I'm an old guy. I spent my early twenties being fairly narrow-minded. In 2004, I voted for George W. Bush, mostly based on the fear that brown people wanted to kill us because they hate our freedom. Those embarrassing days are long behind me, and it took only a few relatively short years to transition to where I am now. Six years ago this class would have been mind blowing, and I know that for a lot of the people that take it, it is.

As I saw it, the key points that Sam wanted us to get were: (1) perspective is incredibly important and also incredibly hard to get, (2) assumptions and unchallenged beliefs are probably wrong, and (3) if you're certain that you're right, you had better know everything from every side of the issue, its history, and all of the sociological factors that contribute to it. I learned these lessons years ago as smarter people called me out on my own stupid beliefs. It's hard to find much security or stability in your beliefs when you can always find someone who understands the issue at a level that's an order of magnitude greater than the level you're at. So, this class was not a challenge of my beliefs like it is for many. It hasn't convinced me to think about things in a new way, because for the most part, I already do try to consider all perspectives around an issue.

But even though it wasn't mind blowing, this class was meaningful for me. It's so easy to slip into a position of overconfidence, of being sure that you understand the positions and situations of people that you've never met. I have also caught myself generalizing an entire group of people as a single oversimplified caricature (e.g. "all Christians think like this…"). I'm on the side of humanism, intellectualism, and an adherence to truth over emotion, but this position is not without its dangers. It makes it easy to deride the opposition for beliefs that are not based in reality or science, but that sort of mentality also makes it impossible to understand and reach out to people with such beliefs.

So what I took away from this class is that I have to be constantly vigilant to not make the easy mistakes. Never get lazy and never believe that I can make assumptions about the motives or motivations of a person or a group of people without having a conversation, and continued conversations, to really understand them.

I will add – prior to this class, I didn't know anywhere near as much about the plight of North America's indigenous people as I do now. I had always known that it was not good, and that my colonizing ancestors had done some bad things, but I had not understood the extent of the harm done, nor had I understood how much we have failed to protect and help them even in the modern era.

When I was a lot younger, I harbored negative opinions about a number of groups of people that I knew little about and had little interaction with. I don't believe I ever outright hated any groups of people, but I did have a lot of ideas that were based on stereotypes that were completely untrue. Even if true, stereotypes are only generalizations about huge groups of people, and only rarely do they accurately represent any one individual in that group. At the height of these feelings of negative opinions, I was trying to become a part of a group of people that sadly harbor certain prejudices. That group seems to hold a sense of pride about the fact that ignorance and hatred are a part of their culture. I look back at that time with sadness and embarrassment, and feel lucky that I realized how stupid I was being before I became permanently a part of the group, and before I truly came to hold any of those beliefs. It is especially appalling to me now considering how strong a supporter of equality and of critical analysis I've become.

I held these beliefs quite a while ago, and over a period of a few years, I did a complete reversal as I became more aware of and upset by injustices inherent in our society. Although I came to understand many of the things that Sam has covered in this class a long time ago, this class has been beneficial as it has only further cemented my current approach to life. It is absolutely essential not to make assumptions about anyone, not to generalize, and not to draw conclusions about things that you don't know anything about. As I've gotten older, I have only become less sure of whether any of my conclusions are correct about the events taking place in other parts of the world. Nearly every issue imaginable can be seen from different perspectives, and so to draw a conclusion and stand firmly by it, you absolutely must have deeply investigated and understood others' perspectives on the issue, and be open to reanalysis if it becomes apparent that you haven't really understood others' perspectives.

As enlightened as I like to believe I have become, it is still a frequent battle to fight off stereotypes and hasty generalizations. I still live in a sheltered little world, and gaining an outsider's perspective on the things I believe is hard, especially when most of my friends are just as sheltered as I am. However, I believe I've been fairly successful and I can happily say that I don't hate anyone. In fact, seeing generalized hatred directed at a group makes me so upset that I often feel compelled to speak up against it.

Growing up in America means growing up being taught to believe that America has long been a force of good in the world. We are taught to be patriotic, to be nationalistic, and to believe that all of our enemies hate us because they hate what we stand for, and they hate our freedom. It was only once I got much older that I came to learn that we had spent decades supplying guns and money to dictators, and facilitated the overthrow of governments in foreign lands. We spent the cold war fighting or supporting proxy wars against the Soviet Union, just to prove our superiority over the Communists. So who were the aggressors, who were the good guys and the bad guys in the history of American military conflict?

Perspective is hugely important in answering this question. I don't think it was Sam's goal to completely flip the table and suggest that America was the absolute bad guy in all of these conflicts. I don't think he even wanted to suggest he positively knew the motives of the people who caused and fought these wars. I think he wanted us to just see it from the perspective of the people in the areas in which we were fighting – whether that perspective was correct or not – just understand the perspective. Is the Iraq war a Christian crusade for oil? That may be a factor, but it's probably not the only one. But from the perspective of the Iraqis it very well may be.

It's an important lesson for us to realize that we should not blindly trust what we're told by our media, by our education, and by our government. While a good education is indeed important, true understanding and perspective only come from interaction with people of other cultures. If we only ever assume that what we preconceive about other people is true, we are guaranteed to be incorrect about those beliefs. There are two sides to this issue – the Arab Muslim people whose shoes we placed ourselves in could also benefit from understanding the perspective of Americans who are not interested in killing them and taking their oil.

Learning about the world without making the effort to really get the real story is incredibly difficult. I've tried to make sense of the news coming from Iraq since the beginning of the second war, and I still can't tell whether Iraqis are (on average) in favor or in opposition to our presence there. Reports vary, and no doubt the views would even vary when talking to Iraqis. Just as most students in SOC 119 are probably opposed to the scenarios Sam discussed in class, there are millions of Americans who do believe it is our God-given right to engage in such aggression.

Homosexuality is a "special" sin for a number of reasons, but the biggest reason is that it has been taught to social conservatives as a special sin. Overwhelmingly, most opposition to homosexuality in the United States is rooted in religion. Religious leaders have disregarded the teachings of their foundations that support unity and acceptance, and instead have chosen to focus on division.

Sam brought up a number of sins from the Bible that are largely ignored by modern Christians. While this it's true that many followers violate these rules, most churches maintain that acts like drinking, lustful thoughts, and gambling are still sins. It's important to note that just because one violates a "rule" once, it does not mean a Christian can no longer get in to Heaven. It only means that they need to strive to not commit such violations in the future, and seek forgiveness for their transgressions. I think it may not be entirely accurate to say that Christians are fine with drinking and gambling, but not with homosexuality. That said, many people who claim to be deeply Christian indeed have no problem with these sins.

Other than the heavily closeted, self-hating and self-denying homosexuals who are vocally anti-gay (whose motivations are quite different), it may simply be a case of a lack of perspective or empathy for the situation of anyone other than themselves. Of course a person can rationalize away their drinking or gambling, but if they themselves are not gay, what reason would they have for letting slide their opposition to that particular sin? Fueled by the vitriolic anti-gay furor produced by the aforementioned closeted proponents of homosexuality (like Ted Haggard), common people have all the pieces they need to be vocally opposed to homosexuality. People who may not have had such a strong opinion are then easily swayed by a vocal minority that has decided to make homosexuality a much bigger sin than most others.

Ask most of these strongly anti-gay activists about what they really believe and understand about gay people, what gay people want, and what kind of lifestyle gay people have (on average), and you'll get a very different story from what actual gay people say in response to those same questions. But anti-gay activists have already made up their minds about the true motivations and feelings of gay people, and are rarely swayed from such opinions. This is why it's so crucially important to always put yourself in others' shoes, and to maintain dialogue.

For example, I've been up and down both sides of the abortion debate, and yet I still gained new perspectives that I had never truly understood before after we talked about it in our discussion group this past week. Had I not talked about it with people who already held the same views as me, I never would have had this perspective.

I have also not bought a cell phone in years, probably about the same amount of time as the guy in the video. There are a bunch of reasons, partially because I'm cheap, partially because I don't need to have the latest and greatest phone, and partially because of the humanitarian reasons given by Sam. As consumers, we do have the power to effect change in the corporate world, but it takes a large effort. The outcry early this year against Apple after Mike Daisey's "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs" aired on This American Life caused that company to take steps to improve working conditions in the factories of its Chinese suppliers. Now, how much of that actually takes place, and how long the spotlight will remain on this issue is questionable.

Ultimately, the act of the guy in the video does have an effect. Not so much his single act on its own, but as part of a larger movement, it can have an effect. Social movements don't come from nothing; they come from general feelings that are caused by indicators in a person's life. Maybe this guy's friends will see his actions and become interested in the reasons. This may lead them to learn about conflict minerals and become more passionate about the cause. At a minimum, perhaps it will cause them to make the same statement themselves in their phone purchasing choices, and that would be a good outcome. From that point, perhaps it would cause their friends to do the same, until a significant number of people have been made aware of the issue and are choosing not to purchase new phones.

But perhaps it will have a greater effect. Perhaps it will cause one of them to become even more passionate about the cause. A movement can only succeed with an ever-growing set of dedicated advocates to spread its message and benefit the cause. This cascade effect, if it reaches the right number of people, can cause real change, and it all started with his simple act of not buying a new phone.

However, now that I've talked so much about the great potential outcomes, I'll admit that this is a best possible scenario and probably not too likely. Where I become more cynical is in the attention span and general apathy of the American public. While there was a fantastic pressure against Apple early this year after the Daisey piece aired, how many of those people are still following the cause, and putting pressure on Apple (and other tech vendors) to improve conditions? And even if we can cause a certain group of occasionally passionate people to care, the majority of the rest of the population simply won't care about this, or nearly any other humanitarian issue.

The statistics tell us just how deep the problem of latent prejudice runs. The entire system has been set up, whether intentional or not, to make it difficult for men and women of color to succeed. Of course we've all heard stories of the successful minority (Barack Obama is a fantastic example) and the dirt poor white, the research clearly show that the playing field is, on average, extremely imbalanced. The implications are massive.

It is this prejudice that causes unequal pay between women and men. The prejudice is so strong, conservative pundits labeled its inclusion during the presidential debate of this issue to be a "feminazi lie." This is to say nothing of the gap between white and minority households, which is much larger. A huge example discussed in class was the unequal awarding of GI Bill benefits after World War II, in which black servicemen were far less likely to receive mortgages and educational benefits than their white counterparts. Where this could have been a huge leg up for black families, they were instead further held back, meaning that as a whole, they are far further behind in the race than they could have been in today's age.

While the GI Bill lives on today and is no longer awarded so unequally, this does not suggest that the world has become colorblind. Rather, the prejudice has simply gone further underground. The statistics on crime and the likelihood of black youth having their cases tried as adults is another example from class that highlights the problem. Black youth are 18 times more likely to have their cases tried as adults than white youth. The reason for this is not that they commit 18 times more serious crimes than white youth. Rather, it has to do with the latent prejudice, or structural violence, present in the court system. If black and white youth were viewed equally in the eyes of the court, this would not occur.

Prejudice is very difficult to overcome. In fact, even after being given the correct information multiple times, people are likely to believe and repeat misinformation over the truth. Sam's examples in class of common ingrained misinformation were great examples of this phenomenon. It's likely that many people have even heard the true statistics before, yet continue to believe the more socially common stories regarding child abduction and racial inequality in the criminal system. Education is critical to solving this problem, because only through education can children and young adults recognized, confront and attempt to deal with their prejudices. Although it's unlikely that they themselves will be able to truly master such latent prejudices, with each successive generation of children, these prejudices can ultimately be conquered.

In 1868, The US Government and the Lakota Sioux signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie, granting ownership of the ownership of the Black Hills in South Dakota to the Lakota people. Gold was found there not long after, bringing white prospectors to the land. The government would not defend the territory against these prospectors, so the Lakota did so themselves. Because of this action, only 9 years after giving the Lakota the Black Hills in perpetuity, the US Government took the land away. The land has never been returned to the Lakota. Mount Rushmore, a national monument, now lies within this stolen land.

The Lakota could be no match for increased US military forces after the Battle of Little Bighorn. Is it fair to simply say that they should have retaken their land? That some time in the years and generations since 1877, they should have used force to enforce their claim on the land, and that by not doing so, they relinquished all claim on it? To me, that notion is absurd. Despite incredible successes, the Lakota and Cheyenne were no match for the forces of the US Army. The Great Sioux Wars of 1876 was their attempt at using force. From that time on, the US Government only became stronger, and the Lakota weaker. How could we expect the Lakota to come back and retake their land when we had crushed their might and their spirit?

And yet the Treaty of Fort Laramie still stands. Although some monetary victories have been won in court, the Lakota are not able to get back what they truly want: the land. I'd say this is unlikely now given the existence of Mount Rushmore. And yet, on what basis does the US Government claim the authority to violate the treaty? Courts have ruled that the Lakota must accept money in lieu of the land, but when did the Lakota ever agree to sell the land? They did not, which is precisely why they refused to accept the money offered.

This is not so simple an issue though. There are now close to 250,000 people living in the Black Hills. It's easy for me to say they all must move since it's not myself or my family who live there (and who have lived there for generations). However, I can find no justification for keeping the Black Hills that ultimately outweighs our obligations to a people that we killed, raped, and subjugated; a people whose cultures we exploited for our national image even as we suppressed it; a people whose futures we destroyed. We owe the Lakota and all of America's native peoples at least that much; in reality, we owe them much more. It is difficult to say what sort of life Native Americans would have today if not for the actions of our ancestors. However, it is very safe to say they would not be living in the abject poverty they are in today.

We absolutely have a responsibility to help those born in less fortunate circumstances than our own. No one chooses the circumstances of their birth, or whether they are be born. Those of us in SOC 119 were fortunate enough to be born in circumstances that allowed us to live a life of luxury compared to most of the rest of the world. We will even become part of the 6.7% of the world population that has a college degree. For the majority of the rest of the world's population, making the next meal is the only concern. Making it to school doesn't even enter in to the realm of possibilities.

Why do we deserve to be so much better off than these people? By chance, we were born in a place with more natural resources and to have benefitted from past colonialism, rather than having been harmed by it. Nonetheless, we are all citizens of the world; viewing us as anything less has no basis or purpose. The concept of "us vs. them" or considering ourselves as better or more deserving than others is harmful and is what ultimately leads to atrocities and war.

There is nothing that makes an American more deserving of food, shelter, life, liberty, education, or happiness than a Rwandan. Recognizing this, I believe it is impossible to successfully argue that we do not have an obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Many people are in such dire situations that they are literally unable to help themselves reach a basic standard of living that includes access to clean water, food, and reasonable shelter. It is reprehensible that many people with an excess of money do nothing to help these people, leaving them instead to suffer and die.

Those with vast personal fortunes should be compelled to use them for the public good. The shifting culture of our time has had an effect here. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have successfully convinced a list of billionaires and other wealthy elite to donate at least half of their fortunes to charity upon their deaths or sooner. This voluntary solution is laudable, but it is not enough to end poverty worldwide.

Do I believe that the best solution to this is to immediately shatter the wealth gap by taking money from wealthy people and giving it to poor people? A violent overthrow and destruction of classes, a la Marxism? No. A more gradual shift is better. However, immediate solutions could be implemented. At a bare minimum, policies that prevent the accumulation of extreme amounts of wealth could be implemented. Severe cutbacks in military operations and spending would also put money back in the government coffers. More money available to the government means more money available for foreign aid, and this should be properly applied.

The racial income disparity can be explained by a single cause that has a lot of contributing factors. Structural violence is forced inequality or violence that is hidden in social or class structures. It is structural violence that denies black, Hispanic, and Native Americans equal access to education, health care, and career opportunities that are available to other races such as whites and Asians.

A look at public schools clearly reveals one of the factors. Public schools in more affluent areas have more money, better teachers, and better resources. In addition, even in areas where public schools are poor, private schools exist for the wealthy families who can afford them. Because of this, children from poor minority families receive a poor education. Standardized tests are unable to account for smart students whose preparation and instruction is lacking, meaning they will receive lower grades and have a harder time qualifying for college funding reserved for minorities. The end result is a severe limitation in their ability to continue on to college and/or successful careers.

Another example is the attempt to disenfranchise poorer, mostly minority voters in the form of voter ID laws recently passed in many states. Many reports have surfaced of underhanded tactics in the past, such as calls to minority voters with incorrect information like a date change of the election to the day after the real Election Day or changes to voting requirements that poor, minority voters are unlikely to meet. However, the overt tactics embodied in the voter ID laws are the worst offenses in voter disenfranchisement in our time. To many of us, it seems trivial to acquire a state ID; it's likely that most of the students in SOC 119 already have one. But for many living in poverty, taking a day off of work to go to the DMV is simply not an option. In addition, although the ID may be free, it can cost a significant amount of money to obtain the documents necessary to meet the criteria of acquiring the ID, meaning that the ID requirement is tantamount to a poll tax. Added to the fact that research shows that voter fraud is a non-issue, it is clear that these laws are simply designed to prevent poor minorities from voting.

These are just two examples. These and many more factors combine to an overall system of structural violence that makes it nearly impossible for poorer racial groups such as Hispanic, Native and black Americans from ever catching up to Asians and whites.

When Sam asked us whether we believed that people get ahead mostly by hard work, something else, or a combination of both, I voted "something else." It was disheartening to see that I was one of only 17 people who thought this on the second vote. That hard work is the main factor to getting ahead is a lie that's been sold to us by those who are already far ahead, and apparently sold quite successfully by these poll results. Although we've all heard true stories of penniless immigrants making it big, that story is only that – a story, and in no way representative of reality. To suggest that impoverished minorities are simply not working hard enough is an insult to the majority who do. It is the factors of this structural violence, not the lack of hard work, that keep such people behind.

When discussing societal pressures on beauty, I think the larger issue at question is how social constructs shape our daily choices, and what this means for the idea of free decision making. All actions are subject to societal pressure, so even simple choices are often influenced by culture in unrecognized ways. For example, in America, we might grab a late night slice of pizza. In England, a person might instead get a curry, or in Israel, a shawarma. These are choices that are made without a second thought. Similarly, most Americans use deodorant without consideration whereas in many other cultures (especially Eastern ones), deodorant use would be considered unnecessary and strange, since body odor is not considered offensive.

Is it possible to escape such societal conditioning? It seems unlikely that a culture could avoid gravitating to a set of norms, as all cultures do, but maybe it's possible to be more accepting of things outside the norms. Many people in lecture thought the Sikh woman with facial hair was beautiful and brave, but only after learning the reasons behind her appearance. Why does it have to be for religious reasons that her appearance is acceptable? Why does it have to be for any reason at all? How many men know that around one in five women remove hair from their face at least once a week? I'd bet it's a pretty low number, especially in younger age groups. Just like periods, it's not a topic that is generally considered acceptable to talk about. People need to be able to engage in conversation about these things before we can have any hope of destigmatizing them.

Female facial hair is not considered attractive in American culture, but there is no reason it has to be that way. If a woman doesn't want to remove her facial hair, she should feel unencumbered and unpressured by men to make that choice. Perhaps if more women who chose not to were portrayed positively and as normal instead of fringe people in the media and popular culture, it could become accepted practice. This could gradually shift the standard of beauty to include both women with and without facial hair. Female facial hair is just one such topic; a similar process would need to be applied to all such inequalities and double standards.

Does such a shift mean we give up culture? I don't think it has to mean that. It's still possible to have things that make us unique. The shift is to retain that uniqueness without disparaging people for their differences. Ideally, our initial reaction to a woman with facial hair should be no reaction (because it's become a normal thing) or positive, rather than "gross." Only once we let go of these predefined ideas of beauty, of behavior, and other norms, and allow for things outside the norm to be just as acceptable, can we hope for women to truly be able to make free decisions.