Although I have read letters from prisoners before (I once volunteered with Books Through Bars, an organization in which prisoners write letters requesting what kind of book they would like to borrow, and the program then sends and lends it to them). Yet I had never read a letter quite so powerful as this one, written by a "lifer." It is an unfathomable thing to try and grapple: a murderer who writes about compassion. Ironic? Reading this letter was extremely insightful and thought-provoking. It is mind blowing that a man who writes about feeling compassion for any other person whom is suffering has murdered someone. I understand that he has spent a very long time behind bars at this point, and has undergone a sort of "spiritual" transformation within the context of knowing he will be in prison for life, but it seems so strange that someone who has killed, who obviously did not feel compassion at the time of his murder, now writes so poetically about compassion. At the same time, I cannot imagine living your entire life behind bars. Waking up every morning knowing it is going to be the same old day in prison would truly transform the mind. I always thought "lifers" would more likely be driven mad before they would have a self-revelation.

But what are the implications of this? What are we supposed to gather from this man's experiences and writing? Should individuals who go through such a transformation be released from prison? At first I struggled a bit to see the connections between this letter and the larger class of Race Relations. Perhaps I can open that up to the discussion: what are the links to SOC 119? Some people have mentioned ethnocentrism and how putting ourselves in the eyes of a "lifer" gives us a new perspective, an "aha!" moment, in which we can see the world as someone different does. I think that through reading a letter from and hearing stories about "lifers," we gain new perspective into the lives of an unknown population. Just like we have been struggling to remove the veil of stereotypes and misconceptions about people of another color, we can and should do the same for people of another context/experience/life. As this prisoner himself states, we have many presumptions about what a "lifer" must be like - heartless, deadly, terrifying. Yet, as he writes we begin to understand the world as he sees it, within his own context. His experiences have shaped how he views the world, and race too shapes how we each see the world. Perhaps therein lies the connection to class. Many people have been commenting on how this letter truly opened their eyes to the life of a "lifer." We need to have similar experiences attempting to understand people of other cultures, races, and genders as well.

I think Sam already answered these questions pretty well with his little caveat at the beginning of this post. I think the point is that everyone is in different stages, and can be in different stages.
Jesse Jackson cannot be considered in the humanitarian stage, because he still directs much of his energy specifically to black and brown people. He doesn’t just fight for social justice, he fights for social justice for black and brown people. There is nothing wrong with that, but it places him in the pseudo-communitarian phase rather than the humanitarian.
When colored people see those images in LL Bean they may think they don’t properly represent their race. But they will also get mad if they are not represented at all. And in that case, should LL Bean start manufacturing clothing that properly represents all people? I would argue no. That is why there are many clothing brands. And some people of color may like LL Bean.
I think remaining in the immersion stage is harmful to race relations. We can’t fight for racial equity while at the same time remaining in this stage. It would be hypocritical to say you want to be recognized, appreciated, and understood but you don’t want to understand and associate with people who are not like you.
So to the real question, how can be win? Is humanitarianism the prize? Is that the stage we should all be in? My discussion group this week came to an awesome conclusion about the period conversation that related to race. Basically, we felt that by discussing periods, Sam, intentionally or not, reformed his “teams.” No longer were we the white team, the black team, and the brown team; we were the female team and the male team. In our discussion group, when the conversation arose, it was the women that expressed our opinions, experiences, and feelings about how men should talk about “our” issue. When the men tried to join in, they were attacked. We realized that this is often how the race conversations go, except the females would be the people of color and the males would be the whites. As women, we want the men to understand our issue, feel bad for us, say the right things, do the right things etc. The men try to, but they are attacked for it.
The women, or people of color, cannot get angry or upset if the other team does not understand, says the wrong thing, etc. We all have to be willing to be patient and talk about it. I think many times men joke that they can never win with women. And quite possibly, the same thing happens with race relations. I think the goal should be humanitarianism. A place where we do not all have to be the same, but we can all be equal and open.

So, I thought Sam was right on about everything with his whole “bleeding” digression. But I’ve also enjoyed reading some of these responses. I like the guy who referred to the vagina as a holy place.
The truth is, we probably don’t talk about all “natural bodily functions” equally. Sam’s example of hair growing doesn’t exactly equate to the privy bathroom talk that many people refrain from. I do agree though, one hundred percent, that women are silenced a bit more. It goes along with the entire culture we live in. We hear about it all the time: how our media influences women to appear and act. We are socialized to be thin, beautiful, etc. That’s nothing new. So, to talk about our “bleeding” makes us seem less attractive, gross. Sorry to take it here, but I know so many guys that say “girls don’t poop.” I think it’s the same thing: for guys to think about those things it taints our image of beauty. And so, in fear of not appearing attractive, us girls don’t talk about it.
There are girls and guys out there that don’t think this a taboo topic. Different strikes for different tykes I guess. There are a lot of us in that classroom, and Sam is bound to piss some people off at all times. We need to look at the larger issues at hand, rather than focusing on something as little as blood. Sam made some good points about the larger impacts of living in a man’s world, touching on some women’s rights issues.
Perhaps we should just all keep open minds. I personally don’t think we need to sky write “bleeding” all of the time, but I do think it should be a more open topic and women should be able to be honest about these taboo topics. And I think a lot of people in the room overreacted and were outwardly disgusted. And I don’t think any girls should be ashamed and I think any guys that were disgusted are either immature and/or they have not been in a serious relationship.

I noticed this exact same thing: Sam stopped class and was defensive when someone of color received an offensive remark on the texting board, but failed to do so when whites received an offensive comment (I believe we were referred to as “sorority sluts”). And coincidentally, this occurred during the same lecture in which Sam tried to say that nothing is offensive.
However, I think the exercise was fruitful in what Sam wanted to demonstrate. He has been trying to show that white people have never had to think about what it is like to be colored in our society. He has used the example of how many people do not think about what it is like to be handicapped; similarly, whites are rarely challenged to think about what it is like to be colored. On the other hand, race is a large part of identity and experience for those of color.
The responses to the question “What does it mean to be white?” demonstrated this idea. Those who were white responded with very simplistic, general responses (as others have pointed out). Many people sent in responses along the lines of “skin color means nothing,” “white is just a color,” “lack of melanoma,” etc. However, students of color responded with more directed and poignant responses, illustrating more thought and reflection on issues of race (if not any more maturity – as the texting program allows us all to give immature responses).
But I think that the fact that Sam will defend colored students, but not white students, goes back to a central issue we’ve been grappling with throughout this semester. Historically, our races have not been equal, and we are still not equal. We are not to a place within race relations where our comments are taken equally. There is still too much emotion, hurt, and fear wrapped up in our language and behavior.
I have struggled with some of Sam’s apparently contradictory comments and lessons in class thus far. For example, he says we all are equal at the race table and we all need to be a part of the solution. Additionally, we had that lecture on the bystander- effect and standing up for others. However, Sam also seems to argue that nothing is offensive and that we should stop over-analyzing our words and comments when it comes to race.
The truth is, we still take more offense to comments and actions against people of color. And I’m not saying that we should not be offended at such things. But if we are all equal at the race table, then we should also all be equal with our political correctness and comments.

I thought the ‘experiment’ we watched about the Muslim woman in a bakery was quite eye-opening and thought-provoking. I agree with both students who posted their opinions about when it is or is not one’s place to say something. I too feel that we should all have the strength and the beliefs to stand up and say something when we see problems of race relations in our society.
Watching that video I tried to imagine what I would have done in the situation. I can admit I am a fairly quiet person and not at all confrontational. I sadly can admit that I would have walked out of the bakery in protest, but I’m not sure if I would have had the courage to actually say something. Although, I was curious if everyone who ‘stood up’ for the woman did so on their own, or if some people piggy-backed off of others’ comments. I think it would be much easier to chime in on something we disagree with rather than being the first to say something. I hope that after watching the video and discussing this here on the blog that I will remember to stand up for race relations, myself, and others in the future.
This past weekend, just a few days after having watched that video in class, I had an experience that I felt was related. On Saturday night (State Patty’s) I was riding the White Loop with a good friend of mine and my boyfriend. My friend Lexi was able to get a seat on the bus, sitting next to a freshman boy from Altoona. My boyfriend and I stood right next to Lexi, practically on top of her since the bus was so crowded and the boy was blatantly hitting on her. After about ten or fifteen minutes of talking with the boy from Altoona, he says something pretty striking. Now, all four of us that were talking were white and the conversation was just between us, but there were plenty of other people and other races around us. Altoona boy, talking about being up at University Park for the first time, says “Yea, I hear the McDonald’s here turns into a N-word hangout at night.” Only, he didn’t say “N-word.” The three of us stared at him and someone managed to say something along the lines of “excuse me?” or “what?” Altoona boy, not picking up on the social clues that what he had said was inappropriate, repeated exactly what he had said: “Yea, I hear the McDonald’s here turns into a nigger hangout at night.”
Now I know this scenario is not the same as the youtube video we saw, and as I have learned from Dr. Mulvey’s book I should not compare these various experiences about race, especially because I have no ethos being white. But we were faced with a situation in which we could confront this guy on what he had said and how we felt about it, or we could just chuckle it off and not worry about it. And I realized how hard and awkward it is to say something. Now, was it not my place to say or do something about what I felt was problematic language and stereotyping because I’m white? I think I have more of the mindset as those who posted these youtube video questions, that as a person (despite what color) we all need to be a part of the solution of bringing peace to race relations. We did say something that night on the bus. I didn’t have the time or the knowledge to explain to this boy why his language is problematic to race relations, but we did have the time to at least state that we did not appreciate his language or statement and that it is problematic in our eyes.

I think this issue is in fact very upsetting. But I think this is a great question and I see where you’re coming from. The class on Tuesday seemed very resistant to truly internalize the issues set forth by Sam about American Indians.
I think a lot of the problem is that we as Americans living in the 21st century feel very, very removed from the issue. Growing up, I learned a little bit about American Indian history and culture, but still to this day I have not learned about it to the extent that I have about African American or Hispanic history or culture. At least where I’m from in PA, we didn’t learn much about American Indians and had very little interaction with people from that background. Additionally, American Indian history was certainly never framed in such a negative way as to be considered genocide.
Since American Indian history has never been consistently framed in an oppressive, murderous light, it is not engrained in us to feel blame. SO many of the questions in class as well as in another video question on the blog is: “Why me? Why should I feel blame for something I didn’t do?”
I don’t think it’s upsetting to many people because we don’t know the details of it or the extent of it. I can’t speak for the entire educational system, but I would assume that in general we are not taught enough about the issue. Additionally, no social movement on behave of American Indians has been large enough to enter mainstream consciousness.
Another question I have going off of this is, why do we feel bad about American slavery of African Americans, and we acknowledge the wrongs of such a system, but we don’t treat the history of American Indians the same way? What is it about African American rights and their past that does enter our minds in a negative framework of wrongdoing, but that of American Indians does not?
I think Sam’s lecture had a bit of shock and awe to it. He only had one class period to work with and can’t teach us everything about the historic events that occurred with American Indians, so he was trying to get the point across of how horrific this issue really is.
And I do feel bad. What happened to the American Indians and to their land is truly horrific. And no matter whether you are a recent immigrant or if your family has been here for generations – or anything in between – all of us share in the fact that we did not partake in the events of genocide. None of us, in this generation, had anything to do with it. But we all additionally share in the fact that we live here now, on Red land. Our country, our generation continues to ignore the issues of American Indians. We cannot reverse history, but what we can do is start to learn more about the plights of American Indians, teach others, begin to acknowledge past wrongdoing, and hopefully create social change that brings this population up the a more equitable playing field in the US.

First off, it’s hilarious that we can have an entire discussion about a sex toy in this class. But second, I don’t even know what to think about this crazy invention and how to relate it to this class. Is Roxxy just a funny doll? Is it oppressive to women? What does it say about men? What does it say about the society in which we live?
A lot of people have been discussing the comment Dr. Richards made about sexual needs being different among men and women. First off, I consider sexual wants to be ‘desires’ as they are probably not ‘needs.’ But beyond that, it’s no secret that men and women are different, both biologically and sociologically. Even beyond that, all men are different and all women are different from one other. And who knows why men tend to want sex more: Is it just biological horniness? Or did evolution force males to spread their offspring and thus they developed stronger sex drives? Or does society just teach boys that sex is the right, macho thing to do? It’s probably a combination of both biology and sociology.
But whatever the explanation is, or if it’s even true that men want sex more than women, there is no doubt a market for this Roxxxy doll, or at least 4,000 men want it. And I can’t find anything necessarily wrong with that. Yes I agree with everyone else that this is a bit odd and of course I wouldn’t want my boyfriend to have one, but I can’t find anything wrong with it either. Although, the fact that they did make the female version first, marketing to men’s sex drives, I think it does reinforce social pressures for men to partake in more dominant sex positions.
Additionally, I didn’t like Jay Leno’s comment that, at least “there’s a button that turns [Roxxxy] off” or the other jokes that she does everything but cook and clean. Such comments reinforce long established social roles and stereotypes of women.
The Roxxxy doll is quite a feat of technological knowhow though. We have automated everything down to sex and relationships in our culture. Also, to me, it seems crazy that some people would shell-out 7 grand just to have a sex toy. But at the same time, it doesn’t necessarily surprise me in our commoditized society where sex, money, and privilege often define a person’s self-image and social position. But you know what, like ‘mdonof5’ said, everyone satisfies themselves differently. So as long as the sexual choices a person makes does no harm to others, then to each their own.

I agree with a lot of what Laurie brings up in her video. When I was first contemplating why so much of the discussion and publicity is about the relationship between whites and blacks, as opposed to other racial or ethnic groups, my mind first thought it was due purely to the length of time that whites and blacks have struggled in this country. However, the poor, oppressive, violent relationship between whites and American Indians began far before the time of slavery. Additionally, controversy over land and ownership between white Americans and Hispanic Mexicans was ongoing before, during, and after the time of slavery. The length of racial relationships does not seem to be the factor at play.

Additionally, as Laurie points out, the answer may not simply lie within an explanation of black slavery. It would be hard to argue what type of oppression, committed by whites in America, has been worse than others, justifying one racial relationship to garner all of the discussion. For example, who is to say that slavery was worse than the killings of so many American Indians by whites? The situations are too different to compare. Thus, I don't think the answer lies in slavery alone either.

So I think the reason why the conversation gravitates toward simply white and black is a result of a combination of factors, discussed by Laurie in this video and by Sam in class. Laurie briefly states in this video that the Civil Rights Movement shed light on the hardships and issues faced by African Americans. No social movement to this degree has ever been carried out by another racial group. Thus, blacks started a dialogue that continues to this day, unmatched by any from a different racial group.

Additionally, as Sam discussed in class, the outcomes from the abolition of slavery actually created a series of events that continued to keep blacks oppressed in our country. Having no homes or land, and few rights, freed slaves had a huge disadvantage in a country where the playing field was continuously unequal for blacks and whites. This playing field, in my opinion, is still not equal today. The complex series of events that occurred between whites and blacks living in the same geographical areas striving to move forward in the aftermath of slavery and at the time of segregation, contributed both to the continued oppression of blacks, but also lead to the start of the Civil Rights Movement itself.

After dwelling over this issue and writing out my thoughts, I definitely think Laurie nailed it in her video. The effects of the Civil Rights Movement - the discussions, political correctness, advocacy, and hard feelings that resulted - are what continue to lead the discussion between blacks and whites today.

This blog post about Muslim women in France was extremely interesting and thought provoking. In our generation, the Islamic religion has come into the spotlight and been questioned in all facets. Women's attire is one such issue that has been analyzed under a microscope, and it is not an easy issue to face. Muslim or non-Muslim, there are a vast array of opinions on the burqa, and even in Islam, both men and women view it differently. It is hard to say whether the majority of women choose to wear the burqa by choice or not.

Irregardless, a secular government does not have the right to make decisions regarding religious practices - at least practices that do not cause any harm to others. Many other students have agreed that the burqa does no harm to others, and thus is in no violation of the law. Is France going to also outlaw saris? Turbans? Yarmulkes? That seems only fair if the issue is religion.

However, as alluded to, the burqa may still be viewed as oppressive to women by some Muslims and by many non-Muslims. If the issue is not religion, but rather women's rights then the French government must be truly concerned about Muslim women (rather than concerned about maintaining a homogeneous French culture). If that were the case, then they could instead support organizations aimed at Muslim women's rights - organizations aimed at understanding the motivation behind wearing the burqa and ensuring that women are not being forced by their religion and/or families to wear this clothing.

I also found it interesting that Dr. Richards said in his post that it is the 'progressive' Muslim women who are wearing the burqas, comparable to the 'progressive' American women wearing heels, stockings, make-up, etc. He claims that neither these Muslim nor these American women claim to be a part of a male-dominated, oppressive culture. However, many non-Muslims view Islam as oppressive to women, while failing to realize that much of Western society is also male-dominated and oppressive to women (as illustrative by our history of women's rights, the differences in employment, sexual assault, etc.). Thus, I think many times we are more apt to look at and criticize other cultures (often leading to misunderstanding) while we rarely critically analyze our own culture. How can we analyze and understand the rights of Muslim women when we as a Western society still fail to be egalitarian?

In conclusion, I don't think that the French government has the right to outlaw or discourage the wearing of the burqa. However, I do think certain efforts could be made to better understand this practice and the rights of every individual woman in the religion of Islam.

hi