Thursday, April 27, 2017

Treatment of U.S. Citizens and Non Citizens

"The Geneva Conventions forbid not only torture, but also "cruel treatment" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" for prisoners of war". Alberto J. Mora agrees with this but he also believes that in general the U.S. should treat U.S. citizens and non citizens the same way. I agree to a certain extent. Torture and cruel treatment is completely inhumane and it is good that it is banned; however, in extreme cases cruel punishment could be used effectively to gain vital information. Mora also described how cruelty and torture are different things, and cruelty can become extreme and turn into torture. I believe torture should be completely banned (as it is supposed to be), but in extreme cases, only rarely, cruelty may be used if used correctly. There is also the argument that the U.S. should not use torture or cruelty because we wouldn't want that done to our soldiers. I agree that we would not want our soldiers to go through that, and that is what makes this issue so complicated; however, if a U.S. citizen is an extreme threat as a non U.S. citizen, the situation should be handled the same way. Only in extreme cases should extreme measures be taken if it is to save lives. This is an extremely complicated system that needs to have order and clear rules if going to be used.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Japanese Internment Camps

"I'm times of war, governments often must balance the needs of national security with the civil rights of its citizens" but this balance is often not found. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, during World World II the government created internment camps. They forced people of Japanese decent to live in these camps in case they were working with the Japanese government. The government disrupted this balance by creating these internment camps. There was no evidence of espionage from the Japanese so the US government based this on paranoia. The camps had terrible accommodations and the rules were outrageous. Even if the camps were nice, it is still unfair to force someone out of their homes and make them live in a new place. This system is simply discriminatory and did not find the balance between the needs of national security with the civil rights of its citizens.

Racial prejudice 100% played a role in the government's treatment of Japanese Americans during this time. First, the government targeted all Japanese Americans when it was not likely that they were plotting against the US. The US also created curfews, requiring the Japanese Americans to stay in their homes at night. They claimed that this would help against espionage but it was just a form of social control. They segregated the Japanese thinking that maybe some would be disloyal to the US. They based this decision all off of conspiracy and not facts. These people were citizens of the US and were imprisoned and forced to live under terrible conditions and basically had no representation or rights, when they didn't even commit a single crime. Internment camps were a way to control minorities even though there was not a valid reason.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Transforming the Racial Bribe

"Both caste systems [Jim Crow and mass incarceration] were born, in part, due to a desire among white elites to exploit the resentments, vulnerabilities, and racial biases of poor and working-class whites for political or economic game," states Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow. One could say that the racial bribe is being portrayed in a new way as mass incarceration. Mass incarceration is what separates working class whites and blacks. Working class whites are less likely to be incarcerated therefore given this sense of power and privilege over blacks. Not only are whites being privileged in social aspects, privilege is also seen through application of the law. One of the many issues with mass incarceration is the legal suppression of black votes. Previously, black votes have been suppressed through literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and poll taxes. Now, in most states, one loses the right to vote when they are incarcerated and sometimes for life. Since the War on Drugs, one in seven back men nationally have lost the right to vote.

To me, it was surprising to hear these facts and statistics. We often hear about the "progress" we have made during the Civil Rights Movement and celebration of Black History Month. If we never teach kids about what is actually happening in the US, the cycle of discrimination will continue. The racial bribe choses to honor whites while acting as if they are equally honoring blacks. As shocking and sickening it is to hear about this racial bribe as mass incarceration, it is important we learn about it so we can try and create justice.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Is "Color Blindness" a Thing?

To the public eye, the War on Drugs was deemed to be an effort to end drug usage, but in reality it was a way to persecute people of color. Law enforcement during the War on Drugs, and now is said to be "color blind." Statistics are able to prove this false. As stated in The New Jim Crow  by Michelle Alexander, "African American youth account for 16 percent of all youth, 28 percent of all juvenile arrests, 35 percent of the youth waived to adult criminal court, and 58 percent of youth admitted to state adult prison." These eye opening statistics prove the discrimination in the court system and the lack of so called "color blindness." Also, officers in law enforcement racially profile who they investigate proving the criminal justice system is not "color blind." Saying that the government it "color blind" is dismissing the reality of discrimination. Asserting "color blindness" enhances white privilege because one is saying that people are treated equally, when they sadly are not. Not only does the government lack "color blindness," society does as well. As I've talked about in my "Implicit Association Tests" blog post, as much as one thinks they are "color blind," implicit bias proves this wrong. This bias makes "color blindness" nearly impossible. Overall, "color blindness" isn't able to be seen in our society starting at law enforcement and spread throughout civilization.

Thursday, February 9, 2017


Hello everyone!! Welcome to my US History blog! I hope you enjoy my posts!

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Law and Order

"Law and order" was rhetoric used by President Nixon in the 1960s to further persecute blacks and justifying it by "crime." One could classify it as another Racial Bribe. It was stated to the public that law and order was a way to "crack down on crime" and bring order to society, but in reality it was a "legal" form of racism. This "cracking down on crime" focused on black communities. Law enforcement would specifically investigate these communities so they could arrest people of a certain race. They could have as easily gone to a college campus or an elite white neighborhood and also have found drugs. Since this system of law and order targeted black people, poor whites found another reason to feel above blacks.

White southerners who were previously democrats switched over to the Republican Party because they did not like the sense of equality linked with the Democratic Party. This changed the demographics of the political parties due to the law and order rhetoric that was preached in the Republican party. Poor whites were able to feel more elite and separated from blacks through this law and order. This was a way to push people away from the democratic party and to the republican party. The democratic party was in support of the civil rights movement and desegregation which was not ideal for poor whites. Law and order was another tactic used to divide the political parties and persecute blacks in an indistinct way.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement: Never Ending

America has had lots of ups and downs regarding the history of race and discrimination. Reconstruction was a time where the North had control over the south post Civil War. This was also an effort to help blacks live freely. According to Michelle Alexander, "Reconstruction is most typically described as stretching from 1863 when the North freed the leaves to 1877, when it abandoned them and withdrew federal troops from the South" (2-3). After Reconstruction came Jim Crow. There aren't exact dates for this, but it is stated that by 1945 whites in the north believed the system had to be rethought or completely destroyed. Although this is stated in 1945, Jim Crow continued to be relevant for many more years. In the 1950s, the civil rights movement began by protesting Jim Crow. In 1963, there was a huge group of black students in the south protesting and working together to get their rights. This movement was mostly successful and voting rates of blacks in the south drastically increased from 1964-1969.

A problem with having these set dates means that the ideas and events that happened in these times are completely over. This is untrue because we can see remnants of the past all throughout history. Slavery turned in to Jim Crow. Saying slavery has ended does not mean that all former slaves were free to live their lives without discrimination. In fact, slavery even continued on with share cropping. Black codes and Jim Crow laws set restrictions on black people even though they were considered free. Reconstruction and the civil rights movement may have ended but we need to continue to work on creating equality all throughout the country. If we can still see aspects of Jim Crow in our society then we are not done working for equality, hence continuing on the Civil Rights movement.