Ok I got stuck on the pedicure thing. I understand that there's not much else to do because everything's been destroyed, but really, a pedicure? I'm SURE there are better ways that money could be used. It has to be hard to give up some of the luxuries you used to be able to indulge in, but couldn't that money be used for food and other necessary supplies? I guess I expect that when people are trying to recover from a natural disaster they're using every penny they have to survive, but maybe that's just the ideals of someone who's never gone through anything even close to this magnitude. I was just kind of surprised by this. Can anyone offer any insight or do you have a theory as far as why they're spending money on things like this?

I think people's reaction to the situation in Haiti is because they don't have a direct connection to it. Its hard to comprehend a loss of life on that scale so most people kind of do the minimum (get bracelets, give a little money, etc.), but then they move on. You really can't expect people to do more than that when they don't feel a pull to do more. A lot of it may have to do with the fact that we've been exposed to a lot of devastation in our generation--9/11, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, etc.--and we may have just become desensitized, like it's just another day to us. And it seems like stuff is happening so often now that if you do choose to go the extra mile and donate your time to one cause, how do you choose which one to do? What makes one disaster more deserving of your attention than another? So maybe it's just easier for people to do the minimum for everything that way you have no guilt and you do a little something for everyone.

The new healthcare system should be open to U.S. residents and citizens. Why should people who are here illegally benefit from the same things as legal people living in the U.S.? I understand that most of these people come to the U.S. to have a chance at a better life and that they are often escaping oppression, wars, famine, and other problems in their country, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do things, and sneaking into the country illegally is definitely the wrong way. If illegal immigrants can receive the same things as U.S. citizens then what would motivate anyone else to become residents or citizens?

A lot of people go through a lot of trouble and hardships to become legal citizens or become legal residents and they do it so that they can receive all of the benefits that this country has to offer, but if there are other people coming into the country through illegal means, what's the point? If people know that they can come in and get healthcare without having to do the paperwork and the other things, I guarantee we will see a huge increase in illegal immigration in the next few years.

I don't want people to get confused with what I'm saying. I don't have anything against illegal immigrants. They do a lot for our country's agricultural economy as far as increasing the amount of produce that is available to send to market. A lot of people complain that they are taking money away from Americans that could use the jobs, but do you really think that companies didn't initially try to give those jobs to Americans? We're a proud group of people and there are a lot of jobs that we won't do. It seems that working out in the sun all day picking fruit is one of those things that people aren't willing to do. That seems more like a work ethic problem in citizens than it sounds like an illegal immigration problem.

If they want to be here and are going to be productive members of society, then I don't really have an issue with them. I just think there needs to be some limitations as far as the things they can take part in while living here under an illegal status, and healthcare is one of those things. It may sound selfish to want them to work here to benefit our economy, but not help them if they're injured or sick, but I promise you that is not my intent. I just believe that some things need to remain options for only legal residents and citizens.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you've been watching from Hollywood that portrays "all women". There are very, very few women with average body types on TV and even when they are on TV, they're either in smaller roles or their weight or "averageness" is written into the show as something for them to overcome. One example is Ugly Betty. America Fererra, who plays Betty, is probably one of the few women on TV with a "normal" body shape and they're always tossing in jokes about her weight or how she doesn't look like everyone else. They even poke fun at her being Latina in some of the lines. And as for the "voluptuous" women, do they usually have the serious, main lead actress role? No. they play the slutty mistress or the bad girl in school or something along those lines that plays up their sexuality. Maybe don't watch enough TV, but I really haven't seen anything that shows average women in a positive way.

I feel bad for her husband and the other Muslims who have to deal with these generalizations. I think a lot of it is the media's portrayal of the religion. You never hear anything about the peaceful messages in the Qur' an or about the correlations between The Bible and The Qur' an. The only passages you ever see are the ones talking about" waging war against the infidels". Unfortunately, this is what the majority of the public sees and what the majority of Muslims who are peaceful are subjected to. The best I can say to her husband is that it's ok, we don't all see Muslims that way. I know it must be hard on him to have to see images like that and to see his people portrayed that way.

Ok so I thought about this while I was "a Muslim, in my seat in my college in the Middle East." Sam mentioned that we (as Americans) should understand that all Muslims aren't radicals, the same way Christian radicals aren't a representation of all Christians. So why isn't the same true for Muslims living in Iraq and other areas? Why are they allowed to watch youtube videos and make the wrong assumptions and we can't? Not that I'm saying we should all take youtube videos at face value, but more along the lines of why isn't it their personal responsibility to understand that radicals represent the minority as far as Christians go too? I know that it's hard to look at people in a positive light when you feel like you are being invaded by them, but it's a necessary part of tolerance and understanding.

I know a lot of people struggle with looking at Muslims without some kind of resentment toward them because of 9/11. I never really had any of those feelings after the attack. I guess I understood that it was only a select few, who had decided to take certain passages from the Qur'an and misconstrue the message. But how do people even know what a Muslim looks like? Are you REALLY good enough to be able to identify someone from the Middle East? Because there are a lot of other people who "look like Muslims" and aren't from the areas where the people responsible are from. Do people even take into account that a lot of people from the Middle East are Christians? And what does a terrorist even look like? There are terrorists in many societies that don't look anything like the people who committed the 9/11 attacks. So how can you justifiably dislike a certain group of people when you can't even accurately identify them and you don't know anything else about them?

I was kind of surprised that Sam didn't bring up 9/11 in the lecture. I think it would have been an easy way for us to understand the connection between the "Christian invaders" and the ""Muslim radicals". I know it was hard for a lot of people to put themselves in the seat of a Muslim college student in the Middle East. Maybe it would have helped if we could have stayed American college students and used 9/11 as a catalyst it would have been easier to make a connection. Besides, Sam did say he was going to provoke us in this lecture, so I was expecting something of that magnitude. It's possible he didn't because some people would have put there emotions first and then we wouldn't have gotten anywhere in the discussion.

I think some people confuse what Sam is doing with trying to change your mind or make you see things his way. That's not the point. His job is to get you to think about things from a different perspective or bring topics to you that you had never heard before. It's up to each of us to take what he says and do as we will. There are going to be some people in the class who are going to listen to the things Sam says and go home and change something about what they do and there are others who are going to think about it and decide that what they're already doing is how they want to stay. Both of those are acceptable options as long as you take the time to THINK about what it is he's saying. You can agree, disagree, be offended, be angry, be sad, be whatever you feel just as long as you take the time to figure out WHY you feel that way. There is nothing wrong with being content with the way your life is and how you see things--stay inside of your bubble. But you need to look through the clear exterior of that bubble at the world around you. Most likely, whatever you do in life is going to put you in a place that is different from where you grew up and it could help to be able to see things from other people's perspectives.

I think a lot of your reception of the class topics has to do with how you grew up. If you've never experienced any of these things first-hand or don't know anyone who has been through these things, then you may not be open to the discussions and the emotions that come along with them. You can't help where and how you grew up and it's good that you never experienced discrimination, but for the people that have, these topics hit home and it's hard to understand why people aren't more interested in trying to do something about it. So to those who have had these experiences, try to understand what it must be like for those who haven't had your experiences. It's hard to build emotions and a desire to make changes when all you can base things off of is an hour long lecture. It's just your job to see what the issues look like from the outside. I think we all have different roles in this class and what you take from the lessons is up to you and your willingness to expand your knowledge. Just think about it. That's all Sam can ask of us.

Honestly, no it doesn't change my mind about affirmative action. Maybe it was just my perspective, but I never really felt like affirmative action affected me or anyone I knew so I never had a reason to support it. I find it interesting that this question was posed to the Black and brown people as opposed to the whites. Wouldn't it be better to ask THEM if it changed their opinions about the program? Every time admissions come up I always hear at least one person say something about "They probably only got in because of affirmative action. It's not fair. I'm sure there was some White person that didn't get in because they took their spot."

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I'm not saying that ALL white people say these things, but I have heard it before. So what I want to know is what happened that led people to believe that this mainly benefited Black and brown people? Why isn't it known that it benefits white women? And so what if it did benefit an inner city Black kid? Would it really be so bad to give them an opportunity to get higher education and get them out of a bad living situation?

With as many mixtures of races as there are in the world, I think it would be doing to much to try to address all of them, even in class. I know it doesn't seem fair to "force" people who are mixed to choose to identify with either white or black/brown, but I don't think anyone's doing that. Honestly, I think that people of mixed race have some of the best insight into what it is to be either group because they have seen it from both sides. One of my friends is half black and half white and when we've had discussions about race, she has been able to speak from both perspectives and I really appreciate her input.

I think it's up to each person and how they identify themselves. Do they see themselves as a part of a single group? Or can they provide insight from multiple perspectives? It's up to them what they choose to do. But I think it's unfair to expect Sam to be able to cater to everyone.

To answer the question posed with with post: yes this rudeness does go both ways. There is no need for these types of rude and stereotypical comments in that forum, especially in a class like this. This class is about race relations and trying to understand and bridge he gap between different races. Why are you even in this class if you're not open to making a change? This goes for both White and Black/Brown people.

As for the question posed by the guy in this clip. I have noticed the same thing. But the same way that Black/Brown people verbalize their feelings toward these comments, Whites are free to do the same. I'm not sure why people have kept silent or choose to retaliate by chastising the person on the forum. But just do whatever feels right to you. If you're offended, do something about it. Don't just sit there and take it.