I really don't see this as racism at all. I also don't see the statement of saying "i feel that I can help the world better than them" as you thinking you're a better person. There is a broad line. The whole deal about this is that you just feel that you have better resources than the people in the third world countries that would allow you to make a more progressive effect towards the world. This is an understandable thought. The citizens of the third world countries are living in poverty, and don't have as much that they can contribute that can make a big difference. Americans do. This is sort of no different than the people in American society themselves. The separation of upper, middle, and low class. There are those people in the lower and middle who feel they are better off or just happier than the upper class. The sad fact of the matter is the statistic that was said in class the other day that the United States only contributes .34 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to help developing countries. That was the true shocker that relates to this. I can make a good guess that if we surveyed the entire country and asked them if they feel they can help the world better than these third world countries can that at least 80 percent would say yes. But would most of them actually do it or would less than 50 percent? But when you think about it, the developing countries are already affecting the globe on a much larger scale than the prospering ones. If it weren't for their poverty, we would not feel the strong need to help out the other countries so much. We would most likely be focused on trade, with imports and exports as our method of growing and helping our own selves. The developing countries bring awareness to an issue. They open our eyes. They humble us. There is no need to twist your statement into saying it is a racist one. I do not really know you. You could be, but having the mindset that you can help the world better because you have more resources is not racist. And when you say racist, another question I have is towards who. This is more of a one society vs. another type of situation, not race against race. Even man vs man can be used instead. Resources are the key, not personality. The people in some of these developing countries probably have the best personalities there has ever been. They would probably love to give more if they had it. On the other hand, a person who does have enough to give can do it but be stingy with it. There is a big difference between wanting to help someone and actually thinking more highly of you.

I find this article and topic very interesting because it shows how we have progressed over our American history. Things like this normally do not come to mind for the average person. We've been so accustomed to the whites as majority and everyone else as minority that it's understandable that many people are shocked by this. I know I am as a minority myself. It's not even that I feel some kind of triumph deep down over this. I am just happy to see the progression towards equality in that department. Just reading the article has caused many questions to pop up in my mind. I just thought about how things would really change if everyone knew that whites are not the majority anymore and colored are not the minority. Even to take it to another level, I am thinking about how it would be if the minority then becomes the majority. I feel like this will truly effect those people who have a racist mind at heart. Some of the white racists or supremacists will definitely be angry at this. It makes me think about the video we saw in class with the two little girls who were white supremacists. How will something like this change their perspective on their view of racism? How will it change their mother's view of racism? It may not even change. She can just make up more things to counterattack the progress there has been. On the other hand, the racist colored people could become more radical. By becoming equal or even exceeding to majority can cause them to have too high of a head in regards to how they view whites. Because of that want to retaliate, there will definitely be negative effects. Deep down, I knew something like this would eventually happen. With the rate of immigration accompanied with decades over decades, America is definitely expected to have no majority eventually. When I was younger, I can remember not fully understanding things in social studies class because of the fact that the terms majority and minority were used. That, in combination with the fact that they always called America the melting pot, I was wondering how it is that we so called have so much diversity, yet minority is seen as a controversial topic. But now that I have matured and understand much more about this, I sorta knew that this would happen eventually. I am glad about it and am still just a little shocked. I find it a good thing to inform people about though. Especially for our younger generations. It will be better for them to grow up thinking that there is equality now and that inequality was just a part of the past.

Seeing that I'm from down South, I barely see any Asians. When I think about the amount of Asians in my high school, only one comes to mind. I never thought anything of it. The South isn't known as the place where everyone wants to migrate. For Asian Americans, this mainly applies to their parents and ancestors. I figured that the majority of them moved somewhere up North. The only time I did see many Asians, and this isn't to be stereotypical, is when I went to math team competitions. I was on the math team, and we would travel to various high schools and colleges to compete. The majority race there was Asians. That in itself just reinforced the want to make stereotypical jokes about the whole "all Asians are smart" thoughts for people. In actuality, I wonder about what Asians think about the racism in the U.S. Asian Americans have to grow up learning about the American history of major racial isssues that have nothing to do with them. We even have holidays that are for other minority cultures except for Asians. There's Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, but nothing that everyone knows about off the top of the head. How do you Asians feel about that or do you even really care? Asians are always seen as the smart ones, so I guess America thinks that's enough to recognize. We definitely take advantage of the "americanized Asian food" all the time and commend Asians for it. But I have no true thoughts about Asians. I just see them as people trying to live their lives like everyone else and they don't have to really deal with racial issues to the extent of other races. One interesting thing to me is the culture of Asians. My roommate is actually an Asian American. She is Chinese but has never been to China. She amazes me with how much she is into her culture. I feel like she knows more about it than people living in Asia. She always cooks real Asian food and talks Chinese fluently. I’ll be honest and say that when I first found out I have an Asian roommate, I didn’t know what to expect only because of not knowing about the difference in culture. Now I appreciate it and hope that more people can realize how interesting it is. I do feel that some Asian Americans probably think that Asians are overlooked in society. Most people probably assume that they’re from Asia when they really aren’t. This is common among Spanish Americans also though. There is a lot more I would like to hear from Asians about how they view American history and their dealings with Asians. Maybe there can be some feedback from that in another blog post.

It's truly an awesome thing to see a woman coaching a football team. She is a good example of how there can be a sport 100 percent dominated by one gender and still has the ability to allow the opposite gender play a role. For all of those who may be bashing on a "woman in a man's sport," my question is, why does it matter? When most people think of ballet, they'll picture a female in a leotard and slippers, but not males at all. Despite this, the males who take on the "women's sport" (though it's not) do it with pride. Natalie Randolph becoming a coach just sets a bar for other females who would love to be involved or play football but are too afraid to do so because of societies take on the sport. Before she even stated that she played football after college, I had no thoughts about whether or not she should coach the team if she hadn't played before. I just figured she is a football fanatic who probably knows every play and pays close attention when she watches the games. She could have even been in sports medicine and had a chance to watch games from the sidelines. As long as a person knows what they're talking about and has good knowledge of a topic, it shouldn't matter if they've truly had experience in the field they're in. That's how college students are when they graduate. They have a wealth of knowledge in a certain area even though they haven't experienced certain aspects of it hands on. When Miss Randolph finally said she played after college, it just put the icing on the cake. She is experienced and is doing what she loves. That's one of the best things in life to spend your career doing something you love and have people support you as well. The reaction to her coaching the team shows a well connected family in her community. For them to name a day after her just shows how much they find it important and want it to be known that someone has made a difference in a traditional unchanging sport. The people who matter most, the players of the team, have the biggest influence of all. I commend them for accepting her as a female coach and that even the skeptical players took the time to speak with her about their concerns. The softness that she conveys in this interview most likely makes a 180 during practice. Because she is female, she will have to assert herself a little more when it comes to dealing with the boys. But it seems to me that they have respect for her and will cooperate for the most part. We have to start somewhere with bridging the gap between gender roles and this is definitely a positive one.

Never have I imagined that someone would do something such as this. Starting an all white basketball team with restrictions on it against any other race is very controversial. This man may not intentionally be trying to come off as racist, but he definitely is. I can see why he's trying to make a big deal about this and the point he's trying to make, but does it really matter. So blacks dominate the basketball industry and not whites. Ok. There are plenty of sports dominated primarily by a certain race. Hockey is a good example of this. That is one sport dominated by whites instead of black. My question is, how would this man feel if a black person (or any other race for that matter) decided to create a league in something just for their race only. If the script was flipped and the president of the NAACP thought it would be a good idea to create a hockey league for "colored only," the controversy would be just as massive. Maybe even more than massive seeing the belief that colored people receive worse treatment when it comes to racial issues. The white man can't even articulate his point in a manner that makes his actions redeemable. There may be a way he can give his side of the story and not come off as racist, but instead as a man trying to make a difference for some white students in that industry. It can be related to minority scholarships or other things like that. They target a certain group to make a difference in their lives without being seen as racist. At least if the man from the NAACP did the same act, he would probably articulate better and come off more presentable than the white man did. The key is how you present things when it comes to a controversy like this when you may unintentionally come off as a racist. I would like to see more on the community’s response to this man's actions. One statement that stuck out to me is when he said, "Fans have spoken to the AABA asking to restore on court sanity to the game of basketball." What is the community actually saying? Is this really why he feels it must be done? It seems like he listened to the opinions of others and let them influence (or expand) his own subconscious thoughts. Are they trying to say the on court sanity is that there are too many blacks getting recognized instead of whites? A good player is a good player no matter the race. It just so happens that many of the good players happen to be black or brown. They can’t help their genetics. I just hope the man learns something from this as well as the community and fans who want to change the “sanity” that has overcome basketball.

The whole deal with this "it’s not my place" is all about ethics. Why do people choose to do certain things or not to? So many factors go into this that's it is too much to analyze in just four-hundred and fifty words. Whoever thought of the idea to make the show "What Would You Do?" has done a very good thing. The show challenges people in ways they do not realize. The various scenario's cause you to wonder how you would act in the situation. One thing I do think the show does is gear it to where, in each case, someone should do something that they didn't. With ethics, is it always a wrong thing to go against the norm? Just because most people will do one thing, does that mean someone has to do it that exact way? No. In this case with the Muslim woman, it applies for the most part to doing the right thing and speaking about it. But think about this. Doesn't a person's personality play a big factor in the ethical decisions they make? If someone is shy, you would expect that they most likely would not say anything. Their shyness is behind their "it's not my place" attitude. Yes, the majority of those people did not say anything in the moment, but how do we know whether or not they took further action. Many of them could have spoken out about it to the public. Others could have given an anonymous tip to the police. Though the shows cast told them afterward that it is a set up, they still could have done these things. We as humans have to get out of the "judging a book by its cover" deal. Some of them could have even considered what bad consequences could happen if they said something to the owner. So many factors play into this. If you saw from afar that someone pulled out a gun on a person for no reason, would you really stand up for them and try to stop the person, or would you contemplate helping them out because of the risks involved. Yes, this is pushing it a bit because a gun is a big deal that is a life or death situation, but you get my point. Everyone who thinks that the people who say “it’s not my fault” need to evaluate all the reasons someone would not say something rather than assuming fear inside someone because they didn’t. What is a legit reason why they should care? How will speaking up for that person affect their lives? That is where human compassion and care comes into play. That is missing for many. If it isn’t a loved one who’s being treated wrongly, most just wouldn’t say a word. We have to step out of that boundary of only helping people we know and share our compassion and will to do good for our loved ones with others.

Being that I am a religious person, I found this article very interesting. The main thing religious people need to do with an article like this is to put religion aside. The approach to the Bible must be in a way to where we see it as a fictional book. This article supports every nonbeliever who can say that the Bible is man-made and could have had error when writing the stories. But in this article, the take is different. It is saying that the Bible was written the exact way it is now, but just with a different interpretation. When thinking about it, no one takes much time to think about the sexual aspects of the Bible. Most of the time it is the overall broad things in Bible stories that are sexually thought of. For example, people know stories about how David had many wives and was deceitful by committing adultery, but it has not been thought about in a way to where we see him as a man whore who slept with every woman he saw. I actually found it quite funny the way they interpreted the Adam and Eve story. If I wanted to interpret what the man believes against the typical view, I could say that God used Adam's penis as a biological method. The penis is used for reproduction, so wouldn't it make more since to have made Eve from that part of the body rather than a rib. People always say that the rib makes since to use because it is the protection for all the internal organs. It guards the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, and more. The man is supposed to protect the woman, so the rib makes since in that way. Another interpretation is that the woman is supposed to be the support system for a man. In that way, making her out of a rib could make sense. Another thing that I hadn’t thought about is the word “testify.” We do use it in court but I hadn’t thought about its similarity to testes. Why is it that a word that relates to speaking in court is also used to describe male genitals? This is one of those everyday little things that no one takes the time to think about. It is interesting how they took different Bible stories and turned them into sexual views. My interpretation of the Bible is still the same as before. I believe people purposely try to turn the Bible’s words into things that challenge what religious Christians think. I will admit that this is a clever way to do it. How can we possible know what the article writer is stating is fact? The version of the Bible everyone knows has been translated and there is no way we can know what the ancient language actually means. We just have to trust that the people who translated the Bible are correct. I wish I could have the original document, but there’s no way I’d be able to interpret it myself unless someone else translated it into whatever they think it means. It goes that way for many societies. We have things translated so we can understand it in our language, but there’s no way of knowing whether the person who translated it is correct unless you speak with the original writers themselves.

I want to start off saying that I do agree with you on the terms that many of the topics Sam has been speaking of is just common sense, but only once you've thought about it. The thing is, I wouldn't say it is immature of a lot of people. I would say that they are either ignorant, meaning lacking knowledge, or just never took the time to think about these topics. The reason it stirred things inside them is because they never really thought about it before. The whole purpose of the class is to discuss things that the average person would let go unnoticed. Sitting in class, I myself was a little bored because I already had the knowledge instilled in me, but I do understand why Sam feels these are important topics for people to ponder if they hadn't already. Out of all the things we've discussed so far, have you actually taken the time and thought about all of them before Sam mentioned anything? Or is it that now that he's said something, you thought about it and feel that it's common sense? Many people are too busy to think about it, or they honestly don't care. Yes, many adults do sit around and talk about the issues of society, but they probably don't take to time to really see how these issues came about. Most of it is just feelings and what they think should be changed. People do get stuck where they start and it isn't that way for everyone. The whole point is that, statistically wise, most people do end where they start. That is the purpose of discussing these factors that cause it. What would be the significance of discussing an iguana as a pet to a room full of hundreds of people when the most common household pets are cats, dogs, fish, or even birds? People do place themselves in situations where they get stuck and they just have no clue how to get out of it. They key is to look for help when you do get faced with obstacles. People make the mistake and not ask for help when it's needed. As for drawing the line between luck and hard work, the only way to do that is to evaluate a person's personality. If they worked hard and got to the top, then they deserve to be where they are. Your father sounds lucky while your mother sounds like she worked hard. You personally have a good example of both cases, and I'd expect that you'd understand where the line is drawn. Everyone has some amount of selfishness in them, and there's nothing wrong with that. For you to say that you don’t care about equal opportunity and have worked hard for yourself just proves that you really don't have a large care about all the "non-deserving" people. I'm not saying that you're 100% wrong, and I'm not saying that you're 100% right. He did give some people excuses, but isn't he overall trying to get us to think about these topics so we can (either) break the mold or do nothing. I am not shocked by all the "opened eyes" comments because most people don't think about these things on a regular basis.

As an initial response to the title of the article, I feel as though in general, people do vote for their interests. Why would someone vote for something they don't believe in? When dealing with politics, people fail to realize that they need to pay more attention to the method in which the politicians are trying to sway them to their side. If you call yourself a Republican, Democrat, or whatever political group, you should already know the basis of what the group believes in and how strongly you fall on the scale of believing in it. Someone can be completely against abortion, but make an exception when it comes to cases of rape and abuse. One thing about human nature is that people can be indecisive even when they feel strongly about something just because society spins it into a contradictory thing. If you care about politics, do your research. Don't formulate your opinion based on someone else's. That's where the politicians will win. They can contradict your belief, but state it in a way that sounds as if it relates to yours. Of course, with every political group, you won’t believe every stance there is on a major topic, but it serves you better to realize that and formulate a strong opinion whether it's with your group or not. I'm not saying that politics is the best thing, but don't politicians have a right to approach various topics as if the audience does not know anything about it. To give concrete facts is the best way to start off because you speak the truth, and can also help someone if they have no knowledge on the topic. Many people have an emotional bond to an issue and on the other side, don’t fully understand the facts of why the issue is taken heavily in the public. In a way, it seems like Thomas Frank is saying there is a major problem with people who have an emotional attachment to a politician or political group. There is nothing wrong with having that emotional attachment; it's just that people rely too heavily on their feelings and leave the thinking up to the politicians. Yes, the politician should be doing some massive contemplation on the issues, but that goes double for the citizens who choose be involved. There are questions that should arise when supporting a person, like "how much do they really care about me as an individual?" or "in what ways are there actions going to make a difference in my life as well as others?" Politicians do have a tendency to take their voters for granted. They are enjoying a game of monopoly while we the people are being bought and sold for their satisfaction in winning. How do you prevent yourself from voting for an issue you don’t believe in? Do your homework and know the facts.

I can understand both views of this blog. On one side, the Muslim women feel that they should be able to cover up if they want to. The other side is that we are living in a day and age where this is unneeded and the women should be free and uncovered. Yes, nowadays, women do not have to cover up in front of men, but I feel that if they want to, then they should. All they are doing is the innocent act of carrying out the old traditions of the Muslim culture. Is there anything wrong with that? Preserving culture goes on throughout the world; it just happens to be that this time, the preserving is done in a way that is very noticeable. Every religion keeps up traditions. That's what separates religions other than the different set of beliefs. For example, there is Christianity, but the difference between the different sects is that they keep up with tradition in different ways. Muslims do this also. There is a difference between the traditions of the Shi'ites and the Sunni Muslims. I feel that if these women want to cover up to keep up with tradition then they should. The people they should be receiving the most support from are the other Muslims. They should appreciate that these women are trying to do this. Even aside from the religious aspect, these women are doing no harm at all. I could understand if they were trying to rob a bank or steal from a store. They are everyday people just like everyone else.
I don’t want to be incorrect by saying they are living in a free country, but if they are, they should be allowed to cover up if they want to. Sometimes it is hard to break habits that you’ve been doing for a long time. Even though what they’re doing isn’t a bad habit. Society is just making it one. In the video, I saw a man look at them as if they were crazy. The women already know that what they are doing isn’t normal. They already knew they would receive looks from strangers wondering why they are dressed the way they are. The way I see it, they are a good example of strong and powerful women. Regardless of the remarks, they have a high enough self-confidence to continue their dress code and not give any care at all. Their god should be proud that they are making a bold move like this. They are setting a better example than the other Muslims who are criticizing their actions. Society is the one thing that holds people back from doing things they care the most about. The lesson learned from this is to not be afraid to do something just because it’s not the typical way to go. Be yourself.