Coming to UNC, I stayed in my comfort zone. I joined a fraternity, and while we have several African-American, Asian, and Indian members, diversity was more of just a joke about Hasil’s eating habits, or Daniel and Saiji looking alike. Of course it was all in good spirit, but still very insensitive. This class however has easily left my eyes open a little wider. I see media stories dealing with race in a much different light, and I can clearly see distinctions in the way some folks are treated over others.

I have to say that this class has changed very little about the way I act. I’ve never been a racist, or discriminatory. I mean that. It has however changed how I perceive others in the world, which I think was a much needed change, and one that a lot of people could use. Going through my time here blindly towards how race affects my everyday life was a mistake, and I’m pretty glad I’ve opened my eyes.

This article doesn’t surprise me at all, I think that there is definitely still a prejudice against black people in the workplace. And while there are plenty of cases where someone who is as or more qualified than someone else, but is look over because of their race, it is a very thin line between being justified in pulling the discrimination card, and falling on a crutch. Cases like Mr. William’s, when he met the two executives for lunch, but were surprised and put off when they saw he was of color are disheartening and wrong. However you can’t blame every single job rejection on the color of your skin.

One part of the article that particularly hit home was about how a person’s name can affect how they fair in the job market. I know that when I hear a name like Jamar, or Nikida, I automatically assume they are black. While I place absolutely no normative value on what someone’s name is, it’s not a good feeling to suddenly become so aware of a person’s race, based solely on preconceived notions.

The silent sam memorial and the new unsung founder’s memorial should both stay exactly where they are. The controversy over the hidden meanings behind the statue and it’s placement are completely unfounded. The unsung founder’s memorial is placed in a very prominent location in McCorkle place, and the idea that it was intentionally put low to the ground, cowering under silent sam is ridiculous.

It is however a piece of art, and if it weren’t being talked about and mulled over, I think that would be a problem. The controversy surrounding it is pulling attention away from the original meaning of it, which was to celebrate the unsung founders. I do think that is a problem.

I think a great, neutral presentation of a woman in a video game could be done in one of two ways. The first way would be a sort of detective game, where the lead character has to fight her way through levels, finding clues, etc. to solve some sort of mystery. The only video game I play is a football game from 1996, so I have no idea how well this would be accepted or if people would like it. However, it is a subject that is very gender neutral, but I think people would still enjoy playing.

The second way would be an adventure style game, where the lead character would be a lot like Indiana Jones or Laura Croft from Tomb Raider, only again, gender neutral. I don’t feel like these adventure games have to have a strong alpha male, or a dominating female. A simple, strong character, male or female would be just as strong.

With video games in general however, I think that the reason why video game makers create characters that are, “trapped my sexist stereotypes,” is because they know that they are catering to, for the most part, a young male audience. These males love seeing those types of women, and so they will buy the games. On the whole, not many adolescent boys can relate to an average woman, much less the average boy. They want to play as a character that is strong with machismo–not a gender neutral female.

While this is not at all how it should be, the young males that play these games drive how the games are created, and until we can change their perspective, the video games wont change.. and if they do, they wont sell.

There is no such thing as ritual copyright. Culture is mutable and moldable. Diasporas collide, intertwine, split, and re-join. In a world where dialects and cultures meld to the point of fusion, there is no such thing as stealing from someone else’s culture.

This is not to say that it is wrong to exploit historically significant rituals. Especially for monetary gain. What this guy did was wrong and inexcusable, I won’t argue that. However.. when it comes to the general idea of stealing rituals from other cultures–experiment to your heart’s content.

In my humble opinion, that guy sucks. Sure, nothing he did was illegal, but morally, how can you ask someone to change their name for the sake of business? There’s no reason why having a Hispanic name would hinder business. In terms of asking them not to speak Spanish in front of him, I have less of a problem with that. There is a point to be made that in order to run a business efficiently, you have to be able to connect with your employees, and that speaking Spanish would hinder that, but there are about 15 counter-arguments that rule the idea of banning Spanish out. Not only does this cause bad press for Whitten’s hotel, but I’m sure it will end up being costly and time-consuming

If you can justify this guy’s actions (morally at least), please let me know!

Legally, the U.S. census does include illegal immigrants, as well as non-citizen legal residents and long-term visitors. In my opinion, this should stay the way it is. Illegal immigrants use tax-funded transportation, health care, etc. and should be accounted for. Although they can’t vote, the demographic data will still better the way decisions are made politically.

Since former president Carter charged the news with ideas of racism being a consideration in the public’s opinion about Obama’s health care reform, the issue is at center stage. Obama’s reform plan doesn’t resonate well with everyone, and I disagree with Carter’s idea that the dissonance is race based. People would be against a reform plan no matter who was President, it only matters what sorts of propaganda groups may subliminally push in order to further their argument.

In Obama’s case it’s race. The opposition uses the ‘race-card’ because it is such a politically charged issue right now. The New York Times quoted Obama as having said, “Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? I’m sure there are, that’s not the overriding issue here.” Health care is at the heart of the argument, and is what’s driving the opposition. In my opinion, opposers to Obama’s reform are using his race in a weak attempt to strengthen their argument and get their way. It is nothing more than a cheap political tactic.

With Hillary Clinton, in my opion, it would not be gender. If anything, it would be her ties to the Democratic party. Although some could make the argument that a motherly figure would be looking out for issues such as education and health care, I don’t think it would have been pushed. These so called ‘woman-ly’ issues I don’t think would have been seen in such a light–especially since Mrs. Clinton has tried so hard to have her image appear as any other politician. She has done little to show her feminine side (in fact most would argue she tries very hard to be unfeminine) and I doubt the public would view her policies as trying to be motherly.