Pg. 132 "if a racial slur is used, it must be electronically recorded, or it never happened." What about the context of rape? If back-alley racism is being promoted by the insinuation that as long as there's no footage, it's fine, does that mean that as long as there is no film of someone being raped, they're crying wolf?

on pg. 132, it's quite shocking how a video of a woman singing her praise for her president can generalize and classify the rest of his supporters all as "black, poor, stupid, and after your money."

On pg. 129 the question is posed, why is there no pushback from liberals, and why is racial pandering still allowed without being challenged? I disagree with this proposal. I think that especially in todays political society, there is much more pushback on racial innuendos and pandering. I do not see it as going unchallenged, nor do I think that it really ever was unchallenged. It may not be the political spectrum that opposes this behavior, but the minorities themselves have never sat quietly and taken the abuse.

On the bottom of pg. 92, onto 93, the question is posed why/how race is spoken about by conservatives, if, in fact, "race is just a matter of skin color?". My theory is that whites have such a fear of saying the wrong thing, or coming off the wrong way to other races, that they claim that skin color is the only difference between people. This is lie. I believe that even though they preach pigment, whites are more inherently racist and say what they need to to appease the greater public.

pg. 80 "...colorblindness means government should never take race into account..." This is fundamentally wrong. The fact that it promotes "tip-toeing" around societal discrepancies and prominent issues in our society today. The quote continues to claim "even as a way to promote racial equality." How can you possibly promote or demote anything racial if you ignore race as a concept?

On pg. 79: "It's not complicated what to say. It's only a matter of how often we reinforce it." I find these sentences to be pivotal regarding the conversation of race. The fact that the context of the quote pertains to children only adds to this. It's true that it is not complicated what to say, but only if you know what to say and what not to say. Growing up in a significantly white community, it really wasn't until high school that I truly even understood what diversity meant/looked like. I remember distinctly a moment on a family vacation to the south, when my younger sister announced a quite inadvertently racial comment. This was the first time she had recognized the difference of skin color. This was when she was 10. The point is that I feel like my parents fed into mine, and my sibling's "colorblindness". The point is, that once this happened, my parents easily spoke to the difference she was seeing and why people looked different. It was an easy conversation to have and they had no hesitations explaining it, and yet, they had never mentioned it before. From the lack of conversation from my parents, and had it not been for this experience, who knows what my sister would continue to say about people with different colored skin. This personal example is exactly what this quote is demonstrating.

It's quite interesting that in all of the time I have spent learning about slavery throughout my education, not once was "convict leasing" ever mentioned.

I can hardly agree that the slavery was comprised of "joyfully enslaved" African Americans. The image of slavery that has been solidified in my brain through the years looks anything but joyful.

On page 37, the second sentence explains how many whites see no wrong in racial discrimination, and for that reason, they refuse to accept that it is incorrect and stand behind their opinion/beliefs even stronger. I can totally understand how this is a mindset that people can have, however, in the context of racism and bigotry, it still comes as a shock that people can't legitimize the wrongness of it.

The term "common sense racism" generalizes the conversation people usually have in regards to race. I think that it is a stereotypical title based on social norms and relations between races.

It is quite evident throughout this article that the white supremest view is still a widely held opinion. Why is it that the talk on race is one that is so hard to shrug off? Are people capable of talking about race without bias, or are people so caught up in the pigment of others skin to see past their differences?

On page two, the term "middle-aged white guys" feels like such a Jacksonian era term. It's interesting to realize that in some aspects of our democracy and its core values are still prevalent in modern day politics.

I agree with the section of this article that touches upon the awkwardness many white's face when talking about race. I think that in the face of diversity, when people don't know a whole lot about the opposite view, they often just stay silent. I also think that society has stigmatized the conversation about race as a "bad" one, so it makes it even harder to openly talk about it without feeling uncomfortable.

On the second page, where it discusses how Mitt Romeny would have beat Obama if more white people had voted, I find this so disrupting. In a society that is supposedly so against racial bias and discrimination, to read a sentence suggesting that makes me so saddened.

The distinction between the two different functions of speech relates well to the conversation of religion. The dialogue of religion is a understood story that is told over and over again intended to be told to all the world. However, in the same sense, the story of religion is tailored, one, by respected religion, and by the audiences that are listening.

This is interesting because what is essentially being said is that he who can master the art of dialect is superior, "the king of men". I find this to be true in part because I too believe that those who understand dialect and can speak with great conviction do hold greater power.

I find this sentence interesting because in the way I perceive it I relate it to the notion of being pure and faithful. It reminds me of the belief that good things happen to good people, and that in this case, if a persons soul stays truthful, the soul will always be protected and looked out for.