"What Can We Do? Becoming Part of the Solution," "In Defense of Rich Kids," and "Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice," (Rosenblum and Travis, 502-520).

My first reaction within seconds of reading the article "In Defense of Rich Kids" by William Upski Wimsatt (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 508-511) was definitely negative. Though Wimsatt is pointing out that people with money didn't chose to be rich and that if you are, why not be a "cool rich kid" and donate your money to just causes (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 510)? Even so, I can't help by feeling "ew" about this article. He writes like a "bro" and completely draws a line between rich people and poor people (in his article, there wasn't an in between).

Again, he talks about the charities he supports and how he is trying to engage other people like him to use their money for good. I realize money is helpful when trying to promote change. But to think that it is the end all is sad to me. Maybe this is because I am from a working class family and the subtle chip on his shoulder throughout this entire article completely irked me.

"...it's easy to criticize my actions when you don't have much money..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 508). Maybe I wasn't thinking about criticizing you before but after reading that part, I want to now! Again, yes, he wants to help charities that need to get their feet off the ground but I guess the difference is this: he is using his money to help which he realizes he will get more and more of, while others use their very lives and energy to do something. Those are the people I want to celebrate, not the money man.

In the end, I don't think it is the message that Wimsatt gave, it was his delivery. Maybe a more humble approach would make the lowly 99% want to engage with him more.

In the following reading "Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 512-516), the authors offer concrete steps about how to overcome adversity (such as racism).

One of them is money....ok, Wimsett won that one.

Additionally, white people can be a "strong ally" by offering "respect...speak up...talk to other white people...interrupt jokes and comments...[and] take risks" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 513). That makes sense and seems pretty obvious.

Have you ever played the game "Cards Against Humanity?" It is very inappropriate and I can't decide if I actually can play it without feeling absolutely terrible. It has become increasingly popular and I am honestly a little shocked by its content. It's just making it ok to say racist things and that seems like taking a step back; I don't think laughing at the discrimination of people is ever appropriate.

"The challenge we face is to change patterns of exclusion, rejections, privilege, harassment, discrimination, and violence that are everywhere in this society existed for hundreds (or...thousands) of years. We have to begin by thinking about the trouble and the challenges in new and productive ways...." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 502).

The above quote is refreshing, after having to write about rich providing support and about how money will change how things change. Wimsatt's flaw is that he is sticking with a corrupt system and playing by its rules. To really change society for the better, he should focus on renewing the very system that gave him his wealth.

If we want to really start change, do we have to play by the system's game or should we deviate, to create a new "game" and a new way of interacting with one another?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.