There is very much a culture, so to speak, of women. In other words, there is a distinct female culture. The play made me think of this culture and also allowed me to recognize the global community and identity of women. I thought of this when I was deciding who this play was targeted toward. It was not applicable or relatable to all women. Maybe just American women. But at the same time it was. There are so many different types of women. The American woman, the Muslim woman, the Geisha woman, etc. And even within these female groups, there are individuals with varying struggles and experiences, particularly with identity. But, see, that is the thing. The experiences are individualized but the idea of identity issues is static. Is this issue of identity, or many times body image crises a female thing? A facet of the female culture? I would hate to think that. There are many negative or stereotypical ideas that are of women. Shopping, gossiping, nagging, and of course, image obsessed. I do not want to sound like a radical feminist, at all! However, I think it is important to understand the true culture of women, especially on a global scale. Women represent strength and power. Unfortunately, we are plagued by images and roles we ought to be. We think there is an ideal image for women (which obviously varies from female group to female group) and we play into it. For what reason, I do not know.

The identities of women are so different across the global spectrum. In my opinion, we all feel similar though. We know there is a thread going through all of us. A thread that represents such things as motherhood and sisterhood. I wonder if this is because of our emotional nature we can feel this, and by emotional nature, I mean strength. But, to answer the question, there is no ONE woman. No matter our shape, size, or culture we just have special understanding. It is an unexplainable relatedness we feel despite are vast differences. Do men feel this way too, this balance of difference, but overwhelming likeness?

All of the comments in class about pressures from other females was weird. For all of the reasons I have listed above, I do not understand why we would do it to each other. Women have made so many gains, so many feats, and have literally kept society going. So, let's try to preserve our culture, and lighten the pressure and restrictions we place ourselves, and other women. Oh, and another thing it is sometimes a disservice to ourselves when we try soo hard to do the "man" thing and act like there is no difference between the genders/sexes, because there is and being a woman is a very special and unique title worth sustaining.

300,000 is a number I cannot wrap my mind around. It killed 300,000, wounded 300,000, and left over a million homeless. If September 11th did not put it in perspective, I read a comparison to the atomic bombing in Hiroshima recently. The death toll in Haiti was two times the number in Hiroshima. It just is impactful to say the least. I, or we, lost 300,000 of our own people. If there is little I can do or if there is nothing concrete I can get my little hands on, the least I can do is recognize and take the time to consider, understand what is going on. I lend my support and optimism for Haiti.

I guess what most or many people feel or are thinking is “Compassion? What about sympathy for the friends and family of your victims or your family?” Those are some strong words- “hearts recognition of pain in another.” Is his answer to this questioning that it is a human being thing, meaning they can feel this, too. We are supposed to see it as a human being thing. It is not easy for most people to understand that or agree with it enough to accept this truth. And by this truth, I mean these inmates confessions of genuine reciprocated sympathy among society’s “monsters”. Luckily, I have extensive experience and education of criminal justice, including corrections and prisoner/inmate relations. With this, I have developed an understanding of and belief in prisoner rehabilitation. But, I have trouble balancing my values and morals with this. It is hard to absorb such bold statements about feeling another’s pain when you cannot help but wonder where it was when they did what they did (killing someone). I mean, it kind of seems easy for them to say these things now. Like feelings forced from razor wire fencing and cinder block walling.

I think they have gone too far with this one. I understand the thought that this is symptomatic of a larger problem or process. This may be subjective evidence of a serious problem or spreading of a potential problem. Who would defend this game? How could you defend this game? Well they would probably say- “It is just a game” or “It is free speech” or “It is not hurting anyone.” Just a game? I do not see the contest or challenge, let alone the entertainment value. And don’t say sex as to why it is entertaining because this is just violence. Free speech? I think this would be abuse of the freedom of speech. We have a right to say how we feel, not to play out a twisted fantasy of abuse and disregard for women through a video game. Not hurting anyone? I think of rape victims or that “what if” potential rape victim. After looking at statistics, I have seen that rape is not a serious criminal problem in Japan. Maybe this is why it seems to more allowed, meaning because it being potentially harmful is less likely. I do not want to knock or say anything about the culture this is a part of because I do not know if enough to do that. Does it make us so much better that we would not have this on our shelves? Who is to say that this would not be here. To say it is like Grand Theft Auto or any of these violent games with bad reputations is inaccurate. What Rapelay is, is a step further. (maybe too much further). Does this represent a social belief that it is okay or is just starting the trend of it being acceptable?

Maybe it is just a moral issue. I know for me, it is. I am not going to go into a panic and outrage over this. I just think it is wrong. It is not about this enjoyable sex fantasy. It is a representation (fictional or not) of degradation of women. I do not like what it represents and I think playing it is harmful to yourself more than anything. What we channel into our heads or let our minds consider begins to develop in us. And what about when it starts to develop society and what the group feels or thinks? I know, I know my morals do not apply to everyone. I am just having a hard time figuring out why someone would want to play this or why someone would want to make this. I do not like the thought of what this could be in harmful terms or what it means for a society.

I do not think any one who is less qualified or not qualified at all will get into med school JUST because of their racial identity or color. Maybe they are more likely to be picked because they need to add numbers to the minority count, but that is as far as it goes. But, hey, maybe that does happened. I think the point that was missed was that often it is not that unqualified get positions over more qualified individuals. The idea of affirmative action is to put those who seem to have been less considered or are more under represented more of a chance. Like Sam said, putting them at the same starting line. As for nepotism, it is not fair to give a position to a friend or family member if they are not as qualified. I have no problem with affirmative action or nepotism as long the people are deserving and qualified. The point of affirmative action is to extend, broaden, or include minorities in the pool of qualified applicants.

A term that would or could be inherently racist on its face would never be put on the Census. The term negro is archaic to some. Just SOME though, there are many others that know themselves as to fit into this category. It does not imply or mean they think of themselves as anything bad. It is important to make that clear because to those you dislike the category or title it is because it a "bad" term. It is a reminder of times of segregation and inequality. I see the issue very much from the same viewpoint of Baratunde Thurston. It is very understandable from both points. It is a fact that older Blacks or African Americans use the word negro. If they, who lived in the times of Jim Crow laws, segregated facilities, etc., do not see the term as offensive then why should a generation who has not faced the same overt discrimination. I am not saying I like the word, but it is just a indication of a difference, a difference in racial identity. It is not setting them apart from other Blacks or African Americans. It is simply a tool to ease the survey process, for thousands and thousands of people filling out the form. Everyone must be considered, but like they said in the video, you try to be all inclusive and end up excluding and offending a lot of people.

Is it about what we identify ourselves as or what others identify us as? What it comes down to is that it is confusing. This whole race thing is confusing. I do not see a solution. Especially, with the minority population growing and the number of mixed people increasing in number I do not know what can be done, besides leaving a blank box. But then that opens a whole other set of issues. There are going to be those, like the woman on the video, trying to jump on this racial band wagon of sorts. They are going to be saying they are not white because they have a drop of Native American blood in them. Or those like myself, who have a Hispanic parent and a white parent. We look white, but cannot ignore the fact that we are Hispanic or Latino. Are we suppose to just give a broad answer or generalize our identities? The idea of racial identity is so personal and relative that the task of categorizing seems impossible. The one guy in the video said his parents were from Honduras but he would pick African American?? We learned in class that African American was a term for those who can directly trace their origin in America to slavery. So, do people use this word correctly or is it offensive that he considers himself African American? Maybe he was just thinking he identifies with African Americans because they way he grew up. I do not know, but I do not see this issue finding a solution any time soon.

Without a doubt this is an issue that is very important in terms of how the US shaped demographically. Americas face is changing. With an increase in growth of the number of minorities, I wonder how this will be reflected in terms of equality-economically and socially. This goes both ways. Minorities can face better equality given their high representation in the population and the majority, or whites can face inequality because they are no longer holding their “power”. I wonder, will minorities now make up a good chunk of the middle class? This changes everything. Who is in our work force, in our schools, in our voting booths changes everything about how this country runs. In my opinion, I think an increase in minority population makes for a more diverse nation. Diversity is a good thing, something to be embraced.

This just goes to show you what our society values or what people THINK is valuable. The video exposes a lot of issues surrounding blacks and their struggles with stereotypes and what others think. To bring back an old study that was conducted during segregation and to see that it is still relevant is pretty eye opening. Why this video is so powerful is because it is young children. It is often hard to get this message across, so to see it in youth is shocking for many. It gets peoples attention because we are more sensitive to youth, but also seeing it at such a young age is remarkable. In reality, it is a problem affecting adults, as well. Overall, the video is educational and really shows just how deeply internalized this horrible stereotypes of "bad" and "good" can be.

I think that most educated people would know the difference between Asians and Asian Americans. However, I think for many Asians are the least likely to be recognized as American, because of this idea that they are the one group that does not get recognized as “from here”. This is not my opinion, but I think the general point of view. I do not know if I am describing this well, but it is basically the idea that all Asians are seen as immigrants. As we touched on in class with the questions regarding who we would be least likely to vote for as a president and who we would least likely want as our boss or supervisor at work.

I wonder if people consider this really a political or economic obligation or a moral obligation? Just like the Native Americans, was their own government established or given because they needed it or because it was an apology? When I say moral obligation, I am referring to the idea that the US feels responsible (as they acknowledged in 1993) for the overthrowing their government. It is also striking how unsatisfied they feel. I am not establishing an opinion on whether or they should feel this way. But, I thought the apology was recognition of what happened, but it seems they want more recognition and this is to be in the form of a separate of government.

Another question that arises from this is one of constitutionality. Relating this to a race relations course, the question is whether or not this is racist. Granting separate land and government to a specific race is considered discriminatory to some and a violation of the US Constitution. It has also been argued that it violates national unity or E Pluribus Unum, which means “one out of many”. Although not our official national motto, it was at one point and we still put it our coins. It is still relevant and a motto our country lives by. I do not understand the difference between this and the Native Americans having their own government is. Well I do not know if I can call it their own government, or are they loyal to the US and their sovereign tribes. Is that why it is different? Native Americans are still citizens with the same laws, with minor exceptions, and the Hawaiians want a whole different set of laws? I would love to know. Personally, I do not think a group of peoples would ask for discrimination. Also, to me, it is just recognizing a group of people who ORIGINALLY had their own government. They were not part of us to begin with. Of course, they are American citizens and will continue to be if this is passed. It’s a giving back of sorts or restoring. It is not a discriminatory separation.

I think it something to acknowledge in a positive light. The Native Hawaiians want to protect their culture and people. They feel they are losing themselves to significant problems such as homelessness. If they know themselves better maybe they can run themselves better. Running themselves can protect them from their disintegration. The people seem to be begging for help and not getting it, so now they just want to be recognized as separate so they can do it themselves. I think government officials are just afraid of having two different powers. I respect tradition very much and I am optimistic for the Native Hawaiians.