Tim Wise Response

It was interesting doing a video blog instead of reading an article, I like it better actually. There are two things that I could easily take from the first part of the video. One is that these men really do not like Bush. Now I don't follow politics all that much but I'm sure Bush wasn't that bad where they can say that any black person would have been a better candidate. Other than that, the other thing that I noticed was that they keep setting Obama as the ultimate black person, I mean I know that the book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place but still. It is hard enough to be the president so maybe they could have used an example of a position that is a little more achievable. They did mention being a hip-hop artist or basketball player, but then I believe they said it was degrading or as good as it gets for most black people, I don't think its true. And if a black person is a basketball player or a hip-hop artist, that doesn't mean they gave up and that's the best they can do, they do it because they are passionate about it and want to write music or play the sport that they are good at.

Then in the second video they started talking about talking about all the stereo types that black people have against them. Like that "they don't work as hard, more aggressive, uneducated" and then he says that some say that blacks don't care and just live off of welfare because its just easier. How could someone say something like that, I am almost sure that no one wants to be so low that they are satisfied with living off of welfare. The reason why there are people on welfare is because they cant get a job because it is usually much more difficult for a black person to get a job than a white person. Wise even said that the number of black people on welfare is lower than the number of white people.

Kahne and Westheimer Response

When I started reading, it felt like I was reading the discussion that we have in class. In that service learning is so important. And it really is, like this article is saying, not only does it engage others into academic learning and activities, but it also has the potential to make these kids feel like they can make a difference too by volunteering and helping others. I think that it is great that everyone is trying to make an effort to promote service learning. If everyone is brought up right from the beginning, then over time hopefully everything will be better and the problems that we face today with violence and just any sort of corruption in general could go away. Like Lawrence Cremin said "by manipulating the school curriculum, they could ultimately change the world. Now I realize that that is no easy task and will probably never be done 100% effectively, but the effort is what counts.

The first service case learning I'm pretty sure I've done before. It's been a long time, but I know what it feels like to help people less fortunate than others, and it feels good to see how happy the littlest things make people. So to have every student do that at least once must have a big impact on each of their lives. The second service learning case sounds kind of fun as well. Though it sounds like a pain to learn so much about one topic, if they are all very interested then it may not be so bad. It's good to learn about (in this case) the homeless and to actually hear from a guest speaker what it is like to be homeless, and read what homeless kids go through. You learn a whole new perspective about things and it can change your life.

I personally think that the two methods are both pretty effective. The first is effective because it gives you a hands on experience on helping those in need, and also lets you know how you can help. For instance some might want to help but just don't know what they can do, if they had done something like this than maybe they would have some ideas. While the second method doesn't give you hands on experience, it enlightens you to the problem and lets you know that many problems do exist, and that they affect many people.

Christenson Response

Immediatley I was thrown off by the introduction. I could not figure out what she was talking about, then suddenly I felt like I was reading Delpit or something. Again we learn that we recieve most or all of our views and opinions about all matters that we are dealing with in this class from very early ages. Also from watching Disney movies like "Peter Pan", that is crazy. There are a lot of good movies out there that I want to show my kids someday, and the fact that they don't teach a good lesson won't stop me, but it just sucks that they could be getting bad ideas according to this author. I do like the quote she took from Dorfman, it says how we get all this bad information from TV, but at the same time we get good information. It seems like no one wants to admit that TV has a good side too, it promotes all sorts of things that are good or helpful to, as well as bad things. It is how you deal with the information you take in that makes you a responsible, mature person. It's true that we are influenced by the media no matter what, but then again we are influenced by every single thing we hear or see. Unless you were born and grew up completely on your own, then there is no way to just be "yourself" because in some point in time everyone is influenced by something or someone. I kinda laughed when I saw the quote "I'm not taking my kids to see any Walt Disney movies until they have a black woman playing the lead role", and now they do! Disney must have received so much bad publicity from not having any black princesses that they have finally decided to put one in. But the question is, is it too late? I found a great youtube video that talked about this topic. They interviewed the voice actress who played the main role. And she said something that makes a whole lot more sense then what most other people say (when they were talking about the color of the prince). She said that first off he isn't white, but secondly it shouldn't be about race, it should be about love. Now that's what I like to hear, someone who see's beyond the racism that others think is being portrayed, and see's the deeper more complex meaning.

Response to Carlson

Though the title threw me off, he begins exactly the same way that the other authors have started. He addresses that white, straight, male, middle-class is privileged and that black, working-class, women, homosexuals are not. Then he says that there is such a thing called normalizing community, which is basically Delpit's culture of power. Saying that if you aren't in the normalizing community then you are looked at as different (this case in a bad way). But now, I believe this is one of the first authors to say that people have began to "speak out" and taken initiative to fix this problem. Though it is not as easy as one would hope. There are still communities that live by the old ways and there really is no way to fix that. Now, with the rapid change of communities (due to the many new cultures) a fear has grown among the privileged that the way things are is being changed. Then I get a little confused. Carlson starts to talk about the different terms all relating to the word "gay" and says how they are harmful. Now this is what confuses me in that paragraph, is he trying to say that those words are harmful in the context of how you say them? or is he just saying the history of those words? because he said how they can be harmful and then he goes on and talks about how they are acceptable and commonly used. So maybe he is just saying that they are only acceptable when used appropriately (homosexual for scientific use, gay for naming the group, etc) I don't know. Anyway then Carlson starts addressing the problems of being gay in school. I agree that especially with teachers it is hard to be openly gay and they usually try to closet these people so that they practically hide who they are so that no one will look at them differently, and take them seriously in the teachers case. But then there are some students who don't care and they just be themselves and I say good for them. Usually to my own experience those who just go out and say they are gay are usually respected for it, no one usually treats them any differently and are okay with their decision. If anything at my old school those kids who were proud to be gay were probably more popular and had more friends than most other people. I was a little surprised on the 3rd page (236) when he says that some schools prohibit teaching about homosexuality. I thought that you could mention it, but it just never came up, I didn't think that it was completely prohibited. Then how in Minnesota they allow homosexual practices basically everywhere but school. What made me a little upset was when Carlson said how some look at being gay as "a loss of respect", there is really nothing I can say about that other than that is horrible and definitely untrue. Followed by some of the reasons why gay or lesbian teachers are not hired. The first reason he says that everyone thinks homosexuality is "contagious", the second is because they think that homosexuals hold crushes on their students. How in the hell can being gay or lesbian be contagious? that is what I want to know. Also who says that homosexuals have crushes on their students? they aren't all child molesters as well. In the end he wraps it up by saying that we should adapt to the way things are and leave what is "politically correct" behind, and I agree with him when he says that everyone should get equal opportunities and have their voices heard as well. For the most part this battle is much like the other ones we have been over, only this time addressing sexuality.

Rodriguez Response

Interesting, it's good to finally look at society and the topics that we face in this class from someone who isn't white. I can only imagine how difficult it is to grow up in a place where you dont speak the launguage of the public. It would sound like a bunch of noise, and I'd panic if I was being spoken to. Then the nuns were angry that he wouldn't just speak perfect english! I'm sorry but learning a new language doesn't just happen over night. Makes it sound like he was a problem child. I felt so bad as he started to learn english and the families closeness slowely diminished. When he was first describing them they were so happy and got along very nicely, next thing you know they are hardly talking and Rodriguez addresses his parents only with eye contact. I mean all families grow seperately as they get older, but they are all still young. Just taking away the language the family spoke took away their whole culture, the whole togetherness of the family. His dad only seems happy when he's talking to his family in spanish. Finally, I totally get the end of this article. Where he mentions how not only was his private individuality lost but also his public individuality. No one looks at him the same way, neither him or his family.

McIntosh Response

After reading White Privilage: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, I was extremely bothered by one of the last comments she had to say. I mean I suppose it could be true in a sense, but her just going out and saying that everyone is racist no matter what is kind of rediculous. Then when she says that men don't recognize their privilage, that bothers me as well. I understand that we have these invisible privilages, we've talked about it over and over, but has anyone ever touched base upon how everyone else is privilaged as well? Even if you are lower than "white men" there is a very good chance that you are way better off than a lot of people in this world. All over there are homeless people, abused families, and those who can't even take care of themselves for whatever reason. Like this family who can barely take care of their family because they have too many issues of their own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3akft5wENjw. Those people are the underprivilaged, everyone else is just sweating the small stuff. They have the problems everyone else has, and more. Anyway, then there was a few bullet points that interested me, while others were just silly. Point 6 mentions how we learn about how our nationality made things the way they are. That is true and kind of unfair. I would like to know how everyone contributed to how everything is the way it is now, and yet all we see is how we did it. Then point 20 where she says how she can find all sorts of white toys and cards etc, but not any other kind of variety. It reminded me of what Heather had to say about how she had white dolls for the kids but none for the other races of kids. Then the rest of them kind of bothered me. Like point 4, anyone can be harrassed or followed and it happens all the time to all kinds of people. Then point 9 where she says how she can easily find music and such of her race represented. This is true because there are a lot of white singers, but there are also a lot of black and every other kind of singers I guess she forgot to mention that there was a whole bunch of other variety there too!! Basically I had many problems with this and don't care very much for it. Though it is just Wikipedia, it is a useful site and has much information on white privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege