I thought this was a great lecture for several reasons. First and foremost, I must admit that I did not agree with much that professor Richards said. To an extent, I do not think that he even agreed with what he said. Sam's provocation methods were effective and really made me think of the issues at hand. I am not a religious person, so it is hard for me to be offended by many things dealing with the subject. In reality, I think religion is a good concept that leads to terrible consequences what it is misinterpreted or overly interpreted. I understand why many people who identify themselves as Christians could be offended by this lecture, but on the same note I think they need to step out of their own shoes for once and into someone elses; the concept that professor Richards has been preaching all year.

This lecture made me think back to the American Revolution. Too often people forget that the founder of this nation, America, were considered terrorists against England at the time. Samuel Adams, for instance, was viewed in the same light by England as we view Osama Bin Laden today. Terrorism is really in the eye of the beholder. To us the American Revolution was justified and excusable. To many Iraqis, attacks against the United States are justified as well.

I like to believe that we have occupied Iraq for reasons other than oil. I know oil played a crucial role in our military and political decisions, but the innocence (and perhaps ignorance) in me believes the true reason was to liberate people who had been oppressed by a terrible dictator. After our invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein from power, Iraq had no remaining government infrastructure. For this reason, we are still over there helping Iraq rebuild itself.

Though many Iraqis may see this as a "Christian Invasion," as Sam has deemed it, I do not think this is the case. Christianity has nothing to do with it. If Iraqi people truly believe that this is the doing of Christians in order to spread their religion then shame on them. If American Christian missionaries choose to go to Iraq and preach that is not morally right; but it is their choice, not the choice of America. The bottom line is people can believe whatever they choose. Sometimes they may be right, but often times they are wrong. I think anyone and everyone, whether American or Iraqi, should learn the facts before passing judgment. As a human race we have more in common than we could ever have different. Once people stop believing that their God is right or that their God is the only god, the world will become a much more peaceful place.

Men feel the same societal pressures to conform as women due. It is simply less noticeable because men do it in such a smaller, low scale fashion. If you really look around, you can see trends and fads that men do just as often as women. A good example of this is cut-off shirts and basketball jerseys at “day longs.” I mention this because it is a fad I never really seemed to understand. When I went to my first daylong all I could wonder was why everybody was wearing a basketball jersey? Was it a themed party that I just missed the memo for? So I started to ask around and seemingly no body could answer my question: including all the guys wearing jerseys. “It is just what everyone does,” was probably the best answer I could get. I thought it was odd that I felt like an outcast wearing a tee shirt. Soon enough, I found myself digging through the closet to find a cutoff and ended up purchasing some new basketball jerseys. I do not even watch basketball. This is conformity to society’s standards in its’ finest: I saw what everyone else did, and even without explanation, felt pressured in a way to conform. I know that example seems bizarre, but instances like this arise every day, in every facet of life.
Another instance where men tend to conform to society’s whims deals with personal fitness. Constantly we are bombarded with pictures of other men with six pack abs and chiseled chests. Having a body like this takes numerous hours in the gym and a strict diet regimen that many men do not have. However, they change their lifestyles because society, especially the media, tells them this is how women would like them to appear.
In my humble opinion, most if not all of the conformities that men make are done because they believe in a way that that is what women want. We are told women want ripped boyfriends so we go to the gym. We are told women want stylish men so we go shopping (or ask our mothers to) for new clothes. And in a sense, I am sure it is just as reciprocal on the other side. I notice more and more often that women dress in fashions simply to please men. I am a jeans and tee shirt kind of guy so I can not help but laugh when I see girls in the winter scampering back to their dorm rooms in short skirts and tank tops. They don’t dress like this because it is comfortable, and they certainly don’t dress like this because it is functional and warm. This is done simply because women believe that this is what men have come to expect of them. The media says short skirts are sexy, and despite the season, that is what they become.

This video is shocking, I do not even know how to explain it. I would never have expected the brown children to select white dolls, let alone pick the white dolls and justify it by the white doll being the "kind" doll or the "nice" doll. Society has some serious problems if this is what we are teaching our children, whether be it on purpose, through socialization, or by pure accident. Most shocking about this video is the looks on the children's faces. The look of pain and distraught that they express on their faces is truly upsetting. They are asked to answer a question which they realize but can't justify. The best example of this is when the interviewer asks one girl which doll she wants to play with and the girl selects the white doll; then the interviewer asks which dolls looks like her and she has to hesitate and select the black doll. This shows that the young girl clearly realizes that she identified one doll as the one society likes the most; the most attractive doll, and by her personal standards, she is not the ideal child. Having a kid think something like this, especially at such a young age, is really upsetting.

I do not know what factors convince a child to think in this manner. Perhaps it is the way that mainstream media portrays whites as beautiful and people of color as inferior. A good example of this is when Hurricane Katrina struck and the media was sending mixed messages about whites and blacks. One station showed a photo of a white man essentially looting from a store taking a case of water, and was captioned "White man gathering essentials." Another station displayed a black man doing the same thing and was captioned in regards to him looting. When the media has such bias and discrepancy in referring to minorities it is obvious that those traits will pass onto the youth, as shown by the doll experiment. This is really a problem that needs to be fixed.

More and more commonly, blacks are displayed as minorities or inferiors on TV shows, movies, and even commercials. I don't think this is part of a white supremacist agenda, but instead I see it as inherent prejudice that exists in many people in society. The bottom line is that the media is trying to sell products and will do whatever it takes, even if that means playing on stereotypes or putting down minorities. This video just reconfirms that children realized these cues that the media and society as a whole display. The young children in this video probably can not even define race, racism, or prejudice, but clearly have experienced it to great lengths in their short lifetime.

I think there are two distinct ways that this question can be answered. The first is that people of color feel more free to speak their opinions than white people when it comes to race relations. White people, as a whole, are more reluctant to speak out or discuss what is really on their mind before testing the waters. Brown people, on the other hand, seemingly have dealt with these issues for a long time and have very few, if any reservations about what to say. Therefore, it can be the personal attachment and feeling of entitlement that explains why people of color react more strongly to "rude" comments made in class.

However, I think the stronger explanation for this is the usage of words and the meaning behind them. There are many slang words for people of color, the most offensive (in my opinion) being the n word. A word such as this is rooted in deep seeded hatred and racism. It has such a power that it can silence a large crowd or create an uproar, as we have seen many times in class. When someone texts in to the board using a word like this, I do not blame people of color for being offended or truly upset and causing a bit of a scene. At the same time, the scene that is created by yelling and showing anger is the motivation for someone in the crowd to anonymously text something offensive and create such a reaction. I do not quite understand what motivates someone to say a word in such a negative context that it offends large groups of people, unless they truly are that racist which is something I can not believe. I think its more just that they think the reaction is funny or they like creating a hostile environment, or something of the sort. The alternative side to this argument is that no such word exists with such a passion and history toward white people. Although some offensive words like cracker, honkey, and white boy exist, none have the background or history as some of the derogatory terms used to refer to people of color. The worst thing you can call a white person is a racist, and although doing so is highly offensive, it does not create a large backlash. When a white person reacts loudly to being called a racist it makes them look defensive like they are hiding their true feelings. Like Sam said in class, sometimes when someone accuses you of being racist the best thing to do is just sit back and keep your mouth shut. The more you try and defend yourself, the more it looks like you have to hide.

I think Natalie Randolph being named head coach of a high school football team is a great movement in women's equality in the workforce. Women, even more so than blacks, latinos, and asians, are the most under represented proportion of people in congress. A woman stepping into what has always been considered a man's job is a great sign for all women's equality. Natalie clearly has the credentials to be a coach at the collegiate if not professional level, however she is stuck coaching a high school team. This can be attributed to several foreseeable reasons. First and foremost, Natalie is in fact a woman. Her knowledge of the sport can be as great as any mans, but there are personal characteristics that differ between men and women that may inhibit Randolph's abilities. Coaches have known to be aggressive, getting in the faces of their players and demanding perfection. It is hard for me to imagine Randolph as the type of person who will grab a player by the mask and yell at them for motivational purposes. This is not necessary, and it is very likely that Randolph can be a successful coach without tactics like this, however, this is seen by almost every coach at nearly every level of football. Even more so, if Randolph does act aggressively toward her players, how will it be received? The young males on the team will most likely not stand to be intimidated by a woman, and in an act of masculinity act out against their coach. This will create a great schism on the field, and more importantly in the locker room. This is not to say that women can not be good coaches. Pat Sumitt, for instance, is one of the world's best coaches, leading the Tennessee Lady Vols to numerous national championships. The difference between Sumitt and Randolph is crucial though: Sumitt coaches women, Randolph is charged with coaching men. It is much easier for a woman coach to relate to her players when they are women. She will have much more success in gaining their trust and respect as a coach--something crucial to a team's success. Randolph will have to think outside of the box to motivate her team and get their support, despite what she said in the interview. Although the team may stand behind her now, she is sure to face an uprising in the near future. How she handles that will be another issue. I sincerely hope she overcomes the challenges and becomes a well respected coach, as it will open the door for several other women in jobs that have been consistently male dominated. Randolph will be highly scrutinized and her success needs to come soon in such a demanding sport. I can only hope that Randolph quickly overcomes the adversities that go along with such a job (whether it be for a man or woman).

Although I definitely feel like this is a potentially racist concept, I completely understand where "Moose" is coming from in his idea of an all-white basketball league. In my opinion, basketball has become just as genetic as the 100 meter dash. Like the example Sam showed us in class, the majority of world class sprinters come from equatorial Africa. However, he used the counter argument that anyone can be good at basketball, it is simply blacks who devote the most time and culturally respect basketball the most that attributes for their dominance of the sport at a professional level. I don't agree with this for several reasons. First off, basketball is a sport highly reliant on several factors that are genetic. You have to be tall, fast, and be able to jump high. These factors are not necessarily black or white attributes, but they are genetic. More and more frequently (and this is only in my personal experiences) I see blacks meet these three requirements at a much higher rate than whites. This creates a much larger pool for potential athletes, of which many can determine their level of success through dedication and training. White players in the NBA are rarely over 7 feet tall or known for their massive vertical jumps. They are instead outside passers, shooters, and dribblers (three factors much more dependent on practice than genetics). There are a few players in the NBA who are not nearly as talented as some of these players, but are so genetically dominant (i.e. 7'3") that they succeed at a professional level. An all white league would serve to even the playing field. However, I don't necessarily agree that any professional sport should have an even playing field.

If you do not agree that genetics play a large role in basketball, consider this counter-example. Sam argued that basketball players are predominately black because you only need a basketball and a hoop to be able to play/practice whereas in a sport like hockey you need an assortment of gear. Soccer, on the other hand, is considered the world sport because you need even less than basketball; only a ball (or something round and soft) is necessary to play. This is why soccer is extremely popular in third world and poverty stricken countries. Nevertheless, we do not see a dominance of blacks in soccer. Soccer, instead, has great players from all over the world: Europe, Africa, Latin America, and South America. Why would basketball be so heavily racial if soccer is not?

The bottom line is that all sports require some combination of hard work and genetic predetermination. Certain sports, especially basketball, have more emphasis on genetics than others. For this reason, the league should not be "all white," but instead all under 6' 3" (or something of the sort). Then, we would see a lot more talent (from blacks and whites) and a lot more diverse basketball league.

Cost-benefit is the best way to describe this entire situation, but in my opinion the benefits (especially for the Native American Tribe) out weigh the cost(s). First, I will start by analyzing the benefits, and then comparing them to their potential costs. The most obvious benefit is the influx of money this oil reserve will bring to the people of the reservation. Obviously, this oil is extremely valuable and will provide not only a steady source of income but also a great supply of jobs for the Native Americans who live on the reservation. However, not only does the oil directly benefit the Native Americans, it also indirectly benefits white americans in several ways. In my opinion, having this oil reserve is almost a potential indirect reparation for some (NOT ALL) of the wrongs done to the Native American people as a whole. It was just by fortune that the land this reservation was made upon contained oil, but it was not an accident that the American government didn't just conveniently relocate the reservation and take the oil. In all reality, as wrong as it may be, it would not be hard to simply reclaim this oil reserve from the Native Americans. The government, however, is doing the right thing by leaving the Native Americans in control and capable of reaping the benefits of the reserve. Secondly, corporate America benefits in an economic fashion. The oil can be purchased domestically (meaning cheaper) and the money used to purchase the oil from the Native Americans will be recycled into the American economy instead of being spent internationally. Therefore, the benefits of the discovery of the oil reserve is a win-win, benefiting both the white Americans and Native Americans. As far as the costs, the oil reserve brings about two major concerns. The first is environmental; drilling and refining oil is a very environmentally taxing process. However, regardless of when, where, and how, the global necessity for petroleum will fuel these practices until alternative resources can sustain the lifestyles we live today. Secondly, the sudden and rapid influx of money into such a small community will create a few social problems for the Native Americans. I am confident that these problems will not last for very long as the Native Americans quickly learn how to appropriately handle their economic success. For these reasons, I am very happy that this oil reserve was located and will be appropriated to a very deserving community. Often in class we ask, what can we do to help Native Americans? One of the most common answers is to simply spread education about the injustices of the Native American people. I think the direct and indirect consequences of this reserve are a start on the right track to solving the social and economic problems of the Native American people.

In my opinion, I do not think there is a difference between lesbian couples adopting a child and gay male couples adopting a child. Despite the fact that we learned gays are more likely to be better parents due to the fact that they clearly want to have a child and are willing to go through the extent of adoption to have one, I do not think society is ready for gay couples to adopt children. My stance on this issue is that neither gay nor lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children...yet. Let me start by saying I do not think for one second that gays do not or should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. However, I do not think it is fair to bring a child into a family with gay parents. This puts a tremendous burden on the child along with extreme amounts of social pressures and ridicule. The counter-argument to this may be that life growing up in a gay household is still more desirable than growing up in an orphanage, foster home, or shelter. To some extent this may be true but it varies on a case to case basis. The society we live in right now is extremely difficult and unwelcoming to the LGBT community, and will likely pass on their distastes to the adopted children of homosexual couples. I think the appropriate time for gay or lesbian couples to adopt children will be the time that society as a whole (not as individuals) does not have a negative connotation of homosexuals. This means that when a person realizes that they are indeed a homosexual at a young age they can "come out" and admit it with little or no hesitation. Clearly, we are nowhere near this point yet, although we are making strong progressions. When in fact we do reach this point as a society, I will see no difference between two males or two females adopting a child. Parenthood is all about role identity. Regardless of the sex of the parents, one parent will naturally tend as the more matronly, caring, and sensitive, while the other parent will be the more aggressive, physical, and playful. Even today in heterosexual couples, we are seeing men stay home and act more as the caretaker in the parenting of a child. Just as in a gay couple the persons will assume roles of the "male" and "female" they will assume the roles of "father" and "mother." Clearly, the parenting of the child is not the issue. Once we see that homosexual couples are equally capable of raising children as heterosexual couples, society will put much less of a burden on the gay community. At that time, society will be more understanding, more accepting, and more ready to let homosexuals tend to children. When a child is capable of going to school and talking about his two mommies or two daddies without extreme judgement, confusion, or ridicule from his or her peers, gay couples should be encouraged to rear children.

I agree that the main reason we find "black and white" at the root of all racial conversations is because of the deep history between the two diverse populations. However, that does not mean that there haven't been other instances where race was a determining factor in segregation. Even still we do not see white/ yellow issue or white/ red issues even though we have a poor ethnic relations with those groups in the past. Think first about the settling of the west and all of the wrong doing that took place in the removal and relocation of Native Americans. This was perhaps America's first true ethnic conflict, and longest lasting. Native Americans to this day still remain the most under privileged and poverty stricken of all ethnic groups. Even still, we rarely if ever see white/ red conflict at the root of racial conversation. Is this because it is a sad past we are trying to forget, or perhaps just because Native Americans represent such a small minority in society that they are merely forgotten? And what about the struggles of the Japanese-Americans (or even those who appeared to look as such) during the WWII era who were placed in internment camps and treated with extreme distaste? In today's society, rarely if ever do we hear about Asian/ American conflicts it racial terms. My opinion is that black and white are deeply rooted in racial conflict because of their size and presence in society. Until the recent and rapid growth of the Latin Americans, Whites and Blacks dominated the ethical grounds. It is much more common to find a "brown" person in a discussion group than any other minority. For this reason alone, the issue is brought to the immediate forefront. Blacks in American society have been rapidly advancing in terms of social status and recognition, holding more political offices and high ranking positions than ever before. This does not mean, however, that they are still not grossly underrepresented. Another reason that we find "Black and White" at the roots of racial debates is that they two are polar opposites in a color spectrum. I know it sounds a bit odd, but racially speaking "black" is relatively new and non-offensive term. During the Civil Rights Movement, blacks were often termed coloreds, and before that negroes. Despite all of the terms that could be used to describe a "black person" (i.e. black, African, African-American, colored, negro, etc.) we constantly refer to them as Black in racial contexts in comparison to whites. This mentally helps draw the emphasis in the schism between the two groups. In reality, blacks and whites are much more closely related than the color of skin would suggest. By using the terminology "black and white", people are constantly drawing on differences, even opposites, instead of similarities and that is the biggest problem in race today.

I would like to take a stance on this issue that is a bit unconventional. An interesting fact (that many of you may not know) is that ALL of the actors portraying the Navi (the blue aliens) were black. All of them. Their facial structures resemble the archaic features that whites over-emphasized in blacks; big lips, wide noses, etc.. It is hard to believe that it is just a coincidence that all of the people who the whites see as in need of saving just happen to be black in real life. The themes represented in Avatar aren't far-fetched in any manner. In fact, they seem to be a culmination of historical events taking place in world history. Humans going to a distant planet to mine some valuable mineral, only to find the land inhabited by peoples not wanting to leave. Sound oddly familiar? It should. Think of all the European conquests for gold, encountering natives, and ultimately leading to battle and the demise of a once flourishing civilization.

This didn't stop people from seeing the movie. In fact, it did quite the opposite. Avatar quickly became the largest grossing movie of all time-- both domestically and internationally, grossing over $2 billion worldwide. Interestingly enough, this means that there was a huge international crowd. Not all of the viewers were white nor where they American.

Even still, the protagonist of the movie is a white American actor, who becomes one with the Navi and, to a great extent, saves them. This constantly perpetuates one of the many themes of Avatar and society, that other distant civilizations need to be saved by the white race. I agree that the Messiah complex is not the reason for Avatar's global success, which raises the question: did James Cameron include these underplayed themes knowing the movies impending success?

As a white, I find the White Messiah Complex greatly offensive, and I would imagine that people from other "races" find it equally, if not more offensive. White Anglo-Saxons have made huge mistakes in the past and terrible decisions that are often omitted from "white" history books in order to preserve our pride and sense of nationality. The Messiah complex plays on this, displaying whites as these all-mighty saviors of society. News flash: we aren't! Perpetuating this belief, whether consciously or subconsciously, is morally wrong. Whites as a race need to confront, admit to, and deal with their mistakes in the past instead of continuing to portray dominance in the media. If we haven't come to the realization now that we are all equal, when will we? It really is starting to get embarrassing. And how would whites react if the roles in Avatar were reversed? All black saviors, with white actors portraying the role of those "in need of help." I imagine the answer to that question is not well.