"White Like Me" Racism in America

          Recently in class, we viewed the film "White Like Me." The basic theme of the movie was racism and racial inequality in American society. The film was largely in contingence with what we've been discussing in class throughout the course of the semester. Throughout the semester, we've discussed observed, and even debated about events and topics in history that all are all connected to one central issue that unfortunately still plagues American society today, that is, racism. As we learned in class, racism has origins dating back to as early as the 1600's with the beginning of the institution of slavery. In class, we've observed the way in which racism and racial inequality have played integral roles in several key historical events. Recently, I completed an essay that was based off the Civil Rights Movement, a push for equality ignited by African Americans. The movement received a great amount of back-lash from white Americans who still inherently believed that African Americans were inferior to whites.
          Although society has progressed greatly in terms of acceptance and tolerance of others, racism and racial prejudice are still very much a part of American Society. As seen in the movie "White Like Me", many whites in society still continue to stereotype African Americans; for example, many believe that African Americans are the only individuals who commit crimes, or African Americans are the only ones who struggle...as seen through the film, this simply isn't realty. The unfortunate reality of the world we live in today is that every race has some sort of struggle. When the economy took a turn for the worst back in 2008, numerous amounts of Americans lost their jobs and thus turned to governmental aid just to support their families while the economy limped along. Also, society has a pre-concieved notion that perhaps the only successful high-earning are whites, and that perhaps whites are the only ones who have the opportunity to truly enjoy the fruits of success. This relates to the concept of "white privilege" addressed in the film. White privilege is the idea that white members of society received more or better privileges than minority; often times, white privilege is followed by an inherent sense of entitlement that has existed for centuries.

          When President Barack Obama was elected as the very first African American president, it seemed as though America had turned a corner; as though the American public had finally put their biases and prejudices aside for the good of the nation. However, many members of society were outraged at the idea of an African American leading the nation, they simply couldn't fathom how Obama was elected. Several white simply voted for McCain for the sole fact that they couldn't stand the idea of a black president, whereas many African Americans voted for Obama because of his race, perhaps in hopes that his election would bring about the eventual elimination of racism in society.
         At the end of the day, I learned from the movie that an American is an American, regardless of the color of his or her skin. It saddens me that many members of society fail to echo this sentiment. I firmly believe that racism in America will end when people begin to view others as equals; when the values, beliefs, or work ethic that a person holds becomes more important than the color of their skin. "White Like Me" seeks to bring awareness to this very concept, the concept that even though society is completely integrated by law, we truly cannot become "integrated" until all members of society learn to give the same level of respect and tolerance to all, regardless of race.





photo sources:
1. http://www.timwise.org/books-and-dvds/white-like-me/  
2. http://www.thezooom.com/2012/11/8233/  

Anticipated Decision of Jury Calls for State of Emergency in Missouri

         As of Monday, November 17th, Missouri declared itself in a "state of emergency". Given the events that have occurred over the past few months, there is no question that controversy and conflict are rampant. Months ago, a white police officer in the town of Ferguson (Darren Wilson) shot and killed African American teenager Michael Brown (who was unarmed at the time of the shooting.) The incident stirred Americans as protests regarding unfair racial targeting and violence ensued in not only the state of Missouri but all across the nation. Ferguson police attempted to put an end to the protests, however, their efforts proved to be in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

        After months of consistent protesting and debate, the grand jury has stated that a decision on the case is expected to be reached by Mid-November. However, in the mean time, Mo. Governor Jay Nixon has called upon the Missouri National Guard in order to reinforce the state of emergency in anticipation of the inevitable rising tension as the decision dates nears...a rather militaristic approach to conflict resolution in my opinion; many protestors share the same feelings, expressing their disdain for the military-like method of law enforcement. Is crowd control with large rifles and military vehicles truly necessary to stop rowdy protestors? Governor Nixon insists that the aid of the National Guard is simply part of a "contingency plan" stating that it was "simply the next step in continuing efforts to plan and be prepared for any contingency, and that means making sure these resources are in place in advance of any announcement." So basically, Gov. Nixon's plan was simply a preempted strike in anticipation of state-wide uproar when the jury releases their decision; he also insists that the order was merely to protect the "dual pillars" or the endurance of public safety and the protestors rights to voice their opinions. 
          Even though many experts believe that the jury will choose not to indict Wilson (which would inevitably lead to violent outbreaks and protests), Nixon insists that the National Guard will play a secondary role in the law enforcement process by merely aiding local police officers so that they can instead focus on the protection of constitutional rights as well as smaller local issues. It's only a matter of time before a verdict is reached. Will justice be served to officer Wilson, or will the jury choose not to indict? This decision is said to be reached very soon.

Article and photos: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/missouri-governor-calls-out-national-guard-ahead-of-grand-jury-decision.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Gay Marriage Delays in Kansas

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kansas-watches-high-court-justice-gay-marriage-26828771

        Doesn't everyone deserve the right to be happy? The freedom to live with and love who they want? If only all states felt this way; however, on a positive note, 32 US states have legalized gay marriage. Yet, that means that 18 other states have yet to lift their bans. One state in particular that is sparking much media attention lately is the state of Kansas. Last week, a federal judge ordered the state of Kansas to stop enforcing the ban. Attorney General Derek Schmidt decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. Justice Sonya Sotomayor temporarily halted the judges order. Civil Liberty attorneys firmly believe that delaying the lifting of the gay marriage ban in the state of Kansas will prove to have negative effects on gay couples as well as their families. Unfortunately, Kansas seems to be rather set on their decision and have been for years. For example, the state has never once recognized same sex marriage; in the year 2005, the voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that reinforced the the ban. The controversy is largely based off the request for legal change that was filed by the ACLU (American Civil Liberty Union), standing up for the rights of two lesbian couples. The Kansas court state that "marriage license applications from same-sex couples could be accepted but not issued until its case is resolved. That order will remain in effect until Tuesday." Sadly, rather than addressing the issue head on, the state of Kansas would rather choose to remain passive and keep the ban in place until further notice.

Moot Court: Brown vs. Board of Education

http://www.spft.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BrownVBoard.jpg 

       Today, the class argued the court case of Brown vs. Board of Education 1957 , a landmark case in history due to the fact that it tackles the idea of "separate but equal" laws as well as segregation. In the case of Brown vs. Board of Education, the real question was: should there be segregation of black and white children within the public school system?
Each side argued the following: 

Board of Education Side: 

• SC represented “separate but equal” in 1896
• As long as the RR companies provide separate but equal entities then the separation is legal
• No matter which way you look at it, whites are superior to blacks—integration of schools will only bring more feelings of inferiority; is it worth the integration if the feeling of inferiority don't go away?
• Integration could be detrimental to both parties—black children would fall behind and not get the attention that they need or white children wouldn't reach their full potential 
• State and local government have the right to make decisions that are ultimately what is best for the children—schooling and education isn't a “federal issue”
• “Race mixing” can cause issues in itself

Brown Arguments:

• the reality is that the schools aren't equal—black schools have lower quality of education, it isn't up to par with white schools
• Studies show that minority students learn best in mixed classroom environment 
• “reality vs. rhetoric”—separate but equal isn't true in reality 
• according to the constitution, black children are citizens of the US and should therefore receive the same benefits and treatment as white children—based on First Amendment 
• the Jim Crow laws saying that young black children must attend segregated schools is unconstitutional 
• Separating children by race can cause the “inferiority complex” 
• Separate schools act as “badges of inferiority” 

         Personally, I believe that segregation is just flat out morally incorrect. However, constitutionally speaking, the Board of Education side makes a valid point when they state that schooling isn't technically a "federal issue", therefore its the choice of the state and local governments to regulate the schooling of the children. Yet, I still believe that the side of Brown had the most valid arguments because its hard to argue with the facts. Equality was simply an ideal, however, it is a matter of reality vs. rhetoric. The unfortunate reality of the time was that the school systems designated for black children were of lower quality than those of white students. That simply shouldn't be. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The 14th Amendment is difficult to argue with. Ultimately, all citizens should receive equal educational opportunities regardless of race. 

Guns, Bears, and Weed...Oh My!

           As most of you are all aware of, it's the year 2014 aka the year of midterm elections! With that being said, voters are speaking out more than ever about controversial topics in both the political and social realm of the spectrum. These topics are particularly controversial such as: abortion, the legalization of marijuana, and gun-control laws. Others include the well-known battle for higher minimum wage, alcohol bans, and even hunting regulations in certain states. These issues have appeared in ballot initiatives in many states, as voters seek to make their voices heard, while many political candidates choose their respective sides on each issue. Fox News reports the following facts and statistics: ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/27/weed-booze-and-bears-ballot-questions-compete-with-candidates-for-voters/) 

To Legalize or Not to Legalize Marijuana:
The question of whether or not to legalize marijuana has plagued the minds of state governments for years. States such as Colorado and Washington have already joined team "legalize marijuana", allowing the use of marijuana for recreational purposes. Other states such as Oregon and even Washington DC seem to following in Colorado's footsteps, as support for the overall push toward legalization continues to grow rapidly. Reports show that Drug Policy Action has generated over $500,000 toward the "yes on 91 campaign" in Oregon. Many states such as Florida are very interested in the opinion of its citizens, as they now ask a question on their voting ballots regarding its legalization.

Abortion: 
Abortion is perhaps the most controversial issue within society that seems to have the nation split as to which stance to take. States such as Colorado are seeking to amend their laws in order to define a fetus as an actual person, while other states such as North Dakota push for laws that would protect the unborn and make the act of abortion illegal.

Gun Control:
Many Americans are adamant that we as a nation tighten gun-control restriction, especially in light of the many tragic events that have occurred in recent years such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The state of Washington's ballot initiative 594 would call for stricter regulation, requiring background checks for nearly all weapon purchases. However, there is much opposition still from groups such as the National Rifle Association, who argue against the background checks, and are even in favor of the prohibition of governmental seizure of weapons without due-process.

Minimum Wage:
To raise, or not to raise? This seems to always be the question. However, it appears as though several states are in favor of an increase in minimum wage. South Dakota would see an increase from $7.25 an hour to $8.50, while Alaska would have a significant raise from $7.75 to $9.75 over a span of several years. 

Alcohol Bans: 
Believe it or not, there are still states out there (10 to be exact) where alcohol is still technically banned. For example, in Arkansas a ballot initiative would allow for alcohol legalization across the state, where currently 37 out of 75 counties prohibit its over the counter sale. Surprisingly, 54% of the voters opposed removing the prohibition across the state.

Hunting and Trapping: 
In the state of Maine, a ballot initiative that has sparked national attention is the proposition to ban several methods used by hunters to lure and trap bears, in favor of more human methods of capture. Both parties involved have spent a total of $ 1.6 million dollars on TV advertisements and campaigns in order to inform and even persuade citizens to choose a side. 

photo credits: http://galleryhip.com/crossed-guns-western.html
http://www.firstpeople.us/pictures/bear/1600x1200/Feeling_Grizzly-1600x1200.jpg
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/seattles-only-legal-marijuana-shop-sells-out-pot-n153971

Mid-Semester Reflection: Blogging

       This week is midterm exam week right before Fall Break, which signifies that the first semester is halfway over. Since I am at the halfway point within my FYS Talking About Freedom course, I felt it necessary to take a moment to reflect upon my experience thus far, particularly in the area of blogging. To be honest, when I began the course and Mr. Smith informed us that we had to create a blog and make a new post every week (about any topic we desired) My immediate thought was "where in the world do I even start?"

       When approaching the blog, I decided that it would be best to stick with a common theme throughout each post, my theme being: First and Fourteenth Amendment issues within the world. I wanted to focus on the controversy of each situation, the public's reaction to the event; I also decided to add my own personal opinion about each article in order to make my blog more personalized. 
        To be honest, before I began the FYS course, I never even watched the news on my own accord, unless it was already on in the background. However, as I began scavenging the internet for articles to write my blog posts about each week, I was simultaneously educating myself on events occurring around the world; I noticed that even when I was simply surfing the web, my eyes would glance over to my favorites bar at the name "Huffington Post" or "Fox News" and I would then find myself scrolling through the "Breaking News" section instead of as Mr. Smith would say "browsing pictures of shoes on Pinterest." I now try to read at least one news article a day (aside from articles used for my blog.)
      In addition to becoming a more well-informed citizen, I also discovered that blogging has many long term personal benefits. For example, blogs can help you gain internships and even allow you to stand out in a competitive applicant pool when applying for a job. Additionally, blogs and pages such as Linkedin can serve as an excellent resume supplements. I look forward to continuing to improve my blogging skills as well as writing about more relevant world issues after returning from Fall Break! 

photo credit: http://elitacsustan.edublogs.org

Plessy v. Ferguson Mock Trial Reflection

      Today in class we conducted a mock trial of the Supreme Court case: Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 regarding the issue of "separate but equal." In summary of the facts, a man named Plessy purchased a first-class ticket at a Louisiana Railroad Station, and subsequently proceeded to board the East Louisiana Railroad. They key issue was the fact that the railroad car was "whites only." However, the state of Louisiana made a generally applicable law that railroad companies were obligated to provide separate accommodations of black and white travels, thus there was De-Jure segregation at the state level. The first part of the issue lies in Mr. Plessy's racial background; when purchasing the ticket, he informed the company that he was merely 1/8th African American, which technically made him 7/8th white. After Mr. Plessy decided to seat himself in the whites-only section, he was asked to leave; when he refused, he was then issued a $25 fine for violating the Separate Car Act, as well as arrested. Plessy in turn, decided to sue stating that his 13th and 14th amendment rights were being violated. 

        The two teams, Team Lincoln and Team Jefferson divided in order to argue both in favor and against Mr. Plessy. The first team to state their case was Team Jefferson, who argued in favor of Mr. Plessy. They argued first that Mr. Plessy was only 1/8th African American and 7/8th white. How was he supposed to be classified? Also, they argued that Plessy was allowed to purchase a ticket because  the Railroad company was considered to be "common carrier" which meant that there was to be no racial distinction among passengers. Mr. Plessy's based their argument off the fact that the 13th and 14th Amendments provided for equal treatment of all US citizens, it also made African Americans citizens. 

      Team Lincoln then argued in favor of the State. First and foremost, they stated that Mr. Plessy deliberately informed the Railroad Company that he was black while purchasing the ticket, making it his choice to disclose his racial heritage. Second, the Railroad Companies did in fact provide equal transportation for both races, based off economic status. The quality of the cars was determined based off the general economic status of the passengers, and how much they could pay to ride. The fact that the cars were divided by race fueled the idea of "separate but equal" meaning that blacks were given the same accommodations as whites, just separate from them.

      At the end of the case, the Supreme Court sided with the state claiming that the law was constitutional, and that there was no significant difference between the quality of the black cars versus the white cars, and also rejected the fact that there was any 14th Amendment violations at play. The court argued that the state of Louisiana's law did not imply that blacks were inferior in anyway; therefore, the separation of blacks and whites was simply a matter of "public policy." This case set the precedence for the creation of more segregation laws based off the concept of "separate but equal." I personally believe that the issue here had many factors at play; I personally find it difficult to choose a side; both sides made extremely valid arguments that I enjoyed listening to. At the end of the day, it is difficult to argue with the facts. 
photo credit: http://northwesthistoryexpress.com/timeline/transportation1800/PennsylvaniaTrain.jpg