Chapter 3

Who Benefits From The Controlled Substance Act?

The purpose of this post is to expand on Michelle Alexanders analysis of the prison system in American, and the negative incentives that perpetuate social injustice. As it turns out, some of the countries biggest and wealthiest organizations or unions benefit from the illegality of marijuana and other drugs, creating a web of money and power that takes little account for the publics best interest. The Controlled Substance Act is often marketed as a humanitarian act, a barrier that prevents the unraveling of our moral framework. But one has only to implement a simple Google search and it becomes evident that, like nearly everything else in American politics, there exist profound financial incentives behind the prohibition of specific substances. This conflict of interest between the prevailing trends of American culture and the industries that fund its governance has given rise to aggressive political agendas that are tailored to the specifics of the latter.

The four decades of schedule 1 drug prohibition have presented several special interest groups with unique opportunities for significant monetary gains. What is particularly disconcerting is that leading proponents for prohibition are the police unions. This is an immediate red flag because the humanitarian air with which they address the public is merely a facade for their aggressive attempts to bolster federal funding. Take John Lovell for example, who was hired in 2009 as a police lobbyist to help battle the ballot initiative, Prop 19, that would legalize marijuana and ultimately and generate millions in tax revenue for the state of California. Following the death of Prop 19: Lovell went on to represent the California police unions in both the Marijuana Suppression Program and the Campaign against Marijuana Planting. His lobbying techniques subsequently reallocated $9.7 million of federal money into the war on drugs. Lovell benefited from over $300,000 in cash payouts from various police unions in return for his successful lobbying techniques. The rest of the federal money was presumably used for the purchase of new equipment and training new law enforcement personnel. All of this, for the sake continuing the war on pot cultivation and consumption, a war that over 65% of Americans have deemed a failure in recent polls. Through the actions of the Californian police unions and John Lovell, it is becoming glaringly obvious that the war on drugs is being exploited to garner excessive financial resources. Rather, the local police and respective lobbyist have manufactured an efficient method for exploiting the federal government and American taxpayers.

            The local police agencies are not the only federally funded beneficiaries of the Controlled Substance Act. The Drug Enforcement Administration is nearing its fourth decade in service and has grown to exceed 5000 active federal agents with an annual budget of nearly $2.5 Billion. As far as its commitment to the war on drugs, in 2005 alone, the DEA seized $1.4 billion in drug related assets and $477 million worth of illegal narcotics. At first glance this seems significant but when compared with the total percentage we manage to stop that I stated earlier, it is clear that we are over funding a losing battle.  

As Michelle Alexander makes clear at the start of chapter two, the prison industry is a business first and a correction facility second. Very little correction is in fact garnered under these conditions, which is a perfectly logical business model if the prisoners also serve as your source of income. The Correction Corporation of America (CCA) is the world’s largest private prison company and manages over 60 facilities nationwide. Many of the 90,000 inmates housed in these prisons were involved in low-level drug crimes, and each CCA facility contains its own substance rehabilitation center. If the conflict of interests is not glaringly apparent, I don’t know what is. It is for this very reason that throughout the last two decades, the CCA has dished out over $18 million lobbying for even more restrictive drug and immigration laws. The private prison industries’ reliance on the small time offender is so significant; it has become an active component of their public business strategy.

The following is an excerpt taken from their 2010 report to shareholders. “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws,” This statement alone sheds light on two prevailing truths associated with the drug laws. The first is that they are good for business, regardless of the impact this has on the rights of the American people. The second is the extent to which these incentives influence the policy that is drafted by our elected officials. At present, the war on drugs has stimulated the growth of a for profit correction industry that aggressively influences legislative procedure through monetary compensation. It does this in an attempt to maximize convictions, and retain current inmates, neither of which is a legitimate attempt to combat drug trafficking or help fight addiction. If you are thinking to yourself, “shouldn’t that be the goal of the any correction facility?” you are correct, but that would be bad for business.

The influence of pharmaceutical giants such as Johnson & Johnson and Bristol Meyers Squib on the political agenda of elected officials is vast. This is particularly the case in relation to substance control, most notably, marijuana. Next to the police unions, big PhARM is the second largest opponent of marijuana legalization on Capitol Hill. The reason for this is purely economical: as a plant, the production of marijuana cannot be patented. This drastically undermines the incentives for production, as the potential for competition would be vast. Although the medicinal application of marijuana is under funded many pharmaceuticals fear that its legalization would drastically undermine the market for common pain medication such as Advil or Vicodin. Lacking sufficient incentives for production, marijuana has thus been condemned as a threat to the business of drug manufacturers nationwide. It is for this reason that the pursuit of further medicinal application continues to go unfunded. This will be the case for as long as the Controlled Substance Act holds precedent; because lobbying for further substance prohibition as opposed to allowing further competition is the most lucrative business strategy.

Well, Im getting tired, but let us not forget the more consumer driven side to those fighting drug (specifically marijuana legalization) Drug cartels (they would lose business), paper makers (hemp is a worthy competitor) and cigarette manufactures (who also view it as a threat to business) 

American Prisons, A Bandaid Over A Broken System

It is beyond contention that the growth of poverty, crime, violence and incarceration rates within predominantly black and latino inner city communities is perpetuated by biased drug laws, a negatively incentivized police force, and the prison industrial complex. These three forces combined are hugely responsible for the spike in prison construction and incarceration rates, followed by the systematic disenfranchisement of low class American citizens, specifically black and brown men. For those unaware of the corruption and prejudice surrounding these issues, the illusion of safety that the police and prison industry go to great lengths to maintain is graciously embraced. As I see it, this outlook (one taken by a huge percentage of the American populous) is the true root of the problem. These people are more than willing to dish out millions annually for the construction, staffing, maintenance, and expansion of crime fighting agencies and corrections facilities. This to them seems the appropriate and logical response and use of funds, they are paying for a service that insures their relative safety despite the fact that this very same system has proven to exacerbate poverty, crime, and violence in the long run. Like placing a bandaid over a ruptured artery, these tax payers and politicians alike having nothing but the short term in mind, and it is this outlook that has infected our entire outlook on policy and governance. Ask them to instead allocate an equivalent amount of energy, time, and resources to the education of urban teens and the strengthening of inner city infrastructure and they immediately throw their hands up in protest. To them this strategy is unfair, and those benefitting from it are undeserving or others hand outs. The tax payers would rather have they illusion of their tax dollars being utilized exclusively in their best interest then to fund a productive, community based, restorative project. This classic aggressive stance against perceived socialism or affirmative action has plagued America for its entire existence. So many are convinced that you only deserve what you can pay for, but they never stop to think about the historical and systematic consequences that led to their wealth or others poverty. If we are going to fix this country, we need to start with values and policies by which we appropriate resources and services. An excellent model for this is self-made millionaire Harris Rosen, who adopted a Florida neighborhood called Tangelo Park, cut the crime rate in half, and increased the high school graudation rate from 25% to 100% by giving everyone free daycare and all high school graduates scholarships. Here is a link further detailing his work and philosophy... http://pegasus.ucf.edu/story/rosen/ 

Assumptions

It was a beautiful mid-summers night in 2010 when I was arrested for Marijuana possession. I had attended a house party a few miles outside of Princeton in a small suburban community which was part of West Windsor township, known for its predominantly white, well off, suburbanites and top tier public schools. The party itself was nothing to brag about, more like a collection of twenty or so recent high school graduates drinking cheap beer and listening to old school hip-hop. It was nearly 3:00am when a few of us excused ourselves to indulge in some recreational pot smoking. Without hesitation we piled into Jason's Jeep which was parked on the street, after all, why would the police be patrolling suburbia at such an hour on a weeknight? No more than ten minutes later we were being blinded by the floodlights of a cruiser, who had rounded the corner only to find a parked green Jeep filled with smoke and six wide eyed boys. My initial assumption was that the party had been reported to the police by the neighbors, but not until later would we learn that it was merely bad luck this particular officer had driven by when he did.

He got out of the cruiser and without using his megaphone or issuing a single threat he approached the car and instructed us to exit the vehicle slowly and place our hands on the hood. Noticing he was both older and alone, I popped open the passenger door and took off down a side street, cleared a fence and didn't look back. Two hours and five miles later, I was being politely questioned and eventually handcuffed in my mothers driveway... turns out they had my name the whole time. When I got to the station I had my mugshot taken, and then instead of being thrown in a holding cell I was placed in the lobby where I waited on my mothers arrival, the whole time laughing about the previous nights shenanigans with a young officer as he processed our information.

Not once during this whole ordeal did it cross my mind that I was benefitting from my whiteness. But upon reflection it became painfully obvious that had I been black or Hispanic, the events of that night would have likely unfolded quite differently, much in the same way Tim Wises experience at the Republican National Convention would have differed had he been colored. For one, the officer who stumbled upon me and my friends in the first place would almost certainly not have calmly approached the car in the way he did. But that is white privilege, even when breaking the law we were deemed unthreatening and even deserving of respect. The same holds true for the officers who waited for me at my house, they were polite in their questioning, I wasn't subjected to a search, and they even apologized when they put me in handcuffs. The fact that none whom were caught were placed in a holding cell is just the cherry on top of the white privilege cake.

This phenomenon was even more drastically apparent during the resulting legal proceedings. Despite being charge initially with eluding (which is a felony) on top of the drug charges, my case was sent from district court right back to the West Windsor judge almost immediately. I was told by my lawyer that the judge in Trenton had only briefly scanned my file before writing my case off as trivial. As I left the building my lawyer looked at me and said "Its a good thing you aren't from Trenton" which was an obscure way of saying, "its a good thing you are white, well off, educated, and heading off to college, otherwise you would probably be looking at jail time." Back in the West Windsor courtroom things were being sugar coated even less. My lawyer, who knew the judge personally, had a brief one on one conversation with the judge before the proceedings began. Then, we my case was called, I was given told that the eluding and drug charges had been replaced with a noise ordinance. The judge lectured me on personal responsibly for about five minutes, saying that I have a lot going for me and I shouldn't jeopardize those opportunities by doing drugs. I was given a year and a half of probation, after which my entire personal record would be wiped clean.

While it has been clear to me for some time now that the final ruling of my case was very likely correlated with my skin color and social class. It took me a lot longer to realize that my treatment throughout the whole experience was as well. Being white in my case meant that I could be arrested processed, and tried, while not once being brutalized, disrespected, or deemed a threat.

My Head Start

 Taking into account the advantages that I myself had in regard to advancing my place in the world is something that I have attempted to do my whole life. From a young age my parents strove to instill a sense of humility and awareness within me, especially in regard to the way I see myself. Being deeply involved in education themselves, they were very aware of the many faults and prejudices that are instilled with the institution. They also never took their own successes for granted, knowing that much of what they have accomplished is attributed to the opportunities their parents, skin color, and economic standing had given them. It is easy to forget these details, and easier still to neglect them, whether through our ignorance or our egos, we are very reluctant to give credit to the many extrinsic factors that spurred us to our achievements. Personally, I have done my best to keep track of them, though I admit to disliking and even neglected the process on several occasions as it can rob oneself of justifiable pride.  Some of the most notable advantages that I have had in life include... Parents with phd's from Ivy League universities who work in education. Individually their salaries exceed  the median household income in America. I was enrolled in private school from 1st through 12th grade, encouraged to read, write, and pushed to practice. They paid for tutors, test practice, drove me to and from extra curricular activities, and invested time and money in my athletic potential. They helped me with the college admissions process, took days off of work to visit colleges with me all over the country, and of course pay my tuition... oh yea, and they also gave me white skin which has its benefits. This list is far from complete, and yet the details listed already exceed those possessed by the majority of Americans, regardless of skin color. These are things that I do my best to never take for granted, and while I still feel pride for the accomplishments I have had in life, I never assume to be deserving of all the credit. Rather than being a source of guilt, these realities have to a great extent steered my direction in life. They have given me a glimpse of why inequality persists from one generation to the next, and have inspired me to allocate my own knowledge, handwork, money, and ability into leveling the playing field for us all.

Editing History

In my reading of the first section of the second chapter, my frustration with the American tendency to edit history for the sake of national pride was fueled. Considering that Ursinus College itself just recently excused us from two days of classes in accordance with the predominantly northeastern tradition of celebrating Columbus Day, it was the first case of historical sugar-coating that came to mind, and one that he later mentions. My first encounter with the watered down version of Americas "discovery" was in second or third grade when I was assigned a book report that covered a book that presented the story of Columbus in much the same way Meet Andrew Jackson did for Tim Wise. To the young Ian Wiggins and likely many others, this was a story of bravery and adventure. It wasn't until many years later that I learned of Columbus's extortion, enslavement, murder and displacement of the Native American peoples. While there are countless examples of this bastardized history in nearly all levels of education, the true story of Columbus was particularly jarring in its implication. The most egregious of these is its utter disregard for the native inhabitants not only in regard to their treatment, but in the subtle manner with which it reinforces the notion of manifest destiny. The word "discovered" and how it has become associated with Columbus is sufficient proof in itself to this claim. Not only was the land inhabited prior to his arrival, he was not the first foreigner to reach American shores. To say that Columbus discovered America is about as accurate as me wondering into a strangers backyard and claiming to have discovered it, and then when they protest my trespassing I kill them and take their house as my own. I understand why schools and other institutions allow for history to be bastardized in this way, they want the stories to be free of controversy, to protect the American image, and to be child appropriate. Unfortunately, I think the cons profoundly outweigh the pros under such an approach. As the old saying goes, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"  and if we cant praise the accomplishments and simultaneously reflect upon the faults of our ancestors then we have failed our students. Students who, like so many before them, will grow up into ignorant, close minded, and profoundly biased adults. As for now, as Wise points out, criticism of Columbus, the founding fathers, and other prominent historical players in the building of the modern United States leaves you branded as unpatriotic. This is truly the most shameful phenomenon of all in regard to the rewriting of American history. It actively discourages learning from the past, and thus profoundly corrupts the students view of the past, present and future. 

Looking back

In reading the first section of Tim Wise's, White Like Me, I got to thinking about my own genes and how they resulted in me, the 6ft 4in white man from central New Jersey. I knew that my fathers side of the family were primarily german jews, who migrated to America late in the 19th century. If Wiggins doesn't strike you as a particularly German or Jewish last name, thats because it isn't, Wiggins is in fact my fathers, step fathers last name. My grandfather by blood died in a plane crash when my dad was very young, and so when his mother remarried, he acquired a new last name (Wiggins) which has English roots. On my mothers, mothers side, I have ancestors dating all the way back in American history to the May Flower, prior to that however little is known, just that they hailed from Scotland and England. Following their arrival, they took up residents in New England and stayed put for the most part. On her fathers side little is known except that they were ranchers and farmers in the midwest, relatively poor, and that their are traces of Cherokee blood mixed in with what my grandfathers guesses was predominantly Irish heritage.

This is the condensed version of what I knew prior to last night when I gave my mom and call and decided to ask her a question which I was sure she had looked into (she being the one of had pieced together almost everything there is to know about my ancestors). I asked whether or not our family had owned slaves, a question which I was surprised didn't catch her off guard in the least bit. She Started with my fathers family and explained that since his ancestors by blood had migrated from Germany after the civil war, they had not owned, bought, or sold any slaves in the United States, anything that happened in Germany was beyond her knowledge. Her family however had arrived with the first settlers, and therefore were in fact directly involved in American slavery. On her fathers side, little is know, but judging from what few records have survived and the simple fact of where they lived, it is likely that they owned slaves at one point. My mother added that if they did, it was no more than one or two because her fathers side of the family had little in the way of wealth. Her mothers side of the family on the other hand were of upper middle class standing. That being said, there is no evidence to her knowledge that they did in fact own slaves, which is to an extent supported by the fact that they never strayed far from the New England area. That being said, she does know for certain that two of her mothers relatives were sea captains of moderate success in the time before the slave trade was outlawed.  This has lead her to believe that they were involved (at least) in the transportation of slaves, this however has yet to be investigated in the ports logs.

I have to say that I am not surprised in the least to discover these things, my ancestors have been in America long before it even became its own country and slavery was a huge part of what spurred its swift growth. While I wish that I could say they were not implicated in such a barbaric, and morally bankrupt institution, I don't feel the slightest bit of residual guilt or fault. Their choices are not mine, in the same way their culture, society, economy, and morals and not mine. The only thing I regret is that slavery existed at all, that being said, it makes perfect sense to me why and how it did. To be burdened by such distant history is pointless and irrelevant, what is important is that I remember it, learn from it, and use it to shape the future of the world as a whole.

The Struggle for Cultural Identity

"The familiar saying is right: the USA has always been a nation of immigrants. What the saying leaves out – in addition to the fact that there were people already here to greet the immigrants – is that our idea of the immigrant has always been racialized, and in ways that explicitly shaped public policy for most of the nation’s history."
Taylor, Paul C. (2013-04-17). Race: A Philosophical Introduction (Kindle Locations 4449-4452). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Speaking as someone who actually paid attention in history class as a boy and also someone who has seen first hand the notorious anti-immigration racism of the midwest and south, it doesn't seem to me that "the USA has always been a nation of immigrants" is a familiar enough saying... let alone one that is understood. That being said, I think it goes without saying that immigration has almost always been a racialized issue, from the Italians to the Irish, Japanese to Mexicans, the United States brief history is rife with racially based exclusionary measures. What the above quote got me thinking about, is why? To be more specific, why has a nation of immigrants gone to such extreme lengths to curb further immigration? what is the cause of this hypocrisy? My first guess is that it is directly connected to the Americans struggle to find a national identity. Many Americans whose families have been in the states for several generations have lost touch with their ancestral roots, in turn they have attached themselves to the newer and more obscure American identity. I say obscure because America is so massive and has so many sub cultures within it that unity is rarely found, and when it is, say in the celebration of Americans independence, many still don't feel any strong emotional attachment to the celebration because their ancestors didn't contribute to the cause. A possible consequence of this is that the Americans whose families have been in the country for multiple generations, feel a need to over compensate for the lack of national pride and unity. They have no lingering culture to fall back on and so the go to great lengths to formulate a new one, and like must cultures, they subsequently reject change. To them, the old America is this utopian legend, where jobs, gold, and opportunities fell from the Christian heavens and the white man reigned supreme. So when they see the economy tanking, jobs drying up, and American pride vanishing, they point their fingers at everyone except themselves. This makes sense for two reasons, they need a scapegoat, and they don't want to tarnish the nations name by taking responsibly. The result is that the unsuspecting, low class, immigrant is deemed the destroyer, not the model of the American dream, as if those who got here first are the only ones entitled to it. This is much easier then blaming big business for shipping jobs over seas, or blaming crime and lack of cultural assimilation on racial projects and profoundly underfunded schools/communities. More than anything, the Americans racialized treatment of immigration is a prime example of nearly every American stereotype, ignorance, fear, laziness, arrogance, and of course, unnecessary use of force.

Response to Michelle Alexander

The opportunity to see Michelle Alexander is one that I have hoped would present itself ever since reading her book last year. Her legal and analytical work specifically in regard to race, drug laws, and the prison system not only profoundly opened my eyes, it played an essential role in directing me to the study of legal philosophy. Despite that fact she was speaking a broader terms about a book I have already read, I still found it both insightful and invigorating. Partially because she is a phenomenal public speaker, but also because she didn't just recite the outline of her book, she shared relevant information as well as personal experiences from only the last year. The one that comes to mind is the letter she received from an inmate who had incarcerated for a minor drug offense, and who wound up in solitary confinement, with a 20 year sentence, and was almost driven to insanity because of a fight with a guard. This is one of many examples of a system that is fundamentally broken, prisons have no incentive  and make no effort to rehabilitate there inmates, in fact its in there best interest to keep them as long as possible and ensure that they end up back behind bars after their release.

My only point of contention in regards to what she said arose not during her presentation, but in the form of an answer she gave to a young woman during the Q&A.

The question was regarding prison reform, and paraphrased went something along the lines of... "Do you think that there needs to be a black man or woman at the forefront of prison reform for it to be successful?"

Her response was "yes" which she justified by making comparisons to the civil rights movement and how if it was a white man or woman leading the charge for reform the focus would be driven away from the racial issues and that ultimately they would not be addressed, or even worse, they would be pushed elsewhere. While I can see why she might feel this way given the colorblind rhetoric of government, I don't think it is necessarily true, and furthermore, the negative repercussions that she worries would manifest seem to me to be a slippery slope fallacy. I feel this way because prison reform is not only a racial issue, it is a structural one, and the prison system in its current state will take advantage of whatever race, gender, or group it can. Right now, it certainly cannot be disputed that the the low class African American male is unfairly targeted by police and prisons alike... but I am skeptical to the claim that these issues are motivated for the most part by racial bias. Rather, I think that structural inequality occurs because of its enormous financial incentives for the people that uphold and administer law. I am in no way asserting that racism doesn't exist or play its part, but I don't think it is what motivates the majority of the structural racial bias. It goes without saying that the racial history of America set the stage for the current issues at hand, specifically that the black race as a whole is struggling with the remnants of racism but most importantly with huge economic disparities. As we all know, financial issues coupled with lack of social advancement breeds crime. And since poor (many of them black) families have been systematically herded into low income housing in the cities, policing the negative repercussions of poverty has been for the most part centralized. This is important for two reasons, firstly because it gives the prisons and police a specific area to focus on (which is good for them because its efficient... the more arrests and convictions they make, the more tax dollars they get) and secondly because they can use the ghettos violent expansion to justify more policing and more prisons. Now, there is good reason to assume that this is a racial issue, because the statistics show that it is, but I think it is a racial issue not generated from hatred of the black skin color, but rather because it is good for business to ensure that the ghetto is never saved. The fact that the prison system is for profit, and the police are given funds in correlation with arrests and citations means that from a business standpoint, they will target whosoever is most likely to commit a crime. And because the ghettos are predominantly black, have little education funding, and are a hotspot for drug use and violence, means that they will get targeted the most, right down to the laws that are passed. This is because prisons and police have a considerable amount of lobbying power, and will pay huge amounts of money to get stricter drugs laws as well as harsher penalties for convicted felons, because it increases the chances that they will become a repeating felon. My point is not that this isn't a racial issue, it certainly has become one, but I don't think that race is a necessary prerequisite for this system to function. It seems to me that as long as the prison system and police force are for profit industries that have no incentive to strive for rehabilitation, they will continue to target whichever group or race which is statistically most likely to commit a crime, even if its low income white families. This is why I don't think that reform would "only" succeed if lead by a black man or woman, because it is a system that has the potential to unfairly target any type of person, and one that actively works to the detriment of society. It is the proverbial bandaid that is attempting to stem the flow of blood from a severed artery. Instead, we need to get rid of the for profit prison industry, reform our drug laws, focus on rehabilitation, and drastically increase education and social welfare funding for low income areas. This is something that can be done by a person of any race, because it is a problem that has the potential to effect any person of any race even if currently it is focused on one in particular. Until our culture and government no longer permit this system to function the way it does, it will continue to disenfranchise and target any group, race, community, organization, class etc, that can help these crooked businesses make a profit.

Thinking About Post Modern Racism

The majority of chapter 3 is dedicated to an analysis of Racism in the 21st century, to properly engage in this discussion however requires that Taylor first go to great lengths to outline the historically context for post modern racism. Having done so, he launches into a complex explanation for how and why racism takes form today, this we quickly realize is a convoluted synthesis of implicitly and explicitly biased structural systems that operate to the benefit of one race or the detriment of others. Since Post Modern Racism is so multi-facited and often painstaking concealed or distorted, it is often difficult to pinpoint its cause and effects. In light of this, Taylor alters his angle of pursuit, focusing instead on the evolution of racial policy in the decades following the civil rights movement. Although the fight against explicitly racist systems and institutions was won decades ago, the battle for equality is decades if not centuries from over. This is owed largely in part to the obvious implications of American history in regard to race relations, but of the other detrimental factors in play, there is one that hasn't emerged until very recently. This is oriented in what Taylor refers to as Post Modern Racialism, or, more simply, racial policy in the age of legal equality. Taylor himself outlines the negative implications of Post Modern Racialism very eloquently near the beginning of chapter 3... "Post-modern racialism doesn’t so much ask us to ignore race completely as to ignore what actually makes race matter. What we usually call “race” tracks a variety of patterns of advantage and disadvantage, but we’re supposed to ignore these connections and think of race only as an aesthetic and cultural phenomenon." Taylor, Paul C. (2013-04-17). Race: A Philosophical Introduction (Kindle Locations 2086-2089). Wiley. Kindle Edition. Essentially, what he indicates is that we have gone to such great lengths to develop a racial unbiased system of governance that it has become taboo to shape policy along racial lines in almost any way, despite the overwhelmingly apparent patterns of racial advantage and disadvantage. This unwillingness to address the lingering disparities between races has generated what Taylor calls a society of "anti-anti racists", people who acknowledge racial differences in culture and aesthetic but draw no such distinction in regard to the implications ones skin has on things like social mobility and finical well being. For much of my adolescent life I would say that I had fallen into a post modern way of thinking about race. I don't know if I would call it racism because I certainly didn't harbor any animosity towards any specific race, I think a better term for categorizing it would be ignorance. Growing up attending a small private school in the New Jersey suburbs didn't exactly grant me a clear perspective on just how much of an advantage I had as a well educated child of white middle class parents. And not that I had much of an interest in politics at the time, but I likely thought that the system was unbiased and for the most part, fair. My experiences in high school changed that however, for one I had the opportunity to befriend and even live with students from all reaches of the social and financial hierarchy. But it was the American born, pure blooded Dominican boy from the Bronx whose friendship led to social education few kids like myself will ever have. Franklin was the son of 34 year old widow, his mother gave birth at the age of twenty and her husband was shot and killed less than two years later in the midst of a high stakes drug deal that involved nearly $100K of cocaine. Despite this, Franklins mom raised him as best she could with the help the extended family and despite their location and financial situation managed to get him enrolled in charter schools as well as scholarship programs that specifically aided students of color from the inner city. At first I thought "how unfair, these kids get special programs and full scholarships just because they are black and latino." but then I visited Franklins home, and I realized that there was so much more to the picture then I had previously been aware of. His area of the Bronx is made up almost entirely Dominicans or African Americans living in low income housing, and every time I visited him I was well aware of the fact that I was the minority. On top of that, it was clear that few of his relatives or family friends had the resources for advancement. College was only a possibility with a full or nearly full scholarship and that involved good grades/test scores, something that the schools, parents, and entire culture of the area didn't seem to foster all to well. It began to become starkly clear to me that the entire education system (in regard to programs such as No Child Left Behind) was actively working against the students who needed it most, students from low income families who for the most part were non white. On top of that, I was brought face to face with an advantage of my own that I had never considered, which was just how much of a difference ones financial status and education level made in regard to both what I was able to achieve and what I valued. Later on in my high school career I would have the run in with the Law that I have spoken about in class before that would shine a light on the fact that the legal system operates on a similar degree of bias and the advantages my white skin gives me is truly significant. These experiences have transformed the way I see the world and have served as my motivation to pursue philosophy and will continue to shape the work I do moving forward. Ultimately, Its easy to be fooled by ones surroundings into the assumption that the system is an unbiased one, but you need not look all that far to see just how broken the scales of justice and opportunity truly are. Having left the cave in this regard, I can say with utter certainty that the advantages and disadvantages associated with race are still wildly prevalent, they have however been carefully camouflaged. Racial policies are notoriously controversial ones, but to avoid acknowledging and addressing these disparities is to actively contribute to a system that perpetuates them further.

Pattern Recognition

We have had two class periods worth of discussion thus far, and though they have for the most part been wildly disorganized, I do not believe they have been unproductive. More than anything, we are getting a feel for each other, and also for the types of discussions we will soon be having, discussions that I can safely assume very few of us (if any) have had to this degree especially in regard to content coverage and duration. I just want to say, to anyone reading this, I have never been so intrigued by a class, not just because I am fascinated by the content and my fellow peers, but because I can safely say I have no idea what to expect... what I do know however is that I am optimistic. My blog this week, as my title indicates, will be investigated the phenomenon of pattern recognition within human sociology and its association with racism. Though I admit I have yet to complete chapter two, thus far I have seen little discussion from the author in regard to this topic. He does however talk about and identify several causes for racism and the subsequent models that have been implemented in order to address them, for the sake of this blog post I want to focus on one in particular. "Some say it involves pre- or non-rational impulses, in the context of the workings of certain psychological and cognitive mechanisms. For them the solution, if there is one, might involve consciousness-raising or therapy, helping us to recognize the force of primal urges or subconscious drives and to integrate those forces into the overall economy of our psychosocial functioning." Taylor, Paul C. (2013-04-17). Race: A Philosophical Introduction (Kindle Locations 1040-1045). Wiley. Kindle Edition. This explanation for the cause of racism got me thinking about the way the mind works in regard to sorting and extracted information. There are many organisms whose brains have the capacity for pattern recognition, the benefits of this ability are fairly obvious, it allows for swift judgments to be made in regard to previous experiences rather than treating every situation as an entirely new one. Human beings in particular have a remarkable ability to transfer information from a wide variety of previous experiences and prior knowledge and apply it to problem, task, or situation at hand. What separates us from other animals in this regard however, is that our filter for the sorting of information is not solely the product or our personal experiences or innate tendencies, it is unique in that it can either be enhanced or tainted by the thoughts, words, and accounts of others. Our reaction in many cases is determined by a pattern that we recognize, not necessarily by what we know. Which makes me wonder, is deeming an impulse "irrational" fair? especially those orchestrated by patter recognition considering that we don't always have a say in how our impulses are formed. In many cases, especially those where we are in no immediate danger I would argue that yes, they are irrational. We may certainly be inclined to notice and be couscous when confronted by differences, however, impulsively sorting these differences into a negative category (even when presented with a risk free opportunity to explore and understand them) is a blatant disregard for rational agency and despite having nothing to lose from exploring the unknown in this case, you are willfully choosing ignorance and to do so is to fail to acquire further understanding of the world around you which is ultimately detrimental. An interesting grey area which might be interesting to discuss in class is whether or not an impulse can be irrational (even it is the product of misinformation, propaganda, or ignorance) when in the face of a seemingly dangerous situation. An example that came to mind, one that socially is often ascribed a racist connotation is the white man sitting in his car in a bad part of town, who, seeing the young black man wearing basketball shorts and a large white tee shirt walking by, impulsively locks his car door, fearing him to be a criminal. Or, the black teenager walking through the mostly white souther town, sees a white man of large build, dressed in a cutoff shirt and sporting a mullet, crosses the street to avoid crossing his path in fear that he is a KKK member or belligerent racist. Both of these judgments might be impulsive, they also certainly rely on stereotypes associated with not only race but geography and social class, stereotypes that are reinforced by media and personal experiences and naturing, but does that make them irrational? Is it fair to say that fear for ones well being is irrational? Or is defying your impulses the true sign of rationality? I don't know, I look forward to pursuing this issue further both in and outside of class.

Just an awesome video

The Language Of Race

I am not sure if this post is intended to address a specific question (if so I didn't get that memo) or if it should be talking about the reading as a whole. So, just to be safe, I have chosen to do neither of those things and instead will be philosophizing about a single sentence from this weeks reading, one that I found particularly profound and true.

From the text:
"My language is an expression of the conditions under which it's taken shape, and in this sort of case, of the conditions under which I've taken shape too."

This is one of those things that appears glaringly obvious after you read it, but also something that I imagine few people rarely think about in regards to themselves. That is probably the case because, like trying to imagine yourself as a member of the opposite sex, or with a different skin color, it is very difficult to imagine yourself with a different set of language tools, especially since you are using the language you are accustomed to in order to think about language as a whole, which taints the whole process.
            Something that we are much more accustomed to is analyzing the language of others, why? because everyones use of language is different from word choice, to vocal tone. When we analyze language, we are often subconsciously piecing together a perspective identity for the author or speaker, something that is done through pattern recognition, stereotyping, and imagination. We do this because we know what that the above quote is true in regard to others, even if we haven't actively thought about it. For example, when we read or hear something that moves us on an emotional level (even if it is rooted in fiction) we often get the sense that the author has experienced something similar and can therefor render a feeling with language. That being said, the reason only a handful or authors or artists stick out as truly great amongst the many millions of others has a lot to do with their attention to detail and powers of observation, granting them the ability to create vivid and riveting characters despite the fact that they have almost nothing in common.
          The coolest part about analyzing your own language though, is that you know your whole life story, so if you can successfully step outside yourself, you can trace almost everything about the way you communicate back to an experience or event you have had. Everything from your education, to your love life, to your race, all of these things and many others are unintentionally communicated every time you open your mouth, touch a pen to paper, or type up a blog post.