In Race Matters, Cornel West devotes an entire chapter to criticizing and justifying affirmative action. On the one hand, he claims that this policy is aimed at middle-class African Americans and harms other minority strata. On the other hand, West still justifies politics because he believes that “without affirmative action, racial and sexual discrimination would return with a vengeance” (West, 1993, p. 64). He believes that America tends to redistribute wealth on a racial basis due to the historical past. I think that West’s argument is vulnerable to criticism, as it can be refuted both factually and logically.
The rise of racist and sexist tendencies due to the lack of affirmative action is doubtful because it is not the only element in the fight against racial and sexual prejudice. I would argue that the liberalization trend is strong and prominent around the country and that the policy’s absence would not reverse it. For example, the affirmative action ban in universities such as Texas A&M, UW, University of Florida, did not decrease the number of Black and Hispanic students (Affirmative action, n.d.). In addition, West’s prediction of the return of racism is based solely on reference to the country’s past and historical experience. However, predicting the future requires a more variable factual justification since historical experience in its pure form cannot be used as a predictive tool.
West could reply that my arguments are valid only if we assume that the American social system has been restructured entirely and racism and sexism are wholly excluded from it. However, West is of the opinion that fascism, racism, and sexism are ingrained in human nature and cannot be exterminated (Miah, 2022). These beliefs can only be controlled by individuals and sets of politics that smooth out inequalities by redistributing resources.
References
Miah, M. (2022). Cornel West’s Race Matters. Against the Current. Web.
“Country Lovers” and “What It’s like to be a Black Girl” are literature pieces, which focus on social issues within the society. These issues include racism, slavery, social struggles, prejudice, gender, and freedom from social injustices, which result from inequalities within the society. This paper will give a detailed evaluation of the poem, “What It’s like to be a Black Girl,” by Patricia, and the short story, “Country Lovers,” by Nadine. The paper will examine the form, content and style applied by the authors of these works.
The two masterpieces act as a clear indication that every society struggles with its identity. This is illustrated by the experiences of the characters featured in these works. The members of the society seek to identify with what they see in a person. This gives an account of why the two authors take time in their work, to address the issue of race and culture. It is clear that racism is an ideology that is based on the complexities that face every society fighting with acceptance, and social differences that exist among its members (Clugston, 2010).
A comparison and a Contrast in “Country Lovers” and “What It’s like to be a Black Girl”
The “Country Lovers” is a short story, which critically examines love that is threatened by racism in a colonial society. Here, we find a society that is fighting with the challenge of managing the difference among its races; that is, the whites and the blacks. It is mysterious to see how the story manages to bring out the issue of racism among its characters. Each race struggles with superiority problems, but it is clear that the differences did not exist from the onset. This is demonstrated from the quote that,
“….farm children played together when they are small; but once the white children go away to school, they soon didn’t play together anymore.”
This even raises the question as to whether it is the school that induces the concept of social hierarchy. It is clear from the story that racial segregation is within the education system, because the white children go to different schools from the African children. It is also clear that the schools for the Africans, who are regarded as blacks, do not offer quality education because the black children have a childish vocabulary, while that of their white counterparts is described as superfluous (Shaffer & O’Donnell, 2011).
“What it’s like to be a Black Girl,” is a poem that brings out the issue of racism in America. It takes the form of a narrative, and the author shares the tale of a young black girl; specifically on what she goes through as she transits to womanhood. Similarly, in the “Country lovers,” racism is seen in the society. It is clear that being a black girl or a black woman is not appreciated by the larger society (Hughes, 2003).
The transition to womanhood is marked by biological changes in her body – the poet refers to this as the period “when she feels she is not complete.” The poem, “What it’s Like To Be a Black Girl,” depicts a racially abusive society, which does not accept the conditions of the black girl. This subjects her to awkward feelings, and she only hopes for something better.
The poem shares the girl’s desires to explore what it entails to be a black woman. She only wants to be acceptable by the society. This is symbolized by the food coloring in her eyes. Racism is so dominant in the society – this includes racial fighting and slurs in the music. This only explains how hard it is to be a black girl. She is determined to become a black woman, but this is extremely hard because she cannot be accepted due to her hair type, skin color, and her test of music (Clugston, 2010).
The way the young black girl tries to manage her changed body is very clear; she is described as having “a child-like mentality.” She only imagines of having a gown, because it makes her change to womanhood. She thinks about having a man who reaches her and curves around his fingers. This is a natural thing that explains that, even though she is black, she experiences what every girl does. This poem shares the odd feeling that women of the past age went through. Upon joining womanhood, the black girl feels like she has “finished,” as there has been a lot of biological and psychological change that has occurred in her (Shaffer & O’Donnell, 2011).
A close comparison of “Country Lovers” and “What it’s like to be a Black Girl” indicates that the two works focus on the psyche of women, who are weighed down by the public expectations regarding their culture. These views take a negative approach, although they play a fundamental role in influencing the self esteem of these characters. It is clear that both characters are prejudiced by the members of the society, due to their racial affiliations. This represents a misconception and a distortion of the mind of the general society, due to racial differences. In both cases, the characters are from different cultures, who perceive themselves as different from their own culture, due to the racism and cultural differences that exist within their society. This makes these two pieces of work more alike; particularly due to the issues they address (Shaffer & O’Donnell, 2011).
The poem, “What It’s like to be a Black Girl,” gives the perception of a black girl, who is experiencing racism and discrimination in a gender based and racial society. She is pressed between a rock and a hard ground, as she struggles with her own body changes, which she is attempting to embrace. She is shy of what she is, specifically, her background and her physical appearance. This places her at a social dilemma of wanting to be someone who will be accepted by the society or doing what she desires (Clugston, 2010).
The “Country Lovers” and “What It’s like to be a Black Girl” are similar in the sense that they present two different societies that are transforming, and they go through issues that are tied around their social cultural values. The black girl represents a society that is changing. This is symbolically represented by her body, and is evident from the excerpt, ‘…..like your edges are wild, like there’s something, everything, wrong.’ This gives the image of a lady who experiences her body transiting from girlhood to womanhood. It is hard for her to imagine that the society should change, and all she desires it to change to something that is appreciated by the society. It is clear that this is still the case in “Country Lovers,” where, when the kids are young, they play together, but once they start going to school, they change and stop playing together (Segal, 2001).
Although the two works address more or less the same issue, it is critical to note how these issues are brought about. “Country Lovers” shows how children are brought up from being the same to being different in so many ways. Here, the main character is left wondering why the kids of the white stop playing with them once they go to school. This is driven further when we see the level of racism in the education system. The Africans are given low quality education, while their white counterparts get quality education. These are the social injustices that are associated with racism in these societies.
In both works, there is discrimination. The main discrimination in both cases is racial. The discrimination is based on the complexity of the individuals involved. In the case of ‘County lovers,’ Thebedi is referred to as “the black girl,” and she is described as dark faced and having dark eyes. On the other hand, the farmer’s son, Paulus, is referred to as the “white young man.” This gives an account of what racism is, within their society (Hughes, 2003).
In the poem, “What It’s like to be a Black Girl,” the growth of the girl’s breasts and her pubic development, causes her to be aroused, and this makes her quite uncomfortable with her body. This indicates the hard changes she is going through, yet the society is not ready to accept her. This represents a stereotype mentality in the society, which discourages people from embracing members of other races. Instead, these stereotypes develop discriminatory practices like the slung, which is used against members of different races (Clugston, 2010).
The “Country Lovers” shares a love experience between a black girl and a white boy. It is clear that the black girl is a daughter of an African employee in a farm of a white man. The two spend time together till they become acquainted with each another, therefore, causing their emotions to build up. It is clear that these kids are innocent. They know no race and they appreciate one another, but this does not go well with the members of the society, which is evident from the quote, ‘…the trouble was Paulus Eysendyck did not seem to realize that Thebedi was now one of the crowns of firm children…. recognized in her sister’s old clothes’. It is also clear that, although the white boy loves the black girl, the fact that she is a farm child is enough reason to disallow Paulus from having her. The black girl is even described as being a farm child, and the fact that the dress she puts on was given to her by Paulus’ sister should not deceive Paulus.
The two works, “Country Lovers” and “What It’s like to be a Black Girl,” are similar in the sense that the authors attempt to recount their stories through cultural issues, race and the many social challenges that are intertwined. It is clear that there are challenges that one encounters before changing the society, and this is exactly what the main characters go through. In the poem, the lady struggles to gain acceptance as a member of the Caucasian race. The biological changes in the black girl are a true representation of societal change. Although we may not like it, we cannot resist it. She thus endures all the challenges, so that she can gain acceptance from the society.
It is clear that the women suffer during their youthful days, after going through discrimination. The authors manage to showcase feelings, on what it is like to go through racial discrimination, and a reader cannot go without identifying these feelings in the characters. It is in the story, “Country Lovers”, where we see a restrictive culture that hampers the freedom of the characters. The characters are more concerned with the reaction of the society than their own welfare. They, therefore, ensure that their relationship is secretive, due the dangers of such relationships (Hughes, 2003; Snodgrass, 2009). “Country Lovers” condemns the government and the society, for promoting the apartheid regime. It is clear that the laws are based on race, and that is why Paulus and Thebedi experience a lot of hardships in sustaining a relationship.
They struggle with social pressure from the society, and this is illustrated when Thebedi gets a child with Paulus. Her community accepts this change, but the challenge is at Paulus’ community. Paulus goes to the extent of poisoning his own baby; this illustrates how much his community is reluctant to embrace change. This can be related with the struggles of the girl in the poem. Even after struggling with her body changes, from being a girl to a woman, her society is not ready to accept her. It is clear that the two authors use their work to illustrate how people struggle with their cultures and social life, and how it is difficult to bring about change in the society, because that change must begin with an individual (Clugston, 2010).
The two works are similar because they revolve around love. “Country Lovers” is based on a love affair between an African girl and a white Africana boy, who grew from childhood friends to become lovers. However, the laws of the land forbid interracial marriages, and this makes it very difficult for them to continue with their relationship. After the black girl gets a child, the white boyfriend poisons the child with the intention of covering up their relationship. He also did it because he feared prosecution and discrimination by his community. Also, the poem revolves around a love circle, because the black girl is concerned with how soon she will transform to a woman. She imagines having a white gown and being held by a man. To her, this is a form of acceptance by the society, and that is what she needs most. However, even upon her transition to womanhood, the society fails to embrace her (Segal, 2001; Alvesson, 2002).
Conclusion
It is clear that the society struggles with issues of racial discrimination. The authors of these works have managed to bring out the issue of racial discrimination in their work; in a successful manner that one is left wondering how possible this can be. Although the poem and the short story are based on different social cultures, they raise the same themes and address them in equal measures. Both Nadine Gordimer’s “Country Lovers,” and Patricia Smith’s “What it’s like to be a Black Girl,” have managed to address the problems associated with racism. The authors have managed to express their feelings, on what causes racism, and why we should all join hands and positively change our society, by embracing one another, regardless of our complexity. The hardship that the characters in both cases went through is unjustified, and they did not choose what to look like and where to be.
References
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Culture. New York, NY: Sage Publication.
Clugston, W. (2010). Country Lovers, Nadine Gordimer. New York, NY: Journey Publications.
Hughes, L. (2003). The Collected Works of Langston Hunges: The Translations Federico. New York, NY: Dellita Martin Publication.
Segal, M. (2001). Creativity and Personality Type: Tools for Understanding and Inspiring the Many Voices of Creativity. New York, NY: Toles Publications.
Shaffer, B., & O’Donnell, P. (2011). The Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Fiction: Volume 1. Washington, DC: David Madden Publication.
Snodgrass, M. (2009). Encyclopedia of Feminist Literature. New York, NY: Sage Publication.
Scientists have repeatedly attempted to classify the representatives of humanity according to their external features, just as they did with animals, insects, or plants. Skin color, eyes, and nose hair served as markers confirming the biological basis of racial differences. Agustin Fuentes in his essay The Myth of Race, dissects established myths, shows their failure, and proves that racial prejudices have not disappeared anywhere and continue to exist alongside ideas of equality and human rights. He uses a variety of approaches to convince the audience, prove himself right, and ultimately win over his side to call for decisive action.
Summary
The theory of Agustín Fuentes states that from a biological point of view, races do not exist; human creatures are a single indivisible class. However, race and racism exist as social and cultural phenomena in society. Fuentes tests his theory with evidence, reasoning, and conclusions. Evidence includes studies of DNA structure in people of different races and data from official documents, academic literature, and personal experience that can be cross-checked.
Description
Agustín Fuentes, Professor of Anthropology, in his essay The Myth of Race, argues that racial issues have not disappeared and prejudice is still prevalent in society. He begins by discussing opposing opinions and places readers in an impossible conflict. Stasis discusses the biological basis for different races’ cultural and social characteristics. Thus, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) states no causal relationship exists “between physical and behavioral traits” (Fuentes et al. 401). Therefore, it is wrong to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance. The second opinion belongs to Phillipe Rushton, the psychologist (Greene and Lidinsky 631). On the contrary, he argues that race affects children’s development, intelligence, and a tendency to violence. This view has been widely held for hundreds of years at the level of politics, structure, social connections, and academia.
Fuentes takes on the role of a leader, looking for a way to resolve the conflict. First, he listed attempts to classify races scientifically on the external features of people or their geographical residence. Fuentes immediately refuted the studies’ conclusions, citing blood tests as evidence. He showed that none of the ABO gene alleles is unique to any race, and none of the ABO patterns correspond to the biological classifications of races. In other words, race has nothing to do with genetics or culture.
The social preconceptions and prejudices about races arise from the fact that people know little about the biology and genetics of human beings. Fuentes is sure that “homo sapiens is one species, undivided into races or subspecies” (Greene and Lidinsky 639). If biological races are a myth, race as a social phenomenon matters. Studies show that almost 90% of doctoral degrees in the US are awarded to white people (Dutt 2). Dutt argues that people do not notice discrimination if they are not a discriminated group (2). For instance, only 25% of American university presidents say race relations are good in society, but 80% of presidents rated race relations on their campuses as good or excellent (Dutt 2). Such results suggest that people may be drawn into discrimination unconsciously and refuse to admit it out of shame or fear.
Fuentes also analyzes systemic racism using the example of official authorities’ definition of a person’s race. The instructions say to define race based on self-determination. He discovers that “blacks” are distinguished from other categories. Black people are defined as “racial groups”, while other people are called “original peoples” (Greene and Lidinsky 642). Fuentes is sure that the real reasons for these are not people’s characteristics but history, culture, and politics.
Fuentes backs up his position with additional statistics that show that blacks and Hispanics are more discriminated groups than Asians or whites. They earn less, have less insurance, and become homeless more often. He concludes that race, as a biological subject, does not exist. Nevertheless, it plays a massive role in people’s social lives and can theoretically influence biology. Fuentes ends his essay by citing the song “Your Racist Friend” by They Might Be Giants, which denounces tacit consent and support for racist statements. The author encourages readers not to be silent and actively engage in a discussion about racism, convincing loved ones of the failure of racist theories.
Rhetorical Analysis
The author aimed to convince readers that racial prejudice is scientifically unfounded and useless. The only thing that reinforces racial discrimination is people’s actions because of their cultural, historical, or political background. Fuentes gives evidence and inspires readers to participate in discussions about racism and oppose judgments that discriminate against other people. Fuentes used a wide range of rhetorical appeals to convince the reader. From the beginning, he uses his Ethos to put himself in a leadership position and invites readers to follow him. His authority is strengthened when he helps readers get out of the Stasis he creates by giving opposing opinions. At first, it seems impossible to prove the correctness of any answers, but gradually Fuentes shows this answer.
Fuentes uses Logos to find the correct answers. In the “blood” section, he dwells on studies of human DNA in relation to their race. The evidence helps to conclude that biological races do not exist. He further puts forward the following theory that race is a social phenomenon. He again uses Logos to prove the facts of discrimination. He refers to statistics, official documents, and academic research. In addition, he shares his observations from pharmacies and restaurants.
Most of the text is in an academic and strict style. Instead of emotions, the author appeals to the mind and common sense of readers. He shares formal and scientific knowledge, arming readers with evidence for future discussions. Only at the end, Fuentes changes his usual style and uses Pathos by citing the song’s line: “But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you/ You and your racist friend” (Greene and Lidinsky 647). He repeats the word “hypocrite”, contrasting it with “myth busters,” and calls on every reader to become myth busters to fight racial stereotypes and discrimination.
Conclusion
Fuentes, in his essay, did not just want to put forward and prove his theory. The real goal is to convince readers of their point of view, give them knowledge and evidence, and inspire them to debate racial injustice and discrimination. Theories and proofs have become the only tools to achieve the final goal. In addition to objective facts, statistics, observations, and conclusions, Fuentes used Pathos to inspire readers to take action. He uses a stylistic device, contrasting hypocrites and myth busters, to reinforce his appeal. Ultimately, the essay proved effective, fulfilling its purpose – convincing and inspiring.
The use of the term Native American, whether in the open or in private mirrors the ancient and modern systems of ethnic classification in the American society. As a definite descriptor, the term comprises of diverse segments in the American population commonly referred to as Americans of Black origin.
The Native Americans have also used this term as a depiction of their individuality, authority, boldness, pride, and clamor for human rights. For a long time, there has been a heated debate between non-white and white Americans over the status of the Native American in the society. This debate can only be understood by looking at various texts written on this subject over the years.
The best depiction of race in early American writing is perhaps found in Benjamin Franklins’ Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America. These “Remarks,” which Franklin wrote down in the last quarter of the 18th century mainly consist of diverse Native American practices such as those dealing with the treatment of visitors, as well as descriptions of interactions between Native Americans and whites.
By referring to “Savages,” many people may be led to think that this is another racist attack on Native Americans but in reality, Franklin remarks are designed to challenge the use of the term.
In the opening statement Franklin says, “Savages we call them, because their manners differ from ours, which we think the perfection of civility. They think the same of theirs” (Franklin 1). In this statement, Franklin observes that whites think Native Americans to be an uncivilized lot.
In order to disapprove this theory, he goes ahead to suggest that all cultures show signs of “civility and rudeness” and in the paragraphs that follow, presents several portions of evidence showing that Native Americans’ behavior is often civil and logical. While attempting to do so, Franklin openly presents the whites as the uncivilized and illogical lot by the manner in which they receive visitors.
Apart from presenting the Native Americans as civilized people, Franklin cleverly presents them as obedient compared to their white counterparts. This is seen when he says, “there is no force, there are no prisons, no officers to compel obedience, or inflict punishment” (Franklin 2).
This could only be used to mean that whites are the disobedient lot, which apparently needs prisons and law enforcers to punish the offenders amongst them. It is indeed ironical to note that the whites treat Native Americans as though they are insolent people who are bound to cause problems given a slight opportunity. When an Indian goes to Albany to conduct some business, his host treats him in a hostile and cold manner.
This hostility is also evident in the members of the local church where the Indian goes with his host who apparently refuses to discuss anything business on the day when they “meet to learn good things.” It is indeed ironical to note that while Hans had initially agreed to give four pounds for the Native Americans’ Beaver, he changes his position after the meeting and says that he can only offer “three shillings and six pence.”
According to the Native American, this does not come as a surprise to him since it only comes to “confirm his suspicions” that the meeting where the white people are supposed to learn good things is indeed held to “consult how to cheat Indians in the price of Beaver” (Franklin 6).
In the above narration, it is obvious that there is a deep sated mistrust between the whites and the Native Americans with each side adopting a “holier than thou” attitude. The whites obviously want to present the Native Americans as “Savages” but in the end, it becomes evident that the whites are the real savages. Just before the close of the text, Franklin gives a narration of how whites are welcomed by Native Americans.
He says, “If a white man, in traveling through our country, enters one of our cabins, we dry him if he is wet, we warm him if he is cold, and give him meat & drink that he may allay his thirst and hunger, and we spread soft furs for him to rest and sleep on.
We demand nothing in return” (Franklin 9). In contrast, if an Indian goes into a white man’s house and asks for something to drink, he is asked, “Where is your Money?” and if he has none he is told, “Get out, you Indian dog.”
This according to Jefferson happens despite the fact that Indians do not have to go to school since they are taught about these little good things by their parents while still young. Indeed, this leaves the reader with no doubt as to who is the real “savage” between the white man and the Indian.
Another example of how race is depicted in early American writing is seen in Olaudah Equianos’ Narrative of the Life. In this autobiography, Equiano narrates his suffering at the hands of his white masters. Although Equiano is taken as a slave first in his home country, he explains that he “always found somebody that understood me till I came to the sea coast” (Equiano 43).
Despite the fact that he had been taken into slavery by his fellow blacks, Equiano says “in honor of those fable destroyers of human rights, that I never met with any ill treatment, or saw any offered to their slaves, except tying them, when necessary, to keep them from running away” (Equiano 44).
This shows just how considerate the black people were towards their fellow brothers. This is was in contrast to white settlers who thought that black people were barbaric and dangerous and were to be avoided at all cost.
All through being taken from one African country to the other, the narrator is treated well and in his innocence has no idea about the cruelty of human beings. In fact, it is while in a ship heading to the West Indies that the young Equiano witnesses cruelty for the first time in his life.
He says “the white people looked and acted…in so savage a manner; for I had never seen among any people such instances of brutal cruelty; and this not only shown towards us blacks, but also to some of the whites themselves” (Equiano72). This is in a sharp contrast to the black slave masters whom we encounter earlier in Equiano’s narration.
Although this might be interpreted to mean different things, what is obvious even to a novice is that the whites treated blacks in a bad manner. It is also obvious from Equiano’s description that the whites treated each other badly.
This apparent lack of love can also be seen in an incident where the whites had caught excess fish and after eating to their fill “to our astonishment who were on the deck, rather than give any of them to us to eat as we expected, they tossed the remaining fish into the sea” (Equiano 78).
There is also an instance where a white man is beaten to death for failing to obey orders. In fact, the mistreatment was so much to a point where Equiano believed that the white people were going to “eat them” due to the savage manner in which they were behaving.
Another writer who depicts the state of race in early American writing is Phillis Wheatley. In her short poem titled On Being Brought from Africa to America, Wheatley begins by appreciating her slavery as something helpful since it made her adopt Christianity. In Wheatleys’ words, the white people “view our sable race with scornful eye” (Wheatley).
It is obvious from the passage that the whites viewed the blacks as inferior and powerless since they had conquered and brought them to America as slaves. By claiming, “Mercy brought me”, Wheatley is openly downplaying the power of her captors and rather crediting every occurrence in her life to God.
By using the word “sable” to describe her race, she is affirming that no matter what the whites thought of black people they were still precious, at least before God. This is captured in her last line where she says “Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain, May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train” (Wheatley).
It is obvious that Wheatley uses the word “remember” purposely to depict the status of one who is in authority or a place of command. This rubbishes the “master” status that the whites have placed on themselves and reminds them that under God’s jurisdiction all people are equal despite their race.
In the text, Wheatley uses the representation of Cain to refer to her dark complexion. According to the Bible in Genesis, Cain, who was a farmer killed his brother after the Lord refused to accept his offering of the first fruits from his farm. Due to this, the Lord sentenced him to be a renegade and a vagrant on the face of the earth. Cain laments that anyone who comes across him will kill him.
The Lord tells Cain, “Not so! If anyone slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord put a mark on Cain (most likely his blackness), lest any who came upon him should kill him.” By following this context, Wheatley seems to be reminding her white audience that Cain despite his mistakes is still a child of Adam and Eve and is protected by God.
By using the verb “remember” in the last sentence, she is alluding that she is in agreement with her reader and just needs a little reminder for both to agree on that particular point (Wheatley). This definitely demolishes any thoughts of superiority that the white man might have over the black person and proves that they are both answerable to a higher authority.
Conclusion
The relationship between whites and Native Americans has not been a smooth one. For long, white American settlers viewed Native Americans and Black people in particular as brutal and aggressive. However, reading the works of most of the early American writers diffuses this notion and presents the white Americans as brutes who could go to any length to defend their status.
Clearly, an imagery of the horrors and sufferings encountered by black people helps us to generate a complete idea of who the white people were in reality. For anyone who is keen on doing so, one soon realizes the irony behind the white settlers’ claims since the Native Americans emerge as very sensitive and caring people who are willing to accommodate divergent views.
Works Cited
Equiano, Olaudah. Narrative of the Life. New York: Hanover Historical Texts, 1789. 45- 88. Print.
Franklin, Benjamin. Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America. New York: Eakins Press, 2005. 1-10. Print.
Wheatley, Phillis. On being brought from Africa to America, 2011. Web.
In his literature, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? Thomas E. Skidmore appoints himself the task of raising “questions rather than answer “in hope of stimulating fresh thought on the controversial issue of whether race relations in Brazil differed considerably from those in the United States.
Thomas Skidmore succeeds commendably in this attempt by pinpointing various research and literature changes of approach in addressing the issue. He contributes a considerable amount of new information that further questions conventional wisdom. Therefore, readers would hardly refute Skidmore’s assertion that the distinction on the systems of race relations between the U.S.A. and Brazil was mainly due to reliance on “qualitative reading of the two histories” as opposed to actual “data”1. Furthermore, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? is powerful and insightful in highlighting the circumstances under which the distinction of race relation between the two countries has arrived. Skidmore mustn’t conclude the existence of differences because there is a need for more research. Therefore, the study provides an opportunity for the reader and the researcher to conduct further investigations on the contentious issues with a strong base. The literature is comprehensive, exploring the past and current status of racial relations in both U.S.A. and Brazil, the development of the “conventional wisdom”, the factors that led to this knowledge, and aspects that should be considered before concluding that race relations in the U.S.A. is and was Bi-racial or that in Brazil it is and was multi-racial2. Thomas gives more highlight on this issue.
Thomas is justified to indicate that the two countries did not necessarily differ in regards to the system of race relations as is the conventional wisdom. According to his argument, the difference was brought about mainly due to the failure of earlier intellectuals and scholars to engage extensively in search of relevant data. Harris explains that transnational exchanges of concepts, institutions, practices, and images are vital in explaining history to allow complex and constructive dialogue that incorporates metropolitan participants, and filters evaluate and rework borrowed concepts and allegations into fresh and noble “thoughts and prescriptions for action”3. In this respect, intellectuals’ and scholars’ focus on race relations in Brazil was widely consulted as opposed to US categorization where scholars refused to listen or pay heed to outside occurrences4.
The triumph on the goal of Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? is further seen where Thomas attempts to clarify the central idea on the focus of convention wisdom. According to him, the allegations that the U.S.A. is bi-racial while “Brazil is multi-racial” were mere assumptions, but of significant consequences; the phenomenon has often been portrayed in a various manner including “mark of origin versus mark of color, the hypo-descent rule, or “one drop of black blood rule.”5. Therefore, this notion is deficient and misleading, as many contemporary intellectuals and scholars would agree.
Thomas’s outlook echoes several observations by a researcher on the shortcoming in the conventional distinction and classification of race relations in both U.S.A. and Brazil. First, Andrew points out that U.S.A. failed to note the distinct approach adopted by general Latin America, and specifically Brazil while the Brazilians paid attention to the distinctions as well as their social progress in comparison to that of the U.S.A.6 Therefore, the likely consequence of this attention is that Brazilian view on race was inclusive of both internal and external ideas. In fact, even today, this distinction still exists and can be explained by the huge discrepancies in “power and influence between” the two32. Second, Harris agrees that racial identity U.S.A. is established through a somewhat inadequate, “simple, subjective and cognitive calculus”; thus, any offspring obtained with a Negro becomes automatically a Negro7. The absurdity in this generalization is that even individuals with apparent Caucasoid traits would be regarded as Negroes. Thomas explains his assertion by further differentiating the past and present status of the racial composition and attention by the legal framework.
Thomas Skidmore further explores contemporary aspects that discredit the U.S.A. concept of bi-polar race relations with a renewed approach to the conventional outlook. He argues of the irony in the legal proceedings of certain issues considering conventional wisdom; “in fact, the issue of race relation has been turned down”8. For instance, with affirmative action to protect the minorities, the US legal system may discredit a legal claim for the incentive by individuals basing their claim on their colour; otherwise, the effectiveness of the system would be wanting. In addition, Thomas explores the role of the growth of the Hispanic population in the US and links the phenomenon with the legal system and demographic categorization.
Thomas, nevertheless, is less successful in his efforts to justify the need for refocusing on clarifying the distinctions in race relations in Brazil and the United States. He has extensively relied on Degler’s Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States with most of his arguments revolving around Degler’s conclusions. Margolis, states categorically that Degler’s failed in articulating his goal of contrasting race relations in Brazil and the United States. Degler attributes the main distinctions in race relations in the United States and Brazil to distinct perceptions of the “mulatto by the two nations; in the United States, the mulatto is a Negro while in Brazil he is not,9 and further claims that “the divergence in race relations in the two countries grew.”10 Therefore, relying on such weak arguments serves to weaken the inference made in Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still valid? Thomas echoes Degler’s arguments that10,
Brazilian society distinguishes between the Negro and the mulatto, an escape hatch from the disabilities of dark skin is open to some people of colour. This circumstance ensures that a sense of solidarity does not arise among the non-White population, that segregation solely based on colour is difficult, and that social discontent among Blacks is lessened for the barriers that hold back mulattoes in the United States, regardless of class or education, are much less rigid in Brazil.
As a result, Thomas fails to pinpoint factors prevailing in the history of Brazil but presumably missing in the United States that would be attributed to the development or occurrence of the “mulatto escape hatch.”14 He relies on Degler’s mere suggestion of various items that may be used to explain the occurrence in Brazil. The factors include the variation in the proportion between the gender in Brazil and the United States, class lines rigidity, absence of opportunity to move upward, disregard on manual labor, and the inadequate economic prospects in Brazil. Regrettably, Thomas is unable to bring these varied proposals in concert as a coherent premise. He, instead, explains the need for more research that would determine: “the recent statistical evidence about racial inequality and discrimination, the history of the evolution of the two societies’ mechanisms for reproducing racial inequality, the causal factors determining creation and maintenance of race relations systems, and how the ideologies behind the systems of racial classification have interacted with the elite’s self-image in each country and their projection of that image for nationalistic purposes.”11 Furthermore, he presents arguments without evidence of their credibility, and directs leaders to seek “new historical and social science” information12. For that reason, although he achieves the objective of stimulating further research, the study would be greatly unfulfilling for a reader searching for information.
Bibliography
Andrews, George Reid, 1996, Brazilian Racial Democracy, 1900-90: An American Counterpoint, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 483-507, Sage Publications Limited.
Harris, Marvin D., 1964), Racial Identity in Brazil, Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 21-28, University of Wisconsin Press.
Margolis, Maxine, 1972, Review of Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States by Carl N. Degler, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 986-988, Blackwell Publishing.
Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still Valid? Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 373-386, Cambridge University Press, London.
Footnotes
Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993, Bi-Racial U.S.A. vs. Multi-Racial Brazil: Is the Contrast Still Valid? Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, , pp. 373-386, Cambridge University Press, London.
Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993.
Harris, Marvin D. 1964, Racial Identity in Brazil
Andrews, George Reid, 1996, Brazilian Racial Democracy, 1900-90: An American Counterpoint, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 483-507, Sage Publications Limited.
Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993.
Andrews, George Reid, 1996, Brazilian Racial Democracy, 1900-90: An American Counterpoint
Harris, Marvin D., 1964), Racial Identity in Brazil, Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 21-28, University of Wisconsin Press.
Skidmore, Thomas E., 1993.
Harris, Marvin D. 1964.
Margolis, Maxine, 1972, Review of Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States by Carl N. Degler, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 986-988, Blackwell Publishing.
Race and ethnicity are not necessarily inseparable from gang formation and gang crimes. Nevertheless, they are closely connected to this social phenomenon and addressing race and ethnicity would be beneficial for controlling activities of local crimes. From this perspective, there are several arguments, which would be helpful for supporting the statement that race and ethnic-specific strategies might contribute to solving the problem of gangs. First and foremost, ethnic and race-specific strategies might be valuable for gaining an understanding of the reasons for joining a gang. For instance, creating alternatives for youth with the focus on their background might prevent them from becoming involved in gang activities, which are commonly the only way of getting in touch with people of the same race and ethnicity (Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012). More than that, recognizing ethnic and racial specificities of gangs might be helpful for apprehending the frequency of some crimes, which are culture-specific. In this way, targeting them might as well contribute to addressing the challenge (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). Finally, in some cases, it is racism that leads to the formation of gangs. It means the implementation of ethnic and race-specific strategies contributes to the integration of minorities into a community, thus minimizing risks of their crime activities (Walker et al., 2012).
Racial and Ethnical Neutrality of Law Enforcement Strategies
Based on the arguments provided above, law enforcement strategies should incorporate racial and ethical specificities. It means that neutrality should be avoided. Nowadays, the focus is commonly made on investigating the nature of crimes, not cultures (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). However, this approach is beneficial for reducing crime rates in the short run and does no contribute to solving the gang problem in the long run due to the existence of heavy stereotypes in the modern society. Therefore, neutrality aggravates the problem of racial and ethnic gap because of labeling and stimulating them to get involved in particular activities, which are sometimes illegal.
Police Department Dilemmas
There are numerous dilemmas connected to the issue of controlling gang crimes. The first one is related to the choice of strategies aimed at preventing youth from joining gangs. In this way, police departments might either select race-specific strategies or ignore the role of ethnicity and culture in gang activities. There is one more dilemma connected to this one. In case of choosing a culture-specific strategy, it is critical to train police department staff to deploy them properly. It means that police departments face the challenge of choosing what should be given preference to – collaboration and efficient strategy for minimizing risks of crime activities or saving resources (Pollock, 2014). Moreover, there is a dilemma of valuing social order and guaranteeing the safety of citizens. From this perspective, police department staff should choose whether they want to use violence against gang members in order to protect other members of society or seek other ways to prevent gang activities (Hess, Orthmann, & Cho, 2013).
Discrimination as a Result of Ethnic and Race-Specific Strategies
Without regard to a strategy chosen for controlling gang activities, in most cases, it will result in discrimination. There is a belief that the major feature of the criminal justice system is institutional discrimination. This phenomenon is related to the gap between people with different socioeconomic background. It is often seen in the level of income and current employment. In this way, those who are employed or have a source of constant income commonly get away with crimes instead of being sentenced to imprisonment (Walker et al., 2012). Nevertheless, this concept is system-wide and does not necessarily refer to gangs. That is why it might distort reality. On the other hand, there is a concept of contextual discrimination, i.e. viewing each situation or context separately. In case of studying gang formation, contextual discrimination is more relevant because race and ethnicity are viewed as particular contexts, which make people susceptible to becoming involved in crime activities (Bumgarner, 2015). It as well contributes to prejudice and failing to react to some cases and make judgments adequately.
Theories of Crime for Explaining the Prevalence of Gangs in the U.S.
The first theory for explaining the prevalence of gangs in the United States is known as anomie approach to determining the causes of crime involvement. According to this theory, people become engaged in offending patterns due to the lack of income and educational background. In this case, those who belong to lower classes are more susceptible to joining gangs. The issue is severely aggravated if people witness gang operation from the early childhood and believe that it is a normal framework of developing social relations. In addition, the prevalence of gangs can be explained by subcultural theory. According to it, gangs are subcultures with their particular laws and lifestyles. So, becoming a part of it might be desirable under certain socioeconomic conditions. Finally, there is a labeling theory. This one is the most related to gang activities because people with particular backgrounds are expected to act in a particular way. For instance, racial minorities are often depicted as violent, while the whites are shown as victims of crimes. In this case, minorities are subconsciously isolated from the community. Due to the lack of other options, they might end up in gangs (Gabbidon & Green, 2016; Walker et al., 2012).
References
Bumgarner, J. (2015). Profiling and criminal justice in America. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
Gabbidon, S. L., & Green, H. T. (2016). Race and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. L. (2013). Police operations: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Delmar.
Pollock, J. M. (2014). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The laws of natural justice assert that all people subject to the law should be treated equally and fairly. The need to seek justice after a tort or crime has been committed is sometimes inevitable. It is however unfortunate that the law sometimes does not administer the law on a fair and equitable platform. There has been ending debates regarding race based jury nullification in the USA (Dressler, 2001). Minorities are crying foul over increased discrimination and unfairness in the administration of justice. Race-based jury nullification is the process of rendering a defendant-not-guilty verdict when the jury is certain that he/she is guilty (Dressler, 2001). This paper critically examines the advantages and disadvantages of race-based jury nullification.
General Discussion
Jury nullification is experienced in situations where the criminal-trial jury challenges the application of the law. In this regard, a defendant may be guilty but may escape conviction courtesy of race-based jury nullification. The jury considers the application of the law unjust to the defendant. Several factors contribute to jury nullification. They are; unfairness of the law, unjust application of the law and racial discrimination. It should be noted that terminally ill people are usually pardoned or offered leniency by nullification (Dressler, 2001). The fact that race based jury nullification is common has witnessed endless debates within the corridors of justice and the community in large.
The race of the defendant dictates whether jury nullification will occur or not. Supporters of race-based jury nullification contend that race-based jury nullification should also involve black juries and black defendants. The trend should proceed even when the evidence of guilt is available. Studies indicate that about 4 % of all jury trials are characterized by jury nullification (Monk, 2001). Ways to avert jury nullification are non-existent. It becomes extremely difficult to compel conviction. In view of this, the nullification of the law is witnessed. The exertion of the jury’s moral judgment or political preferences is deterrence towards attaining a fair and equitable judicial system. Whereas scholars argue that the jury is involved in the perfection of positive law, others believe that race-based jury nullification acts in favor of the majority race. Consequently, the minorities are oppressed by the law (MacNamara & Burns, 2009).
Minority groups have over the past cried foul over the increased levels of racial nullification. It is usually based on personal vendettas that exist between the majority and minority groups. Letting a defendant go free by virtue of being a white is a clear attestation that the nullification does not uphold fairness. Several examples support the prevalence of jury nullification. A trial conducted in 1991 saw the freeing of Obafemi Donald; a black man by a black jury on grounds that blacks were being sidelined by the judicial system (Monk, 2001).The biggest question has been whether true justice really exists. The fact that emotions and bias play a part in the realization of true justice compromises the integrity of the subsequent sentences. Racial jury nullification has also witnessed black defendants sentenced for murder on grounds of prejudice against the blacks.
The Pros of Race-Based Jury Nullification
Jury nullification is considered a privilege, if not a right by the American people. The supporters of jury nullification argue that the judging of facts by the jurors was enough to be done by a computer. The need to challenge the existing judicial system was considered important. The fact that people have feelings, wisdom, experience and conscience renders the computerization of the judicial process impossible. It is therefore important to appreciate that jury nullification is inevitable in the justice system (Monk, 2001). The fact that laws have changed should not be ignored. The application of old laws may be inappropriate in modern times. The fact that some of these laws remain as they were before increases the probability of jury nullification. How blacks were treated in the 16th and 17th century as slaves is not the same way they are treated today. Any law that purports to apply the Jim Crow Statutes today is highly unacceptable (Free, 2003). However, racial nullification should be based on what is just. Any crime directed towards any community should be handled with fairness. The challenging of existing judicial systems should not be viewed a s a way of safeguarding the interests of either the majority and minority groups. Rather, it is a means to ensure that the old discriminative laws are replaced within modern laws that respect cultural and racial diversity (Jonakait, 2006).
The Cons of Race-Based Jury Nullification
Racial jury nullification is usually governed by prejudice, personal vendetta and emotions. The consequence of all these factors is reduced objectivity as far as sentencing is concerned (Free, 2003). It has been established that most members of the community are opposed to the practice especially when it favors the majority. Consequently, a quota barring people from challenging decisions made by minority jury is existent (Jonakait, 2006). The greatest disadvantage of racial nullification is that the minorities are easily convicted by a majority jury. The inclusion of certain number of minorities in the jury is necessary to guarantee absence of racial bias. It becomes difficult to achieve this keeping in mind the disparity that exists in the justice profession. It has been established that jury nullification is not applied to majority cases (Free, 2003). The trend has been whites escaping conviction on grounds that the jury is composed of majorities. This development has been oppressive to the Black Americans. In view of this, criminals go free because of their race. Black Americans are only favored by the jury nullification in non-violent cases such as drug crimes. It is in this regard that jury nullification should conform to set laws to ensure that true justice is administered.
Contemporary Examples
Several contemporary examples exist to support that fact that racial nullification exists. A case in October 2007 involving eight guards in the murder of Malcolm Karenga, a teenage African American, indicated that the judicial system was unfair (MacNamara & Burns, 2009). The guards defended themselves on grounds that their action was in accordance to the proper procedures that required all the boot camps be closed. The defense attorneys argued that the African American was killed by a medical condition. The guards were acquitted of the charges. Another case in 2005 involving a white Texas police officer, Tom Coleman, affirmed that racial nullification is rampant. The police officer arrested 44 suspects on grounds of drug trade. Black Suspects represented about 37 suspects (MacNamara & Burns, 2009). The police officer presented no evidence against the suspects. It was unfortunate to note that the black suspects were sent to prison. This happened yet no evidence was presented before the court. Another case in September 2007 involving six black young men was also interesting. The men were accused of murder charges against a white man in Louisiana. No evidence was presented to incriminate the six men. It is clear that racial differences greatly impact the judicial system. Consequently, tensions, conflict, inequalities and violence are experienced. The fact that racial identity is important in pursuit of justice makes the justice system unfair. Racial identity is therefore a recipe for racial jury nullification.
Several Task Forces have been formed in various states such as New York, New Jersey and Michigan. The outcomes realized from the sessions conducted by the Task Forces indicate that most people, both minorities and majorities are dissatisfied with the prevailing justice conditions (Free, 2003). Most respondents argued that indeed, the representation of the judicial staff favored the majority. In addition, the court systems were insensitive to gender balance. Racial discrimination was rampant in the administration of justice. It is for this reason that most people preferred not reporting some crimes. Fear of bias and jury nullification was limiting to true justice. In this view, it is clear that racial nullification is undesirable for whatever reasons. The law should be applied equally regardless of the political, economic and racial affiliations (Jonakait, 2006). The supporters of this practice do not only impair the criminal justice system. Rather, the social fabric is exposed to unwarranted hate crimes, prejudices and violence between the majority and minority groups. The realization of true justice is based on fair law enforcement, arrests, conviction and sentencing. Presentation of crime evidence should be a must before a person is sentenced. Lack of evidence renders the crime unworthy for further court action. The police, prosecutors and the judges should be consistent with the existing laws to minimize instances of nullifications. In my view therefore, racial jury nullification is unacceptable because it negates the principles of true justice.
Conclusion
The fact that racial jury nullification is debatable is true. Whereas some argue that the practice is acceptable, others regard it as undesirable in the pursuit of justice. The supporters of the practice consider jury nullification as appropriate because it challenges the existing judicial ‘facts’. The fact that the jurors apply their conscience to challenge existing facts makes the practice desirable. On the contrary, those opposed to the practice regard it as unfair. In their view, it favors the majority. Several cases are available to prove that racial jury nullification exists. All the cases have disadvantaged the blacks but favored the whites. It is in this regard that the practice should be discouraged.
References
Dressler, J. (2001). Understanding criminal law. New York: Lexis Pub.
Free, M. (2003). Racial issues in criminal justice: the case of African Americans. Westport, Conn.: Praege.
Jonakait, R. (2006). American jury system. New Haven: Yale University Press.
MacNamara, R. & Burns, R. (2009). Multiculturalism in the criminal justice system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Monk, R. C. (ed.) (2001). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in crime and criminology (6th ed.). Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
An analysis of racial/ethnic differences in offending and victimization rates
A lot of attention has always been paid to the issue of race and crime. Statistics in the United States show that the rate of incarceration among the minority communities is higher than in the White communities. Statistics show that homicide is the leading cause of death among males in the African American community. The probability that a young African American male will die due to homicide is very high. It stands at 1 in every group of 21 young African Americans while it is much lower in the Whites where the probability is 1 in every group of 131 White males (Sampson and Wilson, 126).
Although the homicide rates have been increasing from the 1950s both in the White and African American communities, the rate of increase in the African American community has been at higher levels. The rate of death through firearms among the African Americans doubled in the period from 1984 to 1988 compared to the rates among the Whites which were relatively stable. The rate of African American robbery is ten times higher than the White rates.
Although African Americans account for only 12% of the overall population, they are imprisoned or sentenced for more than 50% of the homicide and robbery arrests in the country (Shihadeh and Steffensmeier 729).
There are scholars who have refused to focus on the causes of these differentials instead of carrying out studies to show that there is racism against minority communities by the law enforcement agencies. Weitzer in 2000, interviewed residents from the White middle-class community and African American middle, as well as lower-class communities to find out their perception of racialized policing. All the respondents agreed that African Americans were treated more harshly than Whites by the police. The White respondents indicated that the reason for the harsher treatment was the exceptionally high crime rates in the African American communities. The police were therefore to a certain extent justified in their behavior (Weitzer 151). Residents from the African American middle-class neighborhood felt that they received, to a certain extent, the same kind of treatment as the Whites. The African Americans from poor neighborhoods reported inferior treatment.
These perceptions are due to the kind of policing both neighborhoods receive. The African Americans in the poor neighborhood have seen police engaging in proactive methods where they keep patrolling and asking the people what they are doing. The houses are congested with poor infrastructure, and the crime rates are high. The African Americans in middle-class neighborhoods live under good conditions; the neighborhoods display well-maintained houses and compounds with hardly any sign of disorderly behavior.
Unnever (2008) agreed with Weitzer’s findings. In his research study on the perception of race among African Americans and Whites, he found out that African Americans believed that there was a racial bias against them in the courts and among the police (Unnever 530). They felt that these biases contributed to the higher sentencing and incarceration rates among African Americans. The courts were more likely to convict African Americans than Whites. The researchers, however, point out that those African Americans, who had gone through experiences where they had faced racial discrimination, were more likely to point out racial bias in the courts and in the law enforcement agencies. The African Americans felt that the high crime rates in their community were due to structural differences such as lack of jobs, failing schools and poor parenting.
Steffensmeier, Ulmer and Kramer (1998) carried out research on incarceration data in Pennsylvania for the years 1989-1992 to find out the impact age, gender and race had on sentencing outcomes. In their finding on sentencing statistics, the researchers discovered that apart from factors such as prior records and the gravity of the offense, African American male offenders in their 20’s and 30’s were sentenced more harshly than their female, white and elderly offenders (Steffensmeier, Ulmer and Kramer 788). The researchers suggest that judges consider factors such as age, gender, and race which contribute to young African American offenders getting severe sentences.
Causes of the Disparities in the Offending and Victimization Rates
There are different scholars who have put forward the reasons for the discrepancies in the offending rates between the different races. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) wrote about the subculture of violence theory. They explained that the African Americans valued violence. The individuals in the African American community, who did not exhibit any violence, ended up being looked down and despised. On the other hand, the ones who had learned to be violent did not feel odd, neither did they experience any feelings of shame or guilt (Wolfgang and Ferracuti 155). The culture in the African American community influences young males to engage in violence at higher rates leading to higher incarceration rates.
Blau and Blau (1982) contested the view of a subculture of violence by Wolfgang and Ferracuti. In a research study, they ascertained that high rates of crime in the minority races stemmed from differences in socioeconomic conditions. In the ghettos and other low-income neighborhoods, the proportion of the minority races was higher than the Whites (Blau and Blau 125).
The minority races resorted to crime in order to get what they needed for their daily life. The crime was caused by their materialist needs due to what they lacked. If poverty was reduced in the ghettos, the rate of crime would go down.
Shaw and Mckay (1942) proposed that the cause of the discrepancies in criminal behavior was due to weak controls and organizations in society. These scholars said that criminal behavior was not rooted in individual causes, rather it was a reaction of law-abiding citizens to abnormal conditions in the society. If the society was not policed adequately and there were other forms of control, it resulted in criminal behavior, as people sought freedom in expressing their views.
They explained that rich people moved to a better neighborhood to escape the disorganization and inadequate policing (Shaw and McKay 112).
McNulty and Bellair conducted a research on five ethnic communities, the African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Native Americans to find out the individual and family risk factors that heightened criminal tendencies in adolescents. The researches carried out the research in high schools and interviewed parents and teachers to answer questions on the sample adolescents observed tendencies of deviant behavior, such as fighting, stabbing, and shooting someone. They found out that there were several risk factors that increased the probability of deviant behavior. These were lack of family resources, the presence of gangs in the locale area, and lack of mainstream attachment in the context of lack of fathers or positive male role models (McNulty and Bellair 734). The study supported Blau and Blau’s findings on the effect of living in areas that are economically disadvantaged to individuals.
Policy recommendations aimed at reduction of the racial disparities in offending and victimization
The high crime rates in the African American communities should be addressed as it is a critical issue. The high rate of homicide in this community shows that the life expectancy of these men is lower compared to their peers in other ethnic communities. There are scholars who have suggested that poor families can be relocated to better neighborhoods in order to reduce the offending and victimization rates among the adolescents. This does not provide solution to the problem at all. There should be government and non-governmental programs instituted to deal with the structural problems of these communities. First of all, the business communities can work closely with the business initiatives in the region to empower them and educate them on how to run successful ventures. The infrastructure in the areas should be improved to support businesses. This will create more job opportunities raising the standards of living. The young people can also be linked with jobs in the wider community.
There should also be policies to deal with those adolescents who are already in gangs or have started exhibiting criminal behavior. There should be efforts to counsel them and engage them in recreational and artistic activities, such as sports, for example, in order to show them alternate lifestyles. For the children that come from single families, the government should link them up with father figures and mentors to create bonds that are aimed at influencing their behaviors and mind-sets concerning life positively. There should also be government efforts to prevent the flow of guns among the youths in the locations where the minority communities are concentrated. There should not be a high emphasis in the courts and among the judges on the incarceration for the offenders (Butler 722). There should be attempts at rehabilitation. Statistics have shown that longer prison sentences do not necessarily reduce the crime rates among the minorities.
Works Cited
Blau Judith and Peter Blau. “The Costs of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime”. American Sociological Review, 47(1982): 114-129. Print.
Butler, Paul. “Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System”. Yale Law Journal, 105(1995): 677-725. Print.
McNulty, Thomas and Paul Bellair. “Explaining Racial and Ethnic Differences in Serious Adolescent Violent Behavior” Criminology, 41(2003): 709-748. Print.
Sampson, Robert and William Wilson.“Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality.” Crime Readings. Eds. R. D. Crutchfield, G. S. Bridges, J. G. Weis, and C. Kubrin. CA: Pine Forge Press, 2000. Print.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry McKay. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942. Print.
Shihadeh, Edward and Steffensmeier Darell. “Economic Inequality, Family Disruption, and Urban Black Violence: Cities as Units of Stratification and Social Control”. Social Forces, 73.1 (1994): 729-751. Print.
Steffensmeier, Darrel, Ulmer, Jeffrey and John Kramer. “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male”. Criminology, 36 (1998): 763-797. Print.
Unnever, James. “Two Worlds far Apart: Black-White Differences in Beliefs about Why African-American Men Are Disproportionately Imprisoned”. Criminology, 46 (2008): 511-538. Print.
Weitzer, Ronald. “Racialized Policing: Residents’ Perceptions in Three Neighborhoods” Law & Society Review, 34 (2000): 129-155. Print.
Wolfgang, Marvin and Franco Ferracuti. The Subculture of Siolence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology. London: Tavistock Publications, 1967. Print.
Fredrick Douglass came from a socially humble background. He unwillingly became a slave for nineteen years and the master was his father (John and John 473). He exploited all the opportunities that possibly came his way despite the hardships he met. Douglass’s influence on slavery abolition and racial equality gained momentum in 1839 when his speech appeared in the ‘The Liberator” newspaper. His stand was to change the minds of the Americans which be achieved through moral persuasion and reasoning with the slavery supporters. According to Douglass, the constitution failed since it consented to slavery therefore, he was against politics and instead resorted to non-aggressive and peaceful procedures (479).
Booker Taliaferro Washington was a powerful African American leader who openly supported separation amongst the blacks and whites. Born to slavery, he had a white father and a black slave mother in Virginia, he got good schooling and prevailed among the African American community, and was favored by the white politicians to be a representative of the Negroes. In his opinion, the political demonstration could not bring about freedom from racial discrimination the minority according to him will lose. He wanted the freedmen to be middle-class farmers and have skills in masonry, smithwork so that they could help themselves. He suggested that collaborating with a few compassionate whites was the way to come out from the then autonomous racial discrimination.
William E. B. Du Bois had great sway during the 20th century and became one of the founding members of the National Association for the Advancement of colored people (David 5). His view was that racial problems had solutions in social science but later changed his mind arguing that when racism has become too much then it calls for mass protest and public demonstration. Later in 1905, Dubois developed an interest in ideas that favored collectivism and forever remained an advocate of equal rights.
What comes out clearly from the three leaders is a difference in ideologies and the approaches towards racism. Douglass had an attitude of self-rule or laissez-faire where he believed that African freed slaves should be given the autonomy to rule themselves. This hindered him from creating an effective tenet that will lead to the race advancement of the blacks. He was an individualist who explained history in an egocentric way. He made appeals that were moral to the white race and embraced racial action that was collective and at the same time advanced racial pride and advocated for separate institutions. However, near death, he married a white lady, Helen Pitts, and changed tune to advocate for racial amalgamation (David 4).
On the other hand, Washington was a man who was a materialist and advanced the cause of accommodating racial segregation while Du Bois believed inequality by all means without any compromise. He is what many blacks found to be a white sympathizer and opportunist to some level because he associated with the whites so that he could get loans to build schools and colleges for blacks. He believed that through education, Africans could be seen as equal to whites while Du Bois believed that it is only through civil rights that Africans could be equal to whites and not education (Herbert 42). This idea made them differ greatly from Washington. Dubois advanced and advocated for black capitalism but in his later years changed the tune to advocate for socialism and separatism of Africans where he aired his views on the need to have a unified African people (David 9). He believed in a ‘bourgeois’ democracy for the free African Americans.
I would have had followed the cause of Du Bois. He fought what he believed in racial equality and black capitalism. He believed in democracy and total freedom for all Africans something that has not been achieved to date.
Works Cited
David, L. D. My Father’s Shadow: Intergenerational Conflict in African American Men’s Autobiography. University of Pennsylvania Press. 1991
Herbert, A. The Complete Published Works of W. E. B. Du Bois. 1973–1985. vol. 7. Indianna University Press.
John, W. B and John, R. M. ‘The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews.’ African American Review, vol. 28, no. 3. pp. 473-479. Indiana State University, 1994.
After the abolition of the slave trade in the United States, strict segregation rules were put in place to control the races. Even though the United States of America has always taken the leading role in promoting democracy in other countries around the world, it has particularly been unable to create democracy among its own citizenry; this has left the world wondering if America really believes in democracy. A significant show of bias was in the 2008 presidential election where basically the African Americans were democrats and the white republicans. Despite the intensive efforts that have been made in trying to deal with past bias in the United States, racism has remained elusive and has always impacted a lot on the policymaking in the country.
The African Americans were accorded a low social status because they got into America as slaves and so their social status was determined by this. The discrimination went on for quite some time but in the 1960s the civil rights movements were able to push for the passing of the anti-discrimination bill. In an attempt to curb the rampant discrimination based on race and class, the United States has been coming up with anti-discriminatory laws and policies to curb the vice. One of these policies, for instance, was affirmative action that was proposed by President J. F. Kennedy to promote the rights of the minority groups in employment and education. This policy has actually been criticized a number of times for discriminating against the whites in favor of blacks – this is called reverse discrimination.
Crime has always been associated with the nonwhites in the U.S. especially the African Americans. The problem with this is that such assumptions never take into consideration the challenges that these people are faced with. A number of the African Americans are living in poor conditions or are homeless; some are either unemployed or doing odd low paying jobs, while most of them have low levels of education, mental sicknesses and addictions to drugs. Such factors that African Americans face tend to make them quite susceptible to criminal activities. In order to curb the increasing crime rate, Americans have continually passed laws that have in turn led to an increase in the number of prisons across the country. The only problem with this school of thought is that imprisonment does not really stop the crime but only leads to the vanishing of individuals from underprivileged and minority communities (Parenti, 2000, 211).
The government has been obliged, therefore, to invest a lot of resources in accommodating the increasing number of prisoners. The only problem with this is that the procedure for handling the prisoners has been mainly left in the hands of private companies. This has generally led to the uprising of trade in weapons and this has not only promoted crimes but continues to widen the gap between the high-class individuals and the middle or low-class ones. This is because as the poor who could have been engaged in an economic activity languish in jails, the rich continue to use this as an investment by supplying weapons and taking advantage of the cheap labor that they provide (Parenti, 2000, 211).
Current studies that have been done seem to suggest that the number of women being imprisoned has generally gone up and that the imprisonments are normally flawed by instances of bigotry, class discrimination and the exploitation of prisoners by industrialists (Huang, 2009, 5). The commercialization of imprisonment has been linked to the increased poverty among the poor since the government’s aid that had earlier on been set aside for funding education for the communities is now channeled towards taking care of prisoners (Evans, Goldberg, 2009, 47).
Moreover, discipline and security in such schools have been given preference over the actual learning activities. Since the poor are unlikely to access education like the other children, they are likely to engage in crime and crime-like activities for them to earn a living. This will consequently increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It generally results in a society that is stratified based on the level of education and the amount of wealth owned. Since it is mostly the blacks that are continuously associated with crime and consequently imprisoned, this, therefore, means that there will be a continuous rise in the gap between the whites and the African Americans.
The privatization of prisons may have been a noble idea aimed at improving the services of the prisoners but it has been criticized for promoting racism since it is mainly the minorities that are targeted for imprisonment. The privatization helped in solving the problems that most of the government prisons were always associated with. This, just as had been noted before, has continued to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. It has also progressively widened the economic gap between different races and stratification of the societies according to the amount of wealth a person has. In California, a survey done showed that more prisons were built over a period of time than the number of educational institutions (Duncan, 2010, 4).
The industrialization of the punishment has promoted race and class bias in the sense that a number of companies who are involved in the prison business now go for the cheap labor from the prisoners; this has turned out to be disadvantageous since some of the prisoners who were initially in unionized jobs end up being rendered jobless or some even retire while imprisoning. This generally will increase poverty in the families the prisoners belongs to hence leading to class and race differences. The prison labor is normally paid for but at a rate way below the least salary, the individual should be earning. This leads to a wastage of public resources that could have been used to promote education, improve living conditions, promote the health care program, exterminate sexual and familial abuse and in establishing rehabilitation centers and as a result, create a lot of jobs for the unemployed population. But since the resources are wastage in providing cheap labor for the private firms this continuously promotes race and class discrimination (Evans, Goldberg, 2009, 47).
Criminality and deviance have been racialized in the United States by associating the blacks the Latinos and the Native Americans with brutality and drug trafficking (Huang, 2009, 3) and the young black and Latino ladies with promiscuity (Huang, 2009, 5). A number of surveys done have actually shown that prison does not really reduce crime but the fact that it has been racialized has prevented this issue from being tackled. The government has laid a lot of focus on crime prevention and provision of security instead of paying attention to the social needs of the society. The policies such as affirmative action and privatization or commercialization of the prisons have led to a diversion of the public resources into the private sector thereby promoting class and race stratification in American societies.