Tampilkan postingan dengan label Angela Davis. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Angela Davis. Tampilkan semua postingan

Rabu, 21 November 2012

Women of Color and the Political Economy of Sympathy


Women of Color and the Political Economy of Sympathy
by Stephanie Troutman and David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan (in Exile)

“Given the racist and patriarchal patterns of the state, it is difficult to envision the state as the holder of solutions to the problem of violence against women of color. However, as the anti-violence movement has been institutionalized and professionalized, the state plays an increasingly dominant role in how we conceptualize and create strategies to minimize violence against women—Angela Davis.

Words sadly ring true given the daily realities of state violence, and the limited care and concern for the daily realities of violence in our country. What is wrong with us/U.S.? The endless examples (in a long, sad history of violent acts) act of violence against a woman of color to NOT make headlines is beyond devastating.  It is pedagogical in pointing to the material consequences of the intersections of race and gender.


This has been all too clear with reports about the horrific circumstances of Glenda Moore, a Black mother who lost her two young sons during Hurricane Sandy.  According to The Daily News Moore was “holding onto them, and the waves just kept coming and crashing and they were under,” the mother’s sister told the Daily News at her home. “It went over their heads … She had them in her arms, and a wave came and swept them out of her arms.” In the midst of the storm, Moore knocked on doors searching for help to no avail.  As Moore’s sister recounted to The Daily News "They answered the door and said, 'I don't know you. I'm not going to help you,’”…"My sister's like 5-foot-3, 130 pounds. She looks like a little girl. She's going to come to you and you're going to slam the door in her face and say, 'I don't know you, I can't help you'?'”

Although there seems to be reticence and an unwillingness to talk about racism and sexism – implicit biases – in this case, the limited (yes there has been some media attention) concern and national mourning for the death of these children, and the pain endured by Moore is telling.  While people came together to raise over $313,000 dollars for a tormented school bus monitor, the Moore family is fighting just to raise enough money to bury their children (as of today, there is just short of $11,000 dollars). It is yet another reminder that not all pain, not all suffering is created equal.

While the reports surrounding Sharmeeka Moffitt, who accused several men of attacking her because she wore an Obama t-shirt, proved unsubstantiated, her experiences point to how racism and misogyny is operationalized within contemporary culture.  Yet another reminder of the violence besieging the United States and the media’s silence (and complicity) on the violence experienced by women of color; the fact that Sharmeka Moffitt’s name did not initially warrant front-page news, a lead story on the national news, or national conversation is telling.  The fact that people required more evidence in this stance is revealing.  The fact that people dismissed the initial reports by noting “We don’t know what happened;” “we don’t know the specifics;” “we don’t know if it is a hate crime” is not without consequence.  

Yes, her accusations prove to be false, but this doesn’t tell us anything about the silence and disinterest from dominant media and political leaders unless the claim is that the lack of coverage resulted from their investigations and conclusions that it wasn’t a story worthy of media attention.  If that was the case, why did the media and the national spotlight grow when the police concluded that her injuries were self-inflicted?  In other words, when the reports were that Ms. Moffitt was the victim of an attack, that left her with 60% of her body burned, there were critics.  Yet, when she became the perpetrator, when she became a cautionary tale, when she became a source of contempt, an example of pathology and criminality, the story mattered.  Invisible as victim but seen as threat, Sharmeka encapsulates the lack of care and concern for trauma and violence endured by women of color?

As with Trayvon Martin and countless other incidents, the specter of violence, when its victims are people of color, when its victims are women of color, registers limited attention within the United States. This has been quite clear with the lack of national outrage about the murder of Rekia Boyd. What about Anna Brown, who reveals the lack of care for women of color within our society?  While American media pundits and leaders rightly stand up to condemn the horrific and brutal attack of Malala Yousafzai, why can’t we fight for justice for both Malala and Pakistani victims of drone strikes? 

Why can’t we see the many women deported and the many more families split alongside of the national debates about Saundra Fluke and contraception?  Why can’t we see Glenda Moore as we saw the parents who lost their children in Aurora, Colorado?  Why don’t we mourn the loss of Connor and Brandon Moore as we did when other (white, middle-class) children lost their lives?  Why so casual, disinterested, and otherwise dismissive of the violence and trauma effecting women of color?

This response (or lack thereof) plays to the continuous imperative of neoliberal, color-blind ideology to distance contemporary America from its racial history and legacy of violence- including rape, medical/pharmaceutical testing and sexual assault against black and brown women. At the same time, this lack of response (never mind priority) continues a long tradition of the invisibility of black/brown female suffering. From Malala and Marrisa Alexander, from Rekia Boyd to “4 little girls,” from Glenda Moore to Encarnacion Romero, white supremacy has shown itself to be disinterested in the pain felt by women of color.

The specter of white supremacy, misogyny, and ideologies of hate are all too familiar.  What is also all too common is our silence—our  complicit acceptance of violence, hate, and destruction when it is “over there.”  What is all too familiar is the refusal to stand for justice for all people; all deaths and all brutality are not treated equally. Campaigns against stop and frisk and campaigns to end street harassment, and non-profit organizations working to end rape and sexual violence against women (A Long Walk Home, FAAN Mail and particularly women of color, have stepped in to do the work that rest of our society, including our government and media, should be doing.  Many of us don’t even know (care to know?) the stories of these black and brown women and don’t care about their “Dreams Deferred.” 

The normalization of violence in our culture, due in large part to ongoing foreign conflict and media violence, is not an excuse for apathy—collectively or individually.  And because of the pervasive ugliness of racism, some folks out there are wondering (and possibly hoping) that the men who committed this act turn out to be black or brown. Though all evidence points to the contrary, if the assailants were men of color, we would still be left to deal with issues regarding violence against women as a racialized phenomena. Almost 30% of African American women are the victims of partner violence during the course of their lifetime (rape, physical assault or stalking).  According to Incite,

American Indian women are twice as likely to be victimized by violent crime than women or men of any other ethnic group. In addition, sixty percent of the perpetrators of violence against American Indian women are white and Asian American women are most likely to be victimized by whites as well (Greenfield and Smith 1999). Rates of violence against African American women as well are higher than the national average (Rennison 2001). In general, forty-three percent of women will be raped (including marital rape) and one-half of women in the U.S. will be battered in their lifetime (MacKinnon 1987, 23-24).

The silence and erasure of women of color victims, the blind neglect to the missing womenand children, and the overall disregard for the abuse, violence, and pain endured by women of color reflects the logic of racism and sexism.

These young women, and countless others have all faced violence under similarly disturbing circumstances.  All should have prompted national outrage and action or, at the least, for us to say their names.  How meaningful would it have been for President Barack Obama to suggest a moment of silence for Marissa Alexander, Glenda Moore  and/or Malala? Would this have been seen as race baiting…dog whistling? Who cares? It would have been seen as a gesture, signaling at least awareness if not a deep concern, for the safety and well being of black and brown women in the U.S. 

Please pause for a moment to consider the irony of a presidential debate on foreign policy and references to Malala but silence about drone attacks and countless other policies that inflict pain and suffering on women of color throughout the world.  Please pause to think about the narrow framing of foreign policy and “women’s issues,” which has seemingly erased the trauma and violence faced by women of color.  Norma Ortiz put this rather starkly:

In their second debate, the candidates for president talked —finally— about immigration, violence and women. What they did not talk about was violence against immigrant women and how our country's anti-immigrant laws make it worse for us and our children. 

Too many immigrant women, forced into the shadows of society, have had to make the choice between protecting themselves or keeping their families together.

I have had to make that choice.

I endured abuse by my partner, while worrying constantly about my then three-year-old son. But, because of my immigration status, I feared what would happen if I contacted the authorities. 

When I finally did make the decision to call, my fears turned out to be all too real.

Instead of helping us get away from my abusive partner, police arrested me. I spent five days in jail, separated from my son, before authorities moved me to immigration custody and began deportation proceedings.

Why don’t we know her name or that of Encarnacion Romero, whose parental rights were revoked because the court concluded that, “she abandoned her child when she was imprisoned after a 2007 immigration sting at a poultry processing plant.”  Where’s the outrage; where’s the appeal to justice and/or family values?

The selective invoking of violence elsewhere should give us pause? Why are we so comfortable looking for pain, suffering and violence elsewhere? U.S. exceptionalism . . . manifest Destiny . . . white man’s burden?  Yet, there is no reason to look at the outside for the horrific violence when it continues to plague our communities all while the media and “the leaders” remain silent, co-conspirators in the persistence of violence.  All point to the fallacy of a post-racial America and the shared level of violence between those who “we” see as uncivilized and “our” neighbors and society.  This same post-racial society has spawned notable and newsworthy reverse-discrimination claims and anti-affirmative action cases that only detract from the clear and present danger of such thinking as it manifests in the persistent inequality and violence, both structural and in cases of Alexander, Malala and countless others–physical, that black and brown men and women now experience at record levels since the abolition of slavery.

***

Stephanie Troutman is Assistant Professor of Women & Gender and African-American Studies at Berea College, Berea, KY. 

David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He is the author of the just released After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop (SUNY Press) as well as several other works. Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackMan, layupline, Feminist Wire, and Urban Cusp. He is frequent contributor to Ebony, Slam, and Racialicious as well as a past contributor to Loop21, The Nation and The Starting Five. He blogs @No Tsuris.

Selasa, 24 Juli 2012

#ThisIsWhatALesbianLooksLike: An Open Letter to Florida Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll

Open Letter to Florida Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll 
by Doria Roberts | HuffPost GayVoices

"The roots of sexism and homophobia are found in the same economic and political institutions that serve as the foundation of racism in this country."
-Professor Angela Y. Davis (Women, Culture and Politics)

"
You don't have to live next to me!
Just give me my equality
!"
-Nina Simone ("Mississippi Goddam")

Hi Lt. Governor Carroll,


It's been a long week, yes? Wow.


Well, I'm sure you've heard by now what's been going on but let me introduce myself. My name is Doria Roberts and I'm the person who started the activist hashtag #ThisIsWhatALesbianLooksLike in response to your
comment about what black lesbians don't look like -- namely you.

First, I want to say that it was not my intention to shame you and that I want (very badly) to give you the benefit of the doubt. I can't imagine having to defend myself against
charges of adultery when I knew myself to be innocent. My wife is my life and anything challenging or questioning my commitment to her or the foundation of our marriage would send me grasping for any and all lifeboats to assure her that I value our union above all.

Now, I'm generally a forgiving person and I know I don't have access to my best self every minute of every day, so I can understand how some of the things you said may have been said under duress as opposed to a deep-seated, polarizing and misguided hate for a group of people you don't even know. I mean, Peter denied Jesus three times. And that was Jesus!


But as I've said, I could only understand some of the things you said.


Please do not confuse my compassion with acceptance.


When I heard the quote "Black women who look like me don't usually engage in those type of relationships (meaning lesbian relationships)" attributed to you as a defense, my first and only thought was "No." Really, just that. No. I wasn't going to allow yet another public figure to offer my life up as a whipping post to absorb their public flogging -- especially one who looked like me.


Yes, despite what you think, Lt. Gov. Carroll, you do look like me.


But more on that later...


When the hashtag started to pick up some steam, I reached out to my own fan base to contribute to the dialogue but implored them not to bash you. I asked them to use their activism and channel their outrage as a "teachable" moment for you and others like you who now will (hopefully) think twice before throwing others in the line of fire to advance their political and/or professional agendas.


After awhile though, I stopped thinking about you (and others like you) and I began to focus instead on the hundreds of smiling faces I was being introduced to through this entirely serendipitous post. All beautiful, all happy.


I started thinking about me and my wife and how, as an interracial lesbian couple living in the southeastern United States, we face the unknowable every day. And, though we are nowhere near the top of the social food chain, we manage to run a successful business together. I'm also musician who travels internationally so there is no option for us to stay inside and hide when things get rough.


We do this, as much as we can, with smiles on our faces. Some days those smiles are hard won, sometimes they don't come at all and some days they come as easy as sunrise despite the fact that we live in a world where it is thought to be a risk to be who we are and an act of courage to simply claim it.


Okay.


That said, let's get to the real talk...


First, a little quiz.


Of the following four names, which one(s) do you recognize and what is the link between them?


Sakia Gunn

Shani Baraka
Rayshon Holmes
Matthew Shepard

Take your time. I'll wait.

Alright, that's silly because I can't really know your answer, right? But I'm going to venture a guess and suppose that you are an average person with average access to and consumption of popular media. If I were to guess your answers based on that criteria, I would project that you didn't know the first three names and probably knew the last one.


The first three names belong to African-American lesbian and bisexual women who were murdered because of their sexuality, gender and/or non-conformity to binary gender stereotypes. The fourth name belongs to a white, young male who was also a murder victim targeted because of his sexuality.


So, if you guessed that they are all members of the LGBT community and all victims of hate crimes you would be correct.


The similarities, however, pretty much end there. According to Lexis/Nexis reports, Sakia's murder generated only 21 stories as opposed to the 659 generated by Matthew's. That is a staggering difference of 638 stories or 30 times more...or less. However you want to look at it.


The point I'm trying to make is that, statistically speaking, hate crimes against lesbians of color are less likely to be covered by major media outlets even when the crime is murder and is provoked by our sexuality.


Put another way:


We (i.e. lesbians of color, queer women of color and black lesbians in particular) are already shouldering epically disproportionate concerns about our visibility without folks like you adding to the load. We are living in a society that almost pathologically refuses to acknowledge our existence... that is, until our existence is perceived as a threat.


Well, I am here to tell you that we are not a threat. Furthermore, we are not your problem. We are your sisters and your belief that we do not look like you has no bearing on the irrefutable fact that you do indeed look like us, whether that "look" is butch, femme, stud, punk, prep or otherwise.



When you say or do things that dehumanize me, you dehumanize yourself. Know that. And, we both know how easily dehumanization leads to invisibility which breeds intolerance which can, in some cases, as evidenced by the headlines pouring out of Colorado this weekend, justify senseless acts of violence.


--------


The quote I used to open this letter is a quote by Sister Angela Davis (no introduction necessary here, I hope) and is one I use in a song of mine called "Because." I use the quote to invoke and inspire a call to multi-issue activism because I often see in my divergent communities a lack of "cross-pollination." I want to see more LGBT outlets and organizations reporting on and standing in solidarity with the black community for cases like Trayvon Martin without having to be reminded. Conversely, I want to see black publications giving Sakia, Shani and Rayshon their due. And on and on and on...


I've thought a lot about you and me this week and how possibly, at the intersection of our struggles, we could find some common ground. I thought about the paths of Professor Davis and Condoleeza Rice Rice. Did you know that they grew up approximately 15 miles apart in Alabama and both cite the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church as the impetus for their respective activist efforts. (Yeeesss, Condi is an activist too. Don't get it twisted, folks.) While they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they are still part of the same sorority and that is one that cannot afford to be fractured just so that you can save face.


I can only imagine what it would take for a black woman to make it to where you are now, one of the highest ranking officials in Florida. Florida!


But, you know, I don't have to imagine it. I'm living it. I know what it's like to tirelessly search for your own voice and, after finding it, having to then find an audience for it. What I've learned is that sometimes you don't look like your audience and they don't look like you. And that's okay. Never take for granted the potential of your reach. While diversity can make this land we live in hard to bear, it's also what makes it... brilliant.


What an amazing opportunity and time we have and live in. We should be celebrating that as allies -- not senselessly sparring as adversaries.


Ultimately, what I'd like for you to take away from this experience is an understanding of how easily words, both yours and mine (28 total. Yes, I counted. I'm a Virgo. What's your sign?), can change the landscape of visibility for people who are not only surviving but living full lives on the so-called "fringes of society".


Remember that only four or so years ago, people would have said that men who look like President Obama (with names like Barack, Barack!) don't become President of the United States. They would have been wrong. Like, really wrong.


Remember these names: Sakia, Shani, Rayshon, Matthew and the thousands of names that go unaccounted for. Mourn the loss of their potential, their youth and the loss of their "becoming."


Remember the faces of the hundreds (hundreds!) of women who stood up to be counted after you unceremoniously discounted them. Commit them to memory.


Remember how small thinking and the perpetuation of negative stereotypes can get in the way of our progress. Dare I say, even perhaps our very evolutionary process?


Most importantly, remember that you are, in the end, a public servant and that because you have used my life as a punching bag your legacy is in danger of becoming a punch line.


Okay, then. I'm going to go now. We both have work to do.


I just wanted to let you know that (as my grandmother would say) "Imma be alright" because the fringes can be fabulous and the water is just fine....


Yours in sisterhood,

Doria

***

Doria Roberts is a singer/songwriter who  has shared the stage with folk and blues legends The Holmes Brothers, Janis Ian and the late and June Carter Cash, world music darling Angelique Kidjo, Pulizter Prize winning author Alice Walker and Oscar winning actress Jane Fonda (as a featured performer in Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues) as well as pop/R&B favorites Me'shell N'degeocello, John Mayer and many others. Roberts was also recently chosen for an artist residency sponsored by The Chateauvallon Artist Complex in Ollioules, France which culminated in a five city performance tour in the country’s most revered theaters and art houses.

Sabtu, 18 Februari 2012

Remixing the Black Power Mixtape


Remixing the Black Power Mixtape
by Mark Anthony Neal | NewBlackMan

When the Black Power Mixtape premiered at the Sundance Film Festival a year ago with co-producer Danny Glover in tow, it generated a lot of excitement, as much for the promise of bringing the Black Power era in conversation with the hip-hop aesthetic as it was some confirmation of the distance traveled from outhouses to White Houses.  Traveling the indie film route, few have had the chance to see the film, which recently debuted on public television as part of PBS’s long-running series, Independent Lens.

If Black Power could be thought of as a brand, there are few brands that have resonated as powerfully in American culture as it has.  More than a brand and perhaps even more than a movement, Black Power has symbolized the possibilities of Black self-determination in virtually every aspect of the Black experience, which explains why the term has become the lingua franca from everyone from 1960s freedom fighters to 21stcentury rap artists reflecting on their personal wealth.  

Many have sought to distance the Black Power era from the Civil Rights Movement. Historian and Martin Luther King, Jr. speechwriter Vincent Harding reminds in the book Redefining Black Power: Reflections of the State of Black America (edited by Joanne Griffith), “one of the most important teachings of many of the black power practitioners was their insistence that we stand with the poor, that we identify with the poor and, of course, King, himself, was very clearly saw that.  That is why I don’t accept the “two camps” thing, because that is what he said explicitly.”

Beyond the “Sexy” the Black Power has come to represent in the popular imagination—the leather jackets, the berets, the guns—there were men and women who pushed back mightily against the status quo and the State in pursuit of broad-based social justice. The Black Power Mixtapevaliantly attempts to pay tribute to those people.


The film, directed by Goran Hugo Olsson, primarily consists of archival footage collected by Swedish television journalists between 1967 and 1975.  The footage is simply extraordinary; it highlights the incredible access that the journalists had to the movement, whether interviewing Stokely Carmichael in Stockholm, capturing the early morning song of Black children at the Black Panther Party breakfast program (“guns, pick up the guns, pick up the guns, put the pigs on the run.”) or sitting with legendary Harlem bookstore owner Lewis H. Michaux amidst his book collection, recalling Burgess Meredith in the classic Twilight Zone episode “Enough Time.” It is Michaux, who often hosted rallies in the front of his store featuring Malcolm X (el Hajj Malik el-Shabazz), who perhaps offers the important corrective to our understanding of Black Power arguing, “Black is beautiful, but black isn’t power; knowledge is power.”

Yet the value of that footage is continuously undermined by the inability of Olsson to provide enough context to the very images that prove so alluring to anyone who watches the film.  There’s a telling scene, for example, early in the film, when members of the Swedish press are interviewing Stokely Carmichael’s mother Mabel in Chicago; it’s a touching moment, one where Ms. Carmichael’s son is captured in an unguarded moment, far removed from the fiery figure that mainstream America knew him as.

Yet Carmichael, grabs the microphone to conduct the interview with his mother asking her critical questions about race in America, that the film crew was largely incapable of asking.  It’s a point that Angela Davis, who was on the FBI’s “most wanted list,” also makes even more dramatically in a prison interview, where she chides the interviewer for asking her to repudiate violence, without having a full understanding of the violence that had been historically directed at Black Americans.

In this regard, the film is perfectly suited for the Web 2.0 generation, who have become accustomed to being bombarded with unprecedented amounts of data without the benefit of historical or cultural context.  In that spirit the film features voice-overs by figures like Erykah Badu, Ahmir “?uestlove” Thompson and Talib Kweli, that understandably aim to connect the film to younger audiences, but often at the expense of hearing more profound commentary from others such as historian Robin DG Kelley, Sonia Sanchez, Melvin Van Peebles, Angela Davis, Kenneth Gamble, and Harry Belafonte, who suggest in passing, that what really led to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s murder’s was the leader’s “tampering with the playground of the wealthy” when he linked the war in Vietnam to America military industrial complex.

That said, the commentary of Hip-Hop generation artist John Forte about the realities of incarceration is one of the most compelling segments of the film, particularly when framed against the 1971 uprising at Attica State Prison.  The Attica uprisings serve as a turning point in the Black Power Movement, seemingly marking the last strains of hope in the era, as the very forces that brutally silenced the voices at Attica, were doing the same to organizations like the Black Panther Party.  This turning point has the same effect on The Black Power Mixtape, as the final segments of the film from 1972-1975, capture  some of the aftermath of State repression—when the movement was no longer sexy and the evening news camera had long left the scene.

One of the figures who rose to national prominence in the aftermath of Attica was Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, then the head of the Nation’s Temple # 7—formerly Malcolm X’s (el Hajj Malik el-Shabazz) home-base in Harlem.  Minister Farrakhan’s youthfulness is disarming, though his rhetoric and style portends the dramatic impact he would have on national politics a decade after the interview featured in the Black Power Mixtape appears.  As Robin DG Kelley notes, the interview is notable because it finds Minister Farrakhan remaking the role of the Nation of Islam—a year before Elijah Muhammad’s death—fully jettisoning the confrontational politics that his late mentor Malcolm X promoted, to embrace a politics Black Respectability, well before the rise of this generation of Black mega-preachers.

Olsson’s decision to linger longer on the aftermath of the Black Power era, redeems the film in some ways.  As the late Courtney Callender, one-time director of the Studio Museum in Harlem, laments “falling in love with black things for a  short period of time is racist,” perhaps anticipating how thoughtlessly, far too many engage Black culture in our own moment. 

When Erykah Badu’s implores African-Americans to tell their own story in the film’s final segment, The Black Power Mixtapecomes full circle.  Somewhere there’s a young, enterprising filmmaker, who will get access to this remarkable archive and in the spirit of her ancestors, do the necessary work of remixing The Black Power Mixtape.

***

Mark Anthony Neal is the author of five books including the forthcoming Looking for Leroy: (Il)Legible Black Masculinities (New York University Press) and Professor of African & African-American Studies at Duke University. He is founder and managing editor of NewBlackMan and host of the weekly webcast Left of Black. Follow him on Twitter @NewBlackMan.

Rabu, 14 Desember 2011

"It Refuses to be Dismantled": Angela Davis at #Occupy Oakland



 
Angela Davis speaks to the Occupy Oakland rally on the day of the West Coast Port Shutdown. Barbara Becknell (representative of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams) and Angela Davis propose a national day of action in solidarity with the 2.5 million prisoners incarcerated and 3,500 on death row in the U.S. She proposes occupy mobilizations at every major prison in this country to act against the prison-industrial complex plaguing the nation and cannibalizing our education system.

Jumat, 16 September 2011

Ain’t Nothing Gettin’ Corrected: Correctional Facilities, Lockup Raw and the Breivik Controversy


Ain’t Nothing Gettin’ Corrected:
Correctional Facilities, Lockup Raw and the Breivik Controversy
by John (J.D.) Roberts | special to NewBlackMan

Recently, I received an order on Amazon for a book. This purchase was for an inmate in a correctional institution and the purchase address was to the inmate, with his prison number after his name (proper protocol and required for inmates to receive incoming mail). Having experienced problems with this type of order in the past-I had a package rejected for “excessive tape” (apparently packaging tape can be used to make or fortify a shiv/shank)-I called the correctional facility to see what I had to do to successfully complete this transaction. The prison guard I spoke with on the phone, who was almost flippantly (or comically) candid, told me not to send the book because it would get rejected by the facility. My father, who is a minister, had a similar experience trying to send a Bible to a suicidal congregation member in prison. This experience made me think how sad it is that I (a seller on Amazon and a complete stranger to the prisoner) cannot send a book about the biology of bats to an incarcerated person. Despite thorough searches of all items sent via mail into prisons, these shipments would still be denied by the facilities for whatever reason.
America’s correctional facilities have been on my mind a lot lately. Following Anders Breivik’s recent homicidal rampage in Norway, many news agencies began to report on the “cushy” conditions Breivik would likely experience in prison in facilities such as Halden Fengsel, and compared them to the punishment doled out in American correctional facilities.[1]Many media outlets expressed outrage that Breivik could—but  incidentally will not—be released twenty one years from his conviction.[2]Norway takes great pains to humanize the incarceration experience, constructing correctional facilities that allow prisoners relative freedom of movement, contact with family on the outside, excellent amenities and facilities, accessibility to the outside via internet, stimulating work and recreational environments inside the facility walls, and personal privacy.
What are the results of this approach? Norway has a recidivism rate of approximately 20% two to three years from an inmate’s release, while the United States has a recidivism rate above 60%.[3]Yes, Norway has a smaller population than the United States. Yes, Norway has a lower crime rate, more restrictive gun laws and fewer problems with gangs compared to the United States (only in the past 20 years has Norway had problems with biker gangs such as the Hells Angels and the Outlaws). However, this does not discredit Norway’s successfully low recidivism rate among its former inmates. So, why do developed countries such as the United States espouse a failing strategy of imprisonment and punishment?

The beginnings of an answer to this question and the inspiration for this piece are found on a TV show called Lockup Raw shown late night on MSNBC. Since I often find myself staying up late with insomnia, I generally end up watching this show when late night TV options run out. The program travels around the United States, filming the ins and outs of living as inmates and working as correctional officers in American correctional facilities across the country. One especially telling scene from the show had a correctional officer in Boston’s Suffolk County Jail saying goodbye to an inmate, then asking the inmate when he would see him next and laughing about it. The correctional officer then expressed his belief that the former inmate would either violate his parole or commit a crime and be re-incarcerated in the same facility. This scene subtly captures one of the biggest problems with correctional facilities in America: nothing is being corrected or rehabilitated, and no one (guard or inmate) believes in that mission statement.
While Norway attempts to humanize their prisons and mainstream/rehabilitate inmates for their future success back in society, the United States clings to punishment theory for its so-called “correctional” facilities. Inmates must submit to all commands of the correctional officer, no matter how arbitrary or capricious (as long as the command is legal and not violating an inmate’s human rights, and even then, who knows). Officers shown on Lockup Raw often make bad situations worse by heightening the tension between themselves and inmates with seemingly unnecessary directives.
Corrections officers create, maintain and sustain a system of restriction, privation and subjugation to further punish their inmates (beyond their mere incarceration). Austere cells and facilities further aggravate the psyches of inmates who frequently come from dysfunctional families, impoverished socioeconomic backgrounds and quite often are mentally ill to varying extents.  Correctional facilities can even have water and electricity restrictions, forcing inmates to, for example, commingle toilet and sink bathroom water or restrict their reading. Correctional facilities are places of extreme danger for everyone involved, inmate and officer alike, due to the incarcerated persons, the restrictive punishment systems in place, and the continuous heightened state of alert in the facilities (due to both inmate AND officer behavior). Inmates are at no time treated as human equals by corrections officers, but are instead further confined inside correctional facilities in a parent/child relationship (I think back to the words my parents would say that made me the most angry as a kid: “because I said so”).
Nowhere is this situation clearer than the cell extraction. If an inmate refuses to comply with instruction while in his or her cell, or s/he is destroying their cell or creating a hazard to the prison while in their cell, this situation can lead to a cell extraction, where a team of trained correctional officers go into the cell, subdue the inmate, and extract the inmate. The process of cell extraction is highly formalized, with a clear coda of verbal instructions, precise videotaping of the incident for legal reasons, clothing and equipment to protect the officers during the cell extraction, and regimented teams following procedure to the letter during the extraction. What is incredibly striking and not discussed on Lockup Raw is the fact that this cell extraction is often a test of wills between officers and inmates. Perhaps half of the cell extractions displayed on Lockup Raw are truly due to such hazards as facility tampering, fecal/urine cell contamination, or violent/hostile behavior by the inmate. The other cell extractions involve inmates trying to “prove a point” or demonstrating an unwillingness to submit to officer commands.
Cell extractions are not only a power play between inmate and officer, but are also a gargantuan waste of resources, manpower, training, and equipment. Officers are frequently called in or off from other duties to participate in the cell extraction. Someone has to film the incident from beginning to end. The state or federal government has to pay for the equipment, clothing, and extensive training programs involved in training officers to properly extract inmates from their cells.[4]Instead of humanizing the prison experience, American correctional facilities dehumanize inmates, leading to situations like these where inmates act out in a futile “test of wills” against officers. By infantilizing inmates, correctional facilities encourage the exact type of inmate behavior they are supposed to be correcting: reliance on criminality and gang networks to solve problems, desperate acts based in impulsivity, inmate fatalism toward his or her life and the future, and an intransigence/unwillingness to work within a set of agreed upon rules and laws. None of this is corrected in correctional facilities. Instead, American corrections systems create angry individuals that pick up additional criminal tricks and affiliations within its walls, and develop a depressed despondency towards life and society.
Detailed indictments of the American correctional system have filled numerous academic volumes. Lately though, I have been pondering some points regarding the correctional system I have not seen or heard discussed. I have spent the initial part of this discussion covering what correctional facilities do to inmates, but what do they do to the officers? In psychology experiment conducted in 1971, Philip Zimbardo, a student of Stanley Milgram, (see the Milgram Obedience Experiment)[5]studied the effects a prison environment had on the mental state of guards and prisoners as a variable. In Zimbardo’s highly provocative and non-replicated study, (ethical concerns swiftly arose and the initial experiment itself was ended early) so-called “normal” people became “aggressive and abusive” in their roles as prison guards, while the inmates in the study became “passive and depressed.”[6]
In such a highly demanding job, what psychological counseling and training is offered to corrections officers to help them cope with the stresses of their job, as well as stay ethical, fair and level-headed in their conduct? How could corrections officers NOT become aggressive in such an environment, structured by its very nature to expect and elicit dangerous actions and create tense surroundings? How could corrections officers humanize the correctional facility experience at all without a complete overhaul of the system? Why do we still call them “correctional facilities?” Who is to say that the correctional system does not also dehumanize the officer?
Despite these concerns, corrections officer is an attractive job to many. In a landscape of high unemployment and a tough job market, the job of corrections officer is still a burgeoning one. From 2008 to 2018, the corrections system has a predicted growth rate of 9%. As of 2009, there were over a half-million corrections officers, bailiffs, wardens, supervisors, managers, and jailors working in American correctional facilities.[7]These statistics do not account for all the other jobs created by correctional facilities, such as maintenance, construction, food service and delivery, laundry, groundskeeping, surrounding businesses to accommodate visitors needing hotels, motels, and food, etc., many of which depend upon the amount of inmate labor used (or not used) by the facility.
These inmates and ex-inmates account for a surprisingly large portion of American society. As of 2009, 2.3 million people were either in jail or in prison. When including those individuals either on probation or parole, 2.3 million climbs to 7.2 million people.[8]In 2009, U.S. population estimates put total population at 305 million. So, essentially 2.4% of the total American population had some sort of correctional supervision governing their lives. This does not account for all those individuals who successfully made it through correctional supervision, yet still have a felony on their record. In an era of fewer unskilled/low-skill/blue collar/middle class white collar jobs in America and slow to no-growth job sectors, it should be no surprise that the American correctional system is run more like a warehouse system than a system that corrects criminal behavior.
Putting Foucault’s conceptualization of the state creating “docility” in inmates in his Discipline & Punish aside, I must build upon Angela Davis’s mental construction of the Prison-Industrial Complex to get an accurate picture of the American correctional system. Building on the foundations of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s historic farewell address warning of the dangers of a Military-Industrial Complex, (newsflash America: we are already there and have been there for awhile) Davis posited that the American penal system had become a big business just like military manufacturing and production. This accounts for corrections officers, facilities, etc, but it does not account for the failure of the correctional facilities themselves. Perhaps the rate of recidivism in America can be overlooked by the state, because the state needs bodies to fill these “big business” facilities.
Less obvious though is the amount of labor the corrections system removes from the free labor pool. Instead of correcting and normalizing inmates to go back into society as productive citizens, the state prefers to relegate these former denizens of correctional facilities to recidivism, joblessness, underemployment or holding menial jobs. By dehumanizing the correctional facility experience, the inmates’ recidivism rates are considered an acceptable side effect to the incarceration of American citizens. In a country with fewer and fewer jobs, taking these individuals out of the labor pool creates space for other taxpaying “regular” citizens while not “wasting” resources on correcting criminal behavior. Convicted criminals’ expendability creates space in the labor market, much like capitalism’s need to produce spaces to expand and grow infinitely and forever (think legitimate spaces as well as bubbles: the housing boom, the dotcom boom, the derivatives market, or the swampland boom before the Great Depression).[9]
The lack of correcting criminal behavior in correctional facilities creates these types of faux spaces. In this case, the deletion and delegitimization of theoretically productive workers from the American free labor market and their subsequent warehousing in the correctional system creates jobs to both supervise and aid in their warehousing AND creates labor space by taking these individuals out of the labor pool, sometimes indefinitely. Even if inmates beat the odds and do not repeat offend, their job prospects are often incredibly grim, particularly as a convicted felon in a hypercompetitive job market. This once again aids the weak American job market by creating one less viable job competitor.
While America can afford and might downright relish less viable job candidates, a country such as Norway, with 4.8 million people (as of 2009) cannot afford to warehouse thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of its citizens in correctional facilities. In a modern and robust Western economy, people are needed to run a functioning democratic society, particularly one as hi-tech oriented as Norway’s. Additionally, Norway cannot afford to warehouse thousands of its citizens monetarily. Therefore, Norway corrects the behavior of its wayward citizenry in its correctional facilities. Simply put, Norway cannot afford in any capacity to dehumanize and warehouse its citizens convicted of crimes, save for a select few like Anders Breivik. Meanwhile, the United States, reeling from a bad economy, credit crunches, and slow/no growth can afford to dehumanize their incarcerated population and allow 2.3% of the population to go “uncorrected,” including incarcerated persons wanting to read about the biology of bats.     
**Disclaimer: I appreciate the hard work corrections officers have to do on a daily basis. I am finding extreme fault with the system itself.**
***
John (J.D.) Roberts is a PhD student in the History Dept at UMass-Amherst. He focuses on drug trafficking history in Latin America, but has researched and written on a wide array of issues globally, particularly globalization and illegality.


[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT
[2] Norwegian law has an incarceration term of 21 years, which can be extended/renewed for more years on a case-by-case basis. One of those cases will be Anders Breivik.
[4] http://www.doc.state.nc.us/osdt/in-service/Class_Cell_Extraction.htm
[5] http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
[6] http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
[7] http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos156.htm
[8] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/corr2.cfm
[9] See David Harvey’s The Condition of Postmodernity (1989)

Selasa, 31 Mei 2011

Angela Davis and Marc Lamont Hill on 'Our World'







Our World with Black Enterprise | May 29, 2011

Host Marc Lamont Hill Talks with Activist & Scholar Angela Davis