I think that most people would read this and say to themselves that this guy is probably just saying all this stuff but that he doesn’t really mean any of it. For most people, criminals seem like the worst people possible. I personally have heard people say that the whole “converted prisoner who now sees the light” idea is a hoax and that a person that has made one mistake in his or her life will always be a bad person. I choose not to believe these ideas. I feel that most prisoners are good guys who just happened to do one thing wrong in their lives, and are consequently relegated to the bottom rung of society for an extremely long time. I usually just think of prisoners as not much different than everyone else, especially incarcerated on drug charges. These people in particular didn’t really ever hurt anyone, at least not on purpose, especially those busted for just possession. These people obviously are not bad people on the whole so it really doesn’t surprise me to hear that many in people in prison show compassion towards each other. Another aspect that makes their compassion easy to believe is that they are all suffering from the exact same dilemma. They are all stuck in prison, I especially think that lifers would have a strong bond between each other because they understand how much it sucks and the hardships that each other face on a daily basis. I mean why wouldn’t prisoners show compassion towards each other, they are basically the same as you and me. And wouldn’t we show compassion when compassion was called for. I usually just think of prisoners as not much different than everyone else, especially incarcerated on drug charges. These people in particular didn’t really ever hurt anyone, at least not on purpose, especially those busted for just possession. These people obviously are not bad people on the whole so it really doesn’t surprise me to hear that many in people in prison show compassion towards each other. Another reason I believe that prisoners are compassionate towards each other is the fact that most of them, especially lifers, have reached the darkest and most angry times of their life. Many of them probably realize that they should probably forgive themselves and strive to become better people. And most of them do. I can’t tell you how many times of seen the same story of prisoners turning to God or becoming humanitarians in some way. While in jail they most likely reflect on how they could impact the world in a positive way as a means of making up for their past transgressions. Basically most prisoners are just normal, good people.

The prospect of a society in which people of color are the majority is only somewhat weird to me. As a white person I have become quite used to being considered a member of the majority. But if white people do eventually become the minority, I won't be too worried because I feel like everyone will still pretty much keep to their own race for the most part. One aspect of this possibility that kind of scares me is the fact that if minorities turn in to the majority they will all vote for people that will favor the cause of their fellow minorities. This might seem racist, but let me explain what I mean in that last sentence. I feel like leaders would get elected who harbor ill will towards white people and that this would cause them to propose laws that would purposely help out people of colors and disadvantage white people.
There is one thing that kind of bothers me about the thing. The fact that Mexicans will be the main cause of this shift in population kind of makes me mad because illegal aliens will likely contribute to this change. It's pretty much common knowledge that this group of people are extremely prolific, I think the statistic is that like 8 hispanics are born for every one that dies. So their pretty much going to become the majority at some point. This makes me mad because a lot of them come into this country illegally, unlike most white (and black) peoples ancestors. Its like their taking over a country they have no business being in in the first place. I guess I can't complain though because our mostly white politicians are unbelievably soft on the issue of illegal immigration, allowing their kids to attend schools and providing medical care for them.
That probably sounded a bit xenophobic, but that's really the way I feel about it. So sorry if you take offense to it.
Even though there is a distinct possibility that people of color will take over, I am not to worried because I think it is more likely that white people will still maintain their power. I mean our society is pretty much structured in a way that gives the majority of white people an advantage in pretty much everything. White people will still probably attend the best schools, live in the nicest areas, and hold most of the positions of power simply because that's how society in America has always been. I mean, the majority of Americans is eventually going to be people of color, but all that's probably going to mean is that their just more poor people of color, again because that's simply the way society in America has always functioned.

Before I saw this video I never really gave much thought to how societies treatment of the race issue would affect young children. As a white child obviously everything I saw and experienced was geared towards me and my life experience. So naturally when I saw basically all white people in tv shows and was told that white people are the nicest and best looking people it didn't bother me in any way. But after this video I realized that all these things that i witnessed would probably have a detrimental affect on the way children of color view themselves and the world around them. Clearly, if your basically told that you don't match the mold of the ideal person, than your going to develop some sort of self hate and probably even a little hate for society as well.
The other startling aspect of the video is the fact that the children are clearly kind of disappointed that they have to pick the white doll. It's quite clear that they realize that the white dolls don't match them, and the pain they are feeling is very evident in their body language and speech. It was especially scary when they were told to pick the "nice" doll. By them picking the white doll to answer this question, it shows that societal racism has made them think that they are the inferior type of people which, in most cases probably evolves into a self-fulfilling prophesy, in a certain sense. Because they are subjected to materials that tell them that they are inferior, they just assume that they are and resign to complete belief in that idea.
Another aspect that shows just how deeply these messages affect the black community was how the majority of the girls that were interviewed stated that lighter skin was more attractive. The negative stigma attached to being black is so horrific that black people will go as far as creating different sub-classes of blackness to determine attractiveness. What I'm trying to say is that the racism they are subjected is so much that they go beyond just viewing being black as bad but even to consider the blacker shades of people as even lesser. This just isn't fair because not only do people have a say in what race they will be, but not even in what exact shade of skin tone they will have. This just tears down the darker people's self esteem even more.
I think that this is a good piece of film to show to white people who are in the pre-awaking stage, because it will force them to notice the detrimental effects of the almost invisible to white people racism that is present throughout the society we all grow up in. This is the perfect movie to highlight how different ones experience would be if they were born a different color.

This whole situation seems to me like its get way out of hand. Because of one couple, who might not have even been allowed to attend, the entire prom gets canceled. That just seems ludicrous to me. For a public school not to allow a homosexual couple to attend also sounds pretty unconstitutional to me, but who really follows the constitution these days? I think the school should probably let the couple attend as long as there not going to cause problems for other students. I do think the lesbian couple could have helped their own case by not stating that one of them would be wearing a tuxedo. I understand they have a right to wear what they want most of the time, but proms do have separate dress codes for boys and girls. Anyway, if you knew that what you wanted to do would inevitably cause controversy, wouldn't you at least try to tone down your actions to a more tolerable level.
Since this situation is taking place in Mississippi, it makes a little more sense why the school took the action it did. I imagine this town as pretty conservative in nature which would make me believe that many of the parents and school authorities involved would be resistant to such a progressive action. This does not make what the school did right, it just gives some perspective to know where they are probably coming from with their ruling. I just do not understand why the school canceled the whole thing instead of just banning the one couple from attending. It is not really fair to all the other kids, who have to miss out on a huge part of their lives because of one couple. I'm sure if the other students were polled the large majority would have no objection to the lesbian couple attending. This disparity between the kids and the decision making adults is the main problem in the situation I think. Adults somehow find it okay to cancel an entire prom because someone who most of the students probably accept is going to attend with them. It just doesn't make any sense.
Also, referring to the ACLU's statement on the situation, I think that they are correct in saying that the school cannot legally prevent the lesbian couple from attending. I also liked the fact that the ACLU created a compromise by saying that the couple must be able to attend but could be thrown out if they were bothering anyone else, like the usual policy for anyone, straight or gay. I have personally experienced gay couples at dances who didn't bother anyone, they just kept to themselves mostly, and that was okay. But I've also seen some that are all over each other in a way that would be disgusting no matter what parties were involved.

To be honest, neither of these incidents strikes me as extremely outrageous. Well actually the incident with the noose does seem outrageous to me because nobody seems to be considering the fact that it was a minority student that was responsible for the act. I’m sure there are a few students at UCSD that are racists, but the amount of racial intolerance that the minority students would have you think is probably extremely overblown.
As for the incident with the “ghetto” party, big deal. In less than one year at Penn State I’ve heard about numerous themed parties similar to the one described. Things like this are a dime a dozen and I don’t believe that anyone involved (maybe a few) are hardcore racists. The ghetto style is just a cultural idea that has become ingrained in our understanding of society. I’m positive that the kids involved were much, much more interested in getting hammered than making fun of minorities. However, if the party was intended to be racist and to make fun of black people, then it becomes a more complex situation. They claimed they got the approval from a black friend, but what does that really mean? One black man’s opinion does not reflect the opinions of black people as a whole. So that argument would be invalid, and the backlash that they’re receiving is deserved.
I find the noose incident to be much more intriguing. At first you just assume that a white student did it and then conclude that all the outrage is called for. But when I found out that it was a minority student who did it, my sentiment was reversed and I actually felt that minorities should be the ones being bad mouthed. To me, it seems like the person responsible harbors ill will towards white people and thus planted the noose in order to spark outrage. Now that the person responsible has been caught, they’re trying to play it off like it was just a joke but to me that just doesn’t make any sense. I don’t know of too many people who think that hardcore, offensive things are in any way funny or amusing.
What made me really mad, however, was the reactions of the people in the CNN interview video. The reporter stated that the perpetrator was a minority, yet continued to go on as if UCSD was still some kind of hotbed of racial hatred. Also, the student president of the black student union and the black professor were clearly exploiting the situation to further their own agendas. The black student wants his group to get more funds and power based off the incident and the professor wants to increase her profile probably. It’s just really annoying that they just kind of ignored the actual facts of the story.

First off, I want to say that I don’t think that either gays or lesbians are truly accepted by much of society. But it’s definitely true that lesbians are the more accepted of the two. I believe that are many reasons that lesbians are accepted more, and many reasons why gay men are not as accepted in today’s society.
Lesbians are considered by many people to be okay and in a lot of circumstances welcomed with open arms. The main reason I think is that when women express their love towards their friends, it’s considered normal. For example, if two girls who are friends hug each other, no one would be offended and no one would question their sexuality. It’s just a normal thing for them to do. So if a lesbian couple was out together in a public space holding hands or hugging each other, no one would notice and probably most people would never even consider that they might be lesbians. You can even take it one step further by saying that lesbian experimentation is considered okay by many people. It has become pretty commonplace for women, especially college age girls to experiment with other girls. Most people just view it as just an experience that many people have growing up. Another reason for their acceptance is that the majority of men, and probably even some women, are turned on by lesbian sex. All one has to do is look up what percentage of porn is lesbian in nature and they will surely find that it is a high percentage. For some reason, it has become okay for lesbian sex to take place, in fact it is pretty much encouraged because it sells. So when men think of lesbians, there thinking of the hot girls that are shown in porn videos, which will lead them to embrace it.
As for gay men, I don’t feel like they will be truly accepted by society for a long time. Being gay goes against society’s engrained ideas of masculinity. When these concepts are broken it causes people to become outraged because it is just so different. Men are supposed to be tough guys who don’t show anyone their emotions. Their main goals in life should be to watch football, drink beer, and most importantly, get with as many hot girls as they can. This is the idea of manliness that most men and women probably have. So when people see two guys hooking up with each other they are repulsed on a lot of different levels. Also, it is just visually jarring to see two guys showing any type of affection towards each other in public. When was the last time you saw to straight guys holding hands? Probably never.
Basically, we have created societal rules that are different for men and women. Homosexuality can sort of fit into the rules for girls, but definitely not for men.

Laurie’s point is very valid. I believe most people always bring up the white-black conflict because of the long, heated struggle between the two groups. Something as monumentally scarring as slavery is going to manifest itself in arguments for a very long time. I also believe that there are other reasons for this phenomenon. One is that, out of all the racial groups, black people are often viewed in the most negative light. I believe that this creates a lot of tension that boils over when people address the issue of race.
Generally, black people as a whole are stereotyped worse than any other group. They are perceived as the laziest, poorest, and most ignorant of all people. This is why a large group of people still view them as lower than themselves. Because of this, black people oftentimes become bitter and angry towards white people as a whole. If you think about the reason that people don’t bring up the white-chinese/japanese or white-indian relations as much is because the majority of these minorities are or are perceived as being more successful and educated than black people. The reason that white –hispanic relations are talked about less is probably because they are viewed as a more industrious people. It is important to remember that these stereotypes are largely untrue which is probably a major reason for them stirring up these debates.

First off, I just want to say that Avatar was a terrible movie. The plot was contrived and highly implausible. Pure, textbook bad movie-making is what it is.
Now that I got that off my chest, I’ll get into the racial aspects of the movie. I don’t believe the movie was intended to be a white messiah story, though I can see where Brooks is coming from. The white messiah complex has become engrained in our society, to a point where it doesn’t even bother us anymore. Also the natives (i.e. minorities) are cast in a positive light. Even though it was not intended to be offensive, I believe it is a little bit.
It just seems unlikely that an entire civilization could not defend itself, yet one white man could single-handedly (basically) completely eradicate the enemy. I think that this idea has become so entrenched in our culture, that most people really don’t notice. It’s pretty easy to come up with a list of movies following the same idea: Dances with Wolves, Hardball, The Blind Side, The Soloist, Mississippi Burning, etc. Try to think of a movie in which a minority saves white. I can’t think of one, and I think most people couldn’t either. It’s as if we’ve become desensitized to this pervasive, institutional racism. This applies to the movie-makers too. They’ve seen it before and know that it sells. So why wouldn’t they make a movie that will almost certainly be acclaimed? As a white man, I certainly can’t argue with it, because it makes me look better. I believe that most minorities are alright with it too, because they’ve been exposed to it so many times before.
That being said, I think that Avatar is pretty mild in comparison to most movies like it. The native people aren’t explicitly black or Hispanic, or whatever so a lot of people aren’t going to have a problem. The natives are also inherently good people, so it’s not as if their being cast in some kind of negative light. What I’m basically saying is that the natives weren’t stupid or completely helpless, it’s just that they needed a white guy to be their hero. The natives also impart a few valuable lessons to Jake (the white guy). They teach him about respect for the environment and also basically teach him to respect other cultures. Essentially, the natives are noble characters who just need a little bit of help (which happens to come in the form of a white man) to continue living in their traditional ways. Also, the special effects have become the main selling point of the movie, not the story. This serves to take attention away from any possible racist themes. Ultimately, Avatar will be remembered as a technological breakthrough, not a piece of racist propaganda.

Let me start by stating that there is almost no chance that this law will be passed, and if somehow it was, that it would not be enforced. I see two reasons that this proposed law won’t work. The first is that preventing people from wearing something that isn’t offensive to the majority of people seems like a violation of a basic human right. The second is that I think that it would be too hard for officers to enforce.
How can you tell someone they can’t wear something that will not harm anyone physically or mentally? The proposed law is simply preposterous. The French government clearly thinks that they are acting progressive when really they are coming off exactly opposite. Wouldn’t it be truly progressive to allow people to wear whatever they please? I could understand it if they were being forced to wear it against their will. But from what it sounds like, most of the women who burqas either embrace the practice or simply don’t even really think about it. It is obvious that the government believes the burqas are frightening or startlingly unfamiliar to the majority of French citizens. I would not go as far as to call the proposed law as ethnically intolerant, but rather describe the whole situation as ethnic misunderstanding. Because the idea of full body covering is so strange to French people, they just assume that no one would ever voluntarily take part in the practice. This sentiment is understandable, but to actually go as far as to pass a law against it is not understandable. This would be like me saying that I find Ugg boots incredibly ugly and cannot understand why anyone would ever wear them so I’ll just pass a law that prevents them from being worn. Ridiculous notion isn’t it?
Even if this law is passed, there is very little chance that it will be enforced to any kind of convincing degree. What cop is going to actually waste time telling someone not to wear the clothes their wearing when they could be doing something that actually matters, like preventing real crimes? Also would it be a primary offense or secondary? Would someone have to report it as a problem or could the cops just stop the women on the street? All these issues would serve to convince the officers that making an arrest for this infraction wouldn’t be worth it. Also, I think a lot of officers would fear some kind of backlash for their actions. I would think that some form of a lawsuit would come out of an actual arrest based on this law. Also, I feel that many civil liberties groups would have a lot of problems with it.

moar