ralsoc119

ralsoc119

19p

13 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

13 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Christian Invaders - t... · 0 replies · +1 points

I absolutely loved this lecture. It completely blew my mind. I would have never ever, in a million years, had the opportunity to think about the war from an Arab Muslim’s perspective without this lecture. In fact, I probably would not have even wanted to try to understand it. I have always been very confused by this whole Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. war that has been going on. Before entering college, I basically agreed with the war and why were there “fighting terrorism,” and who would not be? Terrorism is a horrible and dangerous thing. The more I learned about the United State’s agendas, the more I came to disagree with why we were there, but I still felt like the Middle East was full of people who hated America and were extremely violent. This lecture completely addressed all my questions and most importantly, made me realize how ethnocentrism was really hiding my ability to even want to understand the Arab Muslim’s side of the story. I am actually surprised I did not just blow Sam off in class and refuse to pretend I was an Arab Muslim and refuse to try and see it from a different perspective. Since I did place myself in an Arab Muslim’s situation, it has made me so much more aware and so much more understanding. This is by far the best lecture in this class and the way it was done was so effective. Putting the class in the place of an Arab Muslim is really the only way to get people to understand the reality of it. I really wish that I could explain this to my friends and family, but I do not even know where to begin since it was probably a struggle to fit it in to a one hour and fifteen minute class period. This lecture was so interesting that I think Sam should offer this to the whole campus. I know so many people that are affected by this ethnocentrism, and I feel as though this could really create a lot of understanding and even change people’s minds about Muslims. I know that it definitely changed my mind, and I consider myself to be pretty strong headed in my beliefs. Also, imagine what this type of education could do for Muslims who believe this whole Christian Invaders theory just like we believe the whole Muslim Invaders idea. It would eliminate a lot of ethnocentric thinking and give people a ton of valuable answers and end the disconnect that is going on. Also, those people who left the lecture claiming Sam was attacking Christianity are way off. If I were you, I would watch the lecture again and open your mind to the role-play more, then you would really see the excellent point he is making.

13 years ago @ Race Relations Project - This is totally off th... · 0 replies · +1 points

I cannot even begin to believe that something like this actually exists, no matter what country it is in. I think this really says a lot about the kinds of people that are out there in the world. For a video game to be produced, marketed, advertised, sold, etc., it take a lot of people to make that happen. If all those people are willing to make a video game that centers on raping women, there is obviously something wrong with them and the country where this is seen as acceptable. I am not just pointing the finger at Japan. When I first watched my boyfriend play the video game Grand Theft Auto, I was disgusted that the character could get hookers and have sex with them in his car. I think video games have this problem in general, and there needs to be more regulation on them. I think that even shooting and violent games need to be reconsidered as well. They allow people to actually “do” these things, which they would probably never have been exposed to, and then it could potentially desensitize and cause these people to carry these video game values into their actual lives and the world around them. While these rape video games are light years beyond disgusting and morally wrong, I think it sheds light on video games in a general sense.
One part of the video that shocked me was when they were skyping with the people who downloaded the video game. First of all, the woman did not even feel offended by the game. I do not consider myself a feminist or anything, but something as horrendous as this makes me beyond angry and I cannot imagine any woman who would not feel violated even in the smallest way. Also, the man in the skyping session said that banning these video games would be “ridiculous” just because some person might actually act on it in the real world. In other words, he feels as though telling people “you cannot buy or create video games where you rape women” is absurd. I think that to any normal human being who respects women, or at least sees them as actual human beings, would admit that a ban on these games makes sense on a variety of levels. This shocked me that these two people did not find anything offensive in these games, and just goes to prove that some people in this world are honestly messed up mentally. I really have no other way to put it.
I also like the point Sam made in the blog about being able to think these games are acceptable while still respecting your mother, wife, sister, daughter, etc. I think that if you asked some these people who endorse these disgusting and revolting games a question like Sam’s, they might actually take a step back and open their eyes to something that is so easy for a vast majority of people to see.

13 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Those Dolls Say Alot A... · 0 replies · +1 points

I watched this video in my Psychology class in high school, but every time I watch it it actually makes my eyes tear. As a project for that class, I actually did a repeat of the experiment with children I work with at a summer camp. These children are all from under privileged homes and the majority of them are African American. I got the same results of having most of the girls choose to play with the white doll, but when I asked them which was the “pretty” doll or which one was “better,” they actually did not have an answer. Most said they’re the same just different colors, some said they were both pretty, but nobody pointed out one from the other. This made me feel really good when I was done videotaping. Although, these children grow up in very diverse environments. Barely any of these girls were around only one race in their homes and schools. Due to this, they might not be feeling that white versus colored battle since they are so accustomed to both races. When viewing the video in class, think the hardest part to swallow is the end of the experiment when they ask those “pretty” and “better” questions. When I try to think of some reasons why this happens, the media always comes in to my mind. When I think of the commercials I watched at that age, I hardly remember seeing colored baby dolls. If I did a colored doll, it was only at the end of the commercial and in the background. There are also the movies and television shows that girls watch. Most characters, especially princesses, are usually always white. Only last year did Disney have an African American princess (even though there have been Arabic and Chinese princesses). Also, as shallow as this idea may seem, the dolls that are colored do look a bit scary when compared to a white colored doll. I know an Asian girl in class said the Asian Barbie was scary looking to her, and I can see what she means. I remember really wanting a Native American Barbie because I was really interested in Native American culture. When I tried to find one, they all looked pretty scary to me and of less quality than the other Barbies. I actually ended up getting the Native American American Girl Doll, which is a really expensive brand, but it was the only one that looked normal. This could possibly be a manufacturers call then. Perhaps they spend less money on a doll of color because they know it will not sell as well as the white dolls. Obviously this issue does not stem from colored dolls looking scary, but it could have to do with why a white doll is prettier or nicer to some children.

14 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Does this rudeness thi... · 0 replies · +1 points

I definitely noticed this as well. I feel like this happens a lot, even in the real world, and it could connect to the whole white guilt or white responsibility thing. I feel like since our history is full of white people putting down or discriminating against colored people, we have been taught that doing that in the present day is ignorant and very unacceptable. I feel like a lot of times, we learn that being rude, discriminating, or making fun of people of color is wrong, not just doing those things in general. This takes discrimination against white people out of the lesson, and makes things like what happened in class “not that bad” when compared to if it happened to a person of color. Recently, I was out at a party with some girls who were black. I admit that I do not normally interact with black people here at Penn State, but it was not like I felt uncomfortable. The black girls were talking about how the “white girls could dance.” This was obviously playing on the stereotype that white people are not as good at dancing. Since I am enrolled in soc 119, it made me think about something similar to this post. Would it be alright if I, a white girl, said something like this that played on a black person stereotype? I really do think that it would not be alright in a lot of people’s opinions, and mostly that rests on the fact that I am a white person talking about a person of color. I also think that a lot of white people are almost scared to speak up when there are situations of “reverse racism” because they feel like its more acceptable and they understand where it is coming from. I think that this idea needs to be eliminated from the minds of white people. If it is not acceptable in one situation, it should not be acceptable in another. With what happened in class, it seems like a lot of people in this class feel like it is more acceptable for reverse racism. I also think that there is a certain “shock” value when we experience or witness racism in the present day, and for a lot of people, racism is a white attacking black thing, not the other way around. The shock value, I think, has to do with the mentality that all that oppression and discrimination is part of the past and we are all better and more intelligent in the present. So when someone does something like what happened in class with the texting, we are all (at least most of us) conditioned and taught to react with shock and disapproval, ESPECIALLY when it is a white person attacking a person who is of color.

14 years ago @ Race Relations Project - What happens to multir... · 0 replies · +1 points

I have actually thought about this a lot this semester. We often times divide class into white and people of color. If you are half white, your skin is most likely going to be darker than most whites, so if someone were to take a look at you, you would probably be considered a person of color. So, I think this points to the issue of over generalizing people on the basis of color only. I understand that for the purposes of the class, it is convenient to make questions for white people and then separate questions for people of color. But what about people who are both? Are they automatically considered of color because of what they look like on the outside. If I were biracial, which I am not, I would be really set back by all of this. I would say I was white and of color, which would probably be confusing identity wise. I feel like, then, when Sam asks these questions, he is referring to those who look white and this who do not look white, regardless of what your background is. I think he does it this way because we are often treated and discriminated against based solely on our appearance, so even if someone is half white, or even more than half white, if they appear to be colored, that is how they will be seen and treated accordingly by those around them. I have a friend from high school who is biracial, and when the students from the school I went to, which is overwhelmingly white, referred to him as black, he found it humorous. He thought it was funny because he said if they had seen him with some of his other black friends, they would probably be calling him the white boy. This makes me curious to know whether or not he would, and others in a similar position, consider himself to be white or colored, and which set of questions he would feel he is entitled to answer in this class. I think that acknowledging people just by their color has many flaws involved in it, especially for those who are biracial or could pass for being white or of color. In my opinion, it would be hard to be called one thing, either white or black, or being treated like one thing my whole life knowing that I was actually both and that only my skin color was being taken into account. Overall, I think that this might be something that Sam should further address and explain to our class because if I were biracial, I would probably be confused and possibly feel like I was being glazed over.

14 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Are Whites the Only Pe... · 0 replies · +1 points

This is really interesting even though I have never really been a fan of this show or shows, but I can say that I have never seen any person in the episodes that I've watched be of color. The pictures of the cast above portray the show perfectly. I do not think that this is really an issue of who wants to “humiliate” themselves, but more of a biracial relationship issue. I am sure that tons of people of color applied to be on either the Bachelor or the Bachelorette, and were either denied because of their color or denied because of type casting or not fitting the contestant’s interests. This makes me wonder if the actual Bachelor or Bachelorette makes the decision of having people of color be their “possible” wife or husband, or if it is the network, ABC, or the producers of the show. It could possibly be that the Bachelor or Bachelorette asks for only white contestants in some cases, because that is who they see themselves dating and marrying. So, this could be an issue of biracial marriages. Or, the producers or ABC are not comfortable with portraying biracial (or obviously biracial, meaning very different skin colors, because I think there have been light skinned Hispanic or Latino ladies) relationships on television. I have not really heard much about how America, as a whole, feels about biracial marriages or relationships, so I would not know if this would be a possible reason why these two shows are overwhelmingly white. Although, I could imagine that biracial marriage would not settle well with some Americans. In my section meeting, we talked about biracial couples and how our families would feel if we brought home a boyfriend or girlfriend of a different race. A lot of the answers involved parents and mainly grandparents not approving and even refusing to accept their child in a biracial relationship. So it seems like this is an issue, and could possibly be why these shows, specifically dating shows, keep their contestant and potential daters the same race. Also, as Sam mentioned, this could also be because an older generation does watch this show. It is not the MTV, VH1 reality dating show style, so older generations can actually tolerate and find this dating show to be interesting. Like in my section meeting, it seems like the older generations are the ones with the issues of accepting biracial relationships and marriages. So, Sam could be right in saying that this could possibly be an age or generation issue, and the producers and ABC do not want to lose viewers due to the controversy it may stir with the older generations who watch these shows.

14 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Another Reason Why Gay... · 0 replies · +1 points

I have never given though to this situation or have ever heard of this being an issue. It really breaks your heart because they really are an actual family, the only thing that is missing is the legality of a marriage. This is ridiculous that just because they are not legally married, their family can and possibly will be torn apart. I feel as though if two gay couples are legally allowed to adopt and/or use a sperm donor to have children, then there should be a law against deporting any partner that is an illegal immigrant. I could not believe that 36,000 families like this one that is in the video are in jeopardy of being separated due to immigration laws. Obviously this is a wide spread problem, so something needs to take place, such as the creation of a law that can prevent such a thing from happening. With all the progress that the LGBT community has made, I think that the next step is for the creation of a law that permits marriage in all states. I think that a possibility could be that instead of legally calling them marriages, all states would call them “unions,” yet they would still provide all the rights that a marriage has. To me, this seems harmless, but I guess I could see how not naming them marriages would be a form of discrimination. Although, it could just help to explain the difference. For example, a union would mean there are two mothers or two fathers, while a marriage means one of each, and that would be the only difference. Although, I am not gay, so I do not know how I would feel about this if I was. Personally, my mom has two lesbian friends who are with each other. I asked them what they thought about this, and they said getting married or “unioned” was not really what they wanted at this point, but they would probably be fine with the word distinction. Although, this could be different for a gay couple that was very serious about getting married. That couple may feel discriminated against if their relationship was labeled differently from a heterosexual couple’s relationship. This whole debate is very interesting to me, because it is hard for me to figure out what my own opinion is. I one hundred percent agree that gay couples should not be discriminated against, but I feel like that to me “discrimination” could mean something totally different for a LGBT couple. I think that with the problem this video portrays, obviously this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and I feel as though this could possibly be the next step for LGBT people.

14 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Why Is the Conversatio... · 0 replies · +1 points

This is a very true statement. In my sociology section we always come around to talking about black and white people, and how they interact and do not interact. Even if there are brown participants in the room, the conversation leads to dark skin versus light skin. I think the idea of why this happens could be really complex, but history really put this idea into motion. I think that both the history of slavery and the Civil Rights Movement has a lot to do with this whole black versus white conversation topic. With the history of slavery, white people made very clear cuts between white people and black people. Since they needed justification to enslave human beings, a lot of people were taught that there was a difference between black people and white people. They used strategies in order to separate black from white, so I think that from the past we have a tendency to see black people and white people as separate people. Also, the Civil Rights Movement distinguished the need for equal treatment of black people, so once again it was, in a way, black versus white. Black people had limited rights that very few white people experienced, so that separates us. The fact that there was a Civil Rights movement shows the tension between black and white people since the white man began this, so there comes about this black versus white idea. Also, the idea that the color of people is what is most readily available to our minds through vision probably has a lot to do with it as well. What two other colors are so different than black and white? The fact that the first thing we see about people is their color probably sets off our minds that that person is different from me or that person is the same as me. Hence, when we discuss race, a lot of the topics lead to black versus white because there is a natural tendency to notice that difference of skin color. Another possible reason could be the environment we all live in. Penn State is only twenty percent black students, so the topic for us students seems more appropriate to address because we see this white versus black topic everyday, just by walking around campus. Overall, all these reasons could be why this happens, but I think that we learn about the historical difference and fight between white and black people, so that give us a conversation topic. Also, the fact that historical discrimination has still not been completely eliminated makes the topic still appropriate and logical to want to discuss, especially in the United States with all the historical events.

14 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Negroes of the World P... · 0 replies · +1 points

When I first heard Sam say that the word Negro was still on the census forms, I thought that it was a bit too dated to be there. Although, seeing that how thousands of people checked off “Negro” in the 2000 census, it seems a lot more appropriate since clearly there are still people who use this word. This article then made me wonder what is so bad about the word “negro” in the first place. I can for sure understand why people are offended by the “n-word,” but the word “negro,” as far as I know, does not seem to carry any real negative history. I can understand that it is dated, but does that necessarily make it a bad word? Words like “swell” and “groovy” are also dated words, but they are not considered inappropriate to use. I guess I can see that the word “negro” was used at a time when black people were not treated as equals, but I do not see how using the word automatically makes it offensive and inappropriate. Is it just because the word “negro” is related to race? Another issue also came into mind as I was reading this. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter what the census uses as labels as long as they include everyone? I can understand that many biracial people feel pressured to label themselves into a category that glosses over them, but does it really matter what terminology is used (since any offensive terminology is obviously only used in order to eliminate discrepancies). I personally think that it is an overreaction to say that the census is creating these categories and influencing the public. Like at the end of the article it says, “Census categories reflects perceptions. But they also forge them.” I think that this is a bit dramatic. The only reason the census uses certain terminology is because the people who are filling out the forms still use that terminology, and they wish to get as accurate as possible. I do not think that the census creates categories, but if people do, then a write in box can solve that problem pretty quickly. In general, I think that this whole issue of political correctness is rather stupid and a waste of time. The idea that simple words send people into hysterics does not really make much sense to me. These words bother people because they have bought into the idea that their meaning should be offensive to them, and therefore it seems to be inappropriate or unacceptable. I think that if we all just sit down and question why these words are offensive, we would find meaningless explanations, or no explanation at all.

14 years ago @ Race Relations Project - The Enlightened "West"... · 0 replies · +1 points

This video is very interesting to me because I always considered these full veil outfits to be oppressing to the women who wear them. To me, all I had heard was that the men would make the women wear these veils and that they would be punished for removing them in front of a man who is not their husband. Although this may not always be the case, in a way I still do see these veils as oppressive. It distinguished between man and woman in their culture, and takes away their unique facial features that make them a recognizable person. Under these veils, they have no identifiable features that would constitute them as a human being. It is almost as if, in their culture, is not necessary to know WHO they are but only that they are women. They are not recognized as people, just women. For these reasons, I feel as though no matter what women who wear them say, I think the root of these outfits are oppressing towards women. If someone were to ask me to wear an outfit in which the only thing someone could see would be my eyes (only so I could see, not so others could see me), I would be insulted and refuse due to my personal beliefs that covering up my body, and especially my face, takes away my qualities as a human being. Although, it is not my culture and I am very uneducated in their beliefs (even though this video states that it is not a religious practice), so I would not pass judgment or try to change this custom like France is trying to do. As for the deal with France, I do not think it is their place to make such a decision, but I do understand how wearing such full body veils would cause unrest. There is no way to identify these people, whether or not they are wearing the veil for religious purposes or for more of a suspicious concealing purpose. It could potentially cause danger to its citizens if, for example, a criminal is walking around wearing such dress in order to conceal him or herself from identification. Although, banning the wearing of these veils seems unjust and an invasion on free will and private beliefs. In addition, the video clip stated that only around two thousand women in the whole country wear these veils, so it seems a bit impractical to commit the time and force necessary for the enforcement of such a law. Even though it could present some problems and issues with security, I think that placing a ban on burqas is unfair to those who wear them for their own valued beliefs and opinions.