MAKEUP: NJC chap 5

In this chapter, Michelle Alexander mentions unawareness and denials concerning the severity of the war on drugs for black people and describes how the current system links to the past Jim Crow era with its legalized repressions, while still noting the limits of the analogy.

Alexander divides the whole system into three parts: the roundup, formal control, and invisible punishment. The roundup refers to the strange combination of laws that, as we’ve already seen, allows for massive racial profiling and disparity in the War on Drugs. Formal conviction is the time drug offenders spend in prison which is more “than drug offenders anywhere else in the world.” Once released, ex-offenders face a series of laws that make reentering society incredibly difficult thus inflicting a secondary and invisible punishment. Under slavery being black meant to be a slave while Jim Crow defined blackness as the mark of second-class citizenship. And the view of blacks in America today? Unfortunate statistics and news broadcasts will immediately show that to be black is to be a criminal.

I read an essay by Jeremy Travis who coined the term Invisible Punishment and compared what he had to say to what Michelle Alexander explores within this chapter. Travis discusses the disenfranchisement of offenders in very clear terms-- “One such calculation found that million Americans are now disqualified from voting” (Travis 35). He very thoroughly discusses the path that we continue to shape for criminals in this country and outlines what the effect of current mass incarceration system. In reference to recent Congress enactments, Travis notes that "under these new laws, offenders can be denied public housing, welfare benefits, the mobility necessary to access jobs that require driving, child support, parental rights, the ability to obtain an education, and, in the case of deportation, access to the opportunities that brought immigrants to this country” (Travis 18). It makes me realize even further that we are boxing criminals in on all sides, and forcing them to stay where they are. The government creates harsh laws, lasting consequences, and has taken away the very same population’s voice. Even if we weren't to change the criminal laws, we can clearly see that Travis is right, the mass incarceration system results in exclusion. At the very least we can agree that this is not productive, but detrimental to the entire population.

Travis then shed lights on the invisible and offers concrete numbers and arguments in order to support the current trends and consequences of mass incarceration and the system as a whole. He then talks about the impossibility of calculating other important numbers to help us evaluate the impact of invisible criminal law: “But what about the impact of the statutes that disqualify criminals from education loans, public housing, welfare benefits, or parental rights? Counting the number of individuals punished through these laws approaches impossibility. The agencies that administer these sanctions are far-flung, have little or no connection with the criminal justice system, mayor may not keep records of their decisions, and have no incentive to report on these low-priority exercises of discretion” (Travis 26).

These numbers and stories are what will bring about change. I continue to be in awe of how much I did not know about such consequences and how much our society is unaware of the very serious racism that is occurring around us.

MAKEUP. Navahoes and Conquistabros

One aspect of racism that I do not feel we spent a lot of time discusses was that of our culture's outlook on Native Americans and "Indians". I just recently had a discussion with my friends about the issue and thought it important to reflect further.

Our country routinely experiences overt racism in the form of racial epithets and horribly distorted depictions of Natives as mascots, reminiscent of the propaganda used against black, Irish and Jewish people in the 19th and 20th centuries.This overt racism is not confined to hate groups, but is visible in everyday communication and throughout the media. I feel as though we do not pay as much attention to this kind of racism and would condemn it if we were holding such parties for other ethnic groups.

One of the fraternities on campus and my group of friends were brainstorming ideas for a themed party. A few wanted to do to "Navahoes and Conquistabros" where we would dress up as Native Americans or conquistadors. I was the only one who smoke out against this idea for it had very much bothered me. I pointed out how offensive the theme was but many did not understand why I was so against it. I received responses claiming that they mean no harm by it, and that it is a lighthearted and had a " it's just a party, get over it" kind of attitude. Some didn't even realize why the theme was so offensive. This whole "native meets pop culture" concept has been an issue for a while; there has been controversy in sports team mascots and halloween costumes but it does not seem like anyone truly understanding the racism behind it. It's very disappointing to me to see native cultures lumped into one group that you can dress up as. It makes a mockery of their culture. Not only that, but i feel as though the theme is a minimization of the genocide of Native peoples and continuing legacy of colonialism in the Americas. It is not at all seen in this light, but in my mind, Glorifying and making light of the atrocities committed by the “explorers” of the Americas is similar to glorifying the Nazis and the Holocaust, and not something to be taken lightly.

Additionally, the theme is using a generic stereotype of an Indigenous person (in this case “Navajo”) to represent thousands of tribes and communities throughout the Americas, each with their own unique culture and history. The Indigenous groups who encountered the conquistadors are not at all the same as Navajos in the southwest, and by lumping them together, the party contributes to continued stereotyping of Native peoples as one monolithic group–consisting of Hollywood stereotypes of war paint, feathers, and buckskin.

The play on words and inclusion of "bros" and "hoes" into the names also bothered me. Equating Navajos with whores is not at wise or politically correct. Nor is equating men with the conquistadors who raped and killed Indian women. If people were dressing up as "Indians", that's another problem. Especially if they were dressing up in stereotypical feathers and leathers, though Navajos didn't wear such clothes.There was controversy with this party theme in 2010 with a fraternity at Harvard. The invitation stated:


Students were encouraged to dress up “as anything related to exploration in America, e.g. Columbus, pilgrims, conquistadors, Native Americans and cowboys/girls” for the party which took place over the Columbus Day weekend. They explained the theme as being "lighthearted and flexible; dress as anything related to exploration in America, e.g. Columbus, pilgrims, conquistadors, Native Americans and cowboys/girls." What is lighthearted about this representation? What if we changed it to "Jew-bros and Nazi-hoes"?


"dress as anything related to to WWII/The Holocaust, e.g. Hitler, Nazis, The Gestapo, Jews and soldiers."


The frat recognized their mistake and claimed that they did not mean any harm by it. They apologized and said: "It was insensitive and hurtful, especially for the Native American members of our community. We are deeply sorry for the offense our actions have caused."


It surprised me how many of friends involved in planning this party did not realize the implications of the theme. Of course we don't mean anything by it, and we aren't harming anyone, but at the same time we are continuing to turn a blind eye to the hidden racism that continues to exist in our society.

post-modern racialism 3.3

In my previous post, I discussed my thoughts on “colorblindness” in response to a comment made during the first class claiming that ignoring or overlooking racial differences and skin color will promote racial harmony. I spoke about the dangers of this outlook, as ideal as it may sound, and tried to emphasize the importance of recognizing the existence of race as is in term of social construct rather than simply pretending its social and historical effects don’t exist. By consciously ignoring the preexisting complexities of race, we will in no way solve the issues of racism and create any form of harmony.  I feel, in a way, this only allows us to be ever more ignorant; it allows those with racial privileges to close their eyes to the injustice experiences of others.  With all of this being said, I agree completely with Taylor’s concept and definition of “post-modern racialism” and feel as though it is extremely important for us to recognize as we try to at least move forward into the direction of racial harmony.

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing that there is one. Taylor’s explanation of the stages of racism in Table 3.1 maps out the different forms that it has taken, describing this “post-modern” interpretation of race concept as being an “aesthetic cultural phenomenon” where hegemony replaces domination in terms of its distributive framework. He explains, “post-modernism here involves flattening difference, insisting on the unity of the human family and the declining significance of race, in ways that obscure the way various stratifying mechanisms continues to do their work.” Patterns of preexisting white privileges and the overall system of domination have thus been maintained and further enabled by this shift to hegemony. As we discussed in our last class, there are so many examples of this unspoken separation and racialism even on our small, racially disproportionate bubble of a campus. Even little things, like how blacks tend to sit away from white in the cafeteria, or how there is segregation within Greek Life, the baseball team, S.U.N. and the Step Team, for example. Of course, nowhere is it officially established or mandated that one table or team is designated for a certain skin color, but somehow, subconsciously, we tend to migrate towards those with our own skin color and background. Our school and the organizations within it have been established with complete “colorblindness” and yet we have somehow found a way to make it segregated and have quietly created our own rules and expectations and stereotypes based on preexisting conditions, norms, and characteristics of how blacks and whites are expected to behave. Like Taylor said, the “various…mechanisms continue to do their work” despite the flattening of differences between races as established by our school. There is still so much that we do not talk about, and so many forms of racism on campus that we do not even recognize. The social constructs exist. The stereotypes and assumptions and behavioral expectations exist. Simply seeing everyone as the same and being blind to their race is only worsening our ignorance and feeding our growing fear of the unknown and unfamiliar. 

Broad, First-post, Preliminary Thoughts

I'm not quite sure what the exact expectations of these blog posts are, so I hope I end up being somewhat close to everyone else in terms of length, content, formality, overall coherence of thoughts, etc.

I've been thinking a lot about how exactly to define race, and whether or not it even exists. All of the elements that I feel have been examined as potential candidates for physical scientific bases of race have failed to prove valid. There is no scientific evidence in terms of geography, genetics, phenotype or any sort of essence that may prove there to be differences in common ground among races. To me the technical, scientific concept of race is illogical. However, while I reject the existence of there being actual races separating people in the human race, I cannot reject the fact that there is the social concept of race and subsequent stereotypes, discrimination, and racist behavior.

It was mentioned in class the other day that we should just be colorblind in this situation in terms of skin color. As wonderful as that may sound, colorblindness is in no way going to end racism and I fear that in America, race-neutrality may only lead to a sort of "colorblind white dominance". Whether or not there are differences between human beings that categorize us into different races, the social construct of "race" that has been built and our apparent human need to group others into some sort of  rank or category makes it so it cannot be something we cannot ignore. Simply saying it does not exist and becoming blind to skin color will not create equality. I feel as though the issue of race is deeper than just individual prejudices and stereotypes. On one hand, it would be ideal for our constitutional law to be completely colorblind. Policies should be race-neutral, and we should be avoiding division of citizens into different racial groups by any means.  On the other hand, however, I feel as though these "colorblind" laws would not fix the preexisting race-based inequality that continues to operate within political, economical and social structures in our country.