to the “colored” people in the stores. Why does society feel that color of skin creates a good or bad person? The moral standards people uphold themselves to have nothing to do with race in my opinion. I live in an inner city, which is quite diverse. There are black, Hispanic, and white people with the best manners I have ever seen. They treat everybody kindly and do not disrespect anybody. One the other hand, there are black, Hispanic and white people who do steal, destruct property, deal drugs, use weapons, and cause problems in the streets. I have seen a white female be arrested for drug dealing, and a Hispanic be arrested for stabbing one of my friends. This is why my outlook on crime is based more on the money aspect. Because in my neighborhood the crime rates seem pretty equal among races, I see it as the people who are sentenced for a greater time are more than likely those people who cannot afford a good lawyer as a system of defense. It is sad to say that that is what our society has come down to, but I do believe it is true.

I do not think there is a different between male gay couples and female gay couples adopting children. Gay couples are just as capable of giving adopted children a happy home environment to live in. The difference being that you have either two moms or two dads in a sense, but they are still two great parents. If the take the time to couples go through of all the paperwork, pay the price for adoption, and qualify for the role of parenthood, then they should not be denied the opportunity to give a parentless child the home they deserve. I think it is actually a great opportunity for gays because they can not really have a child on their own, so adoption is a fantastic way to build a family. The sex of our parents does not change the way they love us, and it certainly does not change the way they care for their children. They will still be given a home to live in, food to eat, clothing to wear, a roof over their head, a school, extracurricular activities, and two parents to love them. I have family members and friends who are gay and of course I want them to be happy later in life and have a family, whether it is through adoption or not. When it comes to the child's family life, if a child grows up with two gay parents throughout their entire childhood, I do not think the child will have any sort of problems with that. I do think, however; there could be problems that arise in elementary and middle school when their classmates are curious as to why they have "two mommys" or "two daddys" if they were never introduced to this concept in their lifetime. They may be teased, but this is just a part of life. Children will find ways to tease each other no matter what the circumstance. This is the main downfall I see, peer ridicule, regardless of whether it is gay men or gay women. Like I said, I am not opposed to the idea of gay men and women adopting children, and I do not think that there is any argument valid enough to not allow gays to adopt children. There are so many children in orphanages without homes, and it is not fair to deny them the right of two great parents just because the parents are the same sex. According to this website: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/families/a/adopti... only 24% of children in the 2000 census live with married same sex parents, so I think it is safe to argue that in most cases, the children would be just as happy, if not, better off, with two happy parents in love, regardless of the fact that they are same sex parents.

I one hundred percent agree with what the woman on the video stated. In our society, people find it most relevant to talk about black and white people when they have race relations discussions. Ever since the early years of schooling in elementary and middle school, we have been taught about slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. We learn of Black History Month. Then in high school we go into more depth and learn about the freedom rides, March on Washington, voting rights, lynching, the KKK. Then in college, there are United States history courses where the whole course is centered around the ideas of slavery, Civil Rights, etc. We've seen videos and heard speaches from the greatest Civil Rights activists. I do think that because we know so much about the history of African Americans in our country and the way they were treated that this is why discussions always tend to gear toward black and white. If we learned more about Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Arab, Hispanic cultures, we would talk about that. I just think the whole past that blacks and whites have is what stirs such a topic for discussion in race relations. I also think that it has to do with where you grow up. In my home town for instance, majority of the conflict is between black and white. So if i were to have a race relation discussion, this is what my voice would speak to. A lot of conversation has to do with where you are from. If you are from a town full of white, black, and asians interacting, this is what your conversation would center around. If you are from a town that is predominantly white, then you would probably have the black and white conversation. Once again, this would be based solely on education and what people learn from the news and the media. I think we just have to face it, we're all the same on the inside. Skin color, hair texture, style, and religion really make no difference. We all have the same emotions. In order for race relations to be effective, we all need to accept that. We need to see that everyone's opinion is just as valid, and be willing to hear people out. We need to recognize all races, not just white and black, there are many in between. In order to bring everyone together, we must first acknowledge the presence of everybody. In this sense, I think all race relations discussions will be more effective, and society in general would probably get along better. Maybe schools need to start teaching more about all races at a younger age. Perhaps that will spark discussions that have the involvement of all racial groups.

It seems to me that the word "negro" often stirs up some mixed emotions in today’s society. Some may say that it borders the topic of political correctness. Whites are often afraid to use the term in fear of offending those of African American descent. I disagree, I would say the word negro would be the politically correct term, nigger, depending on its context, would be the term not politically correct. I do think that the guidelines of political correctness vary by circumstance, especially in social groups. In my opinion, it the word should be left on the census, because as the article stated, many black senior citizens refer to themselves as negro because of the time they grew up in. By taking negro off of the census, we would probably receive invalid calculations of the races living in the United States. Those who refer to themselves as negro may check the "other" box, and respond by writing negro in the box. Grandparents may pass that term down to their grandchildren, telling them that they should refer to themselves as negro. What if it is a family thing? These complications would keep the term alive and would defeat the purpose of getting rid of the term. I do think it is a good idea to allow citizens to check more than one race, because as the article states, it is not fair for a person with a black father and white mother, or vise verse to have to choose whether they want to be called black or white. Similarly, being able to reflect on their response in more detail is another great choice. Although the argument is that the census is becoming more self-expression and more based on how people wish to be known, I think that that is what the United States is coming to, and what the United States stands for. We have such a wide variety of races, cultures and backgrounds in our country. We have white, black, Spanish, Italian, Irish, German, Chinese, Japanese, etc. and these people are mixing together. Of course what is going to happen is people are going to begin referring to themselves as a couple different races. Some people may choose to pick one or the other, but others will not. That is what the United States is all about, all races living together in the same society. So after all, the census is pretty much people creating their own identity. And more than likely, without allowing people to explain themselves after they check a box for "black", "white", "Hispanic" or "other", the numbers on the census are not going to match with the actual true number of different races in our country.