Watching that video in class today nearly brought me to tears. It was so touching and inspiring to see such a pure act of selflessness and compassion—especially from someone who certainly has no obligation to do so, given his financial situation. I believe it’s always important to remember where you came from. A lot of people say that we shouldn’t focus on our pasts, and I agree with that—the past should not completely define how you life your life in the present. However, I think it’s important to learn from past experiences and not to forget what aspects of your past shaped you into the person you are in the present. Therefore, if I were in the situation of the man in the video, I would definitely help the immigrant workers. Empathy is a very powerful aspect of helping behavior—when someone feels empathy toward another person, they are much more likely to engage in altruistic behavior toward that person. Since I would know what it was like to be in the situation that those immigrant workers would be experiencing, that would certainly motivate me to help them in any way I can, because they definitely deserve a hot, home-cooked meal, at the least.

I agree with what Sam said in class—that a society can’t function properly with tens of thousands of undocumented people inhabiting it. That being said, I think the process of immigration is too difficult and discriminatory, to the point that if the average person wants to immigrate to the United States, they’re essentially forced to do so illegally. I don’t know if the men in the video were here legally or illegally, but I think immigrant workers are a collective voice that we need to listen to. Their plights are disheartening, but at the same time, they’re inspiring—they came to an unknown place with nothing, selflessly devoting themselves to working in order to support their families and give them and themselves a better life. I don’t know too many people who would readily do that. Americans complain that immigrant workers are stealing American jobs, but if you offered such jobs to Americans, the majority of them would not readily take the opportunity—they think they’re too good for it. I think the American citizens who are so adamant about controlling illegal immigration need to make up their minds—either they can let the immigrants work without harassment from society, or they can step off of their pedestal and seize the opportunities that are available to them.

Illegal immigration is a sensitive subject for many people, and I don’t think anyone knows what the best solution is. However, I think everyone deserves a chance at a good life, so ignoring all of the politics and controversy, what the man in the video was doing for those immigrant workers was beautiful and inspiring, and it pushes me to want to be a better person.

I’ve always acknowledged our shameful history in regards to how our country came to be. I don’t believe the information that was forced upon me in middle school in the form of history textbooks, and I don’t deny or suppress the thoughts of the bloody origins of our country. I acknowledge that our America truthfully doesn’t belong to Americans. These ideas arouse many feelings.

Knowing the truth about our history doesn’t make me feel guilty, as one might expect. Feeling guilty implies that I committed a wrongful action, but I did not. I had no control over how the founders of this country behaved. If I did, we would certainly not be living on stolen land. I don’t feel guilty because it would be a waste of my energy, as I can’t change history.

I do, however, feel ashamed. I’ve never been a patriotic citizen, but I feel ashamed to live in a country comprised of stolen, blood-soaked land and to be associated with the individuals who committed this unacknowledged genocide. If America was founded on the values that we’ve always maintained it was—freedom, compassion, acceptance—then we would not be walking across the graves of so many Native Americans.

I’m also saddened by everything we discussed in class. I don’t understand why Native Americans are living in such unfortunate conditions—it’s absolutely not right. Aside from the fact that we shouldn’t have stolen this land from them in the first place, since we did, why aren’t we doing things to ensure that they have a better quality of life? I don’t really understand why we’ve given them reservations to live in—I’m assuming it’s because it enables them to maintain a sense of cohesiveness as a group and a sense of community. But to me, it seems like a kind of segregation. Plus, if we’re going to give them allotted land to live on, it should be the best land in the country, complete with gorgeous houses, guaranteed jobs, and all the luxuries many of us take for granted.

The way many Native Americans are forced to live, the hardships they are forced to endure, and the opportunities they are denied is absolutely unacceptable—and it breaks my heart. We focus so much on problems in other parts of the world—poverty in third-world countries, corrupt governments, etc. Why don’t we acknowledge the struggles of Native Americans? That’s what we need to be working on. I’m sure many Native Americans resent the majority of our country for the things our ancestors did to their ancestors. The only way to attempt to remedy that is to give Native Americans the lives they deserve. It is unquestionably the right thing to do.

My response to the question about what I think about terrorism still corresponds to how I feel now. I said, “I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve had encounters with such individuals, because now an entire demographic of people is wrongly discriminated against.” I’ve never been someone who has the attitude of, “Kill them all!” or someone with a strong sense of patriotism. I believe that there are no bad people, that it’s the circumstances and the environment that influence how we think and act (and being a psychology major certainly affirms that). Most of what Sam discussed in the “Christian Invaders” lecture was information I already knew, but seeing and hearing it again really solidified it for me.

My main thought throughout the course of the lecture was this: We are doing to them exactly what we say they are doing to us. And it’s true—the majority of Americans (or at least the uneducated, oblivious portion) maintain that Arab and Muslim people are trying to convert all Americans to Islam, take over our country, and annihilate those who protest against them. Although that is entirely untrue and not even remotely what the war is about, people still perpetuate this idea. However, if we put ourselves in the shoes of an individual residing in Iraq or other regions in which we are making war, as we did in class, we can clearly see that Muslims and Arabs are buying into the same façade that we are—that group A is trying to convert or eliminate group B. No wonder so many of them dislike Americans!

I feel that it was Americans who initiated this conflict. Disregarding 9/11 (since that’s not what the war is about), let’s face the facts: We’re after their resources, so they’re going to fight back. We’re demonizing them to cover up the true nature of our actions, so naturally they’re going to respond with the same sentiments. We are the Christian nation that represents the erratic individuals advocating Jesus Christ and pushing their views onto others who are satisfied with their current religion, so of course they’re going to think we’re insane and advocate their view instead, if only as a defense mechanism. America has been the instigator in many conflicts, and in my opinion, this one is no different.

In summary, my view has been and will continue to be that no one chooses to commit terroristic acts without a good reason (though nothing justifies ruthlessly killing countless innocent people). Someone is always the instigator, and people don’t always choose an acceptable course of action in response to a conflict, but if we try to understand the reasons behind those actions, we will likely find that those who commit the actions don’t deserve all of the blame.

This article was quite poignant and touching, but it also triggered a lot of thoughts in my mind. One thing that it sparked is the argument of whether or not people deserve to spend life in prison, which is an idea I have wrestled with for a long time. To this day, I still don’t have a definite opinion, though I lean in either direction depending on the situation at hand. However, reading this essay written by an inmate does nudge me in the direction of giving people second chances. Based on what he wrote, I get the sense that he is a good, genuine, and loving person who simply made a stupid decision in his past. He appears to value love and family just as much—if not more—than the rest of us, and he seems sincerely apologetic for whatever it is he did. If I had to make the decision as to whether or not to release him based solely on that essay, I think I would likely let him go free. But what complicates things is the fact that I don’t know what crime he committed. Would my opinion change if he was a serial rapist as opposed to having sold drugs for years? I think it would. If he had raped and killed 20 innocent women, I would have no remorse for him. I believe that he could very well be a good person who is sorry for what he did, but there is a point where you lose your right for a second chance. Raping and killing one woman is just as heinous as doing the same to 20 women, but he could have stopped and thought about what he did and chosen to discontinue his actions, rather than to go ahead and add another victim to his count. He would have had an opportunity to change his course of action, but he didn’t, so in this case I believe that he deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life, even if he is a truly good person, which he very well might be. Both crimes are wrong and punishable, but I think we could all agree that the former is much more wrong and much more punishable, simply because innocent lives were claimed because of one individual’s mistakes.

I think we all can learn from our wrongdoings, and we all deserve a second chance. However, I do think that there comes a point where third chances and fourth chances should no longer be given to certain people. We all have the power to make our own decisions, and one can only use the excuse of “I made a mistake” before it loses its meaning and validity. I do not judge the man who wrote this essay, because I do not know him. I believe he is a good person, and I believe he deserves a second chance. However, my beliefs cannot be affirmed without truly knowing him, so they will have to remain as my beliefs.

This student poses an interesting question. Though I don’t think we always show comical videos in class before delving into a more serious discussion about race relations, it is interesting to note that it is something we’ve done quite a few times. I think that the main reason for showing comedians talking about race and other humorous videos is that it makes a heavy topic slightly less intense. Even though the majority of the students taking SOC 119 are likely individuals who are sensitive to race issues and have thought about and discussed them before (though probably not to the extent that we have discussed them in class), race is still a touchy, sensitive, intense subject, and seeing these issues placed in a comedic light makes them easier to swallow. Such videos both “break the ice” and make the topics easier to receive.

Furthermore, there are many of us who are not the best communicators and aren’t as able as others to express exactly how we feel or what we think. Comedians have the unique ability to make complex topics simple and to express things blatantly and outright. When they make a statement, it tends to just make sense. They both simplify the issues and make them much easier to talk about. Comedians are also allowed to say things that the average citizen typically wouldn’t be allowed to say. They can be crude, harsh, mean, and realistic without being reprimanded for it. Sure, their comedy shticks might offend certain audiences, but those who are offended by Dave Chappelle typically don’t buy tickets to his shows. Since they have a free pass to essentially say what they want, they communicate the messages that many of us think but wouldn’t dare to say for fear of offending people. When they put these messages out into the open, we are then able to discuss them without feeling like we might be portrayed in a negative light or be criticized for it.

Additionally, this class is one that is definitely a class based on modern-thinking and current issues, so it makes sense to show videos that wouldn’t be shown in a more conservative class or a class that isn’t as focused on modern affairs. Also, we must consider the audience. The seats in SOC 119 are filled with young college students (for the most part) who relate to viral videos and modern-day comedians, so using such mediums to make a point and initiate a discussion makes sense. People are more likely to pay attention to something that interests them and that is personally relevant, so it certainly can’t be a bad idea to utilize these videos in class.

When Sam was talking about “white guilt” in class today, it made me think about my own feelings regarding my race and whether or not I feel remorse for who I am. I am clearly white—the kind of white that requires high SPF all year round. So do I feel guilty for being white?

It’s universally accepted that members of the white race have done some terrible, terrible things, from stealing land that wasn’t theirs, to committing mass murder against people who were “different” from themselves, to forcing other human beings into slavery. Thinking about the acts committed by my ancestors fills me with disgust and anger, for I can’t imagine what compels a person to cause such harm and to do such wretched things to people who are more similar to them than they are different. However, I feel no guilt. I don’t hold myself responsible for actions that I had no say in. I can’t control what race I was born into. Thus, I don’t associate myself with such individuals. Yes, we are of the same race, but that is all we have in common. I acknowledge that every human being has the psychological capacity to commit monstrosities, but I have no plans to commit such actions, nor have I committed such actions in the past, so I don’t think it’s fair for me or anyone else to compare me to them.

In regards to white privilege, again, I have no control over the race I was born into. However, I certainly acknowledge that white privilege exists, and that I may have an advantage over individuals of other races in certain situations. I don’t feel guilty because of that—I think it’s unfortunate that that is the way in which the world works, but feeling guilt does nothing productive. Instead, I try my best to combat discrimination through my own actions. I strive to treat everyone equally, to not judge people before I know them, and to see past the color of people’s skin. Even though white privilege, prejudice, and discrimination exist in our world, all I can do is manage my own behavior, and that is what I try to do.

If we’re discussing white guilt, then we should also acknowledge the guilt that should exist in other races, because white people are not the only ones who have misbehaved throughout the course of history. Many—if not all—races have harmed groups and individuals of their own race and other races, whether in recorded history or not. So if there is any guilt we should be feeling, it is human guilt—because the human mind has the capacity to do some unthinkable things, and it exists in the same capacity throughout all individuals, regardless of race. It seems to me that this is just another fact that supports the idea that we are all much more similar than we are different.

The reason this man seems so “white” is because he embodies many of the stereotypes that the majority of people have about white people. I think that when one is asked to think about a typical white American man, an image similar to that of the man in the video comes to mind.
One reason why this man could be labeled as your “typical white guy” is because of, as someone else said, the product he’s marketing. He’s rambling about the benefits of a gun holster that goes inside your pants, which is barely any different from just placing the gun in your waistband without the holster. He even said that he doesn’t keep his spare magazine in the holster where there is space for it, but rather in his pocket. If that’s the case, then why does he need to holster at all? It’s simply an unnecessary item that is treated as seemingly-necessary, which is a typical white, American behavior. White people love items that serve purposes that could actually be fulfilled without the item (but they never acknowledge that fact). For example, think of all the kitchen gadgets white people fawn over at Williams-Sonoma—immersion blenders, melon ballers, all-edges brownie pans. The fact is, white people love abundance and convenience, which is what makes them love items such as these—items that we label as necessary but that are really unnecessary.
Additionally, the way this man looks is very “white”. He displays the appearance of the All-American White Man: blue jeans, white polo, crew-cut haircut, muscular stature. It’s obvious that he’s white, but if anyone had to guess what country he is from, they’d likely say America. And the fact is, many Americans embody “white” stereotypes. Case in point: the man in the video.
He also talks like a white guy. I think that one of the things white people, specifically Americans, are generally uncomfortable with is the subject of sex. When this guy makes a joke with a sexual connotation (about how often people look at one another’s zippers), he gets rather uncomfortable and then an awkward silence follows. Furthermore, his discomfort with the sexual note of the reference he made is evident in the fact that he uses the word “zipper” instead of something more sexual, like “crotch”. He’s attempting to be funny, but he’s clearly uncomfortable with the context of his joke, so he tries to neutralize it by using an ambiguous term. To me, this seems like a very white thing to do.
The man is clearly awkward in his speech-giving skills, he’s awkward in the way he dresses, and the fact is, he posted a nearly-six minute video describing a useless gun holster to Youtube…which I’d say is a rather white thing to do. I don’t like stereotypes, but they exist because at one point or another, we encounter people who reinforce those stereotypes—this man is one of them.

In today’s society, lighter skin seems to be quite a commodity. After being exposed to so much information in class that supports this notion, no one can deny that white people have it significantly easier than brown or black people. Additionally, even if you identify as black or brown, you will still have an advantage over your darker counterparts. This is unfair and unfortunate, but it seems to be the way things work.

We all know now that black and brown people get arrested more, get longer prison sentences, get hired less, make less money, and are less likely to be able to buy a house or even rent an apartment. Thinking about that makes me terribly sad, as I have always yearned for equality among all people, but it also forces me to realize the privilege that I have simply because I’m white.

When you look at me, there is no doubt about my whiteness. I have very light skin that maintains its paleness year-round, golden-blonde hair, and bright green eyes. I definitely look like your average white girl (although people are typically surprised to find out that I’m Jewish, but that’s an entirely separate story). I do not doubt that I would receive better treatment than another girl who looks just like me, but just happens to have darker skin. I acknowledge that in this society, it is generally beneficial to have lighter skin, but when I start to dwell on that idea, it makes me question myself. I’m currently applying for jobs for the summer, and as I was filling out my resume, I couldn’t help but think, “If I get this job, is it because of who I am or because of the color of my skin?” And honestly, I don’t know. I’d like to think that I’m a qualified individual who would be a commodity to any workplace, but I realize now that that’s likely not all that comes into play. It’s also because I’m white, because somehow a white employee is better than a black or brown employee.

Why are we basing people’s qualifications and worthiness on something as superficial as the color of their skin? It’s true that we notice someone’s physical appearance first when we initially see them, but why their skin color? Why doesn’t their attire or their tattoos and piercings or the brand of their handbag affect our views and decisions as much as their skin color does? I truly do not know, but it’s baffling to think about. It’s also rather ironic that the very dark white girls (the ones who spend hours in the sun or in the tanning booth to achieve the coloring of burnt toast) would probably get hired more than a black girl or naturally-brown girl as well. It makes you wonder when the world is going to start thinking straight—I certainly hope it’s soon.

As I was writing this, I couldn’t help but think about a rather funny and eccentric trait I have. I’m a very white girl (in multiple senses), but I’ve always wanted to be black! I’ve always found black people to be so beautiful, so ethnic, and so distinct, and when I think of all the lovely and wonderful black people out there, being the whitest of the white just seems kind of lame. Furthermore, black babies are the most gorgeous infants I’ve ever seen; I’ve never encountered an ugly black baby, but I’ve seen plenty of ugly white babies. Point made.

As Sam continues to reiterate in class, it is always best to be in the middle—it’s important to be able to see both sides and not lean too far in one direction, lest you completely reject the other side. Based on a middle-ground standpoint, I would say that the higher rates of arrest for black people are affected by both factors: a racist police force and a higher population of police in urban areas. Crime is more prevalent in urban areas, and there are often higher populations of black individuals in urban areas, thus leading to a high amount of arrests of black people. Although this logic may account for a portion of these arrests, I do think that racism is a definite factor. There are certainly some law enforcement officers who are outwardly racist, but I think that much of this apparent racism is due to psychological processes. The mind works in ways that can cause us to commit actions that can be construed as racist, even if we ourselves are not racist individuals.

The racist stereotypes about black people that are so prevalent in this country—for example, that blacks engage in criminal behavior—are embedded in all of our unconscious minds, even if our conscious minds know that such stereotypes are unreasonable. Thus, when we utilize automatic thinking, which a law enforcement officer is likely to do in the heat of the moment, it can cause those unconscious thoughts to affect our actions. When a police officer encounters a situation where criminal activity is supposedly occurring, he or she is not going to say to himself or herself, “There is a black man running away from the convenience store that was just robbed. Let me stop and consider all possible reasons for his actions—perhaps he is just going for an evening jog.” Of course not! The officer is going to utilize the information that is perceptually salient to him (that there is a man running away from the convenience store that was just robbed) and the information that is produced by automatic thinking (the stereotype that black people tend to engage in criminal activity). These two streams of information combined may cause the officer to arrest the man, which could certainly be construed as racist. Even though this racist behavior seems to be quite frequent in today’s police force, we must remember that regardless of whether or not the officer himself is racist, he is still at the mercy of his unconscious mind.

This idea has been proven in a psychological experiment about what is called the “shooter bias”. Participants played a video game in which images were flashed across the screen of white men and black men holding either a gun or a nonthreatening object, such as a cell phone or soda can. As they saw each image, they pressed a “shoot” button if the man had a gun and a “don’t shoot” button if the man had a nonthreatening object. They only had about half a second to react, which is similar to the circumstances of a police officer in real life. The results? Participants were much more likely to “shoot” a black man holding a nonthreatening object than a white man holding a gun. These sobering results prove that automatic thinking can cause seemingly-racist actions, and that the stereotypes our minds harbor do in fact affect our actions.

I think that determinism accounts for much of the reasons why Native Americans represent the lowest socioeconomic status in our country. From the day we claimed “our” nation, we pushed aside the indigenous peoples who had occupied the land well before our arrival. We tore them from their territory and placed them on reservations, just as the Jews were forced to live in ghettos during the time of the Holocaust. “Well,” one might say, “at least we gave them a portion of the land to keep for themselves. That was a charitable act, right?” Wrong. Just because one group of people is wealthier, more industrialized, worldlier, and more educated than another group does not mean that the “finders-keepers” policy can be automatically instituted. It is this kind of mistreatment and persecution of Native Americans that has led to their current socioeconomic status; once such behavior starts, it is difficult to stop—especially when not many people are doing anything to try to actively change the behavior, which seems to be the case in this situation.

When people such as Native Americans are mistreated and devalued for years upon years, it obviously takes a toll on their morale. Their homeland was stolen from them and they were segregated from the rest of society—such treatment would make any individual feel worthless. As a group, Native Americans have been labeled as less worthy than other Americans, thus leading to poor treatment, less resources, less opportunities, and consequently, poor living situations. No one would choose to live a life where they are given less than the rest of society. Their socioeconomic status clearly results from situational aspects beyond their control. It’s not fair by any means, but it was apparently necessary for our country’s foundation.

I don’t mean to say that there are individual Native Americans who have made poor choices that have led them to where they are. In any racial group, there are people who make the choice to resort to alcoholism or drug addiction, who make the choice not to get an education or get a job. But look at it this way—if your ancestors were persecuted for centuries and that persecution and mistreatment persisted to affect your life in the present day, if you were made to feel isolated and less worthy, if you had less access to resources and opportunities that could better your life, wouldn’t you lose some of your motivation? Wouldn’t you feel like giving up? Wouldn’t you refrain from pursuing something if you knew it likely wasn’t going to work out simply because of who you are? I think so. So even for those Native Americans who made choices that affected their lives and led to their current socioeconomic status, those choices may have been prompted by factors beyond their control. They’re only human, as we all are. Don’t be so quick to judge.