This is something that I have actually spent an adequate amount of time thinking about, mainly because of my personal relation to the topic. Growing up I was always awkward and possessed a desperate need to try and fit in. Though I always knew that I was a tad different than the norm, I did what I had to do conform. Looking back I realized that this developed out of an innate need to please. This inevitably crossed over into my school life. Funnily enough my best year academically was sixth grade…the first year of middle school. Getting good grades was more about pleasing my teachers and my parents than it was about me wanting to know the material. I was always on my best behavior because the idea of punishment or detention was out of the question. I always secretly admired the kids that had the balls to be a bit more spirited. The ones that spoke out during class or did something outrageous during a school assembly. Those are the kids that have the ability to change the world, I would argue. Think about some of the greatest minds throughout history. The most brilliant are often times the “troublemakers” that had the most difficulty conforming to the system. I would argue those kids are the ones that will most likely change the world due to their lack of fear and their instinctive curiosity (the ones who question authority).
We have been taught from a very young age to listen to your “authority.” What if, however, we choose not to? What if someone randomly shouted something (regardless of its relevancy) during one of Sam’s lectures? We would all stare of course because why would anyone ever do something like that? I am asking, why not.
Chomsky makes a valid point in his argument regarding conformity. My concern is that there must be a line. One of the things that struck me was when he said was that our current system (due to the presence of conformity) stunts us from the act of progress. This almost seems paradoxical to me. In order to have progress, one must be educated in a certain subject matter in order to overcome previous mistakes and overcome forthcoming obstacles. However, it is the ability to think outside the box that our education has put us in, in order to obtain “progress.” Hopefully that point exists.
Is it not important to be educated? Chomsky even stated that those who stray from the system are set up to fail. With education comes opportunity. Though many employers do not care about the material I learned in SOC 119 (no offense Sam), they do care that I have a college degree.

Lyndsie:
Of course religion is a very personal thing. I too consider myself a Christian. I do think, however, that you may have been missed the point of what Sam was trying to explain. As Americans we become so caught up in our own ethnocentric values that we tend to lack “the oppositions” perspective. Think back to September 11th. When the towers were hit, WHO did we say were responsible? Muslims. Who do you have the most anxiety getting on a plane with? Probably Muslims. Though the people that attacked us were extremists from the insurgency, we have typed them based on their religion. Sam was just trying to get us to see the other side of it.
I thought this was by far one of the most important lectures of my collegiate career. I remember Sarma Pisupati’s class my freshman year and he explaining to us that within short years the US oil reserves will virtually be gone. It makes total sense why we are over there. We do not want to give up our posh lifestyles. The idea of having to give up that 3rd or 4th car is unacceptable. So what do we do? Invade. When we elect a self-proclaimed Christian leader and he is addressing the invasion of Iraq as a “crusade” how else are the Iraqi’s suppose to view us?
This class has made me wonder why we think that we are so special. Why is it acceptable to go to a country, bomb it, steal their oil and claim that we had a right to it in the first place? I do not understand this mentality and to be completely honest, I do not know why more have not joined the insurgency based on their limited viewpoint. Of course we know that the soldiers are good people that are following orders. We know that Sarah Palin was among one of the biggest jokes in American political history. We know that the soldiers that have raped and tortured Iraqi women are the extreme minority. They do not. All they know is what they see and what they see are their people dying so that we can stick to our elitist agenda.
I recently watched a news piece on the Middle Eastern news channel Al Jazeera. At the time the Bush Administration referred to it as the “mouth piece for Osama Bin Laden.” After watching the documentary (granted I’m sure that the documentary maker had his/her own agenda was well..) I realized that it was just a different perspective regarding the war in Iraq. It was the perspective of a country that had to deal with their people dying every day. It really struck a nerve in me and makes me wonder if there will ever be a way out of this corrupt mess.

Out of all things that I have seen or learned about in this class, this one disturbed me the most. Something about the look in those little girls’ eyes when she acknowledged the fact that the doll that looked the “most like her” was the black one that struck a serious nerve in me. Why is it that these beautiful little kids associate white with goodness? I’m sure that it cannot be innate. It has to be something that they are taught or have observed throughout the short lifetimes.
Thinking back to race relations class that I had my sophomore year, I vaguely remember one of my fellow classmates, who is a black woman, slightly touching upon the subject. Part of the reason she felt as though there was a stigma placed on black skin is there negative connotation associated with all things that are dark. For instance when one thinks about the color white their minds immediately associate the term with cleanliness, purity and innocence. When we think of black our minds tend to associate it with filth or ominous thoughts. It is unfortunate but it something that is ultimately driven into our lives from the time that we are born.
Also thinking back to my childhood (and I know that this was touched upon in class…) my heroes were none other than the Disney princesses. I was convinced that I was Princess Ariel. I even combed my hair with a fork. From a very young age, I associated what was beautiful back to the Disney princesses. Though all there were a few that were apparently from other ethnic backgrounds (Jasemine was Indian, Mulan was Chinese), their skin was still light and their features were entirely Caucasian. With that said, I never remember having a moment of “wow, these girls look like me” (besides mine and Ariel’s ginger association), which is odd because I went to a very diverse preschool and kindergarten. I was not in the minority by any means, but I would definitely say that there were as many white kids as there were black, Asian and an Indian. It confuses me that I never had a racial awakening. Perhaps that due in part to my inherit obliviousness and the fact that I thought being around people that were different looking than me was normal.
Nonetheless, it pains me to see these little girls who do not think that they are on par with the beauty of white girls. It is sickening. Chris Rock recently made a movie about black women’s hair and how often little girls are ashamed of their “kinks.” There has to be further action taken so we change the perception of these young minds into believing that they are just as worthy than the white girls they envy.

My classmate makes an interesting point. Why is it that for black people to be considered on par with whites in society, they have to adapt to white culture. It is interesting to not about the LL Bean magazine is that these black models are seemingly assimilating into white culture. Is this really a necessity? One of the biggest arguments that Malcolm X had during his activism was that the only way blacks or African Americans to establish true levels of equality is to fight hard for the culture that makes them unique. Assimilation into the stereotypical “preppy suburban lifestyle” gives all the power back to the white man. Thus, the argument remains: “Can we ever really win?”
It is no secret that our world is dominated by powerful, white men. Not only that but by white men that are not willing to give up their spot (as Sam so often puts it) on top of the mountain. Though they may outwardly agree with the notion of “equality,” who really wants to give up their power?
I once took a philosophical-based course on race relations when I was a sophomore. That whole semester, there were two things I learned in that class that have since stayed with me. The first being when I was reading a book about a black man that made a formal presentation for a group of colleagues at the corporation in which he worked. The presentation turned out to be a success. So much so that one of his co-workers leaned over to let him know how well he did by stating “it almost sounded as though you were white!” Is that what it really takes for black people to impress? By sounding white?
Another point that the book (I wish I could remember the name of it) was the difference between the movements of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. While Martin Luther took a peaceful approach to activism, Malcom X was a bit more aggressive in his. The book argued that Malcom X’s approach had the ability to gain more of a following due to the fact that aggression is necessary to obtain any level of change.
Though I do not condone it, there have been many points in history where violence or aggression has lead to turning points throughout our history. Think about the riots after the acquittal of those two cops for beating Rodney King. Those riots highlighted the tension among different ethnic groups throughout Los Angeles. Once the problem was addressed, it was the beginnings of the overcoming it. Though we still have a long way to go, assimilating into a lifestyle that is not true to oneself is not the best way to get there.

As someone who adamantly protests censorship, I was absolutely disgusted by the content of this so-called “game.” What is this teaching society beyond would-be creative scenarios in which rape could be considered acceptable? I want to know what kind of perverted minds are creating such horrific material and the equally disturbed people that are buying into it. Unfortunately, it is people such as the young lady who gave the game the a “test run” and claimed that she was unfazed by the derogatory message it sends to men regarding women is what makes people think it’s acceptable to continue making such content.
I was recently had similar thoughts during my Spring Break trip when my Habitat for Humanity group decided to rent “The Last House on the Left.” Being unfamiliar with the subject matter, I sat down and watched the movie with my peers. Unfortunately within the first half of the film, the most horrific and violent rape scene that could have ever been imagined was displayed on our small screen. This was of course when I realized that a rousing game of Catch Phrase probably would have been a more satisfying way of spending my evening. The rest of the film succeeded in disgusting its audience with graphic images of a man’s hand being pushed down an active garbage disposal, while another villain’s head explodes in the microwave.
This made me contemplate why such forms of entertainment are actively and successfully infiltrating its way into our culture. Quinton Tarrantino receives tremendous success for his graphic display of violence throughout all of his films. Additionally the SAW movies are ranked as the most successful horror series of all time. Why is this? What do we find so fascinating about helpless victims in submission (much like the “shoot em up” video games)?
Is it possible that we are all sick human beings that dream about raping a sodomizing women and “Shoot Em Up” allows for a cathartic experience without any real consequences? Perhaps. I am currently in the midst of taking a Media Effects Course that studies the effects of violence in entertainment on its viewers. Many times such violence acts as a therapy for those with pent up aggression. With that said, I do not condone its usage! Especially in this case. In a longitudinal case study, they found that children who were frequently exposed to violent content as children were more than likely to be more aggressive as adults. If these games are simulating rape for children how else should we expect them to act? Unfortunately this game is also displaying instances in which women could be considered vulnerable for such an act to take place. I do not agree with the usage of this video game and I hope that anyone with some decency would agree with me.

This article takes me back to the good old days of Dawson’s Creek. During it’s reign as the top teenage drama of the 90s, Jack an openly gay high school student, was denied a ticket to the prom after he requested to bring another male as his date. Out of protest for their friend, Dawson and the gang decide to host their own prom out the local boathouse independent from the school. Who knew how revolutionary the WB could be?

Flash forward towards real life: though the school claims to have canceled the prom due to “distractions to the educational process,” it seems quite evident that what is happening to Constance is very similar to what is happened to Jack. A southern school caught in their Christian based ideals is refusing to open themselves up to the reality of homosexuality. This case is also unique because not only is the issue of homosexuality brought to the forefront, but also so are gender roles. Constance wanted to show up to the prom in a suit, which is in opposition of the typical female role. It would look bad if two girls showed up to the prom as dates, it would be worse if one of them was in drag.

It all goes back to the same message of equality. Proposition 8 received a lot of attention after this past years election. “Traditional” relationships and marriage are being challenged at the prospect of same-sex couples entering into civil unions. I recently did some research on the other side of argument—the one that states that a marriage should be exclusive to heterosexual couples. There was something very striking that I came across in one of the videos titled, "The Story of Prop 8" located on protectmarriage.com. The video depicted elated couples enjoying multiple picnics in the park. (Is it just me, or when is marriage every that happy?) There was a particular sound bite stating, "Protecting the interests of children is the reason the state has for regulating marriage in the first place." However by teaching children that not all people are deserving of equal rights, are we really protecting them?

Recently an 11-year-old boy named Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover took his own life after incessant bullying by his peers regarding his perceived sexual orientation. If we really want to protect our children, shouldn't we teach them the importance of acceptance and about their rights to love? The passing of proposition 8 is legitimizing hate and teaching children that homosexuals are of lesser value.

Is that really the message we want to spread to younger generations? If our country wants to progress, we must open ourselves up to the possibility of unorthodox schools of thought.

And as I posted that, I am realizing everyone wrote about the same thing...

This is an interesting point. Since 2002, The Bachelor has made a reputation for being a legitimate means of finding a wife. Over the course of one month a man meets 25 different women, each one with the potential to be his future spouse. Each woman is expected to fall
madly in love with a man that they have had minimal interaction with, while he sits back and chooses. The season usually ends with aproposal. Under these completely unrealistic terms, the relationshipis practically destined to fail. Yet, for 14 seasons, another man will come onto the show claiming to find real love. Interestingly enough, every single bachelor has been white, as are his cohorts.

Though I write with a cynical tone, I adamantly watched this past season. There was, in fact, a beautiful and dynamic Vietnamese woman who was vowing for a chance at Jakes hand in marriage. Unfortunatelyshe was eliminated the first night.

I recently read an article in Newsweek about online dating. On Web sites such as Match.com a race preference is provided. Most white mencheck the box that stating they would prefer to date white females. For those men who did check other race boxes, black women were listed as the least preferred. Similar results showed for white women seeking a mate. Perhaps these results parallel the reasoning behind why The Bachelor consists of all white people. It is possible that the world is not ready to accept a minority as their leading man (or woman).
Interestingly enough, however, minorities are often at the focal point of reality dating shows on MTV and VH1 such as Flavor of Love, I Love New York, Tila Tequila and For the Love of Ray J. It’s important to note that each of these dating shows have the same exact premise as The Bachelor. There is the ideal man or woman vying for a person of the opposite sex’s (or same sex in the case of Tila Tequila) affection. What’s the difference? While The Bachelor portrayed as a genuine way of finding love, the VH1 shows are viewed as exploitation. On The Bachelor the one-on-one dates include trips to Jamaica or a one night stay in a castle. On Tila Tequila, everyone sleeps in the same bed and one-on-one dates include mud wrestling fights.
There is no need for this clear differential divide in what I viewed as “socially acceptable” and what can be construed as “trash television.” Though I am addicted to both types of showing, there is a clear class divide and it is not fair to exploit a television personality based on their sexuality and/or race.
I was talking to my mother and she gave an interesting insight. It’s all trash television.

The “It’s not my place” argument intrigues me because it’s hard to know what I would actually do given that I would ever be placed in such a situation. I wonder what place I would find myself in had there been a Muslim woman been openly denied service. Of course, I would want to put myself in the heroic category where I come to this woman’s aid, but at the same time, I am not sure that I would. Does that stem from me being a racist person? Or could it possibly stem from a place of fear of confrontation?
The problem that lies within this passive approach is that it is impossible to know what the 22 people who didn’t say anything were thinking. If someone who is also passive watched this, they might assume that these 22 people were siding with the Muslim woman but were ultimately too afraid to say anything. However, for the Muslim woman up against the outward discrimination, she would probably easily assume that the silent customers were taking the side of the store clerk. It is a hard variable to define, but I ultimately think that speaking out is the best method to take if we want it to stop.
I was recently watching a CBS special about the key to happiness. They addressed a number of issues that often times keep us from living a fulfilling life—self doubt, fears, stress. Among these topics, the issue of bullying arose. Though many see bullying as a problem exclusive to childhood, the truth is that it carries over into adulthood (and can manifest itself as racism). After studying this social issue, experts concluded that the best way to put an end to this problem lies within the will of the outsiders. There are three groups involved in bullying: the agressor, the victim and the outsiders. Most people are in the outsider category. Though seemingly uninvolved, these are the people that actually have the power to make the difference. By speaking out against such injustice, the bully becomes taken aback and there is more of a chance of them backing off.
So bids the question, who is going to take the chance to speak out? There is a lot of risk in doing so. For instance, the agressor could chose to rally against the outsider, therefore having them become the new victim. Is it worth altering the course of ones own life (sometimes for the worst), if it has nothing to do with them? I would argue that yes, it is worth it and to take the opportunity if it presents itself. Though it may be scary, ultimately the people with genuine character and confidence will be the ones who have anything to do with progress.

We must also stop and ask ourselves, to what extent is society actually accepting lesbians. Is it that they support the actual loving union between two women? Or, is it that the actual homosexual act that they find exciting? There is a huge difference between getting turned on by two women going at it and being a guest at their wedding (or “civil union”). Interestingly enough, some men that I know that like girl-on-girl porn, tend to use the words “dyke” and “butch” when referring to lesbians. What is it about the relationship and the commitment that makes people so uncomfortable?