Polysemic Images

When we learned about media and symbolic representation in class, I was very interested in the concept of polysemic images. It is logical that images can have more than one meaning at the same time, but, until now, I have never realized that there is actually a defined term for it. I thought about polysemic images, and I connected it to symbols or images in a novel. When reading or analyzing a novel, people make many interpretations about what means what, and the longer the content is discussed, the more possibility there is for more interpretations to be introduced. This is because people view things in different lights, and everyone interprets images differently. What comes off as a positive image to one person may be negative or offensive to another. I feel that the meaning of images is a very opinioned thing, always open to interpretation.

I definitely thought the Dove advertisement was a great way to introduce polysemic images. In the past, I have mostly seen the Dove advertisements in magazines geared toward women. First of all, I think that it is very reassuring that the image consists of women representing a variety of races. Seeing as though it is a campaign for “real beauty,” I thought that a lot of the women featured in the advertisement were still fairly thin, as well as pretty. But then again, these adjectives, “thin” and “pretty,” can all be interpreted differently. What I find to be thin or pretty may not be your same definition of thin or pretty.

I found it ironic that this advertisement focused toward “real beauty” by using an image of a group of racially and physically diverse women, yet was actually promoting their product of anti aging lotion. To me, “real beauty” means that everyone will be accepted no matter what they look like, but Dove is trying to persuade the person that looks at their advertisement to purchase their product that is meant to combat the effects of aging skin. Really, how does “real beauty” translate to purchasing products in an attempt to stay looking young, rather than accepting the way we look in the first place and finding that beautiful?

My reaction to the Dove advertisement was initially a fairly positive one, but once I thought about the image I was seeing and actually analyzed it, I felt that the image itself was almost too perfect. However, I think that Dove did a reasonably good job with their advertisement. Their first and foremost goal is to make money, so they are going to try to incorporate this image of “real beauty” into their product in order to broadcast it, which is a great idea. The more you can communicate with “real” women about your product, the more likely they will be to try it. I think that even though they are using “real” women to advertise their anti aging lotion, the product will still sell. Women seek out beauty products in order to maintain their beauty, and Dove is simply trying to please their current customers as well as drum up new business. I think that Dove found a good balance between focusing on selling their product as well as connecting to “real” women.

Even discussing examples of polysemic images prove to be difficult, because there is so much meaning behind the images in the first place, and then there is meaning behind the opinions of those images. I am sure there are people that disagree with my interpretation of the Dove advertisement, but the whole point of it is to prove that images are polysemic, and no matter what, there will be endless possibilities of interpretations.

Indian Mascots

The idea of Indian mascots being controversial was something I never had even looked twice at. However, when I think about it, there are really no other “human” mascots except pirates. Indians are a very small minority population that has been stomped since the beginning of time. The woman from the video was offended because she anticipated a cartoon version of chief Illiniwek and that the costume was “too authentic” while the dance was a mockery of their culture. I never looked at these mascots as being offensive to the Indian population, but I clearly was wrong.

In recent news, collegiate North Dakota is being forced to change their mascot, the Sioux Indian. It was very striking to me that the Sioux Indians chose not to endorse the mascot and it forced the removal. The NCAA restricted them from post season play until all symbols were removed. The logo will be gone for the 2010-2011 season. Interestingly enough this came up about a week ago while I was working softball for the UW-Athletic Ticket Office when UW played North Dakota. According to my manager, their stadium had symbols on the backs of every chair, and the logo in marble on the floor of the stadium entrance. In essence, now 10 million dollars worth of logos must be removed and replaced. A debate sparked between my co-workers over whether it was justly done. The general consensus was that they should remove their mascot, which surprised me. One guy said, “If it offends an entire tribe we shouldn’t go against that.” After looking at it that way, I agree. I did not look at the Indian mascot as being offensive to a religion and culture which is to my own ignorance.

However, as stated in the video- if the Indian would have been funny and cartooned, the symbol wouldn’t be a big deal. At what point do we cross the line? Talk about intention was crucial to crossing that line, but I do not think there is a clear winner. Trying to be authentic caused actual offense but being made fun of also didn’t make them happy. On some level, keeping the tradition of a symbol is important to fans, colleges, and support but tradition can be changed to gain the same support. Any symbol can become important to a group. North Dakota has not agreed on a new symbol yet but les hope their next one can last longer.

American Indians as a mascot

Today we watched a clip from the documentary about use of Indian caricatures as a mascot in the United States. The part of the documentary that we saw mainly concerned experience of Charlene Teters, and her struggles of trying to deliver a message that native indians should not be a mascot.

After the clip, several classmates had made their own points and experience related to the documentary. Aside from their own experiences, some had questioned validity of Teter's claims, and if I remember correctly, I presume that they had hard time understanding why Teter was offended by University of Illinois mascot, illini.

True, on the surface, Teter's reaction towards her kids responding to Illini mascot during halftime may seem too drastic. Yet however, one could not argue against Teter for having logic behind her claims.

If we were to weigh Teter, and University of Illinois representatives and their fans solely on a subject that states "Does having native indian mascots insult native americans?" It is certain that Teter's argument will be considered more rigid.

Before anything else, she is a "real" representation of what University of Illinois is represented as in basketball games; such an irony for both Teter, and the university. It is as if followers of islam is arguing against prophet Muhammad himself, to protect their own interpretation of Koran. Although such comparison may be drastic, I believe they only differ in degrees , still applicable in terms of fundamental concept. Likewise, she has more to say in the matter than the other.

If Teter had felt differently in the past, the problem may had been avoided. Teter and University of Illinois would not have collided if Teter felt University of Illinois had presented the chief in correct terms and circumstances. Again, she is the one that is being offended, and she has every right to revolt against it. Although she may not be a representative for entire native indian population, it is certain that general opinion on the matter is not much different than that of Teter.

Even more, there already exists a previous examples such as disappearance of black caricutures in market businesses. University of Illinois misinterpreted and misrepresented native indian chief, and they used this unelaborate presentation of chief for their own benefits and purposes. How does one not listen to Teter's argument?

The media...

Recently we've been talking about media in the lecture, and there is a certain part of it that I want to discuss.
I cannot recall her name, but Angela introduced female Korean comedian who stated that the problem with Asian jokes is that there is no character; what people consider funny about Asian is not certain characteristics or habits, what's considered funny is Asian itself.
Well, I could not agree more on her comment. I could learn that all the other ethnicity jokes in the United States change in time as the society progresses, but not Asian jokes in particular. The jokes are so plain and characterless.
Asian jokes are, and they will always be the same. Asian jokes have been unchanging when all the other racial jokes, Scottish for example, have been evolving from jokes about kilt to Sean Connery, and then to something else.
Also, unlike other racial jokes, Asian jokes are not even subcategorized, when "White" jokes would be divided by nation, social class, and gender. An irony is that more number of nations are categorized as being part of Asia, compared to nations and ethnicities in Europe and North America. People in the United States do not know much about Asia except for Japan and China and the media extends such ignorance.
I spent a year as a senior in the U.S. preparatory. Despite being in Michigan, where not so many Korean immigrants inhabit, there were many Korean students. Some of them lived in dormitories and some others attended from their homes nearby.
Anyways, maybe because we were mostly immature, it was common for the most students to pick on someone else because of their race or ethnicity, and my ethnicity was no exception, and from all those names that I had called upon, I could realize how ignorant they were about Asia. It was either they could not tell difference between Japan and China, or they just did not care enough.
No matter what the truth was, it was not so much of pleasant experience. I was ok with racial jokes and never were offended in anyway because such jokes were popular and it was some twisted way of students getting to know more about each other. However, it was disappointing to realize how well average Michigan teenagers were informed or educated about Asia and various nations and cultures within.
I personally approve and agree with racial jokes. I believe they deliver feelings of intimacy or interest from one race towards another, only if used in right circumstances.
With the issue of what racial joke is allowable and what is not, I only have my own boundaries, and I do not know what would be the borderline of racial jokes should be. However, with the issue of Asian jokes, it is not even necessary yet for anyone to think of what is ok and what is not ok when joking about Asian race because most people are not educated enough to think about such, and the media prolongs such tendencies of people in the United States.

Where Sunshine and Rainbows Don't Cut It Anymore

Lately we have been talking about media and how it implants certain images about gender, race and ethnicity. I never realized how much the media has made me believe things about certain people. I like watching Family Guy which has a lot of jokes amongst the show but I can now see how certain images that they show had given me a different persepctive on items. I at first am embaressed to say that I believe in or thought that what they were saying was true, but like stated from the Sarah Silverman article, many of the jokes that people say come from what others were thinking but are not able to say.

During class we talked about two views of media within our society. One that stuck out to me was the hypoedermic model which states that the media injects in people (beliefs and values). I truly believe that this view is correct. I feel that many parents in our country allow their children tow atch very innappropriate shows at such a young age. I remember being in high school and watching the news and hearing about a young boy around the age of eight who committed suicide and thought that he would be able to come back to life, because Kenny on South Park did all of the time. How did our society get this far into thinking that it was ok to show someone killing themselves then coming back to life, as if nothing happened? Violence use is a major problem in the United States, so wouldn't the media want to stop the use of it, and help people stay away from this terrible problem?

Maybe some people in our society do not feel that everyone will take the message that way and thus they believe it is ok to portray those things? I had asked a bunch of my friends what they thought about the South Park incident and many believed that it was the parent and the kid's fault for not knowing the difference between fake and reality. I agree that it should be the parents responsibility to tell their child what would really happen, however and eight year old in my opinion should not be watching a shoe that is made for the older age group. My question is, is it good to show an ad that has a caption saying your not a man until you have a gun, or until your serving your country and killing the enemy? Do we feel that we need to teach our men and some women to be tough and not to take crap from people? Whatever happen to being able to turn the other cheek and rise above all of the violence? As a society if we potray negative things as being good things then in the end wont all of the positive things in life be totally forgotten?

Today in class it was brought up that we take things away and present people with a new idea of the world. I wonder who benefits from this if people are not seeing how the world really is? Is it the leader of our country who decides what is the best and worst for us? To me, I thought that I could come up with things to sell to people and tell how and what to believe in, considering how easy it is for our society to be persuaded. Our world is filled with more problems than just racial jokes, it goes more indepth with education, people on welfare, crime and the economy itself. If we continue to block people from what is really going on in the world then we are doing more harm than good. It is troubling to see that a lot of people now just go with the flow and do not voice a lot of their opinions? Perhaps, it is because they do not want to turned on?

The "Down Low"

“Double Lives on the Down Low” by Benoit Denizet-Lewis was unlike anything I have ever read before. What I initially noticed was that the article read like a story, which immediately made it much more enjoyable to read. I was shocked that by the third paragraph there was already a clear differentiation and segregation between the white club for openly gay males, and the mostly black and Hispanic club where men go but do not consider themselves to be gay. First of all, the two groups go to two different clubs, so no intermingling of race occurs. Secondly, the white males are willing to admit that they are gay, but the blacks will not. I was shocked to hear the reasoning behind this, that the black culture believes “masculinity and fatherhood as a black man’s primary responsibility and homosexuality as a white man’s perversion.” This idea struck me as strange, as though it isn’t possible for a black man to be gay, but it definitely is possible for a white man to be gay.
My eyebrows kind of rose when I read about what being on the “Down Low” meant. I found it so unheard of to technically be gay, but consider yourself not to be due to your particular culture’s views. It is one thing to not “come out of the closet” or seemingly acknowledge to others that you are gay, but it is another to deny to yourself that you actually are gay and refuse to put the label of being “gay” on it even if you simply plan to keep it to yourself.
I definitely agree that “looking black enough” equates to “looking masculine, tough, and “straight.” It seems as though a black man will not admit to being gay, because there is such a strong focus on masculinity, and it is viewed as though gayness and masculinity cannot go hand in hand with each other. This made me think back to class, when we talked about the idea of “doing gender,” that gender is not something that you are, it is something that you do. These technically gay men on the “Down Low,” are not gay, that they are masculine and just like to have a good time.
I find it interesting that the black culture finds the “Down Low” label to be a separation from white, gay culture. In particular, I like the response that followed Denizet-Lewis’s question of the difference between being on the “Down Low” and being in the closet, stating that, “Being on the DL is about having fun, being who you are, but keeping your business to yourself. The closet isn’t fun. In the closet, you’re lonely.” This example definitely shows that people have their own ideas about gender in their particular culture, and they find their black culture’s view on it different than the white culture’s view of gayness. The statement that really expressed the black culture’s belief on gayness reads, “It’s not like if you’re black and gay, because then it’s like you’ve let down the whole black community, black women, black history, black pride.” This statement reads as though being gay is a bad thing, and that the black community cannot take another blow to its ego.
I felt that it was a very logical idea that the black community is “simply too homophobic and views homosexuality as a curse against a race with too many strikes against it; whereas, the white community is more accepting of its sexual minorities, leading to fewer double lives, less shame, and less unsafe sex.” I also thought that the concept of gay men not admitting that they are gay because they need their family because of economic reasons and racism in particular was a very valid excuse. It was really sad to think about how black, gay men can choose to be discriminated against at home for their sexuality or discriminated somewhere else for their skin color, if they do choose to share with others that they are gay. It is not right that society is like this, and people should be able to express their sexuality no matter what the color of their skin may happen to be.
Because this article discussed the AIDS epidemic, I was thinking about healthcare, and I noticed a particular quote that seemed to express a concept dominant to the black culture, “Black people trust the church. We don’t trust health care. We don’t trust doctors and nurses, but we trust the church. So when the church says, ‘Get tested,’ when the church says, ‘Take your medicine,’ people will do it.” This particularly reminded me about when we discussed in class how institutions interact and why the health disparities among races exist. I connected this to this particular quote from the article, because if minority representation among doctors and other care positions can be increased in the health care field and facilities, black minorities may feel more comfortable getting help. Yes, the black community should be able to trust the church, but they should be able to trust health care as well.

Music

Rap music is by far the most popular genre in the young adult age group but its lyrics are becoming more and more controversial. In a time when all violence is blamed on video games, media, and movies, song lyrics are being heavily scrutinized. The documentary we watched in class give a very different insight for me on how the artists themselves view the music they produce.

The big question is how much do song lyrics really matter? When someone in a song degrades a woman and talks about her as an object, should we take offense to that? Some of the women interviewed about song lyrics calling women “bitches and hoes” were not offended, and stated “they aren’t talking about me.” I think that artists should be responsible for the words they spit and insulting and demeaning lyrics shouldn’t be tolerated. Personally, I think that certain lyrics go over the top and should make people upset. However, as stated by some of the young artists, walking into a label and talking about the hardships of the ghetto and verbalizing positive messages are not selling. The image of being strong, manly, and worthy of street respect are the artists that get deals and in a market that expects this-artists are willing to sacrifice their lyrics to get a break. As well, labels put out catchy music and tend to slide in derogatory statements in between the choruses which distract many from truly hearing what they are listening to. The only way to get around this is to find music underground and break from the mainstreams but this is much more time consuming.

The most shocking thing I think in the documentary was when Byron asked the record label if they thought the music they produced further upheld black stereotypes and he failed to comment. Pretty much he said, “Yeah the depictions of black men with drugs, money, and violent imagery allow middle class white kids further reason to distrust the young black population.” There is also discrepancy as to how “black” a lot of these rap artists are. First off, they say they are from the ghetto and get shot at, but they have millions of dollars and do not have to live that way. I find it hard to believe half of the things said in rap lyrics, especially from wealthy artists. Lyrically the use of certain slangs and swear words, especially like “niggaz,” are heavily overused and incredibly insulting. Usually, the more frequent use of a word, the more desensitized we become to it, but these words have not lost their meaning. The overuse of said words makes people believe they are okay to use in everyday language with their friends and when talking to others, yet this is not the case. Additionally, the double standard of race and slang is ridiculous. If the words “bitch, nigga, and hoe” are said within your race group it appears to be accepted, but as soon as another race uses them a word war erupts. If words like that are not okay, and they are offensive, then no one should be using them in such casual terms. The overuse of swear words gives attempts at power through intimidation, but in reality just make people sound stupid.

Other types of music are not exempt either, which makes me really question what I put on my ipod. By buying catchy music, and mainstream songs I am supporting the lyrics in that music whether I do or not. I want the music that I listen to, to represent my beliefs and attitudes which means I need to start choosing my songs differently.

For love or money?

This past week in class we were talking about marriage and the diversity that has started to come along with it. Some classmates had explained that within their communities and friend's families, same race and ethnicity was important with marriage, whereas in a community that I grew up in there was not a lot of diversity and it made no difference who was dating who. I found it rather interesting how complicated marriage has became within our society and I wonder if it matters to marry for love anymore.

In the article, “American's Have a Different Attitude” it has showed that many of the families want their daughters to marry within the same ethnicity, and that they allow the men to go around choose whoever they want. The parents wanted to make sure that the girls upheld the name. To me I believed that it should be the girl's decision about who she chooses to marry. Who says that this arranged marriage is going to work out and that it is truly what's best for the family? No one can see into the future and I firmly believe that it should be the choice of the girl. Some girls had commented on the fact that their parent's voices were in the back of their head, and that they were afraid the parents would stop communication with them. I feel very bad for people in that situation, they want to be happy, but they are giving up their happiness for their parents. I know from personal experience that my old roomate was told to take her career as far as possible, but she went on to tell me that when her parents had found her a husband she was to get married and become a stay at home mom, and she could never tell her parents that she was dating someone. I felt so bad that she wasn't able to do what she wanted in life, and that she had to put all her wants and needs aside just to make them happy.

On the other hand, there are some people that choose to marry within their ethnicity and believe that the real women are those who are from their same ehtnicity. For example in the article, “Yellow Fever,” the author talks about how some of her boyfriends or even the white men that were at first interested in her, dumped her to find a girl who was more Japenese. Many men wanted a geisha to take care of them and one who was adventourous, and many felt that American women were too independent. My first thought was, what is this the 1910's? Women no longer are stay at home wives, however there are still some women who believe that that is how they can move up in the world, by being what men want. The article goes on to say that these ideal women do what men want and that many of them are middle age white men. It makes me uncomfortable knowning that there are men still out there that want women to only take care of them.

A last topic that I believe was really interesing involving marriage is the Exchange Hypothesis, and this stated that people are willing to give up racial status for economic status. I feel like this is a big contradiction from everything that I had just talk about, dealing with people who want to marry someone from their own race and ehtnicity. Some people in the class found it hard that there are people out there who marry just for money, or to move up in the social ladder. I can't get the thought out of my mind that no one wants to be just happy and in love anymore, and that all that has become important is power and fame. Whatever happened to working as hard as you can and at the end of the day you should just be happy with your life? I feel that we should reevalute the important of things and life and see that love and happiness comes first, then success and money comes later.

"Bien Cuidada"

I was very intrigued after reading the “I’m not fat, I’m Latina” article by Christy Haubegger. The concept of a woman being described as “bien cuidada”, meaning well cared for, baffled my mind. Yes, I understand that Latino women tend to be curvier and that their culture accepts them for that, but I had not realized there was even a legitimate term used to describe these Latina, curvy women. Being white, I feel as though a white woman is not as accepted for being curvy, whereas, a Latina woman would almost be expected to be curvy. I liked how Haubegger said, “It’s the curvier bodies like mine that turn heads.” This quote almost shocked me, because it seems like white girls tend to get more attention for being thin, and a white girl can be curvy, but not too curvy or she will no longer be considered to be attractive.
The concept of there being a greater “cultural acceptance” of being overweight within Hispanic communities wasn’t as big of a shock to me as I had imagined. When I thought about it, it really made a lot of sense. Different cultures are more or less accepting of particular things, such as appearances and actions, compared to other cultures. In the Hispanic culture, curviness is embraced.
Haubegger also linked the curviness and being technically “overweight” to food and what exactly is consumed among the particular culture. The wording of, “You feed people you care for, and so if you’re well cared for, bien cuidada, you have been well fed” was kind of a stretch for me. Yes, I understand what Haubegger is saying, that it is a part of the Latino culture, but I feel as though caring for people can be shown in a different way, rather than through the use of the foods particular to the culture. I wouldn’t really be as affected by the idea of this statement had the issue of food leading to being overweight not been such a huge factor. I value my health, and I believe that if you care about someone, you should want them to live a healthy life, and it seems as though being well fed by being “bien cuidada” may be the most accepted in the Latino culture, but in the scheme of things, it is harming your physical well being.
Even though I disagree with the basis of caring for people by making sure they are “bien cuidada,” I am pleased to hear that the Latino culture is more accepting of body shapes than other cultures. It really is a shame that in 2010, discrimination seems to exist even based upon peoples’ weight and body shape. It is sad that people do not always accept others as they should, and it sometimes it seems as if people cannot put themselves in another person’s shoes, and see life from that person’s perspective. I feel as though in order to really try to understand someone, you need to look at life from their point of view, and unless this happens, inequality will continue to exist, whether it is based upon race, age, class, gender, or even weight.

"He looks Jewish..."

The recent lectures we have been having about interracial and interfaith relationship has really made me think in dept about my views on these topics. Growing up in Poland, a country with little diversity and then living in a non-diverse neighborhood in the U.S has kept me from considering interracial relationships until college. My parents, my dad especially, are very old-fashion and conservative so I always got the impression that such relationships would not be accepted into the family. Also, my dad often made racist and discriminatory comments. My dad and I often got into arguments based on stereotypes and I often wondered how it could be that I could disagree completely with someone who has raised me. It was not until recently that I have started coming up with some possible theories.
The lecture we had recently on interracial relationship and its statistics, has given me some good ideas on how and why my ideas differ so much from my parents. The stats of intermarriage differ by Group, Gender, Educations, and Geography and in those groups I already see the differences between my parents and me. Educationally, my parents finished high school and had no further education. The high school included the same people they had been going to school with since pre-school and so the lack of diversity and expending cultural knowledge is obvious there. Similarly, geography has kept them isolated their whole lives also limiting the amount of cultural difference they experience. I remember my dad telling me about how he did not see an African American person until he arrived at the U.S airport when he was 27. This goes hand in hand with what we learned weeks ago in how ones neighborhood has the ability to create boundaries and exclude them from learning about differences that exist in the world when it comes to culture and race.
Often times when I would argue with my dad, I would be frustrated because his opinions were so socially constructed and, to me, evidently incorrect. Sometimes his comments include things such as “Oh he looks Jewish,” or “What do you expect, he’s black.” I was able to relate these concepts to the theories we learned against Physiognomy, something that is still commonly believed in Poland. The Symbolic Integrationist Theory matches perfectly with the socially constructed stereotypes that my parents have. In my opinion, the stereotypes are not just because they were exposed to little diversity, but rather the symbols and labels that were present in small non-diverse community they grew up in. They had no way of disproving those labels because they were never gotten the opportunity to prove some of those labels as incorrect. For example, if they would have had the opportunity to socialize with an African American, they would have been able to disprove the label that all African Americans are lazy. Thankfully, I was able to get an opportunity to be a part of more diverse culture. When I came to college I quickly made friends with a variety of people, many of which were culturally and racially diverse. I loved this opportunity because it was a very large learning experience.
One of the most educational experiences I had was when I started dating a boy that was Jewish. Of course never having had that I found myself questioning, is this ok? Even though I knew what my parents would say, I wanted to educate myself about the Jewish culture and see how people of that culture and religion felt about interfaith relationships. It took a while for my boyfriend and I to talk about this issue because, as we later discovered, both of us felt scared of being unaccepted. I am catholic so when it came to be Christmas time I slowly started talking about religious aspects of Christmas which to say the least made very awkward conversation. One night I asked him jokingly what he wanted for Christmas, and he corrected me and said “you mean Hanukah?” It was then that I found out a lot of his views on interfaith relationships which helped me form some opinions. He told me about how against his parents were about his older brother marrying a Christian girl, but how after it happened they learned to accept it and how now they celebrate Hanukah and Christmas. This matched perfectly with the discussion we had about the consequences of interracial marriage. It was apparent that his brother’s interfaith marriage brought positive consequences to his family, and not only made the distinction between the two religions less important in their everyday lives, but also caused a reduction in the discrimination and stereotypes they held before. Now I wonder if my parents would react the same way, or if the amount of time they spend developing and holding certain stereotypes affects whether they are able to be broken.

Criminal Justice and Races

The United States statistically has the highest incarceration rates across the globe. Yet, when the divisions between races are exposed, there are large differences. As a country, racial inequalities need to be addressed differently.

Unfortunately, the law benefits the wealthy and those who can afford good lawyers. White people charged with crimes tend to serve shorter sentences, are punished less, and are often let off in exchange for community service. However, when we look at those who are in jail, it is mainly young black males. As stated previously, police officers are commended for "arresting criminals" and "helping win the war on drugs." This essentially means, go to the inner city and catch as many black males for drugs as possible. The incarceration rates for black males disproportionally sky rocketed in comparison to those of whites.

However, white stereotypes of black males are non-involved fathers, drug abusers, and overall "bad" people. Yet, when 40% of the young black males in the United States are either in jail, on probation, or some other type of watch program, how are they ever given a chance? The repetitive cycle of locking up young black males leads to a further decrease in education and puts them at a disadvantage in the job market. This also leads to a high unemployment rate within the black community. Crime rates also do not go down as a result of being in prison. After being locked up for 10 years and you have no money, a job, a house, and your family does not want anything to do with you- what are the options? Also 75% of people who are incarcerated are classified as having anti-social personality disorder which in turn basically states a general lack of concern for themselves, others, or the consequence of the law. Consequently many of those incarcerated once, will be again. Additionally, this leads to the divisions within the black population in relation to "street" and "decent" origins. When you live life in the inner city and associate police as useless, actions will reflect this. As well, most black people do not fear prison; in fact, it is a signature sign of toughness as stated in the readings.

White people are just as, or more likely to do drugs in comparison to black people but they are generally more discrete about it. White people tend to make deals within a suburban home where no one really knows about it. As well, because a lot of middle class whites smoke marijuana, the laws based around it are becoming less strict. Another reason for such high drugs abuse rates in white is the large social demands set upon them to succeed. Many white people are depressed from these demands and find drugs and alcohol’s effects to be their way out. It is even known that doctors use things like speed to maintain attention and focus during long surgeries. This "unfairness" leads to further turmoil within the inner city.

Unfortunately, I have seen the inner workings of the unfairness within the middle class. I have seen people from high school get busted for 1.5lbs of marijuana, clearly with the intent to sell, and get let off on community service and weekly drug tests. I also know someone whose house was raided by police looking for heroin, to find none, but found a bunch of marijuana and nothing happened to them. I do understand that in the grand scheme of life, marijuana is not really a direct harm to self or anyone around them, but illegal none the less. As well, I had a boyfriend in high school that got pulled over at least once a week for speeding, drifting, neons, etc and to this day I think he only has 3 speeding tickets. I do honestly believe that because all of these people were middle class white males, they were let off with slaps on the wrists.

Honestly, I think the war on drugs was one of the biggest mistakes as far as policy goes. By arresting a ton of young black males, we over filled our prison system and billions of tax dollars are spent each year to keep these people in jail. The reason so many drugs are problems, is because they are illegal. The “bad” deals that go down and things like police shootings occur because many people do fear prison and will do anything to escape. The law also doesn’t change that fact that people are going to continue to do drugs legal or not.

Additionally, prejudices based on race in the justice system also need to be addressed. Consequently of these prejudices, especially those toward black males, innocent people have been shot and killed by the police due to the suspicion of black men carrying guns. The implict association test scrambles “white and good” and “blacks and bad” as a key and then has you match the words as quickly as possible and then switch the word associations. I personally took that test in my psychology class and was a little shocked at my own subconscious beliefs in that, I wasn’t aware of them. My average time when associating “blacks and good” was higher than “whites and good.” Studies have proven that the subconscious attitudes of police officers can be manipulated by exposure and retraining the subconscious implicit associations.

The unfairness in our justice system on race based offenses is wrong and needs to be addressed immediately to save the black community from falling further.

Divisions in School

A few weeks back, class was focused primarily on what advantages are given to certain children in the school systems. Primarily it helped draw the lines of class and racial distinctions between disadvantaged youth who then fall further. The bottom line was, and is, should we divide children into “gifted and talented” programs or let them all be equivalent learners?

There has been a lot of psychology research done specifically on the development of children and how they learn that supports the idea of division. Children must be taught in their zone of proximities meaning that, in order to effectively teach children the information must not be above their understanding, or be things that have already learned. Children who are bored in school have a tough time sitting through hours of material they have already learned and spend more time socializing. Additionally, if children aren’t being challenged, they aren’t actively learning and thus are not moving forward.

However, there are social implications to dividing children which mostly hurt those who are not defined as gifted. When children are consistently told they are not as smart as other children, a mental block is formed and most children tend to believe they are not as smart. Additionally, when teacher’s expectations of children are low, statistically children perform much worse than their counterparts. This was also shown in the Riceville video clip when the children were substantially slower at the card deck when they were defined as the lower group. These divisions especially affect those who were disadvantaged from the beginning. Low SES children are generally disadvantaged in their pre-k years due to stressful family situations and lack of resources. Additionally, low SES parents are usually less educated than their middle class counterparts and thus may not understand how to teach children prior to starting school. As well, many middle class parents spend a lot of time and money placing their children in well respected day care and pre-school facilities that foster cognitive development. Competing with these prepped babies on the same level is just not feasible since their education levels are substantially different.

Yet, how can you justify not letting children thrive and succeed to their full potentials? When school systems have the resources to allow children more diverse and challenging educations, why shouldn’t they? Personally, I was divided from my math scores during the 5^th grade and those followed me throughout all of high school. I know I would not be where I am unless I had been pushed along and challenged all of high school. Our gifted group was established by my middle school principle whose wife worked in an inner city Milwaukee school who wholeheartedly believed in teaching to a child’s level of understanding. She felt it wasn’t fair to the children who showed a high level of cognitive development early on to hinder their abilities. Thus, our school system was held up by the idea of challenges, success, and excellence. Our school district upheld the belief of the “gifted” and it was tested by the school board numerous times. I was given above and beyond opportunities to dissect sharks, study plate-tectonics, read college level books, participate in math competitions, and later take college level courses. I know I would not be where I am without the class divisions I faced early on in life and thank those who fought to give me those opportunities.

However, who is to say that boy who was not chosen as a “gifted” student at 10 years old, wouldn’t have excelled in the same way with the extra opportunities? How can a teacher divide 10 year olds up and say, “Sally is college bound, while Sam….Well, he might become a plumber?” Parents always say, “You can be anything you want to be,” except when you live in socialist societies like China, whose babies are pre-determined to have careers. How is it so perfect that their predictions are almost always correct? That makes it pretty clear that the training you receive in your education can make a huge impact on the type of career one will have. This brings back the concept of a behavioralist’s approach to learning in that children are blank slates that must learn from others doing and teaching. This is the sharp contrast from the innate version of learning which emphasizes that children are pre-wired to their abilities to learn, and thus teaching before school age is a waste of time.

Overall, the socioeconomic and racial status of a family defines education of young children which follows them their whole lives. Separating children and teaching to their level of understanding is crucial to effective learning in children. Children set at the lower half of their class are destined to stay there according to current approaches yet those are the children who need the most help. Funding is the largest part holding these children back as explicitly seen in both “Life on the Mississippi” and “Children of the City Invincible: Camden, New Jersey.” I believe that there should still be gifted programs that allow children to expand their knowledge and abilities but the need to bring the bottom up is a greater concern.

Injustice Within Our Nation

Before break we were given readings entitled; “...and the Poor Get Prison,” by Jeffrey Reiman, “No Equal Justice: The Color of Punishment,” by David Cole and “The Mark of a Criminal Record,” by Devah Pager. These three readings dealt with criminal punishment among different races and classes. What I found most interesting was the lack of support and rallying for the minorities and poor to get out of crime. To me it would seem more logical to help people get back up on their feet after being in prison. As a nation I would think that we would like to help fill our streets and job market with people instead of our jail cells thus leading to become overcrowded.

In the article by David Dole, he states that “There is discrimination within the legal system, and that more minorities are getting arrested and punished for crimes that even whites commit.” He also gives the data that 90% of defendants are black and that 65% of drugs users for crack cocaine are white. It baffles me that we are not doing more to stop the users rather than the sellers. In class Angela mentioned that as soon as the drugs moved out to the suburbs and whites started doing more and more drugs, law enforcement focused their shift on those who were selling the drugs. Shouldn't the punishment be on both the seller and the user? To me it sends out a message that it is alright for people to use drugs but not sell them. I understand that it is easier for law enforcement to find homeless people who are trying to make a living (I do not support the selling of illegal drugs, but to some that is all they have) however those who are not poor are just as guilty and responsible for breaking the law. Yes, it does seem logical to stop the drug before it can be sold, but someone who has money will find better and easily ways to get drugs.

Why does it seem that every time I turn on a T.V. A black person is getting arrested for a crime? Occasionally I will see a white persons face, but more times than none it is a black person. Do Americans have a stereotype that only black people are evil and they cause the world all our pain and suffering? An interesting point that was brought up in class was the case of Bernhard Goetz, who shot four black men in a subway in 1982. Goetz only got fined for illegal gun possession. In class many people wanted to know how and why that was even fair. Some questioned what would have happened if he had been black and the boys he had shot would have been white? Goetz would have been put in jail for life with out question. In the article by Reiman, he said, “The upper and middle class are weeded out to never come within sights of a jail.” “Blacks are more likely to be fined and committed then whites, also blacks have an unlikely hood of early release, probation, reduced sentence as oppose to whites.” What makes whites untouchable? Is it that fact that many whites are in control? If we are not getting caught as much as blacks then surely their should be more crimes committed by whites then blacks. In a way this is happening with the fact the crimes committed by whites are far more clever and more corporate then those committed by the poor. Corporate punishment is less severe and more times than none their punishment is reduced.

So where is all this help for minorities and those who are poor? To me it is no where to be found people are wanting to keep those who are in prison in prison. In the article by Pager he shows that 2/3 of the prisoners return to jail within three years by committing more crimes, due to the lack of income and employment. Pager also shows that many employers are still basing their decision on race alone in regards to whether or not to call back someone for a job. We live in 2010, we should be overlooking the skin color and/or the ethnicity of people and look to see what really matters for jobs and success, the persons references and worth ethic?

Overall, I think we need to change the view of our court system and how much we let people get and not get away with things. If we are going to enforce something then we should do it fairly on every level. We should not be allowed to complain about crime, drugs and the poor any longer, because we are doing nothing to change how our society works. If we want things to change we need to change them, we need to make sure that those who are committing these crimes are being caught and we need to make sure that everyone is given the same opportunity otherwise the rich will continue to get away with everything while the poor are left with nothing but crime and going to jail.