What an interesting topic and point of view. Through the years I have read a lot and had a lot of assignments related to Chomsky, but to hear him actually talk and voice his opinion about something related to education was a change from the formal, research based side of him that I looked at before. Overall, I agree with him, which I think is a little sad considering that I am about to graduate with a degree in education. From the beginning of my education classes, I knew I was not the typical education major, and the people around me were all gung ho teacher, couldn’t wait to use stickers and teach about pilgrims and Indians. And I’m not saying that I think those people are going to be bad teachers, but I just have a different perspective. The statement Sam highlighted, about thinking back to a teacher who actually had an impact, I think of my high school sociology teacher. I loved everything about the class, the change of pace, the way he talked to us instead of at us, his willingness to open things up for discussion or play devils advocate if it added to the class. I even debated majoring in sociology once I got to college, but it didn’t seem like a sure enough route, I probably would have enjoyed classes a lot more if that was the decision I chose, but regardless, I took the education route, and though Chomsky says that in college more questioning and creative thought may occur, I do not believe that is true for education majors. After going through the classes, the people who were teaching us were similar to the teachers described by Chomsky, many seemed on a power trip. How they thought things should be taught is how they expected us to teach. Not all of the teachers were like that, some were supportive of creative thought, but many were not, they wanted us to do the projects and assignments according to how they wanted it and how people from previous years were doing it. And when Chomsky said that most of us go along with it because it’s what needs to get done to move to the next step, and I couldn’t have explained it better. Once I got involved with all of these classes, and wasn’t sure about it, I debated switching but decided to stick it out because I did still think that it is what I wanted to do, and switching would have required me to get behind, which didn’t seem worth it. But then I got to student teaching and it was a great experience, because I realized that all of the classes that I had previously, to prepare me, didn’t mean anything. I now had a classroom and could pick and choose the resources and ways I wanted to teach. So ultimately it does lie in the hands of the educator and hopefully more teachers will make the choice to teach like the minority instead of the majority.

I agree that yesterday’s class was a crazy one. I think because it was one of the most challenging classes for your mind. If you really followed Sam’s lecture the entire time, all of the different points, his train of thought, and most importantly be willing to look at such a major situation, the War and the hate involved, from a different point of view. I really tried to hear what Sam was saying yesterday and I got it, I understand how the image that the Arab people have of us could enrage them, cause them to hate and now it makes complete sense why there is War and hate in the world. It seems so deep, and I almost feel weird talking about it because I don’t want it to just seem like I’m following whatever Sam says, but I get his point. I compare it to that classic story of high school drama. One girl hears that her best friend likes her boyfriend, and then all of a sudden she tells her other friends to hate the girls, the story turns out to only be part true, but by this time it has turned into an entire battle, two sides emerge and the harsh feelings just continue to escalate. That’s probably a stupid analogy, but it reminds me of that, just now the people involved are not stupid teenagers, but stupid adults, in powerful, influential positions so the stakes are even higher. I have always been a believer of the “put yourself in someone else’s shoes” theory, so I didn’t object to being asked to view the class in the eyes of an Arab college student, but I think that was the key element of the class. And that is exactly why so many people that responded on this blog so far, that claimed Sam was outright wrong coming down on Christians like that, completely missed the real message he was giving during lecture. Only hearing every fourth word of a sentence is not going to get you to understand what is being said. So if they were not willing to really listen to ALL of what he was saying, then they should not respond to this lecture at all. But in a way I can also understand why some people in this class choose to stay close-minded, or only open the door halfway, because if you really start getting it, then it is scary. It is scary to challenge everything that you believe in, or are supposed to believe in, it can be scary to question everything that you thought you knew. Especially yesterday, because getting such a real image of what this War we are currently in entails, is scary. People are angry, upset, and feel threatened on both sides and how does something like that get resolved? More importantly how does something that severe get resolved without more people getting hurt? Who knows what will happen next? No one…and to me, that is the scariest things of all.

It’s interesting to be asked to respond to a question like this, especially by the professor in question. I wish that some of the other teachers that I have, especially the ones who are completely off base, would take the time to ask what we think of what they are teaching, or how they are teaching it. Nevertheless I do have to agree that overall I was much more interested in the beginning half of the semester as I am now. Not in discussion group, because I feel like they are always engaging, but the large lecture has not been doing it for me. The stages were a little hard to comprehend, I have been able to follow him pretty well throughout the semester, but he lost me at some points with the stages. And I think that it’s not his fault as much as it’s the people, like the one who asked this posted question, who are bringing down the class. I find myself being more annoyed and distracted by the people in large lecture with every class that goes by. People will not stop talking, they acted like they were in middle school when asked to respond to the texting polls, and then there are the people that show up and bitch about the class and how they want the sign up sheet to get to them and then they leave. Why even bother taking the class? To me, the people who can say they are not getting anything out of the class, are the people who decided that they do not want to get anything out of the class. He said from the beginning that he is not looking to make our opinions coincide with his own, rather to make us think, and as he has moved throughout the topics I have been thinking more about race relations then ever before. Sometimes I feel good about it, sometimes I feel bad, and sometimes I do not know how to feel, but at least I am thinking. I do not necessarily agree with his views or methods all the time, but I think his points are worth listening too. I feel for the guy when he has enough respect for all of us to talk with us rather than just “lecture and leave it” like many other teachers, yet people do not have enough respect for him to just shut up and listen. Maybe then they would have heard him say that he is not talking to change opinions, he’s talking to make you think. If I were him I would be getting frustrated too, and I am sure that frustration is having an affect on the way he delivers the information, which is unfortunate for some of us who do get what he is saying. This whole topic makes me wonder why the class is the size it is, because I feel like he could be so much more of an impact if he wasn’t battling with people who are just there, wasting their time, not really listening to what he is saying.

I wanted to reply to this blog because I had read it before our last recitation, yet did not respond, but now feel like it was worth a second glance because it makes me feel more optimistic about actually getting somewhere with this whole race relations topic. The inevitable question, that I had actually been waiting for throughout the semester, was finally posed, “do you think that there will ever be no racism?” Since the beginning of the class it seemed as if that was the obvious question, because isn’t it the ultimate goal of taking such a class or focusing on such issues, to hopefully one day be rid of the negative effects of racism. Obviously a change like that is not going to happen in one semester and certainly not by the power of a couple hundred people, but I have to believe we are getting somewhere, because if not this is a lot of wasted time in energy. Regardless, I commented during our conversation about how I think that some day it will happen but it certainly won’t be anytime soon, because we need to continue to cycle out the old ideas and bring in the new ideas of what it means to strive for true equality. It is all about the children, because as corny as it sounds, they are the leaders of tomorrow, and then they have more children, who intern have more children, and the sooner we start positively influence younger people, the closer we get to brining about real understanding. So I thought this article showed that flickering light at the end of the tunnel, and no as a white person I am not afraid that “my kind” is going to be forgotten or lose its standing. I think it’s a good think to mix it up and obviously people have been, because the rates for a multicultural society are increasing. I just hope that the adults of today can adapt to such changes, I know from the educator stand point it is becoming increasingly important for teachers to realize that they are going to have a much more diverse group of students coming into their classrooms. “Majority rules” an expression I have heard time and time again since I was younger, and I find it really interesting that in the near future, what we thought of as minorities will transform into the majority, and hopefully this shift will allow those people who are content with being “followers” and go along with the feelings and ideas of the “majority” will be able to realize that it is not always going to be about white people, or black people, but just about people, who they are, where they come from, and then we will see where we will go next.

First off I thought it was interesting that a topic like this has been discussed so heavily in a race relations class. I am glad it did though, it was a refreshing change from focusing on the differences between black and white. Instead this topic opposes men and women, but actually unites the races because white, black, or brown women can all relate to menstruation. From the way that Sam talked about it, you can tell that this is something that he is very passionate about, which I think is very flattering to his wife. It sounds like Laurie really struggles and to know that her husband is supportive enough to preach to a 700 person class, with many of whom think he was not being appropriate, is something worth noting. Sometimes I am bothered by the people who react during the large group section, especially in this instance because many people had opinions about his brief comment about bleeding before truly hearing what he was saying, and therefore I think it got blown into a bigger deal then he intended. I personally don’t feel I can relate as much to Laurie’s perspective, because I fortunately don’t get a lot of the pain that can be associated with that time of the month. I do however know that my mood can change drastically; being more emotional is what really bothers me. I don’t like feeling like a ticking time bomb, but hey that is the way it is I guess. I think the idea guys don’t need to know about it, or be understanding, because they don’t have to deal with it, is not valid. I mean if a guy gets kicked in the balls or has any other instances that cause pain down there, the whole world has to know about it, but I get a tampon out in front of a dude and he thinks I should be more discrete about “that thing.” I really don’t see the big deal about it all, I mean if I’m dealing with it and I want to say something about it, then the people around me will listen or they won’t. There are instances where some things are appropriate and some things aren’t, but I think it is like that for many different topics. I wouldn’t have whipped out a tampon in front of the 6th graders I student taught last semester, but if I need to around a group of my guy friends then I will and they should be mature enough to deal with it. It’s not like I’m asking them to come put it in for me or anything, I’m just asking them to respect the fact that I’m going through something that they might not truly understand, but it’s not always pleasant, so bear with me, I’ll be back to normal in a couple days. :)

I thought that the proposition of changing the history books was very interesting. I am an elementary education major and have had a particular interest in children’s literature. This question made me think of all of the classic fairytales or children’s stories that ultimate teach some life lesson. The common morals of the stories being, “don’t judge a book by its cover,” “don’t trust strangers,” “true beauty lies within” there are many more. Children are easily influenced by what surrounds them and we’ve talked about how you’re raised playing a large part in how you perceive the world and the people around you, especially in terms of race relations. When it comes to rewriting the history books, I do not think that would ever fly in the school systems, because it is just too far out of the already established comfort zone. I prefer the older grades, but I have had experience in younger classroom and worked with teachers who teach the primary grades. They are big on the happy, comforting classroom atmosphere and can get very thrown off when having to deal with an issue that may be controversial. I think a lot of this comes from viewing the youth as innocent and people are afraid that if we start teaching the negative parts of history in a true, real way, that we will somehow ruin that innocence, make them grow up too fast, or start to think to negatively. And for many educators, they are protective of their children. So instead of depicting what truly happened between the Native Americans and the Europeans, or the whites of the north and the blacks of the south, we put a child proof seal on the story. Make sure that it is “G” rated and assume that they can learn the real facts later, because “they are too young now.” But in my opinion there will always be an excuse. It’s obvious that having serious conversations with children requires different standards than having similar conversations with adults, but I think that there were some drastic measures taken to remove the real truth from the history books, in order to not make white people look as bad. Teachers need to be willing to taking that risk and figure out a way to present the facts in a way that is appropriate for their students. I mentioned children’s books earlier because I think that they could be a great teaching tactic. I am sure that many books have attempted to do this, but none that can really stick out in my mind, and ones that have limited use in the classroom. Maybe I haven’t been in the classroom enough, or maybe I would see more materials if I were to be out of this county, but I from classes and discussions, many more people would rather focus on the good than the bad, especially when it comes to dealing with children, so we don’t talk about those controversial race issues, and that is exactly why there is a class like Soc 119, because obviously those children grow up and now have questions, because when they were younger they didn’t get the full story.

I saw this posted before my discussion group this week, but didn’t realize how much of a conversation it could really evoke, but after talking about it in recitation, I have some more thoughts and questions about the topic. The UCSD theme party was a good starting point for the conversation. One of the comments that I found most useful to making sense of the discussion was that the word “ghetto” has evolved into a word that can have more than one meaning. The dictionary definition given was, “ a part of city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.” In then mentioned that historically it was linked to Jewish people. Urbandictionary.com however had different meanings, more related to a more recently established view involving style, or characteristics, rather than traits. I think that realizing the ambiguities of the word make a big difference in how the party could be received.
I had not put much thought into theme parties prior to this discussion, especially in terms of race. I personally have enjoyed theme things just because it gives you a chance to mix things up a bit and bring a different element into the normal party scene. I always just compared it to Halloween costumes, and realistically, there have been some pretty crazy, controversial Halloween costumes, which I am sure could be another topic of discussion, which in some instances could be possibly linked to race as well. Nevertheless, I think that the question of theme parties being racist, is still more about the beliefs and motives of the individual people rather than the whole group. A well-known black person supported the party, which I think sent out a vibe that it was a more fun, lighthearted event. I realize that one black person saying that it was okay does not speak for the whole black community, or necessarily justifies the party, but I think it makes a difference to the people participating in the party. To me it is more of a question of motives, behind why the party was created and how you decide to dress. Is it all in fun? I liked how the white trash parties got discussed, or any other party poking fun at groups of my color. If theme parties are truly all in fun, then it should not matter, it does not lessen the amount of respect that I have for anyone, because the parties are all based on stereotypes, which I know are often ridiculous exaggerations, so instead of getting worked up with it, take it for what it is. I think that the best attendant at that party, would have been a black person, that painted or powdered their skin white and tried to impersonate Eminem or someone like him, still keeping with the "ghetto" theme, but proving that it is not a "black" thing.

I was shocked by the statistics given at the end of the video. More than 36,000 families, that is a lot of people being negatively affected by the constraints the Government has placed upon them. I have never thought about immigrants in this scenario, but as the story was told, it makes sense, and is an even more alarming reason for why all couples, who are willing to commit to an act such as marriage or a civil union or whatever you want to call it, should have the legal rights that all heterosexual couples receive. I was intrigued by this clip because it was a real, logistical problem directly associated with the LGBT issues. I am in support of Gay marriage. I think that people should have the right to do whatever they want to do, and if the reasoning behind not allowing the act is based on religion, then it should not be an issue of the Governments to begin with, but that is topic that could be debated on its own. Instead, the family featured in this story was actually being threatened with the loss of a wife and a mother, all because the couple had no legal rights associated with their relationship. I wish that this specific implication would have been discussed in class, because I think it is one of the startling realities that need to be brought into attention. It is these sorts of arguments that can challenge those close minded people to rethink their beliefs and question the reasoning they have for their anti gay feelings. I would be interested to hear what someone with those thoughts has to say about this situation. Do they have a solution for this problem? One that is more viable then permitting marriage or granting the appropriate rights to the people involved. Or do they just think that not only should you not be gay if you are an average American, but you should definitely not be gay if you are an immigrant. I am also glad that they included that over half of them are raising children, which helps showcase the fact that gay couples are completely capable of caring for and raising children.
I was interested in hearing when this video was posted. How recent of a story? Regardless I see that the issue is a relevant one, I was just curious as to what progress has been made, at least for this family. I also thought it was interesting that story was told in association with the Immigration Equality Action Fund, not a group associated with LBGT. This issue is more than just a LGBT issue, or an immigration issue, but a combination of the two, indicating just how important it is and how much more awareness should be drawn to such scenarios.

I have never thought about the topic of bisexuality as much as I have in the last few years. I think that like many things, growing up really opens up your mind up and makes you feel as though you are more anxious to question things. I thought this question was interesting because in actuality, I do not think that it focuses on the bisexual person, which is not usually the case when talking about LGBT issues, but the focus is instead on the “other people” those who are voicing their opinions, passing judgment or even just innocently questioning someone whose life is different from their own.
So to answer the question, I do not believe that people who are bisexual are confused. Yes, maybe they do not know if they want to be with just a man or just a woman for the rest of their life. But that does not mean their confused about the fact that they are attracted to both men and woman. The people, who think that bisexuals are confused, are themselves confused. Maybe not about their sexual preference, but about confused about the whole idea that you might not be, with full certainty, attracted to someone of the opposite sex, and only the opposite sex. They do not understand the concept for having those feelings, whether it is because they themselves do not have those feelings, or because they do not allow themselves to have those feelings is debatable, but the main point being that they are confused about the topic, but instead of admitting that, you turn it on the person who is bisexual, and that translates into the thought that they must be puzzled about their sexuality.
And I am not saying that everybody who does not understand is someone who is critical, because I do not think that is the case either. I think that a lot of times people are just trying to make sense of something that is abstract to them, so they come up with some kind of reasoning for it, because they feel that they need to make up a reason in order to better understand. In this case their reason is it is because the bisexual person is confused. I could see this being a common reaction for a parent or grandparent. Someone who may be struggling to accept that their grandchild or child is bisexual, and even gay or lesbian. They often try and justify the bisexuality or homosexuality as a phase, or something that they just need to figure out. Maybe it is their way of keeping the hope that it could change, that they could realize that they want to be “normal.” And again I’m not judging this reaction, everyone could have their reasons for feeling this way, they want to see a wedding, or grandchildren, or do not want their child to deal with the adversity that comes with being LGBT. Whatever the situation, I think that it boils down to being a personal defense mechanism, the reasoning behind why your defensive is your own issue, but if I were to be bisexual I would try to not take offense to the statements, rather just hope that if they are stating such things, they are also thinking about it, and that is one step closer to acceptance.

I always have to be a little critical of politicians, any politician regardless of affiliation, when they have a blunder such as this. Not necessarily based on what they even say or the topic at hand, but because part of the job description for a politician is to be able to communicate to the people in a way that makes you liked, even if it's bullshit. That is probably a big part of the reason that politics is looked at as being so corrupt, because the people want to hear what the people want to hear, and therefore they expect their politicians to say that, whether the politician truly believes that or not. I am certainly not defending him, because I do not think that his comparison was legitimate and certainly was not one that a professional, who represents the people, should have been making. I am however just thinking about how often we jump on politicians who speak what they really think, it is like freedom of speech applies to everyone except for politicians, because they are allowed to speak whatever they want, but it has to be within the agreement of the majority, or they may be subjected to national ridicule.
As posted above, there have been a lot of studies and arguments against welfare. In my economics class we actually talked about this topic and looked at the data. For some people, they actually received more money on welfare than if they were to work a minimum wage job. Getting the job meant actually working, and time away from the home which may then require an alternate placement for younger children, which will likely cost money. So when having to weigh the good with the bad, welfare was the better choice. Certainly this is not in all cases and I am not very knowledgeable on the topic so it might not hold a lot of merit, but I think it does support that yes, maybe there is a problem with the welfare system, but it is a problem with the system, not necessarily the people receiving welfare.
And as Sam said, the most unfortunate thing about the whole topic is that children are the ones who are losing out. Though I don't know how well the politicians suggestions related to real actions, I can see where he is coming from with thinking that parents should be actively involved in their child's education if they are receiving welfare. At this point I do not know how something like that could really be put into action, because I think that situations are much more complicated, but I do believe that there are a lot of parents on welfare who have priorities that unfortunately come before their children. Another child equals a higher check and what that money goes to is at the discretion of the parent, not the child. If anything I think that we should be fighting more for the rights of the children rather than fighting over if the politician was correct or not in speaking his mind.
Ultimately there are a lot of good people out there who depend on welfare and are using it to make the best they can for themselves and their family, and for all of those good people out there, Bauer should be sorry.