Resource Mobilization Theory

The world is not perfect for everyone. People come from different backgrounds and not everyone will be satisfied. There are a limited number of changes that can be made in a significant amount of time. This is because humans are creatures of habit, and they do not like to change what is already established, specifically social matters. The problem resides in that some of the social ideologies are incorrect and unfair to the ones being affected. It is ignorant to believe that keeping things the way they are is the right thing to do. Change allows progress and advancement of peoples, while convention just stagnates. If one has a grievance for a just cause, then they should speak out. The complication arises because there are usually few who can raise the resources necessary to get their change enacted. If they were to get the much needed resources, social change or at least progress is imminent.

The main way to attain success in a social movement under resource mobilization theory is to attain resources. Resources are things of monetary value, and or people with intrinsic value to the cause. The difficulty in attaining these resources monetary) is because the cause is likely lacking people to speak up. The majority of the targeted population for change does not care of their cause and the ones who are affected sometimes are too weak to mobilize. With a lack of people, monetary contributions are almost always in short supply. But if the cause’s leader is strong enough (charismatic), they will be able to draw people to their cause and let them speak of their grievances. With human capitol, there comes monetary capital, which is crucial to the objective.

With enough resources, people’s grievances will be heard. Resources allow supporters to take time away from their jobs and their everyday lives because the economic support can afford to feed and house them. Money cannot only feed and house them, but can give them access to lawyers and people of power. If enough people are impacted, the media will come to cover the story. Media coverage can be the ultimate goal because it is not just word-of-mouth anymore. With press comes millions of viewers and the more people affected, whether strongly or not, the more that will hear their cause and join in. What happens with resource mobilization theory is a positive feedback loop.

Resource mobilization theory is effective in its own right. Although it states you need substantial resources to mobilize one’s cause, if the cause if strong enough, that is going to be the least of one’s concerns. I think this theory is still effective today. It is evident in the recent documentary we watched in class, “Prom Night in Mississippi.” This film had hundreds of people with grievances against segregated proms. Their cause is strong because behind the prom, is hundreds of years of racial tensions that have the possibility of being calmed. The human capital had always been there, all is took was some monetary capital. Morgan Freeman offered to pay for their prom night, but more came along with him. The fact that it is a film means it is a type of media and more will be affected. With the contribution made by Freeman, the cause procured success. It was made apparent by the kids in little Charleston, Mississippi that if your cause is strong enough and you have the will to persevere, you will triumph.

Born into Racism?

Many sociologists and historians have researched and studied the origins of racism. There have also been prominent historical leaders that have contributed a large amount to the racist ideology. Josiah Strong, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin are a few historical figures that come to mind when I personally think about racist influencers. It is commonly known that racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan attract white people who have experienced some sort of disadvantage that favored minorities. These people seek a way to get back at the group they believe wronged them. In reality, this reason is far from why those people are disadvantaged. Similarly, people who have been raised to think in a racist manner are much more likely to become racist themselves.

People who are racist are obviously very closed-minded. They do not like change and do not wish for equality among the races. However, a thought that interests me is to what extent does your upbringing, meaning your familial environment, have on your views of race? I am unaware of any evidence that racist beliefs can be genetic, so this thought centers entirely on the nurture portion of the nature-nurture argument. Some areas of the United States are considerably more racist than others, possibly due to historical events, government programs to help minorities that in some way negatively affected the dominant white society, or loss of jobs to globalization. Individuals born in areas predisposed to racist beliefs will obviously be more likely to be raised by racist parents. A child is extremely influential at a young age, and being subjected to racist ideas and words during this stage of their lives will almost certainly cause the individual to become racists themselves.

One can compare this idea, although the meanings of the two drastically different associations cannot be compared, to religion. A person born to two Christian parents is not very likely to convert to Judaism, unless due to marriage. This can go both ways. I am in no way saying Christianity is better than Judaism or Judaism is better than Christianity. Merely, I am asserting the point that what you are born into pre-determines what much of your life and thoughts will be like.

One important note here is that, as shown in the video entitled “Prom Night in Mississippi,” education most likely plays a role in whether one has racist beliefs or not. There were a few white citizens of Charleston, Mississippi who believed separation of the races was meant to exist. It could be reasonably ascertained that a few of these citizens also had a very low education level. If an individual does not receive a high level of education, they are less likely to challenge preconceived notions about topics such as race. They are also very unlikely to become aware of structural racism and the impact it has on minority groups. Personally, I believe that if a racist individual receives a post-secondary education of some sort, they are much more likely to rethink their previously held beliefs about race.

If more people become educated and develop the ability to challenge previously held beliefs, it is possible that racism would decrease directly as a result.

Arabs in America

Arabs in America

While reading the section in the text about the race and civil rights of Muslims in the United States pre- and post-September 11, 2001, I was surprised on how much terrorism by other types of religious-extremist groups there are that are not publicized. I think part of the reason that groups such the Jewish Defense League (JDL) don’t get as much attention in the press as Arab terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda is the nature of their terrorism. The JDL’s goal was to “eliminate perceived enemies of the Jewish people and Israel,” and they targeted specific groups of people who they view as threats. Mostly, the JDL targeted Muslims, and since the majority of the United States is not Muslim, most Americans did not see the JDL as a direct threat to their livelihood.

I think that another reason for groups such as the JDL not getting press coverage is because they are not seen a threat to all Americans, and because Americans do not see them as a threat, we passively sit by.

On the other hand, I think the vast majority of Americans have fear of Arabs is because terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are willing to target any and all Americans, and they base this claim on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2009. On that day, thousands of people who had never voiced their hatred for Muslims, or for that matter even felt any sort of hatred for them, were attacked by surprise when they thought they were safe. I think that this nature of being attacked when a person least expects it makes people weary when they see Muslims in public. Additionally, since Al Qaeda is opposed to the American way of life in general, they target every American. Since Americans in general are the target of Al Qaeda, American pay more attention to (publicize more) the activities of groups that target them. If the JDL used the same tactics that Al Qaeda used, I would not be surprised if Americans felt the same way towards them as they do towards Muslims today. However, as the text states, there are many more factors to the racism towards Muslims.

While watching the episode of 30 Days, I could not help but notice how Dave seemed to be representative of how the American population views Muslims and their religion. While he is a practicing Christian, for the most part he did not know anything about the Muslim religion. Dave seemed shocked when he heard that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all branches of similar beliefs. I think part of the reason many people who do not practice Islam are unaware of its beliefs is because many Americans do not look it upon with favor.

Another part in the episode of 30 Days I thought was intriguing was when people were asked how they felt about a local mosque broadcasting its call to prayer over a loudspeaker so people on the street could hear it. People claimed this action violated their religious freedom, and the mosque received bomb threats. I think these people who have issue with this broadcasted call to prayer hold Islam to a double-standard: that is, the same people who are outraged by the Islam religion’s call to prayer think church bells, which is their call to prayer, are perfectly acceptable.

I think the main reason behind this negative attitude towards Arab Americans stems from lack of knowledge and education on their culture. The only knowledge most people have of Arabs and their Muslim religion comes from the media, which obviously puts a negative “spin” on their religion. Once people become more educated, they will understand that the beliefs they currently hold towards Arab Americans are based on misconceptions; which will lead to more a more positive attitude towards Arabs and their religion in America.

Native American Mascots

Native American Mascots

Mascots, no matter what they are of, are the most blatant form of stereotypes in society today. From the Redskins to the Trojans, and to the Fighting Irish, there are countless different types of schools and professional teams that use a stereotypical figure as their mascot. One of the most hotly debated topics in recent history has been the use of Native American mascots for schools and professional sports teams. As with any other debate, there are always two sides to the argument, with one side always losing, and one winning.

Many Native Americans are very upset because they think the images portrayed by mascots are unfair stereotypes linked to their people. Their resentment cannot be argued, because they are entitled to their own feelings. In the video In Whose Honor, one of the Native Americans who, after going to an Illinois basketball game and seeing chief Illiniwek perform at halftime said that, “If you grew up within the community where those things have meaning.. it would be a blow.” While I haven’t grown up in her community, I must take her word for it that it is indeed offensive to them.

However, there many more aspects to this debate. One of the most important aspects of the use of Native American mascots is intent. In the case of mascots, the intent is to use a figure that will unite a team’s fans and give them something to identify with. It seems counterintuitive that a team’s own fans would disrespect their mascot. People must also understand that there is a level of co-opting that goes on with a mascot. In many instances the image that a mascot is representing becomes separated from its original meaning.

In the video, they only interviewed Natives who were angered at this… Does the whole Native population share this sentimate? Probably not. When looking at any issue, one must not make the false assumption of group homogeneity – the idea that everyone in a group feels the same way as an individual.

A small group of natives may be offended, but then again, groups of people are offended by almost anything. Look at groups such as PETA – they raise concern but most likely, the way animals are treated before they are killed will probably not be changed because of money… here also, money is a big driving factor. If a University such as Florida State switched their mascot, many alumni will be pissed at this, and thus pull their funding from the school.

This controversy brings attention to the issue of Native Americans. The old saying that ‘any publicity is good publicity’ can apply to this situation. If there weren’t this controversy over the mascots, Native Americans would not be paid much attention to in the media. However, because of this controversy, people are being made aware of the Natives and their culture. People are now aware of the possible disrespect to the culture, and are careful not to have the intent of disrespect.

It is impossible to please everyone all the time. In the end, America is a free-market capitalist society, so whatever brings in the most money will always win out in the end. No matter what happens, one group of people will be left unsatisfied. In the future, when new sports teams come to be, it would be wise to not allow them to take on names that have anything to do with Native Americans, or for that matter, any other race of people. This would help prevent the current controversy from taking on a new form.

Intent and Perception of Mascots

Since the conception of modern sports, mascots have been employed. Mascots are a symbol that is supposed to distinguish a team and give the fans something to represent. They are used to bring the team luck and strength. The intent of a mascot is to help a team and portray a positive image, not hinder and or hurt it. Problems arise with mascots though when they represent or are associated with a sensitive issue. When mascots are chosen, they are almost always held in high esteem. They are not something to negatively affect a team’s interests and image. The way mascots should be perceived is by the intent and authenticity to the symbol it represents.

Many controversial mascots were chosen at times when the issue was not so sensitive, or was not seeing public light. Through time though, many atrocities and negative stereotypes have been correlated with the mascots because of historic events. The problem is that the mascot was chosen most likely with good intent, but because of past and current issues, they are protested and changed or eliminated. A strong example of this can be used from the class discussion of Jay Rosenstein’s “In Whose Honor.” In 1926, the University of Illinois needed a mascot, and the assistant band director chose a Native American chief. The chief represented was Chief Illiniwek of the Sioux. The expression Illiniwek meant “the complete human being - the strong, agile human body, and the indomitable human spirit.” The meaning of Illiniwek is a prime example of good intent. Also, not only being a picturesque symbol, the chief would do a “traditional” dance created by student who was an Eagle Scout that studied the Native American Culture. As time progressed, people started to remember the atrocities suffered by the Sioux Indians and that the use of a Native American image for a mascot is borderline unacceptable. The leader of the protest was a University of Illinois graduate student from Spokane, Washington named Charlene Teters. She stated that the mascot was not an authentic portrayal of an Indian chief and it was very offensive because of its mockery of sacred Native American culture. Many students and faculty at the University of Illinois believe that the Chief may not be as authentic as it could be, but it is a traditional symbol of the school and is held in the highest regard among fans. As aforementioned, the intent of the mascot was to represent and respect the Native American culture, not demean and parade it around.

The difficulty is that there are so many different kinds of people who come from different backgrounds; it is hard to satisfy them all and not cause problems. There are going to be sensitive issues and people surrounding every mascot. What complicates things more is people do not always see eye to eye. The thing that seems to matter most is what people perceive the mascot to symbolize, not the intent. So likewise, there are going to be many controversial mascots. What needs to be done, instead of eliminating an image (like the retirement of Chief Illiniwek), is a change of one. If a mascot is misrepresenting, then steps towards making it acceptable should be made. People do no need to get melodramatic, they need to look at the issue from both sides; they need to recognize the intent and not selfishly concern themselves with only their perception because looking at the intent aids in perception.

The Roles of Native American Mascots in Sports and Entertainment

Native American mascots and what they represent have been considered by many to be a white societal creation that destroys the tribe’s tradition and seeks to commercialize their spiritual beliefs. Like many controversial aspects involving a minority group being subjected to the harshness of the dominant society, people aware of the issues involved with using Native American mascots in sports and entertainment are forced to choose a side. The popular belief is that Native American-themed mascots, such as the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Florida State Seminoles, and the University of Illinois Illini, are mostly a tradition of the organization, created decades ago when the issue of Native American mascots and what they represented was largely uncontested. Within the past few decades, this previously unchallenged viewpoint has come under fire from both Native American groups and by concerned non-native individuals.

In Charlene Teters’ film “In Whose Honor,” the effects of the dominant white society corrupting the meaning of Native American symbols for commercialization and entertainment are clearly shown. Teters was a graduate student at the University of Illinois in Champagne. The mascot of the University was at the time (1989) called Chief Illiniwek, named in regards to a fictional chief from the Native American tribe the Illini. The mascot, created in the 1920’s as a way to excite crowds at sporting events and increase school spirit, is a student dressed as a stereotypical Native American chief. The student wears a complete costume made of buckskin with a large headdress made of fake eagle feathers. The student dances around during halftime, performing a fake dance that is falsely believed by many to be an actual spiritual dance. Many supporters of the University of Illinois don’t consider Chief Illiniwek to be a mascot, but instead see him as part of the University’s heritage and tradition. Teter vehemently disagrees, and sees Chief Illiniwek as something that mimicked and trivialized what Native Americans have been taught to appreciate. In the film she was invited to attend a basketball game and brought her two young children. After watching the student portraying Chief Illiniwek perform a halftime dance, she said she sees the mascot as a symbolic display of control, that the dominant white race is showing her that they control the Native American race.

Many Native Americans feel like Teters did after seeing a mockery of their race, and they even say it is more of an insult because it is made to seem real and not a cartoon figure. They point out that black face and black caricatures have disappeared from the main stream, while Indian images have not. Brand names such as Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, Monitor Sugar Company and Sue Bee Honey use stereotypical images of Native Americans to market their products. These companies use these images on their labels because society has come to associate certain ideas and thoughts with certain images of Native Americans. Although most Native American groups condone the improper use of Native American-based mascots because they are usually represented in an inaccurate light, some Native American groups believe they have a place in sports and entertainment if they represent themselves. An example of this is the Oneida Indian Tribe of Green Bay, Wisconsin performing pow-wows at Green Bay Packer games. The tribe performs a tribal dance at half time of a game each year, showing individuals in attendance an accurate picture of Native American culture. However, the tribe’s intention may be more than just promoting Native American culture. The Oneida tribe owns and operates a large casino in the Green Bay area and is a large sponsor and maintains a strong presence at Green Bay Packer home games. Some may argue the performance is more of a promotional event to draw customers than an event to educate the dominant society about a little known group. Either way, the fact that the Oneida tribe represents itself is a step in the right direction for all Native American groups.

Is it racist

A couple of days ago my roommates and I were watching a TV show on comedy central called Tosh.0. There was a section of the show called is it racist? He first shows a stereotypical black person that is showing off his cash money and his bling. Tosh then responds with a stereotypical white person showing off his wealth. I found the video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNx73N3_qr8 and if the link does not work just search for “Tosh.O is it racist”.

The first question I would like to reflect on is the-is it racist aspect of the video. After the video of the black person was over Tosh says “it might be racist but then again maybe we are racist for asking.” Would we really be racist for even asking that the question of is it racist? I would say no, because you do not have to be racist to understand what racism is. With education one can gain an understanding of what is racist. I think when something becomes racist the “joke” insults an entire race by the use of racial stereotypes that have been socially constructed throughout history.

The next question I would like to reflect on is did the video cross the line. Was the video was a joke about race or a racist joke? It is a very hard question to answer because it requires an understanding of a person of a different race. I tried to put myself in the shoes of a black person and watched the video again. I concluded the video about the black person making it "rain" with his money was kind of funny and not a racist joke. However the next part of the video, where Tosh impersonates a white person with a lot of wealth, had a couple of instances where I thought he crossed the line. The first instance was I have my 2008 return here implying that black people are into illegal business and don’t pay their taxes. The second instance that I found insulting was the college degree joke. This part of the video would be insulting for a black person because it is making the use of a stereotype that black people are uneducated and as a result cannot advance in life. The third issue I have with the video is the last line about it’s a gentleman’s game. I think this could be insulting to a black person because it is implying that there is a difference in class between the black race and the white race; which stems from a stereotype that has been socially constructed in our culture as a result of slavery. I thought what pushed this video over the edge was his line about going and voting if it is racist on a website tosh.o/whites rule. This statement reinforced what stereotypes the video was portraying and for another joke to be so bluntly made about it is what pushed the video over the edge.

The last question I asked myself was why the people find were laughing at this video. I think the question can be answered by examining what Chris Rock was getting at when he showed the really racist video and everyone was still laughing. The mainstream American culture is so caught up in trying to fit in and not be the person singled out, that even if they think it crosses the line they will still laugh because everyone else is laughing at it. There comes a point when a joke will cross the line but most people will still laugh at it just because everyone else is doing it. A good analogy that can be made with is a trend observed in the fashion industry. Once a certain number and type of people start wearing a certain style of clothes everyone has to have it in order to fit in and the style becomes really popular. I think a similar analysis can be done with why people find Tosh’s video and Chris Rock’s video funny even when they cross the line. People start out by laughing at jokes about race and when the joke crosses the line and it becomes a racist joke people still laugh because the trend has so much momentum and people are afraid to be the person singled out and not laugh at the joke.

Duane Fuhrman

Race and Representation in the Media

Race and Representation in the Media

The Media is a constraining and liberating factor on how we conceive of race and ethnicity. This is especially evident on how the media represent different races in the media.

According to the article “Distorted Reality: Hispanic Characters in TV Entertainment,” At one time TV’s roster of Hispanic stereotypes solely included the grinning bandito criss-crossed with ammunition belts. Additionally, Hispanic characters were much more likely to be driven by greed than other characters. This was back in 1965 when virtually all characters on TV were white and of Northern European descent. Even more recently in the 1990’s, Mexicans were often shown on shows such as Cops as the criminals being arrested by white officers.

While the negative images of Hispanics have not disappeared, today there are many instances on TV where Hispanics play the roles of characters that who contribute positively to society, such as the children’s cartoon Dora the Explorer. According to Media Life Magazine, Dora the Explorer is the top rated show on TV for children ages two to five years old. This is important because this TV show’s main character, Dora, is Latina. She translates Spanish word to English, and vice-versa, and the show also includes some elements of Hispanic culture. The positive exposure to Hispanics at an early age is critical for children to form positive images about Hispanics, which will lead to less negative stereotyping in the media when they grow up and are in control of society.

There are many other shows on TV that positively portray Hispanic actors such as: CSI: Miami, NYPD Blue, Scrubs, That '70s Show, and Ugly Betty to name a few.

The George Lopez Show is another TV show that shows an overall positive image if Hispanics. George’s character is a manager at an airplane parts factory, which shows the audience that the stereotype that Hispanics don’t work hard, or that they only can get blue collar jobs. The Lopez family is very closely knit and loving, and they go through many obstacles that families of any race must endure. However, the show does show that Hispanics are not perfect (just like Whites, Blacks, Asians, etc. are not perfect). George’s character is abandoned by his father at an early age and raised by an alcoholic mother. As a result of the show being a comedy, it does poke fun at some aspects of Hispanics. Many of the characters on the show speak in a Mexican dialect that uses slang, which people often associate with Hispanics.

Hispanic actors now account for 11% of their prime-time totals, up from 3% and 4%, respectively, just two years ago. But that figure is still below the 13% of the population that Hispanics now represent.

One of the most racially oppressed people on TV today are Arabs and Muslims of Arab descent. The main driving force for this oppression is the highjackings that occurred on September 11, 2001, when planes crashed into the World Trade Centers as well as the Pentagon. All 19 of the highjackers were Muslim. However, these negative sentiments were around before September 11. Movies such as Wanted: Dead or Alive (1987) and True Lies (1994) both show Arabs as antagonists, with white protagonists. One movie that many remember, but never pay too much attention to regarding stereotyping is Aladdin (1992). Many criticized the characters' Westernized features and accents, in contrast to the other characters in the film, which are dark-skinned, have Arab accents and ugly facial features, and appear villainous or greedy.

Many TV shows today portray Arabs as terrorists plotting to detonate a bomb. Fox’s 24 has had several seasons in which the antagonists were Arabs trying to detonate bombs in L.A. Jack Bauer, the main protagonist, is quick to use torture techniques on Arabs who are detained because of their association with other Arabs in America who are terrorists. The show conveys the image that even if an Arab is not a terrorist, they are either aware of terrorist activities, or know where a cell may be. Many times the Arab terrorists have their hideouts in Masques. This conveys the image that the religion that Arabs believe in is at the root of their violent behaviors.

Representations of different races in TV heavily influence and are in turn influenced by popular culture. These representations may be false, but they are held to have some truth by viewers because they have the mindset that, if other people believe this “stuff” it must have some sort of validity. Additionally, simply being bombarded with stereotypes all day will lead to familiarity with stereotypes, and often the unfortunate event that some people come to believe and even act out in a manner confirms stereotypes.

American Media and Profit

Since the conception of modern American media, there has been only one bottom-line, profit. American media may have evolved over time and came to include a plethora of forms, but again one thing has remained the same, how much money is made at the end of the day. It has been the American dream to work hard and make an honest living, but media has contorted that image and found its own way to make its players money. Without a profit, a business cannot survive and the American media is a business. If they cannot earn that profit an ethical or appropriate way (defined socially, which is hard to define), American media will find another way. American media and its advertisements do not care of the images they portray or the means they take to earn a profit, as long as sustains them.

One form of American media that has been changed to accommodate the bottom-line is news. American news is reported at the national level by several stations and locally by thousands of stations. National news especially, has reported issues that cause controversy. The stations report those issues to increase their ratings. Increased ratings for a station means more market exposure for advertisers and the higher the ratings, the more they can charge the advertisers for that time spot. Also, since there are many national news stations, they are all competing for better ratings than the others, meaning who ever reports an issue that will stir up more concern will get the better ratings (typically). The increased chance to make more money by reporting more controversial issues means that the news stations will report as many of those types of issues as possible. The issues themselves are not the “real” controversy in this blog, it is the fact that they are being reported and put on national television. For example, the issue surrounding Lady Gaga and her being a hermaphrodite is not important national news or right for TV (at least in my opinion) that deserves airtime over other more vital issues that the general public should know about. My intention is not to demean controversial issues that should be known to the general public and take away from the fifth amendment, but some of those issues that are reported are not suitable for national attention and the eyes and ears of many Americans. As aforementioned, the American media does not care of what the issue is or what consequence it causes, as long as it meets their bottom-line.

Advertisements, the profit center of American media, are geared towards whatever sells. Advertisements are meant to make someone’s product known and grab their consumer’s attention enough so that they will buy it. Gaining the consumer’s attention is the most important part. Attention can be easily gained by something off the typical beaten path. In past years, many advertising agencies have modified their marketing strategy to include sexual implications. In American media, sex grabs the consumer’s attention, and it sells! Sexual themes in advertisements may sell, but are they appropriate for the public to see? Older children and teens are even targeted by marketers to use sex to sell their products. Sex is not the only issue with advertisements, race is also brought about. Many commercial advertisements included only white actors and the image portrayed was that only white people could enjoy or use their product. Then, when the public caught on and the issue became a problem for selling, the marketers began to use minorities as the majority in their advertisements.

American media and its advertisements may make money but at what cost? A cost not that of monetary value, but of mental indecencies. I do not mean to discourage progress and change of American media; it is just difficult as to wear to draw the line in order to make profit (I tried to make my viewpoint that of the general public). The media presented in America is shown to make a profit and if the line changes along which things will be allowed to be aired, the media will change to incorporate that new line and tip toe along it. American media will continue and the only thing that remains is what will Americans do to affect the media and its profitability in the future?

Hip-Hop: Black Fades to White

The hip-hop industry as a whole has undergone an almost complete reversal of what it stands for in the last 25 years. The pioneers of the industry, Grandmaster Flash, Sugarhill Gang, and Run DMC to name a few, concentrated on a much less violent and degrading style of music and rhymes. Today, many consider gangster rap to be the most violent yet most popular form of rap, with the middle-class white male making up a large part of its fan base.

The pioneers of hip-hop mostly intended the music category to be for blacks by blacks, and viewed it as a way to express their concerns and dissatisfaction with the dominant white society. Byron Hurt’s video, “Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes,” brings up the idea that hip-hop was created to bring the community of Brooklyn, New York together after white developers constructed a bypass over the city, cutting off much needed economic resources. Over the following couple of decades, hip-hop grew to be a national phenomenon, with groups such as Afrika Bambaata and A Tribe Called Quest contributing to the rising Afrocentric movement. This movement, which originated in the 19^th century, emphasized the importance of African people. The hip-hop community used this view to empower African American’s during a time of severe injustice from the dominant white society and provided a voice for the millions of Blacks who wanted to stand up to the white oppressive system. With the rise of gangster-style rap and the commercialization of the hip-hop industry during the 1990’s, the Afrocentric oriented view of hip-hop gave way to a less meaningful style of manhood and female degradation.

Hip-hop artists such as N.W.A., Dr. Dre, and the Notorious B.I.G. brought a more violent and commercially appealing sound to industry. Rap lyrics and music videos started to reflect a more violent culture, focusing on guns, killing other men, and objectifying women. Around this same time, big name record companies began signing numerous hip-hop artists to their labels. People interviewed in Hurt’s video, as well as myself, believe this violent form of hip-hop was the result of the commercialization of the industry. The middle-class white male customer base continues to be, for the most part, not interested in the politics of black culture and the oppressive society blacks are required to deal with. Instead, white males want to listen to a form of hip-hop that confirms their prejudices and racial theories. The majority of the record companies who represent black hip-hop artists know this and will only sell what is appealing to the mass market. This interaction creates a perceived model for young blacks that being violent, killing each other, and objectifying women is socially acceptable behavior.

Many hip-hop artists today glamorize the industry through music videos featuring expensive cars, designer clothes, diamond jewelry, and beautiful women, while simultaneously showing guns and violent activities. This contributes to the cycle of young black teenagers turning to a life of violence and crime as a way out of poverty and a way to fight the injustice being poor brings with it. Without a change in the message of hip-hop songs and music videos, violence will continue to be a way of life for many young African Americans. Also, without a change in the white middle-class male obsession with this same style of hip-hop, there will be no reason for record companies and artists to change the message.

Innocent until proven guilty

A commodity is a good, which is in demand. The economy is driven by the consumers demands; if a person wants something there is a good chance that another person will be willing to provide the good, or service that is in demand.

When you have a broken sink you have two options: learn how to fix it yourself, which can cost you a lot of time especially if you don’t have any plumbing experience, or you can hire someone to fix it for you if you can afford it. Similarly, when you get in trouble with the law you have the choice, to have a lawyer appointed for you (if you cant afford one), hire one yourself, or choose not to hire one and represent yourself. People that can afford to hire a lawyer do because the better the lawyer the better he or she knows how to “get you out of trouble.” For example I knew someone in high school that was charged with a DWI on two separate occasions, he blew above the legal limit both times, but he was able to hire a really good lawyer to get him out of it. It turned out that he had both DWI charges reduced to a misdemeanor.

It all comes down to how we set up our justice system; you are innocent until proven guilty. This is an improvement on previous criminal justice systems, but it is still subtlety plagued by inequality. In order to show that you are not guilty you must know the law, and in many cases the law can be very complex. People go to law school for four years, and when they graduate they are specialized in only in a certain area of the law because of the complexity and amount of the different laws in this country.

Being able to afford a good lawyer is a luxury for a lot of people. As we have seen in this class, being a certain race can tremendously influence how wealthy you are. There are many inequalities that exist in our culture because of distribution of wealth, and one of them is the justice system. If you are able to afford a good lawyer your chances of getting the charged dropper are greater than if you represented yourself or if you had a lawyer appoint to you. If one race has more money than another race they are able to afford a good lawyer and they have a greater chance to get the charged dropped. It would be interesting to set up an experiment where a poor person commits the same exact crime as a wealthy person to see if a lawyer that the wealthy white person can afford would be able to get the charges dropped or not. I would hypothesize that more times than not the wealthy person would get the charges dropped or lowered vs. the poor person. Obviously if there is no doubt that a person is guilty of a crime no lawyer will be able to get you out of it, but there is often a lot of gray area and this is where it helps to have a good lawyer who knows the law inside and out.

A recent example of this is with Ben Roethlisberger. Now let me be clear I am not saying that he is guilty, but his case and other professional athletes cases (O.J. Simpson) are good examples of the gray area that exists in a criminal case, which is where it is helpful to have a good lawyer. Having the lawyer will increase your chances to get the charges dropped or lowered, and will ensure that the legal process is properly carried out.

Another interesting implications of the inequality in the criminal justice system is how this inequality compounds upon itself. Fore example, take my friend from high school who had his first and second DWI charge dropped to a misdemeanor. Every job he applies for in the future he does not have to explain why he has a felony on his record. This puts him at a great advantage over someone who couldn’t afford a good lawyer and ended up with a felony on his or her record. Most likely my friend would get the job and be able to continue to accumulate wealth to pass on to his future generation.

Certain races are able to afford good lawyers, and in turn are able to have the charged dropped or lowered. Other races can’t afford good lawyers, and in turn they have to spend time in jail. Money and wealth is unevenly distributed amongst different and this is causing the inequalities in the criminal justice system that is being observed by the empirical data collected by sociologists.

Duane Fuhrman

Interracial Marriage

Intermarriage is marriage between two individuals of different groups. Intermarriage between races is known as interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has existed but was made a public issue when there was strain in race relations in the United States. In the 19^th and 20^th centuries (and still continuing today), race was a social and political issue that created discrimination and prejudice towards minority races. The tension between races, mainly between whites and minorities, caused for laws to stop miscegenation, which is when two different races produce offspring together. These laws were upheld in most of the U.S. until Loving vs. Virginia, a 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. The ruling in 1967 was enacted during the Civil Rights Era in the U.S., which gave activists momentum to fight for further progress with less generational time needed for attitude change. The movement towards the acceptance of interracial marriage is facilitating a reduction in prejudice and discrimination, by a change in attitudes, between races in the U.S.

The existence of interracial marriage has curtailed the time needed for attitude change. Changes in attitudes are necessary for the aforementioned reduction in prejudice and discrimination. Without interracial marriage, attitudes would have to change with generations, the generational ideology gap. As a generation dies off, a new one surfaces; the new generation takes on the ideologies of their current time. Humans are a product or their environment, thus molding them to form the attitudes surrounding them. The confining environment most importantly includes the institutions. Institutions help shape attitudes and in turn the attitudes help shape the institutions. An example being how our grandparents grew up with Jim Crow Laws, segregated schools, and racist attitudes. Their attitudes had to change somehow without generational time to modify the institutions, which that was done well by interracial marriage.

Interracial marriage most effectively contributes to changing attitudes with those closest to the couple. Families who are discriminative are forced to reconcile their racist attitudes towards their new family member. Families are forced to change because if they do not, they will lose that relationship. Most people do not put up with intolerance, so the couple will most likely excommunicate those who are. Interracial marriage causes the minds that were once closed, to open up and take on new attitudes. Even old members of the family that grew up in racist times and homes, are forced to change, in this case you can teach an old dog news tricks. Families are able to get to know the spouse not by their skin color, but by who they are. This allows them to form opinions openly and help reduce prejudice. The mere exposure effect of the spouse of another race makes you like them, and if you like them, your attitudes will change.

An example of interracial marriage that changed attitudes can be prominently seen from my family in the “country”. My grandparents and aunts and uncles grew up in a very racist environment. They would not even think of interracial marriage. People of a color other than white were rarely even seen. In recent years though, some of my cousins have married another race. Their marriage has forced my family to accept them and get beyond the color aspect. My cousins have helped reduce prejudice by simply marrying the person they love.

Interracial marriage has catalyzed attitude change towards race relations within generations. Interracial marriage is one of the ways that allowed the recent reduction in prejudice and discrimination to happen so effectively. It is important for people to get to know one another by the content of their character, for little do they know, they could end up marrying someone of another race, which directly helps decrease racial tension in the United States.

Professional Athletes and Homosexuality

Professional Athletes and Homosexuality

After reading the article “Double Lives on the Down Low” by Denizet-Lewis, I could not help but thinking of a very similar example to being on the down low – men having secret sexual lives with other men. The example being gay professional athletes.

Male professional athletes are seen in our culture as the epitome of what a male should be: strong, competitive, and tough – which is exactly the opposite of what mainstream culture portrays gay men to be. This hyper-masculine image is similar to the façade that men on the DL are forced to convey - inner-city gangster-thugs.

There are numerous reasons as to why gay athletes do not come out during their career: disapproval from teammates, loss of endorsements, loss of scholarships, being exploited by opposing fans.. the list can go on and on. For example, if an athlete is sponsored by Under Armour, and he comes out, Under Armor may reconsider their contract with this athlete because the image of being gay doesn’t coincide with the image Under Armour is trying to portray: strength and toughness.

The locker room situation is one of the first things that come to mind when the topic of gay athletes is brought up. When heterosexual males think of being in the showers naked in front of potentially homosexual teammates, the heterosexual males become very uncomfortable at that thought. However, Michael Muska, an openly gay athletic director at Oberlin College, says, "a gay male has been probably made so uncomfortable that the last thing they're going to do is look at someone: for most gay male athletes, that's their biggest fear – of discovery." Openly gay Australian Ian Roberts, one of the all-time highest paid rugby league players in the world, has a similar take on this topic: "I take offence at the old locker room argument which assumes a man cannot, in any circumstances, control his urges. Any self-respecting human being can respect the rights and ways of another human being. The idea, then, that gays want heterosexual guys is ludicrous. We want to play the game, not the field.” But, because the overwhelming majority of athletes are heterosexual, they don’t consider these aspects of a gay athlete trying to conceal his sexual orientation, and continue to view them as outcasts.

The insensitive words of Garrison Hearst, former running back for the San Francisco 49ers, sum up what most people think, but do not say in such blunt terms, “I don't want any faggots on my team. I know this might not be what people want to hear, but… I don't want any faggots in this locker room.” That was Hearst’s reaction in 2002 when he heard that one of his former teammates, Esera Tuaolo, announced he was gay. It is comments similar to those made by Hearst, which make it nearly impossible for gay athletes to come out of the closet.

The constant effort to try to be someone who one is not takes a toll on a person. It isn’t that gay athletes want to come out in an attempt to get all over the media and to cause drama – they do it because they are not mentally and physically able to deal with the effort and stress associated with living two separate lives (a public life and a personal life). When Tuaolo came out to the public on an HBO show called “Real Sports” he is said, "There's this joke [teammates used to tell]. 'Esera, man, he did 20 shots of tequila.' By doing that, I became their drinking buddy: 'Gosh, he's such a stud.' But to me, it was more to ease the pain." The pain became so intense, that Tuaolo would sometimes drive down the road and fantasize about "turning the wheel and ending it all.'' After informing the public of his sexual orientation, he said, “I feel wonderful. I feel like a burden has been lifted.”

There do seem to be signs of hope for gay athletes. Gay and lesbian athletes were provided with their own housing in this past summer’s winter Olympics in Vancouver. A total of 12 athletes, which only included one male stayed at the lodging called the PRIDE house. Separating gay athletes from heterosexual athletes may seem like segregation. However, the act of acknowledging the existence of gay athletes is a step forward in reducing the negative stigma associated with gay professional athletes.

The Filipino Way

Western society as a whole has been pegged as having low morals and holding on to no traditional values. Many outsiders from other areas in the world believe in this idea. America has been known as the land of the free. To many minorities, in particular people native to the Philippines or of Filipino heritage, white American women uphold this belief of freedom through their sexuality. The Filipino culture is very conservative compared to present day American culture when it comes to being sexually active.

According to Yen Le Espiritu, in her work, “Americans Have a Different Attitude,” female morality allows racialized immigrants to assert cultural superiority over the dominant group. Minorities see the dominant group, white Americans, as the oppressor and need ways to overcome this oppression psychologically. Holding a higher moral and value set allows minorities to feel superior to mainstream white America, the same system that has made them feel inferior in nearly all aspects of life. Espiritu, herself a Filipino, describes Filipino immigrants as claiming moral distinctiveness for their community because Filipino women are expected to remain virgins until they are married, ideally to a Filipino man. They view white American women as sexual deviants, corrupt and individualistic people. The media, portraying mostly white actors and actresses’ lewd behavior, compounds their beliefs. Clearly, not all white American women are sexually promiscuous and not all Filipino women are chaste, but the beliefs held by Filipino minorities has been a source of pride and self-respect for their ethnic group. Like many minorities, Filipinos see America as a land of economic opportunity, but denounce it socially and morally.

There is an increasing social divide between native Filipino parents and their American born offspring based on the Filipino idea of sexuality. The native Filipino parents want to instill in their children the moral values they have grown up following. In a society that favors the rich and famous, the beautiful and sexually appealing, the values of Filipinos and the lack of values of Western society clash. Filipino parents do not raise their sons and daughters with the same rules and expectations. Boys are typically allowed to stay out later and are not questioned about where they go. On the other hand, girls are oftentimes not allowed to go on dates or anywhere there may be boys. This imbalance has created resentment towards Filipino parents from teenage girls. The parents are finding they cannot control their American-born children and, as a result, the traditional values of American-born Filipinos are slowly eroding. Filipino parents attempt to counter-act this attitude by making their children feel guilty if they become too ‘American.’ Espiritu argues all immigrant parents, not just Filipino, attempt to control their children in this matter.

The idea that white American women are overly sexually active is an idea held by many minority groups. The mindset Filipino women have about their sexuality and how they are able to maintain cultural superiority over the dominant group is a very attractive idea for minorities because their sexuality is one of the few things the dominant society cannot take away. I personally believe the media has negatively influenced this mindset minorities have in regards to the white American woman’s sexuality. The media represents mostly celebrities who behave in deviant ways and certain individuals may look at these examples and extrapolate to the white American woman population as a whole.

Modern Gender Roles

Modern Gender Roles

The role of men and women has significantly changed through the years. In the past, it was important for men to be ‘men,’ which meant to be the alpha male, or the breadwinner of the family. Men would go to work while their wives would stay at home and look after the children. The wives stayed home in part because it was not traditional for women to get a college education, and without an education, they would earn less money than their educated husband, so the man would work because he would make more money. However, this is not the case in terms of modern times. Today, the importance of being a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ in our society has become less concrete than in the past.

Presently, it is not uncommon for men to stay at home and look after the children and do the supposed ‘women jobs’ like cooking and cleaning. The roles and purpose of men as the 'alpha male,' provider and protector within the family and the community as a whole have come under scrutiny. Because it is common for women to enter the workforce today, they do not need to rely on men to provide for them. This leaves men and women to some extent in contention for the role of the alpha in the family as well as in society as a whole.

There are many reasons (not all of which are dealt with here) why the roles of men and women have changed in the past 30 years, the most important of which being more women are going to college and earning a degree. As a result of women being better educated, they are qualified for jobs with much higher pay than if they had no college degree. Today, there are more female trainee doctors and lawyers than male. The reason this is brought up is that doctors and lawyers are typically viewed as jobs that require great skill and education, which means that before women started going to college, males usually held these jobs.

Another factor is that of socially constructed images. In World War II, Rosie the Riveter represented women who worked in factories where males who went to war worked. While this was only a temporary change, it showed society that women were capable of doing the work it was thought only men could do.

As a real-world example of how men’s and women’s roles have changed, both of my friend’s parents used to work full time – earning very similar salaries (from what I could tell). When the recession hit in 2008, his dad was laid off, leaving his mother as the working figure in the family. Since then, his mother has received two promotions, and his dad is still staying at home. His dad does not seem to mind this role too much because he is able to take care of many home-improvements he would otherwise not be able to do, and now they have no need for the maid they used have clean their house. Nonetheless, his dad is still searching for work because the financial need is always there, and he has been working his whole life and is not quite ready for retirement.

That said, I think there will always be an underlying theme of men as the alpha in society because that is how men were viewed for the past 2,000 years, and I think it is impossible for 2,000 years worth of interaction between the sexes to be diminished to nothing in a scale of tens or even hundreds of years.

As I see it, the importance of being a ‘man’ or ‘woman’ in today’s society is very similar. It is important to both men and women to get an education and to attain a job in the workforce. Likewise, depending on the situation, men or women will stay home to raise children, depending on what is best for their family.

The Hegemonic Man in American Life

Americans, more humans in general, are a conforming being. A “typical” American conforms to whatever ideals are socially constructed, even if the same ones change over time. The idea of the hegemonic man is the ultimate man that is atop of the hierarchy of masculinities of whom we all sort of understand and agree with. The hegemonic man is one of America’s socially constructed ideals that they tend to conform to. The hegemonic man is a controlling force that drives a man’s attitudes and beliefs throughout his life, which are applied and can be recognized in American society and culture.

Since the beginning of man’s life he is taught to be a “man,” in this case what is really implied is the hegemonic man (this is generally speaking in terms of the hegemonic man in the latter part of the 20^th century, not all American males at any time in history). As a boy, if you manage to hurt yourself, you are told to “suck it up, and be a man.” The ultimate man does not show pain, he is simply not allowed to. Showing pain is a sign of weakness and men are not weak. Being a “man” in American society is being tough and powerful, showing little emotion and regard for others. A “man” does not settle for less, he gets what he wants. A “man” believes his place is better than a woman’s. These ideals of an older masculinity may be beneficial, but only to a limited extent, what they really do is lead to many problems in a changing society moving away from that hegemonic man.

If a male wants to be a “man,” he is told to be self-reliant. A man cannot ask for help, even though it is actually needed. This becomes a problem when driving comes into play. Males think they always know where they are going and refuse help. This refusal of help gets you and most likely your family lost. Being lost ads extra miles, more gas emissions emitted, wasted time, and more strain on your family life.

A “real man” needs a mode transportation that will make him feel superior, as he is taught to believe. A “man” needs a big truck that will reflect his inner-self, which is really his exterior, tough and rugged. These big trucks that are bought are expensive and get poor gas mileage because of the size engine needed to produce that much power. The amount of gas used greatly exceeds the amounts used by economical hybrid cars. The increased consumption of gas, in turn increases the amount of harmful emissions that are emitted into the environment.

The biggest problem of the old, dying hegemonic man ideal is that a man has a better place than a woman’s. This poses a significant problem in the workplace. Women may work just as hard, and even be better than a male, but since they are woman, they are held back. The practice of holding women back promotes the existence of the glass ceiling, which does not allow women to advance rightfully in the workplace. Thankfully so, this ideal, as aforementioned, is dying out.

The final example of how the ideal of the hegemonic man has affected males in American society and culture is in their unhealthy eating habits. The hegemonic man is advertised as one who engorges himself, eating a vast amount of food (in this case, meat) at one time. Males are socially taught to eat thick, heavy burgers (“man fuel”). Burger King has made this example more apparent than anything else of I have seen. Their commercial for the Burger King Texas Double Whopper said “I am man, hear me roar, in numbers to big to ignore, and I am way to hungry to settle for chick food… I am hungry, I am incorrigible, I am man!” The obsession with eating these kinds of foods leads to health problems. Currently America is one of the unhealthiest countries in part because of high cholesterol and blood pressure problems related to these eating habits.

The hegemonic man is made apparent in American society by the actions of males believing in this ideal. The masculinity mentioned throughout is near the end of its existence, but still manages to hold on. It manages to because of another part of the hegemonic man’s ideal, tradition. Tradition, resistance to change, is what allows it to linger. Males who were taught this ideal in their youth are now mature men, and if they have not conformed to the changing masculinity of today’s society of being more emotional, accepting, and aware, they will continue on their old way allowing that social construct to persist.

Reflections on “Murder on a Sunday Morning”

Race and class are powerful forces in our culture today. Having a certain race and class can increase or decrease your opportunities in life. People can be falsely labeled and categorized because of a stereotype about their race, which causes a vicious cycle of inequality. Brent Butler found out how powerful the forces of race and class can be.
One of the aspects of the Brent Butler case that most surprised me was the fact that he was beaten by a black detective. The detective went as far as hitting Brent Butler and even threated him with his gun in order to get a confession out of Brent Butler. My first reaction was why a black detective would intimidate someone of his own race, Brent Butler, into signing a confession for a murder.
I believe one of the reasons the detective took these extreme measures is because of the his experiences with the force of race and class throughout his life. One of the first things the detective said to Brent Butler was “Its niggers like you that give us a bad name.” Blacks in the police force can be subjects of racism. “I remember having a conversation with a captain, and he sat me down and gave me the spiel about, “I want you to know one of the criteria is that you have to have a thick skin. If you can’t stand being called a nigger and still do you job, you don’t need to be here because you’re gonna get called all kinds of names”” (RCL pg. 229). The detective also would have experienced inequality as a direct result of these forces throughout his life growing up. Whatever the source, the detective felt very strongly that he was put at a disadvantage in life because of the forces of race and class which cause inequality. He felt that the driving sources of these forces were people like Brent Butler, giving blacks a bad name.
In addition to the race and class aspect of the detective motivation to get a confession from Brent Butler, the media also played a role in adding fuel to the fire. Since it was a white woman on vacation that ended up being murdered the media was all over this story in Jacksonville, creating a lot of pressure on the investigation to find the murderer. After a couple of hours the investigation, acting on their preconceived prejudice notions, rounded up black people from the street who seem like they could have been involved with this murder. Brent Butler was one of the victims of the strong demand for justice, which was fueled by the media in Jacksonville. Once Brent Butler was positively identified as the murderer by an eyewitness the detective thought Brent Butler was guilty. Acting on his emotions, the detective was angry that once again a black person is giving his race a bad name which was being broadcasted in the media. The media caused his anger to escalate to the extent that he hit and threated Brent Butler into signing a murder confession.
It turned out that Brent Butler was on his way to fill out a job application the day he was labeled as a suspect in a murder. Just because someone is a certain skin type or they live in a certain neighborhood they can be automatically labeled as a murder suspect. This case shows just how powerful the forces of race and class can be.
Duane Fuhrman

Consumption: Making America more “American”

The United States, along with other Western countries, is known around the world as a nation obsessed with consumerism. American society today measures success by the amount of material goods an individual possesses. In the Eastern world, materialism is much less significant in society, and in some places almost non-existent. Although the wealth of each nation is a very important factor in this disparity, American history and society have played roles in shaping this view of consumption. Consumerism has created a sense of involvement with the dominant society to minorities. In order to be a patriotic American, individuals in the post-World War II society were encouraged to consume goods and services in order to bolster the economy.

In her book, “A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America,” Lizabeth Cohen describes, among other things, how this new societal combination of citizenship and consumerism affected African-Americans. Black males were denied the benefits of the GI Bill, but this new attitude toward consumption included all minorities, and improvements in the quality of lives of minorities could be seen across the board. Cohen writes, “Blacks’ frustration as consumers fed their sense of inequity as well as provided strategies for combating discrimination..” (A Consumer’s Republic, 2003). The author is saying this new emphasis led to African-Americans realizing ways to fight discrimination and created a platform for the Civil Right’s Movement of the 1960’s. Although consumerism did benefit minorities in some ways, it did negatively affect minorities indirectly. From this consumerism mentality came a way to determine how individuals lived.

Marcel Mauss is credited with introducing in the modern times the concept of the habitus, aspects of an individual’s culture that are portrayed through the individual’s body. Habitus can be used to determine how individuals live through physical characteristics such as having callused hands, being tan or pale skin, and being under or overweight. These descriptions can sometimes be representative of that individual’s culture, but will not always be indicative of socioeconomic factors. Generally, low-income individuals tend to have higher rates of obesity than well-off individuals. This phenomenon is due primarily to the cost of food. Healthy food is generally less processed than unhealthy food and costs significantly more. Also, according to a study done by Shannon N. Zenk et al., supermarkets that carry fresh fruit, vegetables and other healthy foods are disproportionately located in middle to upper-class suburbs as compared to poverty-stricken urban neighborhoods. In Hispanic women, being overweight is seen as “bien cuidadas,” which translated means “being well-cared for.” This cultural aspect can be clearly seen through an individual’s body and is a representative example of the habitus theory.

Based on someone’s appearance, we sometimes come to inaccurate conclusions about their personality and values. Consumption can make individuals feel like they don’t belong if they do not have the some material belongings as the dominant society. Furthermore, I would argue the interaction between consumption and habitus can create discrimination and inequality against minorities based solely on physical appearances and cultural misperceptions. American consumerism was originally designed to include all races in order to jumpstart the post-World War II economy. Over time, however, this system has led to inequalities and discrimination based physical appearances resulting from consumerism.

Disparities in Crack/Powder Crime

The disparities in the amount of blacks and minorities convicted of drug-related crimes is disproportionally high to the amount of whites convicted of drug-related crimes. These government policies toward crack and powder cocaine. The federal sentencing guideline for punishing someone selling five grams of crack receiving the same sentence as a powder cocaine dealer selling 500 grams is a policy that, when looked at closely, has validity and racial implications at the same time. While this policy used to hold a small bit of validity, it has undoubtedly led to disproportionately high percentages of blacks being convicted of drug-related offenses.

When the 100 to 1 law was passed, lawmakers believed that crack was much more addictive than powder cocaine. It was believed that users would become so addicted that they would commit homicide and robbery in order to get more crack to feed their addiction. They are not necessarily punishing people for taking drugs; they are punishing them for activities that lead to gang violence, murders and other violent crimes that you do not see nearly as much over other drugs. That being said, a study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the physiological and psychoactive effects of crack and powder cocaine are similar.

The 100:1 policy has irrefutably led to a disparity in the amount of blacks sentenced to drug related charges compared to whites. In 1992, it was estimated by the U.S. sentencing commission that 65 percent of crack users were white; however, 93 percent of those convicted for crack related crimes were black. As a result of crack users receiving longer sentences than powder users, more people who use crack are incarcerated because of the lower turnover of inmates. Looking at crack users, because crack is cheaper than coke, more people with lower incomes who live in the inner city are users of crack. Because people with low incomes in inner cities using crack more, police have disproportionately targeted low-income communities for many reasons. Conducting arrests in the inner city are easier because most users are on the street, whereas more wealthy users are behind closed-doors in the suburbs. Additionally, because inner-city drug activity happens openly on the streets, they bring attention to themselves that may cause concerned neighbors to notify the authorities.

One would think that prosecuting powder cocaine more strictly would lead to less use of crack. Treating the causes rather than the symptoms is a more efficient way of solving a problem. Putting users of crack in jail does not solve the problem of crack usage in the inner cities, and all the violence associated with it. The current policy maintains the cycle of disabling young black men’s opportunities form becoming productive members of society because it is much harder to find a job with a criminal record. If they cannot find jobs to provide for their families, they must find other means to make money, which may ironically involve the drug market. As can be seen, current policy seems to support a cycle of drug use in the inner city.

If there were a way to remove or reduce the amount of powder cocaine from the drug market, there would be less crack on the market. Less crack available would mean a reduction in the use of crack everywhere, including the inner cities. With less crack on the market, there would be far fewer opportunities to make money by selling crack, and also crack usage would be forced to decline. A way to reduce the amount of powder would be to impose harsher penalties on those dealing with powder. This would be a way of systematically reducing the root cause of crack use in the inner cities. Taking the decision of whether to use crack or not out of potential users’ hands is a very effective way of curtailing use because once someone is addicted to crack, curing their addiction is arduous task.

There are signs of hope for evening out the 100:1 policy and the racial disparities associated with it. In April 2009, the Obama Administration urged Congress to close the gap in prison sentences given to those convicted of dealing crack versus powdered cocaine. In response to Obama’s recommendations, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2009, which would treat crack and powder cocaine the same. Additionally, On March 11, 2010, The Senate approved a bill that would reduce the cocaine sentencing disparity from its current 100 to 1 quantity ratio to a level of 18 to 1. These actions are a huge step in the right direction toward eliminating racial disparities of those convicted of crack related crimes: however, there will still be racial disparities until the policy shifts to a 1 to 1 ratio in sentencing crack and powder cocaine offenses.

Disparity with in Incarceration of the African American Community

There indeed is a disparity when it comes to the incarceration of blacks compared to the white population in America. Black offenders are more likely to become arrested, to be found guilty, and to receive harsher sentences than white offenders with in America. But as David Cole goes into offering facts to support the statements above one has to think about the possibility of disproportionate use of drugs. The stereotypic idea that African Americans use and sell more drugs than whites. While still upholding equal enforcement there will be a result in disproportionate incarcerations of African Americans. Although Cole claims there isn’t significant evidence to support this, but one can also go on to think about the consequences of this disparity. That African Americans’ drug use and incarcerations will disable them from finding legitimate jobs and thus further forcing them to a life in a low income career or no career at all. I think the true devastating aspect of this situation is that the disparity continues from generation to generation which constantly strengthens the sense of hopelessness within the African American community.

Another significant topic to be discussed in regards to incarceration is the presence of the three-strike rule with in our criminal justice system. As known by many the purpose of the law is to incapacitate those who would repeatedly cause harm towards society. Yet this rule has been witnessed to incarcerate criminal’s whose third strike was simply a nonviolent crime. The noticeable increase in expenses with in our criminal justice system may be attributed to the use of this three-strike rule. Upon reviewing multiple online sources I had found that since the three-strike policy has been implemented the cost of incarcerating offenders in our prisons has went up by more than 100%. Our prisons will continue to be overcrowded and by placing third strike criminals back into our prisons is just worsening the situation. For the most part, as David Cole agrees, third strike criminals typically go through a very violent phase during their life, but that then fades and they seem to no longer pose as a threat to society. Many who support the policy simply offer the most logical argument that these people are criminals and breaking the law is breaking the law. Yet although this is true I have to push the thought for change due to that the policy impacts our society in more of a negative way than positive. As one can see the three-strike rule amplifies the disparity among incarceration rates of African Americans compared to whites.

The amplification of this disparity can be witnessed with in the inner cities where the density of the African American population is highest in comparison to suburban areas. Simply one can think about how inner city life may consist of stealing or other minor nonviolent crimes to obtain necessities such as food and water. Yet this is where the disparity comes in due to that these crimes, that are deemed harmless to society, may be the third strike for those committing them. This situation diminishes all hope for those in the African American community and places extreme amounts of stress on choosing between survival or the risk of becoming incarcerated. The disparity among incarceration rates between African Americans and whites due to the third strike rule and drug use will continue to drag the African American community into the depths hopelessness. Thus emphasis should and hopefully will be put on changes towards the third strike rule and implementation of changes to drug use policies. With such changes will also allow for a decrease in the amount spent on incarceration and that money can be spent towards education and improving life conditions with in the African American community.

Redistributing the wealth to close the inequality gap.

The redistribution of wealth is at almost every debate in politics. The democrats and republicans are always at odds with each other over this issue. Essentially the democrats think that rising taxes to pay for different programs to help the lower income families is a way to redistribute the wealth in this country. On the other hand the republicans argue that raising taxes creates economic hardship.

The observations of sociologists show that there is still a large gap in class in this country. Even a deeper observation of sociologists is that race and class work together to perpetuate inequality. The average black household makes 59 cents to the average white household (Shapiro, RCL); the problem of inequality in this country, and around the world is very complex, and coming up with a long term solution is vital in order to solve this problem.

One solution to this problem is to redistribute the wealth. “Family wealth is crucial to opportunities and success in a way that allows families to launch their own social mobility in a self-reliant and independent manner” (Shapiro RCL). Wealth is a great advantage to have, it allows for people to get an education, have better healthcare, and overall more opportunities to gain more wealth throughout their lives. It is like the cliché the rich keep getting richer; which implies that the gap between the poor and rich is growing at an exponentially greater rate.

I believe that redistributing the wealth would help solve the inequality problems in this county, but if done incorrectly it would just be a short term solution. For example let say that the government decided to tax the rich excessively such that there was virtually no gap in wealth. Everyone would have the same opportunities now to get an education and become more wealth. However, over time the same gap between the wealthy and poor would develop and we would be back to square one again. I believe that this gap between the rich and the poor will always exist in a free market, but there are ways to ensure that this gap is controlled.

There are programs such as welfare that work at controlling the inequality gap but the momentum of inequality is still not being controlled. People and races get into a rut and once you are in this rut it is very difficult to get out of it. The problem is further complicated by the opposing cultures; which creates the street mentality attitude. In order to find a long term solution one must break the vicious cycle that is presently the current way of life.

I think the best long term solution that can break this cycle is supplementing education. The government already does this by providing public schools, but if you look at inner city school they are well underfunded. Raising taxes to create more money for education is essential in order to help close the inequality gap. I believe that every one should at least get a chance to go to college as well as well. Providing more people the opportunity to afford to go to college also will redistribute wealth in the long term. Ultimately creating a stronger education system will close the inequality gap by providing opportunities for people to climb out of the inequality rut, and it will improve the economy in the long term.