A New Type of Slavery

            So many of our fellow human beings are victims of the drug culture, but also the War on Drugs. The problem is worse now than it has been ever before. I recently watched a video called The House I Live In, which is about the War on Drugs and how police profile specific types of people. After seeing the film, I agree with the director, Eugene Jarecki, that a targeted person is usually a poor, black male. Jarecki includes ideas from Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, who argues that incarceration is a new form of slavery. According to Alexander, slavery never died; first it was reborn with the Jim Crow Laws, and now with incarceration. Many people (including myself - prior to watching the video) wrongly believe that racial inequality is nowhere near as bad as it was during slavery. However, drug profiling has perpetuated dramatic inequality in America.

Jarecki’s argument that minorities are targeted by the War on Drugs reminded me of a Zine composed by Billy Dee. One of the slides had a drawing (shown above) of a few black people walking through the streets with a police car following them. The caption read “the Prison Industrial Complex targets people from certain neighborhoods, especially poor people, people of color, young people, and lgbtq people.”

According to an article in the Herald Sun, while blacks represent only about 11 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 53 percent of people serving time for drugs in North Carolina. Whites, the obvious majority in America, only accounted for 28 percent. These percentages remain relatively constant throughout the U.S. Because blacks make up the majority of people incarcerated for drug offenses, it seems logical to assume that the majority of drug dealers around the U.S. would also be black, right? WRONG! According to the 2004 Survey on Drug Use and Health, blacks only accounted for 15 percent of drug dealers (the great majority are white). In addition, the drug usage rates in blacks and whites were about equal. Given this data, there should be far more whites incarcerated than blacks because there are so many more whites in America. Also, the percentage of the black population incarcerated for drug offenses should be equal to that of whites since their drug usage rates are about the same. These statistics clearly show just how much racial inequality we still have today.

According to the New York Times, Michelle Alexander said that a “vast new system of racial and social control has emerged.” By locking up minorities, we are ensuring that they struggle with poverty and have minimal opportunities when they are released from jail. Even on parole, these people still will not have access to many of the benefits designed to help American citizens (such as financial aid and food stamps). They will often have trouble finding work because they have a criminal background. This systematic bias results in a permanent second-class citizenship for millions of Americans, much like the false sense of citizenship that the cruelty of slavery created for African Americans.

A New Holiday; Shopping Day

This past Thursday, Thanksgiving, I was checking my phone in between our family’s turkey dinner and apple pie dessert when I received a snapchat from my friend. It was a picture of her in an extremely long line of people waiting to be let into Macy’s. I was taken aback by the fact that she would wait in line at a store on Thanksgiving night. But after asking a few family members, I realized that this wasn’t that uncommon. In fact, many Americans actually did use Thanksgiving night as a time to begin their Black Friday shopping this year.

           

In an article I found from the Huffington Post titled “Black Friday Marred by Violence in Several States,” the author talks about acts of violence that occurred on Friday (and even Thursday night) because of shopping disputes. In one incident in Las Vegas, shoppers got in a fight over a TV. The attacker shot one of the other shoppers before driving off. The author also reported that in Virginia, a man was slashed because he and the perpetrator were arguing over a parking spot.

It is ridiculous that these acts of violence happened over unimportant shopping-related activities. The fact that someone would hurt another person over a TV or a good parking spot is absolutely absurd to me. It shows me just how important shopping and material goods are to us nowadays; being the first one in line (most likely the reason the shoppers were fighting over the parking spot – they wanted to get inside the store sooner) and getting as many shopping items as possible while they are on sale.

I’m not trying to throw my friend under the bus here, but it is really a shame that shoppers have started sacrificing their Thanksgiving night – a precious time that is supposed to be spent with family – in order to arrive at stores sooner and assure that all their desired goods will still be there. Below is a picture that shows shoppers on Thanksgiving night waiting to be let into Best Buy. They are waiting outside in the cold, content to be spending the holiday evening doing nothing but staring at a parking lot. Some have even brought chairs and blankets, prepared to stay for however long it takes until they can enter.

Now, clearly the attackers mentioned in the article do not represent the average consumer, but their actions still show the really misplaced values of some of these people. The fact that many Americans are willing to sacrifice their Thanksgiving for shopping shows just how addicted we are as a nation to buying things, and how much we are letting our craving for goods control our lives.

Money, Power, and the Military

I was hanging out with my cousins last night and we ended up watching Iron Man 2, a movie with many references to the weapons industry and the power it has. The movie made me think about the Military Industrial Complex, which we talked about in class this past week.

In an article I found titled “Iron Man: A Cinematic View on the Military Industrial Complex” (the link for which is http://netage.org/2010/05/10/iron-man-cinematic-view-on-the-military-industrial-complex/) the author not only provides a great summary and analysis of the movie, but he also explains how it is connected to the MIC. He talks about the movie’s “direct reference” to the U.S. military and the war in Afghanistan. The writer, Rizzotti, also explains that Tony Starks’ dilemma about whether or not his company should continue to manufacture weapons and have close ties with the government is “akin to the military industrial complex spelled out by a career military officer and former President.”

The president that Rizzotti referenced was Dwight Eisenhower, who worried about the relationship between the military and industry becoming too close.  In another article that I found (the link for which is http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/what-is-the-military-industrial-complex.asp), titled “Attempting to define Military Industrial Complex,” the author talks about the MIC, defining it as an “unofficial phrase used to signify the comfortable relationship that can develop between government forces and defense-minded organizations.” This article also referenced the quote by Eisenhower, saying that Ike was warning us about the relationship between industry and the military becoming too strong and controlling our actions as a nation.

But has the relationship already become too comfortable? Are we at that point that Ike warned about, where “the enemy is no longer another nation per se, but any organization not in line with presented ideals” (Attempting to define the “Military Industrial Complex”)? In fact, this is exactly what happens in Iron Man; the Stark company became too strong and its weapons were being used by the enemy, therefore making the company and Tony Stark a threat to the United States.

Personally, I do believe that we have let the relationship become too comfortable. For example, in 2013, the world’s top fifteen military spenders (nations) spent a total of 1562.3 billion dollars, as shown in the image below. As you can see from the picture, the U.S. alone spent 682 billion dollars, almost three times the amount that the second place country spent. Is it really necessary to spend THIS much on military and defense systems? And what are the effects of spending so much on our military?

Because of the massive investment in our military, we are more likely to get into wars - our military gives us the ability to do so. In addition, as the size of our military and the amount invested in it grows, this part of our government attains more power.  Engagement in conflicts benefits those in leadership roles in the Defense Department, as well as the industries that have contracts with the Defense Department. As the power of those who stand to benefit in some way from use of the military grows, we are clearly more likely to use military force.  These facts make us more likely to become involved in a wider range of conflicts, some of which may not be of critical importance to the interests of our nation.  Was our involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan promoted by special interests in the MIC or based primarily on what was in the best interest of our nation?  The same question could be asked about Vietnam.

The influence of the MIC is reflected in American culture. The obsession that Americans have with power and military is evident in movies and even with the videogames that kids play. So many of Hollywood’s biggest hits are action-packed violent films in which every other scene involves someone’s head being blown off. How unfortunate that our country accepts the prioritizing of power over many of the other qualities that make a great nation.  The excess of money spent on military and weapons could be used instead on other federal programs that could strengthen our nation in a variety of ways. For example, education, infrastructure, research – areas that have a potential to improve overall quality of life for Americans. As feared by Eisenhower, the MIC has its own agenda that does not necessarily overlap with what is best for our nation.

Gay Marriage Movement

The other day in my American Studies class we were discussing one of the hottest topics in Illinois right now; the legalization of gay marriage. We also talked about how the Civil Rights Movement had such a big impact on it and how it made the gay marriage movement possible. In an article from NBC (the link to which is: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Illinois-Gay-Marriage-Vote-230660881.html), the author, Mary Ann Ahern, wrote “Supporters' speeches echoed themes of equality and civil rights.” This quote shows how the two movements are related in that the CRM was a precedent because it demanded equality for blacks, which parallels how the gay marriage movement demands marriage equality for homosexuals.

I thought this picture was really moving because it shows the great similarities between the problems that blacks battled and the problems that are now facing gays. It used to be illegal for a black person to marry a white person just as it is currently illegal for gays to marry in many states. Both of their struggles are extremely unfair, and it makes me angry to think that they are not allowed the same rights as other citizens. It is absolutely ridiculous to deny someone the right to marry another simply because they are different from the average American. Being different does not make them any less deserving of basic rights, and I am glad that our state has finally realized that.

            Although the Civil Rights movement no longer is as great as it once was, there are still some lingering goals that need to be met, and it obviously still has effects on our society. One of those goals was to have the first African American president elected. When this happened, it was a huge step forward for the U.S., helping our nation move on from its history of racial discrimination. After talking about this in class, I started to wonder what the positive consequences of the Gay Marriage Movement could be.

I researched some areas that I thought might produce some good material, and sure enough, I found a really interesting article from the Huffington Post titled Transgender Model Carmen Carrera Responds To Victoria's Secret Petition: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/carmen-carrera-victorias-secret-transgender_n_4260557.html. The article describes a transgender woman, Carmen Carrera, who is trying to become the first Victoria’s Secret transgender model. Because Victoria’s Secret is one of the biggest clothing manufacturers in the U.S., it would obviously be a huge deal if Carrera became a model for the company, just as it was a huge deal when Obama became President.

In fact, in the article from the Huffington Post, Carmen even compared her situation to that of Mr. Obama’s, saying “What do I think about those opposed to the idea of the first transgender VS angel?...hmm...they said there would never be a black president.” Here she is referring to the doubts that many had before Obama took office. He proved them wrong and hopefully she can too. Carrera also might benefit from the recent Gay Marriage Movement in Illinois; after citizens saw how gays were treated unequally and how they struggled in fighting for their rights, people might be encouraged to stand up for Carrera and the unequal treatment that transgender people often get. Just as Obama’s election is clearly a result of the CRM, perhaps a result of the Gay Marriage movement will be the selection of Carrera as a Victoria’s Secret model.

I understand if the clothing line does not select Carrera to be a model simply because there are other candidates out there that are more qualified and have more modeling experience, but it would go against the basic principles of our nation if she was not selected simply because she is transgender. It is the same idea as was argued in the CRM and in the Gay Marriage movement; because someone is different does not mean they deserve to be discriminated against or treated any inferior.