Most recent public comments by Sloan Christopher https://nowcomment.com/users/5986 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505960 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505960 As Margaret mentioned, it has consistently been brought up that too many Americans believe that blacks tend to handicap themselves as opposed to being affected by structural differences. While reading this chapter, I was shocked at how differently this material was taught in high school. This information was either relatively glossed over, or taught in a manner that seemed to conclude with "but everything's fine now because we don't do that anymore." I feel like high school history classes often fail to connect the past with the present, so students often forget about the material they learn because the past often seems irrelevant to the present. However, we would be a much more informed society if we we're able to make these structural and racial connections at a much earlier age. Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:43:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505958 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505958 I think this issue of scapegoating is a really important one because it is a phenomenon that continually occurs throughout history and societies around the world. Our society somehow always seems to need a scapegoat to blame all of our problems on. This is problematic because scapegoating supports the notion that one group/ event/ entity is to blame for a problem. By scapegoating, people actually extend the problem because the deeper and combined sources of the problem are not looked into--instead having a scapegoat seems to tie the problem up into a tiny neat package that seems easily fixed. However, we need more people to look into these deeper societal issues, instead of believing that they can be easily fixed. Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505792 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505792 You bring up a really interesting point! Although I didn't know that people who watch the news a lot have increased negative implicit attitudes towards African Americans, I'm definitely not surprised by this statement. This brings up two questions. 1. Why are minorities often portrayed as "more" criminal? Is this possibly a way to soothe public safety concerns by using minorities as scapegoats in predominately white areas? For example, portraying minorities as criminals in predominately white areas could make the white residents feel safer because the problems of crime and violence seem distance or like they wouldn't happen to them? And 2. What would happen if the media switched the roles of minorities and white people and portrayed minorities as less violent/ criminal? Do we think that this change in image could affect white implicit attitudes? Or has the damage already been done? Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:16:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505774 https://nowcomment.com/documents/52798?scroll_to=505774 Alexander brings up a really good point in this paragraph by stating that just because Jim Crow is dead does not mean that the racial caste system has ended. This paragraph also addresses the point that society often assigns spokespeople for certain racial/gender/social issues, and then takes everything that person says or does and applies it as a blanketed fact for all people of that group/ identity. I'm not sure I articulated my point in the most eloquent way, but what I mean is that Caitlin Jenner has become the face of all transpeople and (as Alexander mentions) Barack Obama's presidency is constantly equated with how progressive the US is becoming. However, these are just two people with their own experiences and they cannot possibly represent an entire racial/gender population. Additionally, even though the media often shows how much love and support these celebrities get from the "public," it's important to keep in mind that the average African American/transperson (to stay with my example) probably aren't treated with the same respect. I think this is what Alexander is getting at--just because we see minorities portrayed in one way in the media, does not mean that they are being treated the same way in real life. Ergo, the racial caste system is still unfortunately alive and well today. Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:02:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487269 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487269 I definitely agree that death seems to be easily glossed over in "the game." However, I think that this desensitization to death has to be a survival technique. If murders of loved ones and friends occur on a seemingly regular basis, I'd have to imagine that people in "the game" must be forced to turn off the humanizing emotions of grief and sorrow. I also think that exposing children to death and murder at a young age can help perpetuate the seemingly universal desensitization to death because they perceive these actions as normal, and thus don't put too much extra thought into murders when they occur. Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:46:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487267 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487267 I think you bring up an important point. The police are heavily distrusted in the Wire, our readings, and Leap's piece. However, I think it's important to consider where this distrust comes from. The police, especially in the Wire, are often quite corrupt. They often use unnecessary force and brutality, steal from people they search, and abuse their powers by searching people and vehicles that they don't necessarily have a right to search. For these reasons, it seems wildly clear why people distrust the police. My question is: What would happen if the police behaved in a completely lawful way? Would they still be able to work their jobs effectively, or does being a police in a drug-invested area require bending the law? Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:38:49 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487264 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487264 Although I appreciate Leap attempting to help her readers further understand gang mentality by providing her Greek family as a comparison, I think the fundamental difference between her Greek family and the gangs she addresses has to do with violence. From my understanding, the major reason members can't leave a gang is that they will get killed. The fear of death seems to be what ultimately drives loyalty within "the game" in the Wire. For example, in season 4 when the corner kids are asked to describe what makes a good corner kid, each kid offers different suggestions but ultimately decides that if you mess up, you die. When Wallace tries to leave "the game" in Season 1, he is killed because he does not show loyalty. A lack of loyalty and attempts to leaving "the game" result in death time and time again in the Wire. Due to this fear of death, I don't think Leap can accurately compare her membership to her family and that of a real gang. Even if her family disowns her, she still has her life to show for it. Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:32:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487236 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49881?scroll_to=487236 I think this sentence is really important because it echoes the profiling that Leap has already brought to light. Here, Leap is addressing the fact that no one has paid any attention to her because she is white and she is a woman. In terms of profiling, she does not serve as a threat for both of these reasons. This is an example of white privilege (and maybe gender privilege?) because she is granted access to this space, simply because no one views her as a threat. Her privilege is further supported by her recollection of Khalid being questioned by the cops. Even though Khalid had a seemingly valid reason to be present at the crime scene, he was profiled because he looked like a potentially dangerous black man. Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:59:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486509 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486509 I was also surprised to discover that Lisette wanted to attend college, despite expecting a child. Also, I found it interesting that Lisette's teen pregnancy was described as very positive, and not a tragedy or set back on her life (the way Eric's girlfriend's pregnancy was described). Do you think that maybe Kozol sugarcoated Lisette's story a little bit to emphasize the idea that she "made it"? I was also confused that Kozol did not go into the struggles that Lisette would face as an expecting mother and a university student. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 20:58:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486504 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486504 I think you bring up some really important questions, although I definitely don't know the answer to where we should allocate money and how to stop these issues. I do think that the first step is simply raising awareness of these issues and "tragic realities", which is what Kozol seems to do a decent job of. After all, he does attract the attention of the church in Montana who send their aid to Vicky and her family. Although Kozol suggests that this aid did not necessarily benefit Vicky and Eric overall, I think you could easily make the case that Lisette was able to achieve a better life in Montana than she would have if she stayed in NYC. However, I think you could also argue that you need to raise awareness internally as well. I'm sure many people living in the Martinique never questioned the way it was run because they didn't know they could. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 20:52:46 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486486 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486486 I was really intrigued by the word "irritation" in this sentence because I think its important to discuss what exactly the cab driver and/ or the theater goers are irritated with. Put simply, it's possible that these people don't want to be interrupted or bombarded by strangers. However, I think this issue is deeper than that. I think these people use irritation to cover up the guilt and awkwardness they feel when approached by a begging child because they simply don't know what to do. It's likely that 1. they feel bad or guilty because they have money to offer the child and are reminded of their privilege, 2. feel further guilt by not offering the child any money, and 3. are likely to blame the child's parents for not providing for their child properly, even though they have no idea what circumstances the parents are facing. Regardless, I find it sad that we choose irritation to mask our discomfort when faced in these situations, instead of analyzing why we feel this way and what we can do about it. This act of irritation further supports the assumption that many people believe that it is often an individual's fault for their status in society, instead of considering the effects of institutional and other societal influences. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 20:43:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486475 https://nowcomment.com/documents/49882?scroll_to=486475 I'm still not quite sure how to process this line: "Vicky found herself unable to escape the shadow of her history." It seems that Kozol is suggesting that regardless of where Vicky would end up, she was bound to reach the same demise. I think I'm struggling to understand whether Kozol is suggesting that Vicky is simply a victim of her upbringing and fate, or that she failed to adopt the personal initiative to overcome her past. Although I'm sure this is not a black and white issue and involves a combination of situational fate and lack of personal initiative, it still seems that Kozol is making a blanketed assertion that one can never escape their past-- yet disproves this assertion through Lisette's story. Overall, I think the general point Kozol tries to make is that one cannot escape their past experiences, as they shape the person one grows into and future actions, which seems true to me. I was just bothered by the seemingly blanketed and underlying message this sentence portrays. Also, it seems to put Vicky in the role of the victim. Kozol is essentially saying, "no matter how hard she tried, or how much help she got, Vicky was never going to be able to succeed." Although she did have a lot of things working against her, Kozol earlier in the chapter said that Vicky did admit that some of her actions led to poor circumstances. So she can't be a complete victim because some of the actions she made led her to this point. Wed, 02 Mar 2016 20:24:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=455197 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=455197 I found this paragraph really interesting because Bowden is screening us in some ways from the real and true Simon. Bowden even uses the phrase "avoid exploitation" when describing this screening. I'm really interested to watch season 5 because Simon's experience at The Sun greatly impacted his life by turning him into a cynical man. It was described earlier in the article that he will have to "face his demons" in the production of the final season. I'm wondering if the final season will perhaps demonstrate more realism or more exaggeration due to Simon's strong and personal relationship with the Sun? Overall, it will be interesting to see if Simon's relationship to The Sun will affect the production or style of the show. Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:49:29 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=455183 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=455183 While the majority of the characters in the show don't necessarily embody qualities of decency, I do think that many of the minor characters in the show do. For example, there is a scene where Herc and Weeks break into Bodie's (I'm pretty sure) home and the grandmother opens the door, sits calmly folding her laundry, and waits for the two to complete the investigation. Her tranquility is vastly juxtaposed with the commotion of the investigation, as well as the usual commotion of the Pit. Herc even acknowledges her decency by apologizing when they cannot find Bodie. Instead of cursing him out or throwing him out of her house, the grandmother invites him to sit down and chats about her woes. Although she is a minor character, I found this elderly woman to demonstrate that there are decent humans in this society. Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:35:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=455129 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=455129 I'm not sure that I agree with "worthless" being the correct term here. I do agree that capitalism does often triumph over human value, especially in middle to low class America, but does that have to make you a worthless human being if you're stuck in "the game"? I feel like "struggling" or "misfortuned" could easily replace worthless. As human beings we are biologically programed for survival, so if someone has to value capital over human value for survival, I wouldn't say they are worthless, I'd say they are surviving. The term worthless bothers me because it suggests lack of action and lack of morals. The Wire does an exceptional job at humanizing all characters, whether a homicide detective or a drug dealer, and showcasing their good and bad qualities. Although at times characters like McNulty and Barksdale embody lacking action and morals, those two qualities do not make up their full character. Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:22:17 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=454810 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46407?scroll_to=454810 I love how you put that there are "similar shades of gray in every circle." I also think that the fact that there is no clear line between good and bad is a critical part to the show because it causes the audience to self-reflect on their own actions and what they would do in certain situations. For example, I started out a huge fan of Kima because of her feminist nature but then second guessed my alliances when she viciously beat the crap out of Bodie. The Wire definitely does a good job of humanizing every character, which we talked about n class the other day when we compared the show to the Shield. Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:28:30 -0500