Race and Civic Felony by Loic Wacquant

The US conception of “race” is a direct outcome of the unique status of the United States as a slave holding republic. While slavery itself has long been abolished, its dynamics were replicated in Jim Crow segregation and later in the urban ghetto. The Jim Crow regime reworked the racial boundary between slaves and free into a segregated societies. Despite the he abolition of “statues segregation”, it seems that new ways have been thought in order to hold minorities from the mainstream society. Another ‘peculiar institution’, born of the adjoining of the hyperghetto with the cerebral system, is reorganizing the social meaning and significance of ‘race’ in agreement with the dictates of the deregulated economy and the post-Keynesian state.

White people fear and mistrust people of color .They think of black people’s lower-class members as the causes of social disorder, sexual dissolution, school dissolution, school deterioration, welfare profiteering, neighborhood decline, economic regression, and most significant violent crime. Americans are more afraid of being victimized by black strangers, rather than white ones. Meanwhile, some studies have shown that young black men are more positively associated with the belief that street crime is a serious problem. By the 1980’ there was the idea of” siege mentality” was integrated into the black districts and was suggesting to be aware of the unfamiliar black people in a given residency. This creates the strategy of avoiding younger African Americans. In past few years American courts have provoked the idea of stopping people and using race as “ a negative signal of increased risk of criminality”. For the past few weeks we were able to witness some of the vivid examples for this statement, such as Michael Brown’s and Erick Garner’s deaths. The equation in the article ”Race as Civic felony” ,”Young+Black+Male” brings some negative feeling and frustration, however; the bitter true is that people actually are being judged by this equation. The US Supreme Court permitted police officers to stop an individual based on solely upon “reasonable suspicion”. Unfortunately every officer sees those suspicious reasons differently due to the lack of manual that gives specific description of those “reasonable suspicions”.

 

Civiliter Mortuus: the Triple Exclusion of Convicts

1. Prisoners are denied the access to institutionalized cultural capital(130): It is thought that these will take away a lot of money from “honest and hard-working Americans” who do not have the chance of college educations too. This is also explained that some people might commit a crime just to get a free education. This statement particularly seemed to be a nonsense. Why would someone want to have a mark on their lives as felons just for free education. The actual fact that someone was charged of felony is pushing away  the employees, so I don’t see why one would want to get higher education in prison.
2. Prisoners are systematically excluded from social redistribution and public aid(131). Everyone who has been in detention for more than 60 days is denied the help. Is this a correct thing to do? I don’t think so. If someone is charged for something that is not as dangerous as others, then I don’t think should be denied the help.Why are these people given the mark on their resumes as felonies and plus the  they are denied any type of support. Don’t you think this automatically creates more criminals? What can one do to support his/her family if every door is closed for them?
3. Convicts are banned from political participation via “criminal disenfranchisement”(132). I support the idea that people who are imprisoned  for murder or other types of violent crimes don’t have to vote. However; those people who committed far less dangerous crimes or at least they are freed should have the right to vote. I doubt this a little bit because I don’t think that everyone who is in prison is guilty. Some people were arrested based on wrong proves.

The word felony is derived from latin word fello meaning villain or wicked and designated as evil person.(135) The article suggests that the word felony was meant to be “ a symbolic act of political banishment, an assertion of the state’s power to exclude those who violated prevailing norms”, before it was explained as perpetrator on an infamous crime. Race or as article states the blackness is properly understood as America’s primeval civic felon. Not in a rhetorical or in metaphorical sense but more like in Durkheimian conception of the crime.(136) In this case America’s idealized .It is represented  as a land of freedom, equality and self-determination. I constantly think about this idea of idealized America recently, especially after all these recent incidents. America seems such a friendly and racism country to me. I would see that people of different color and ethnic background appeared in movies and pop sphere. However, when I lived here for few years now, I realized that the race and ethnicity factor is highlighted very much. Everything is analyzed through the help of racism. For the first sight it is a little frustrating because obviously not every action is based on the ideas of racism. However, when deeper analysis are done I can clearly see why so much mistrust towards everything and every action. If someone can be imprisoned just to be kept away from the mainstream society its scary to think what else can be expected.

*Throughout the summery I have few questions that I answered in my own way.Please, feel free to comment about your ideas.

 

Covering Part 3

The End of Civil Rights focuses on two important areas in which accommodation protects individuals in the work force from being discriminated against, religious observants and the disabled bodies. Although, law requires accommodations defined as “absent a reason for demanding conformity, the state or employer must bend toward the individual, rather than vice versa” (Pg.167), there are loopholes in which individuals are left defenseless, so one is still coerced into covering and assimilating for the protection of basic civil rights.

Religious minorities give up symbolic aspects so they can fit into mainstream society. Jewish men “cover” by not wearing a Yarmulke, which is a representation of their religious beliefs in Judaism. Muslims are told to disclose any symbolic representation such as emblems and headscarves. In some cases they have went as far as changing a surname not to be associated with a religion that has a negative stigma. In this model of accommodation a person is protected for being a Jew or for being a Muslim but not being “too Jewish” or “too Muslim” by observing religious beliefs in the public workspace.

While, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 mandates employers to make “reasonable accommodations”(Pg.174) under the condition that the accommodations are not “significantly difficult or expensive” (Pg174) for people whose disability is immutable. This does not apply to people that have a mutable disability. In the case that is presented to us with the cochlear implant, a person with unilateral hearing loss that decides not to correct their impairment with a cochlear implant would not be safe from discrimination in the workplace. In some cases such as the Sutton v. United Airlines, the employer required an uncorrected disability; since her condition was not immutable she too was not protected by the act of accommodation.

As the courts determine sanctions on which disabilities employers considered immutable and deserve accommodations or how much of ones religion they are able to “flaunt” in the workplace, many people are neglected from the First Amendment. So why is it ethical to deny certain individuals against accommodation and not others? Why are we only protected for “being” a certain religion but are not protected when “doing”? “The court has solved this problem by moving toward protecting no behaviors, safeguarding only the immutable aspects of identity”(Pg. 177). Which in turn only leaves the option to assimilate into mainstream society by covering.

In understanding The New Civil Rights, Yoshino describes this as the authenticity that lies in each of us. To further elaborate, D.W. Winnicott a psychoanalyst describes that each of us has a “True Self” which is the uncovered self and a “False Self” the covered self. The “True Self” is the true uncovered and most authentic you while the “false self” is what protects the “True self” from the societal demands.

Under the law of Civil Rights the new minority groups are not protected. As a population we as a whole are protected for basic human rights. Any diverse groups that differ from the norm need to evolve into a big enough groups to influence a change or modification to human civil rights.

Do you think there is a difference between covering and having a “False self”?

Is it ethical to persuade an employee to repair a mutable disability in order to be protected from employment termination?

Covering Part 1

An Uncovered Self

Yoshino uses a poetic tone in his memoir about his experiences, in order to define his sexuality and how he came to terms with who he is. He mentions his college life and his feelings being a Japanese American and being a closeted homosexual.  Yoshino discusses his internal conflicts with identification and how he struggled to embrace the many different aspects of himself. Yoshino states “Until then, I had been splendidly noncommittal; neither Japanese nor American, neither poet nor pragmatist, neither straight nor gay” (7). This is the beginning of the “covering” process, which Yoshino describes as identifying and accepting a stigma, but keeping that stigma contained within one’s self (18). Yoshino goes on to describe his professional life, and how he had to “cover” himself in that because it was okay to be a homosexual, but he couldn’t necessarily talk about things relating to that, as that would be deemed as negative. In this chapter, Yoshino introduces the concept of covering and sets the tone for the rest of the book as he raises the question of covering being a civil rights issue and the negative effects of assimilation.

Part 1

1) Gay Conversion

In this part, Yoshino mention a brief history of Gay, and how in the past, it was diagnosed as a mental illness, and people would attempt to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. Surgeries were performed on homosexuals as a method for them overcoming their feelings towards other men, which is completely absurd and mind boggling. In the early 1900s, homosexuals were given shock therapy to “convert” them to the “normal standard”, which is heterosexual. Yoshino goes on to question these tactics of “converting an individual”, and how these forms of therapy were ineffective and that it is not something that can be changed by physical treatment, it is something innate. The literal mental illness model states that, heterosexuals spread homosexuality through bad parenting, and the Contagion model states that gays pass on homosexuality through their interactions. Yoshino mentions how after gay rights activism became more prominent, they seeked to “convert” the view of traditional psychologists and doctors, that homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness. An interesting argument is when Yoshino writes “Although the idea of homosexuality as a literal disease (a mental illness) has faded, the idea of homosexuality as a figurative disease (a disfavored contagious condition) has endured” (45). I believe this is the main argument of this whole chapter, as it mentions that despite homosexuality being undeclared as a mental illness, it is still stigmatized into a behavior and a culture that seeks for conversion of an individual. Yoshino goes on to state that “Conversion is the ultimate demand for assimilation-while passing and covering leave the underlying identity relatively intact, conversion destroys it” (49). He concludes this chapter by stating that conversion destroys the identity because the ultimate goal is to assimilate within society and leave yourself behind.

2) Gay Passing

This is sort of the next phase in the covering theory, and Yoshino uses his experience of falling in love and coming out to his parents to describe and summarize it. His coming out to his parents was a rather profound experience in which they were supportive and expressed their love for their child, though they weren’t been necessarily happy with the choice. He mentions the concept of an “open secret”, kind of like an elephant in the room, that people were aware of his sexual orientation but no one seemed to acknowledge it or even mention it. He mentions how many times being gay just passes through conversation and people would rather ignore the fact than face the idea head on. Thus he introduces the concept of “passing”, in which though homosexuals are allowed to be gay, they can’t really acknowledge it or everyone stays silent, and thus they “pass” through life. Yoshino mentions the “Dont Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in which homosexuals cannot be discriminated in the army for being homosexual, but they can be excluded for coming out. His argument in this chapter, is that if someone has a right to be a certain kind of person, then they have the right to verbally and physically express who they are without any repercussions (70). He also states the First Amendment should protect anyone who identifies as gay, and that it is a civil rights violation for people to have to hide who they are.

3) Gay Covering

In this chapter, Yoshino introduces the third phase, which is the “covering”. Basically, despite coming out to most of his friends and family, Yoshino still was constricted as he couldn’t be expressive of his relationship, as a heterosexual couple would be and that would be deemed as acceptable. The covering stage, deals with how much an individual assimilates into the mainstream and how they have to “act straight” in order to fit in. Yoshino mentions how gays acting in a normal relationship such as public displays of affection is seen as questionable, even though it is accepted in a heterosexual relationship. Yoshino states in his main argument “Covering is a strategy of assimilation available to all groups, including but not limited to the classic civil rights groups of racial minorities, women, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. These four axes are the fundamental dimensions along which we all mute or flaunt our identities” (79). Yoshino argues that in the “covering” process, it is okay to identify as gay and be publicly known as that, but you cannot reveal personal aspects of yourself, so essentially you are covering yourself from the outside world. He mentions his first relationship, as an example of this. He basically states  that homosexuality is a form of selective uptake, and that people pick and choose what aspects to be accepted and reject notions that seem contradictory to them. For example, gays in fashion is something that is not only accepted but praised, but any gay relationship is rather silenced and secluded. Covering is another form of the “Dont ask, Don’t tell” policy because you cannot really discuss your personal life, as a heterosexual would. He relates “gay” as being a performance, and that people judge the authenticity of yourself if you do not adhere to those stigmatized norms restricted by society. Yoshino ends this part with calling for change and reform, and calling for a resistance to assimilation, by mentioning the harms of it.

Overall, I really enjoyed the reading. I like how Yoshino broke down the process of covering by referencing his personal memoir and instances in the law, to show how homosexuals are constrained by society despite being somewhat accepted. I do believe that his covering theory can be applied to all “minority groups”, because to a certain extent there is a degree of selective uptake, in which people pick and choose what aspects of the culture or the people they like, and silence the other ones. What do you guys think about part one? Do you agree with Yoshino’s arguments?

Chapter 6- The New Jim Crow

As we near the end of the book and we see Michelle Alexander’s argument for mass incarceration becoming the newest form of Jim Crow America today, we are forced to think about plenty of things that we take for granted in our everyday lives. Her argument explains a whole lot about how people’s lives are post incarceration, and not just people, but black people. Their lives turn out similar to the lives of their predecessors under Jim Crow America and under slavery. “We’ve gone from plantations to penitentiaries”, she quotes Al Sharpton saying. There is this huge argument in America about people who make everything a race thing, I think the argument we should be having is about the people who don’t see that everything IS a race thing. For people to completely ignore that there is the factor of race to every single decision made by every human being every single day is ridiculous. We as humans have made the social decision to even make physical difference a real consideration, so to say that it’s something that doesn’t play a part in every decision is a spit in the face to those who have to deal with the negative effects of that choice every single day. Even worse, to have to argue with people who are affected negatively by this and try to show them how they are getting the short end of a really long stick is draining and almost pointless, as they are the children of both the disadvantaged and the system who wishes to keep them oppressed, and a sign of the system working effectively.
But to focus more on the final chapter of the book, “The Fire This Time”, the chapter questions the silence. It questions the refusal to talk about the issues beyond what the media wishes to look at, and it calls as a premonition if the silence continues on. She questions the judgment of racial justice advocates, she questions the judgment of those who exist in our society who are advocated for colorblindness, and she questions the judgment of those who succumb to the temptations and the easiness of colorblindness. She questions all of our judgments. What is it that we truly wish to solve by our indecisivity? Why can’t we not decide whether we want to help or not and if we have actually made that decision, why haven’t we decided to actually help? Clearly some of us have seen that the true issue is the evolution of racism into a different form. This metamorphosis has clearly blinded many people throughout the years, but to those of us who have seen it, to those of us who aren’t fooled by the system of oppression, when will we stand up and make a real change in the system? Michelle Alexander in her book has exposed to us the weaknesses of the system in which we live.

If you aren’t convinced by Michelle Alexander’s argument, what would you say is the real metamorphosized effort made by the oppressive system for the government for blacks in America? What can we do to effectively fight it? Would it be better if there was no colorblindness, if there was full acknowledgement and appreciation and respect for other peoples color, race, ethnicity and culture?

Chapters 4 & 5 – The New Jim Crow

In Chapter 4, Alexander covers ways in which having a criminal record disempowers those who are trying to reconstruct their lives. I kind of want to break down the chapter by facts I found shocking from each section, because it’s a well-outlined series of things she throws at you.

In the Brave New World section, Alexander writes that “judges are not required to inform criminal defendants of some of the most important rights they are forfeiting when they plead guilty to a felony,” and in fact they “may not even be aware” everything a felony conviction takes away (p. 143). So from what I gather, Alexander explain a few important effects that having a criminal record brings about, the main ones being restrictions from public housing, job discrimination, debt, fees, and disenfranchisement.

Access to public housing became more restricted during President Clinton’s term. The 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act was a modified version of his “one strike and you’re out” rhetoric that he took on to appear as a Tough Dude President. The act authorized public housing agencies to say no to or event any drug offenders, felons, or anyone believed to be those things. And funding can be taken away if agencies are found to not be screening effectively enough. So of course people who run public housing programs are going to be strict about whom they let in! There aren’t definitive rates on who is actively denied public housing. But 65 million people have criminal records and over 650,000 people are released each year. All these restrictions lead to homelessness. But research shows that access to stable housing is connected to employment and job retention. Of course, getting a job when released from jail is another battle. It’s within the law for employers to not hire people based on past criminal charges in 40 states. And even when ex-offenders find these jobs, they are often located in areas one has to drive to…something they’d be able to do if they didn’t get their licenses revoked.

Alexander argues that by putting such a high proportion of Black men in prison, and discriminating against criminals, one can get away with (well, Americans can get away with) being racist without ever having to mention race by name.

Then, when they get jobs, ex-offenders are barely being able to survive on their paychecks because they have to contend with an exorbitant number of fees. These include, but are not limited to fees, costs, and fines, drug testing and drug treatment bills, child-support, probation supervision fees, detention costs, application fee for court-appointed counsel, sentence report fees, and residence work-release fees.

And no, government programs don’t really help, at least, not for the long haul. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families caps off at 5 years. So within that time, an ex-offender is supposed to find a job that will bring them (and potentially their family) out of poverty. And before you ask, no, people with “drug-related felony convictions can not receive funded public assistance” (p. 157).

The latter half of the chapter deals with the emotional aspects of “going home” after a prison stay, and stereotypes of criminals glorified by television shows. I’m not too interested in going into the part of the chapter – but please comment below with your thoughts about it! I am guilty of doing this though, not gonna lie, The Wire is an excellent show. But the episodes I’ve seen never went into all of the effects having a criminal record produces (the main characters of course being gangsters who made enough money to support their drug-runners). Did anyone else ever watch this show? There is A LOT to critically discuss about it, and I’m super curious to see if anyone has any comments.

I’m more interested in the “Boxed” sections of this chapter. On page 153, it says that “EEOC guidelines do not have the force of the law” but that judges refer to them on cases of discrimination. I’m a little confused about this myself. I recently got a background check done for a new job, but I also signed papers that claimed that the institution where I’d be working doesn’t discriminate based on past criminal offenses…and then another couple papers explaining that, really, my employers can discriminate based on whatever they want basically, and not hire me at their discretion. Even my fancy big-girl internship at a purportedly serious institution had these sort of conflicting standards. And I’m wondering about the validity of the research Alexander refers to in these sections, on how discrimination occurs against people of color even when “the box” does not exist (the box here referring of course to a job application question regarding past criminal offenses). How can law-makers get to the root of this sort of discrimination?

Chapter 5 goes back to the big picture. Alexander reminds us again that “the cage” is a racial caste system, fed by The War on Drugs, which condemns Black men more than any other group in the country. I like how here, other pieces of a broken system are filled in. For example on page 185, she writes, “Because there is no meaningful check on the exercise of police discretion, racial biases are granted free rein.” I’m wondering as to what these meaningful checks would be? How can police officers be held accountable for their discriminatory actions?

Alexander also explains why this recent system of mass incarceration is not quite like decades past. Some argue that the Drug War is just perpetuating a long run of incarcerating people of color. Alexander points out that before the mid-1980s, the criminal justice system punished a small proportion of the total population. So while people of color have always been discriminated against, the War on Drugs (or rather, the series of acts that fall under this umbrella) has demonstrated the full force of punitive behavior the U.S. government can enact.

The New Jim Crow: Chapters 1 & 2

In Michelle Alexander’s chapter 1 of The New Jim Crow, she took her readers on a roller coaster ride of the discriminations and achievements that African Americans faced in the United States. In this first chapter, Alexander informs her readers that there is a reoccurring theme of systems coming to an end and then shortly after, are reborn again. The birth of slavery began right after the Bacon’s Rebellion. Planters did not want the poor whites and blacks to unite with the common interest to end servitude, therefore the planters placed a wedge in between the two races through racial bribes. This control gave power to the white servants, pushing the African Americans even lower in the system as slaves. Eventually slavery ended during the Reconstruction Era, which abolished slavery (13^th amendment), provided due process (14th amendment), gave African Americans the right to vote (15^th amendment), and many other programs assisting African Americans. Just when things were improving significantly for former slaves (when we are at the top of the roller coaster), a new racial caste system awakens (bringing us back to the bottom). The Jim Crow laws were a way to segregate whites and blacks without utilizing slavery to force it. The Jim Crow laws separated whites and blacks by excluding blacks from public places like schools, churches, restroom, etc. Eventually The Jim Crow system came to an end in 1964 when the “Civil Rights Act formally dismantled the Jim Crow System of discrimination in public accommodations, employment, voting, education, and federally financed activities” (38). With the Civil Rights Movement a success, African Americans “stood a brief moment in the sun”(20), before another racial order launched. The end of the Jim Crow laws put us on the top of the roller coaster ride, but yet again the ride can never stop at the top, because another racial order must bring us back down to the bottom. The conservative whites cannot watch as African Americans thrive and succeed to their level. Every time the black community passed through an obstacle that held them back from being considered a first class citizen, the white elite men searched for a new system to keep blacks below them.

This was how the birth of mass incarceration came to be. Anyone that supported the civil rights legislation through direct-action and civil disobedience was considered a threat to law and order. In 1982, Reagan announced a “War on Drugs,” which targeted African Americans. Because of the discriminations of African Americans, they were given little to no job opportunities, which led them to sell drugs, in particularly crack cocaine. Unfortunately this was used against African Americans, for this so called “War on Drugs” and “Crack-Cocaine epidemic.” “The War on Drugs, cloaked in race-neutral language, offered whites opposed to racial reform a unique opportunity to express their hostility towards blacks and black progress, without being exposed to the charge of racism”(54). You would think the War on Drugs was to put away big time drug dealers, but that was not the case at all. Alexander revels to us that the New Jim Crow is another system that allows discrimination of African Americans by throwing them in jail for no reasonable reason, but the color of their skin.

Although chapter 1 had its ups and its downs through the progression of African Americans, It is an important and informative chapter to start out this book. Throughout history I noticed there was a pattern. Every time African Americans successfully took a step closer to their equalized citizenship, the white elite had to find a new system to keep blacks at the bottom. Alexander informs us that black discrimination never ended, and in fact it is reborn into our law and order system today.

Moving forward to chapter 2, Alexander educates us readers about how the legal system really works. She starts the chapter off by completely mocking the show Law and Order by saying how it misinterprets how real legality works. Basically, the legal system is corrupt and the way it is structured, police officers can put anyone they want in jail. This chapter reminds me of when we read The Common Place of Law, because Alexander refers to legality as a game. For an example, in the beginning of the chapter Alexander writes about the “Rules of the Game.” She states how there are few legal rules on police behavior. The 4^th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, but what constitutes reasonable? Many times a police officer follows through the search even if there were not probable cause. Police officers “cheat” in this legality game, making it hard/impossible for anyone else to play (anyone accused breaking the law). Throughout chapter 2 Alexander reveals different ways the legal system is corrupt.

1. If a police officer deems someone “dangerous,” they can stop and frisk them without a warrant.
2. Police officers do not inform the accused that they need consent.
3. Police officers use pretext in order to find drugs.
4. The “Volume Approach” technique
5. The “Drug-Courier Profile” technique
6. Byrne program funding local and state law enforcement to make drug arrests number one priority. (Even though drug use/abuse was at decline at the time)
7. Local/state police have access to military base/weapons.
8. Law enforcement gain profits through drug market.
9. Civil Forfeiture- departments can seize assets of a certain crime. (Property, money)
10. The more assets you have to trade, the shorter your sentence/punishment is. The fewer assets you have to trade the longer your sentence is.
11. Public defenders are not as meaningful. They have many clients, so the defender will not have the best-qualified lawyer/ if they even can get one.
12. Defenders are often forced to plea bargain in exchange for some form of leniency on sentence.
13. Harsh sentencing also forces people to snitch and fabricate/ falsely give wrong information
14. Drug crimes are sentences longer than violent crimes.
15. Being labeled a “felon”

After reading this chapter, it made me disgusted of the legal system I live in. I always believed that this system was primarily here to protect us and give justice, but little did I realize it also had an underlining propose as well. Michelle Alexander claims this discrimination still prevails today. So I was wondering if people agree or disagree with Alexander? Does anyone have any recent examples that prove this does exist today?

“The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander: Introduction

Anesa Toolsee

“The New Jim Crow”, by Michelle Alexander shows the issue of there being a “new Jim Crow” here in the United States. The Jim Crow that we know of is the laws that segregated blacks and whites, forcing blacks to stay below the whites. Alexander brings to the light that we have these over populated prisons that are filled with majority of African Americans. As a result of being labeled as a person that went to jail, the government legally can deny access to employment, housing, public benefits, and the right to vote. These are things that African Americans during the Jim Crow Era were denied. It seems like a coincidence but Alexander believes that it is being done deliberately to African Americans.

The crime rates in the United States compared to Germany and Finland was almost identical, yet the incarceration rate in the U.S was 4 times higher. This confirmed that the U.S was doing something that did not seem logical because majority of the people that committed a crime were black and was incarcerated because of a drug felony. Alexander believes “we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it”. I completely agree with her because minorities today are always below the higher class. They just set up this system in a way to make sure the lower class stays in their place in the lower class. This system is invisible to the world because everyone is playing their role in society and many may believe that the issue is too big to face and may just choose to conform and work within society.

I just can’t believe that these sociologist have come to the conclusion that prisons are a complete failure 30+ years ago and today it has evolved into this necessity to have in a society. To me it shows that maybe they knew this would be a good way to keep the segregation alive and legal at that.

Alexander says that drug abuse is a public health problem, not a crime. Most of the crimes that African Americans are put in prison for are drug offenses. This would lead me to think that if drug abuse were to be looked at from a health issue rather than a crime, alot of these “criminals” would be helped and there wouldn’t be part of this mass incarceration.

Alexander states that in America you can move up class although it may be difficult. That is the slogan that The United States of America runs off of. Everyone believes this is the land of opportunity but they’re these systems in place that are hidden right in front of you like the prisons that help to hinder the movement up in class. Some may believe it was their unfortunate luck to have to grow up in that unsafe neighborhood, with the bad schools, single parent home, or drug infested area. In reality as it was once thought but not to the extreme that the CIA was bringing in crack-cociane to poor neighborhoods to kill off the African Americans. The system is meant to be this way and it’s a cycle to the people that need to stay in their place will have no choice but to stay in their place.
This book wants to inform people of the discrimination that is happening but nobody seems to notice. I believe she is touching on a big part of the issue in this society but this is just one book that only so many will read. These racial injustices need to be addressed and improved to benefit everyone.

Do you agree with Michelle Alexander when she says that drug abuse is a public health issue and not a crime ?

Why is this issue not more aware of in the United States?

Eyes on the Prize

The film Eyes on the Prize is a very powerful and moving documentary that expressed the harsh discriminations that African Americans still faced after the Civil War. Although the Civil war was at its end, it never stopped the discrimination and racism that African Americans still faced everyday. This film told the story of the Black Panther Party and what their purposes were. The Black Panther Party is an organization group, founded by Heuy Newton and Bobby Seale, for the main purpose of fighting against African American oppression and fighting for their first class citizenship. The Black Panther Party originated in Oakland California, and eventually branched off to different locations like Brooklyn, New York. Although there are many cases where inequality against African Americans took place, this post will focus on the police brutality in Oakland, California, and the inequality school system in Brooklyn, New York.

In Oakland, California, the Black Panthers stood up to the police enforcement that treated the African Americans in town unjustly. Many African Americans claimed that in Oakland, they were in contact more with the police then the actual city council, and something had to change. The Black Panthers decided to take action and follow the police around town to watch their every move. The purpose of tailgating the police was to make a firm statement, that they were watching the policemen very carefully when they arrested a person of color. In fact, every time an African American would be arrested, they would read out their rights. Not only did the Black Panthers intimidate the police officers by following them around, the Black Panthers carried around guns to prove their seriousness and willingness to take violent action, to get the equality they deserve. Although the Black Panthers are proving a point (for the good) by carrying a weapon around, I do not agree with this method. I do not agree with this method because I do not believe that someone can fully get their way through physical fighting, because in the end both parties will be hurt. The Black Panther may not agree, but I believe Dr. King Jr.’s Direct Action method from Letter from Birmingham Jail that expresses a non-violent method, which forces tension is a more productive and civil way of fighting for what one wants. Eventually, the Black Panthers were charged with disturbing the peace and were claimed to be anti-white. But in fact, the Black Panther party was not anti-white; they would fight for any minority group that experienced the oppression and inequalities that they are also facing. Therefore, the Black Panther party came up with a Ten Point Plan that laid out the demands they want from government.

In Brooklyn, New York, parents wanted change to the unequal school system. The Ocean-Hill Brownsville School consisted of all white teachers, in a mostly African American neighborhood. The idea was that children would learn better with a racially mixed array of educators, versus just white teachers. So, the New York City board system purposed an experiment that would place racially mixed teachers into the Ocean-Hill Brownsville School. This plan worked, the children’s education was broadened and more cultural. Eventually, the white unionized teachers had to be transferred out of Ocean-Hill Brownsville school district in replace of minority raced teachers. This event raised much conflict between everyone in town, especially between the whites and African Americans. The action of the African Americans replacing the white educators raised another issue. It was claimed that African Americans resented Jewish people because the teachers that were transferred were white Jews. This event caused the unionized teachers to strike against the school district. This was a very significant event in history because it shows the collective power people can have against the school system. At the end of the film, it showed the Ocean-Hill Brownsville community marching on the Brooklyn Bridge that symbolizing “power to the people.”

Eyes on the Prize was over all a great film that we watched in class. It was very inspiring and definitely impacted all of its viewers in a good way. Even though it is seen very negatively today, I liked the way the film maker included the harsh racism statements that the white people made, so that the viewers and myself can briefly grasp how horrible and blunt the racism was back then. Another aspect of the film I admired was the real clips from history that was played, versus reenactments of some civil right movements that I have seen in other films. Real clips tell a better story and show the real reality of what is being told. After watching Eyes on the Prize in class, I gained more respect for the African Americans who fought for what they deserved, equality.

 

Do you agree with the Black Panther’s method of carrying weapons?

Did the film impact anyone? In what way?

 

King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail

This reading I found one of the most interesting. This letter truly showed Martin Luther King Jr’s amazing diction and his verbal capabilities. He was so eloquent in explaining to the other clergymen why his presence was necessary in Birmingham, Alabama and even why he was willing to go to jail for his cause. “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”, he says very early in the passage. He goes through a list of troubles that the people in Birmingham had been going through and even attempts to tug at the clergymen’s sense of goodwill and justice, urging them to not only stop judging his decision, but even indirectly invite them to join him. He also shows his political prowess explaining the thought process that went into the timing and intensity of their demonstrations. He was targeting more than just a cause for awareness, but also an economic stand, as well as a political one. King goes through the steps he took leading to the demonstrations that deemed them necessary. He explains the four steps to a basic nonviolent campaign: collection of the facts, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. At the point of him writing this letter he was very clearly receiving a huge number of people attempting to deter him from his path. The facts were that Birmingham was one of the most racially segregated and brutal to blacks in the whole nation. There was very little to solve injustices that occurred against blacks and there were even preventative measures that disallowed them to be served by the justice system set up to help everyone. He talked about the negotiations with the economics leaders of the community. In an attempt to equalize the community he addressed small steps they could take in making the area less segregated, such as taking down demeaning and segregating signs. Those negotiations failed and so he was urged to the next step of self-purification. They began to ask themselves necessary questions when attempting a nonviolent protest: “Would they be able to be attacked without attacking back?”, “Will they go through whatever they had to in order to achieve their goals, even go to jail?”. After they took command of their resolve and fully realized and accepted what it was they were willing to do for their cause, they timed their demonstrations perfectly, to when it would have the heaviest impact. Then he explained why the direct action was necessary. He addresses all the questions that he had to. They riddle him with questions of ‘why this and not that’, ‘why not wait’. He explains in a very non aggressive and thorough tone that these steps were necessary to influence change in the system. Waiting would no longer be acceptable, watching your brothers and sisters be attacked, discriminated and even killed can take its toll on a person and there is a limit to where one can no longer wait, and action must be taken. He makes heavy comparisons between the issue of blacks with other genocidal world acts such as Hitler and his Third Reich’s policies for what justice is and what is legal and illegal. He even uses religion to pacify those who opposed him, explaining that even in the bible to inflict change of an oppressed people ‘extremists’, as they were referring to him as, were always important such as Paul, Amos, and even Jesus Christ himself. Martin Luther King Jr. even addressed the white powers that be, and hoped that they could see the reason in his argument and do something to inflict change before heavier consequences could be felt. King proves himself more than just a worthy adversary. He proves himself to be a strong political actor and strategist. He shows the logic behind his actions, and provides counter-arguments to his own argument. He does so with the same resolve of his patience and non-violent protests in Birmingham and he includes an answer for everyone who might have read his letter while imprisoned by an unjust system. He is truly the epitome of an American hero, not only for blacks, but he also serves as an example for any one group being oppressed by another.

I ask you my fellow classmates, what other oppressed groups today do you think could successfully use King’s methods to achieve their equality necessities?

Ten Point Plan

Ten Point Plan

The Ten point plan are ten ideas that the Black Panther Party demanding from the US Government for hundreds of years of oppression. Most of these ten points are demanding rights promised to them by the Constitution of the United States. For example point number nine states that they want the release as well as retrials for all black and oppressed people currently incarcerated because they were unfairly trailed through a racist judicial system. The sixth amendment clearly gives American Citizens the right to a speedy and impartial trail.  As someone who has been called various times for jury duty, I know that I can only serve in the community in which I live in. This point makes me question whether minorities where picked for jury duty for these cases (will post an article on this soon under commentary) or was it an all white jury.

When I read their plan it me think of their relationship with the law and how their experiences shaped the way they looked at the law. From our readings in The Common Place of Law, I picture their relationship with the law would go under the Against the Law section. Law for them works like big brother” they are always there and always watching them in their everyday life. Law to them is a hierarchy where there are roles that people are allowed or not allowed to play. To them the law is far from being impartial and objective. Nothing the law has done has benefited them as equally as white Americans. Law is not a game for them and if it were a game it is one they cannot win because the system is fixed so that minorities always lose.

The Black Panthers’ ten point plan reminded me of the ideas of Karl Marx.  They explain that the capital system has robbed and oppressed the black community.  In point three they demand the promises of land that was once promised to them by the Unites States for oppressing and murdering minorities. This makes me wonder what other promises the United States has made that they have not kept.

Can anyone think of any promises to minorities that the US government did not keep or maybe even found loopholes to avoided meeting it?