Thursday, March 31, 2016

There Goes the Neighborhood!



Lured in by click bait titles, short running time, and quirky video editing, I’ve always turned to Buzzfeed’s videos in my times of need (and by times of needs, I mean when I’m procrastinating really hard.) Recently, I fell into a rabbit hole of videos and came across this one, and I was surprised when it fell quite nicely in line with we have been exposed to so far in class. Most people will happily discuss issues and the intersections of race and gender but often leave out class, a very essential and defining factor in someone’s place in society. America values the bootstrap theory, the myth that class mobility is possible for everyone and that there is nothing holding them back. America is “classless” by nature; however, the reluctance and exclusion of discussion about the socio-economic state of American’s citizens, especially those face with more than one oppression, just perpetuates the vicious cycle of poverty.
As we watched in the documentary “Race the Power of an Illusion: Part II: The House we Live In”, racist housing practices along with white flight and urban migration, also known as white flight into the suburbs, helped to uphold de facto segregation. Many of the housing projects, with the loss of capital, jobs, and reputations, began to deteriorate, and the property values fell. However, in came gentrification! Huzzah! (Not really) As seen in the Buzzfeed video, it’s when usually upper-class white people come into neighborhoods that are viewed as deteriorating with the hopes of reinvesting and renewing the “undesirable” neighborhoods. However, this only benefits those who belong to the upper-class not the residents who already live there. In the video, Kai mentions that his family used to live in his house for $800 a month, but due to the Ellis Law, were kicked out and had it sold for $1.3 million with no benefit to them. The rapidly rising cost of living leaves so many unable to afford or even recognize the neighborhood that was once theirs.
It was very hard for me to understand this assumption of space and belonging under the guise that the new people were trying to make the neighborhood better, not for those already there, but for the new upper-class neighbors. Gentrification is not something natural and necessary, but just the way in which classist and racist systems intersect in order to maximize profit, serving a higher class while alienating the supposed middle class and excluding the lower class fully.
These new residents come in and make assumptions about the people and practices of the neighborhood, and while all are not at fault, there is a sense of privilege and entitlement. They make no efforts to learn the history of the neighborhood, and a whitewashing of the neighborhood begins. These marginalized people have created a community out of their exclusion from society, and yet once again, they have been displaced. As seen in Aimee Meredith Cox’s Shapeshifters, if you devalue the neighborhood, you also devalue the people who live there and easily transfix the descriptions of the neighborhood onto the people who previously lived there. Poverty easily distorts people's visions and expectations of those steeped in it.

Have you seen gentrification in neighborhoods before? Do you feel it is necessary? If you have personally been affected or had a hand in gentrification, what do you think you can do to alert everyone to these practices and possibly better/eliminate them? What other intersections of race and class are not as obvious in society?

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Immigrant Minor: Ace Attorney?


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-toddler-lawyers-videos-snap-html-htmlstory.html

The topic of "illegal immigration" is a heated one in this country. Just looking at a Google News search of "immigration" (the results of which changed almost completely after only a few hours) revealed articles on the current political races, protests defending immigrants, governmental action against immigrants, and more. Texts like The Latino Threat, films like 9500 Liberty, and articles like "Alabama's Shame" point out this passionate debate and, especially in the lattermost example, note the troubles many immigration policies force on immigrants. Such stories are common and, therefore, already directly addressed by the above readings, so the link above leads to a Los Angeles Times story discussing a particular judge's opinion that three-year-olds can adequately defend themselves in immigration court.

I am unashamedly biased on this: no, they cannot; they are three. The aforementioned judge tries to argue that he had taught toddlers immigration law, but, as far as I am aware, gave no evidence to support this rather ridiculous claim besides his word. On the other side sits numerous immigration lawyers who decided to video "trials" of their toddlers to show just how lost children are when faced with the questions and demands of immigration court. Sure, YouTube videos might not have the same kind of credibility as an article in a peer reviewed journal, but they have more than assertions of the capability of three-year-old children in a courtroom.

As The Latino Threat discusses, the general attitude toward Latin American immigrants (and anybody thought to be a Latin American immigrant) is not good; this is a particularly extreme example of it. Some people would deny toddlers legal counsel, something that already is not assured for non-minors in immigration cases. This is, quite frankly, yet another blatant attempt to force Latin Americans out of this country regardless of how it would impact their lives, as well as those of everyone else involved, by targeting the defenseless.

What is your opinion on the idea of toddlers as competent in the courtroom? Is there any case you can think of in which a three-year-old would be able to adequately defend themselves legally?

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Racial Profiling

 
This week, we watched a documentary about immigration wars of 2007-2008 in Prince William Country-- 9500 Liberty. The recorder showed us one of the tougher local immigration enforcement laws in the land. After watching this film, a serious issue and topic has been brought up in mind, which is Racial Profiling. "Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. In the film, the Country granted a law which requires the police officers to stop and question people of color, who appear to be undocumented immigrants. Apparently, from most whites' point of view, this seemed to be a logic and reasonable law for safety, however, if we bring it to a general level which involves everyone-- people of color or colorless, this would be a very offensive and racist institutional act.

After the civil rights movement of the 1950 dismissed explicitly racist laws, racism became colorblind to survive. However, it did not mean that the issue was resolved, and thereby, we already lived in a ideological society with an absolute racism-free zone. On the contrary, the issues of racial profiling went underground, which made it more complex and hard to settle down. Nowadays, although no law explicitly allows for racial profiling by law enforcement, it still related to the institutions. For instance, the Supreme Court's first step to sanction racial profiling was Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), an 8-1 ruling that developed the "reasonable suspicion" standard. The Court, held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" is not violated when a police officer has "reasonable suspicion" "in light of his experience" that a crime has been committed. By opening the door to greater law enforcement discretion with respect to whom to sop and search, the Supreme Court in Terry gave its first approval of racial profiling.

As a result of this deep, underground racial prejudice among the institutions, lots of people was victimized by it, and it is becoming a potential danger to people of color in their daily life. One of the worst outcome of racial profiling is the ultimate death  of the victims. Jonny Gammage, 31 year-old African American male, died on October 12, 1995, after being pulled over by five police officers from a predominately white community. Those police officers indicated that Gammage started to struggle with them which was the reason he got killed, however, a witness indicated that he saw one officer started the fight and while Gammage lay on the pavement under their command, the others began to kick and hit at him. First fact of this incident, the police officers are all white, and the victim was black. Secondly, the reason that police officers stopped Gammage's car at the first place was due to his race. Moreover, the brutal and unreasonable act of the five police officers was based on their personal prejudice toward people of Color. Therefore, there is no doubt that racial profiling is the major cause of this tragic incident.

The most outrageous problem about racial profiling is not only the tragic incidents and victims, but the fact that only a few people recognized this issue among our society. It has been covered up or twisted by the authorities or someone with a strong sense of racial prejudice for too long. Thereby, it is our duty to reveal the truth to public. We must find a way to undermine the discrimination towards people of color, otherwise, the American Dream would fall.


http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-16/news/mn-3792_1_police-officers
 
http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio