Different Color, Different Treatment - Research Paper Example

Social Spaces and the Interaction of the African American Young Male Introduction In reading Just Walk By: Black Men and Public Spaces by Brent Staples, the differences between the way that African American men are treated in a public sphere in comparison to other social groups can be considered through a different set of relational criteria. As one walks on a street, it is imperative to understand that the space that one inhabits is a sphere of relationship to other people that come in proximity. In considering these spheres, it becomes apparent that there ware different relationships that are formed. Many of these spheres are defined by stereotypes. Those stereotypes determine the nature of the space that is inhabited. How someone reacts to the others around them must be understood through the culturally developed stereotypes that define the potential of the experience that someone has in coming into contact with others on the street. The experience of the American street is a place where visceral prejudices come alive. Where in social gatherings prejudices can be dampened, set aside in order to create relationships that cross boundaries and develop into meaningful interactions, when one encounters an unknown person on a street, the only framework in which to define the potential of that experience is through culturally developed ‘types’. The unfortunate consequence of these types is that the nature of some are automatically considered to have a negative connotation. The concept of the young African American male brings forth a sense of fear, the nature of his representation in culture being angry and violent. The media represents the young African American male through concepts that have developed through stereotyping that occurs on television, through music videos, and through past prejudices that created the concept of the militant angry young African American youth. In addition, the concepts of the ‘gang youth’ has created an association of young African American men and criminal behavior. Thus, this defined stereotype is the first reaction that many other types have when faced with coming into contact with an unknown person when the only things that are ‘known’ are those things that are imposed upon someone for how they are represented. This, of course, is not limited to the African American male. There are many stereotypes that become prominent in public spaces when encounters are not framed through introductions. Part of the problem is the high level of population condensed into cities in which most of the people have no interconnections to one another. Because the nature of modern life has created smaller and more intimate conditions of community, there are far more strangers in the world than were once part of American life. In addition, with some of the more prominent crime sprees that have happened, including terrorist acts, more people are now considered ‘enemies’ which creates a type of anxiety that ends in a hyper vigilance that performs as a barrier between people. Being open to interactions with strangers leaves one open and vulnerable to ‘dangers’ that are perceived through the many communications that have framed ‘types’ for their ‘inclinations’ towards creating chaos. Prejudice In 1954, Gordon Allport wrote a seminal book on the nature of prejudice and how it affects human relationships. He states as he begins to define the concept of prejudice that “No corner of the world is free from group scorn”, which is an appropriate way in looking at the nature of prejudice. Society groups people into categories in order to impose order upon the integration of multiple cultural backgrounds that ends in differences that can be visually seen in ethnic qualities. The way in which language is used to define groups, by suggesting that someone is African American, Native American, or Asian American, suggests that when someone has ethnic markers, this places them in a different social groups. However, it is important to understand that this is a cultural construction and not a fact of nature that people are different solely due to physical markers of ethnicity. However, these markers are given value which creates prejudice from the sense of ’otherness’ that places people into an attitude in which they do not trust what they do not know. In 2005, Dovidio, Glick and Rudman wrote a book that discussed the work of Allport for its continued importance in discussing the nature of prejudice within the human experience. One of the comments that is made within this book is that despite the importance of the book, there is a consistent set of contradictions that exist within the theories that he presents. The reason that there are so many inconsistencies is because the phenomenon of prejudice is a complex and multivariate set of experiences that are difficult to frame only from one set of values and theories. Prejudice has been developed through as many different concepts as there are people, each having a complexity of social influences that combine to create certain attitudes towards others. The way in which this effects the responses of an individual to unknown members of society becomes framed by the nature of those experiences. Brown frames prejudice as “a group process and as a phenomenon that nevertheless can be analyzed at the level of individual perception, emotion and action” (1). He further goes on to explain that prejudice is developed through a variety of influences that include history, economics, politics, and sociology, in addition to a variety of disciplines that can be included depending on the nature of the experiences that create a prejudice. Literature, family influences, artistic reflection, and so forth can all help to form prejudicial attitudes. However, in all of this, once again it can be stated that prejudice is a created state of mind that exists because of social group formations that are created, rather than actually exist. When considering the most common forms of prejudice, race is usually the more often used excuse for prejudice. Race is a social construct and has nothing to do with any reality other than those created within society. In truth the concept of ’black’ is not a tangible group setting, just as the concept of ’white’ is not a true grouping. These groups are defined by society, not through any form of biological science. In addition, the paradigm of power becomes relevant to the way in which social grouping emerges. According to Moore, “Differential histories of access to natural resources, they argue, shape struggles over social production between state, capital, and community” (5). Therefore, because of the way in which communities have gained powers and become states, then leading to colonialism and the ’conquering’ of ’primitive’ cultures, the nature of prejudice has emerged because of the subjugation of one group over another. In this subjugation evolves resentments and defined attitudes that have informed modern culture on how to frame the stereotypical natures of ’types’, much to the detriment of individuals who are defined within groups in which prejudice against them is a daily experience. Film, Television and Prejudice Unfortunately from a modern perspective, the problem is that through the influence of television, people believe that they do know how a person will behave by seeing what they look like and how they dress. Throughout the history of film, there have been problems with prejudicial stereotyping in which certain ’types’ are framed as dangerous and to be avoided. In the early 20th century, film produced African American characters that were reduced to being unintelligent and without any sense of power. Examples of this can be seen through the ’black face’ characters in the early years of film where dark skin was framed as an objectified state and stripped of adult, intelligent, frameworks of experience. Even after ’black face’ makeup was no longer used, characters such as Prissy from Gone with the Wind perpetuated the dehumanized perception of darker skin. Young discusses the nature of how this affected the experience of the African American in seeing the film . She states “Malcolm X, for one, remembered that ’when Butterfly McQueen went into her act [as Prissy], I felt like crawling under the rug’” (232). The humiliation of seeing someone that represented the culture of African America behave as though she was an inferior species impacted the nature of self-hatred, coupled with the externalized hatred of those who framed African Americans in this manner. Furthermore, the experience of Martin Luther King Jr. with the film emphasizes how this affected the cultural self-esteem. Young states that “The young Martin Luther King Jr. first saw the film when he appeared as one of a group of black children dressed in so called “pickaninny” costume on stage for the entertainment of the all-white audience during the segregated Atlanta premiere of the film” (232). The way in which African Americans were discussed through their actions within the film “The distance from Griffith’s white characters in black face to this humiliating scene was a chronological quarter-century but only an ideological minute” (Young 232). Modern representations have not been successful either in breaking through barriers and defining the African American experience through a more positive association. Characters such as Huggie Bear from Starsky and Hutch, and Rooster, from Baretta in 1970s television gave power to the African American male, but he was working still for Caucasian authority figures and entrenched in criminal associations in which he was framed as the anti-hero (Phillips and Tervalon 57). While it is unfair to suggest that there have been no positive role models from which to associate the nature of African Americans as they are expressed on television, it is always the more negative associations that become a part of the social discourse. This is not solely true for African American males. The concept of the Caucasian male evokes a certain image. When one thinks of the ‘white’ male, two images more often come to mind. The first is of the large, evil corporate head who is working his megalomaniacal plans in order to increase his profits at the expense of the rest of the world. The other is the gun toting redneck whose prejudice is so thick that he can’t see beyond his own world view. Both of these figures carry a great deal fo threat within the nature of their stereotypical representation. White males are blamed for most of the problems of the world, their prejudice and the social histories of conquering other cultures merely for the purposes of profit has produced a negative image of that offender. However, the problem with a stereotype is that while some aspects of it are true through historical reflection, the imposition of this type of character upon the average Caucasian male is unfounded. The same is true about African American males. However, the African American male is still the most feared representation out in the world. This can be attributed to a number of influences, the least of which is not the representations that have merged within the music business. Where ‘street’ is concerned, the African American male youth represents concepts that are found within gang culture, hip hop, and the concept of the retaking of power through criminal activity. Representations of African American male behavior has been introduced into society through the rise of rap music, the nature of the music defined by poetic recitations that describe street life. To exacerbate this situation, a real war existed between East Coast and West Coast rappers. The history of this war begins with a break between the East and West Black Panthers, a rift that was begun through the manipulations of the FBI in trying to break down the power of the group. The son of Afeni Shakur, prominent member of the Black Panthers, Tupac Shakur was a victim of the continuation of that war between which had become a part of the East Coast/West Coast rapper war (Foreman and Neal 331). The mythology of the gangster rapper, a mythology that is based upon actual events, has seeped into the American conscious, thus imposing its ‘nature’ upon the African American male. Differences and Public Treatment What can be observed by understanding the nature of a stereotype is that while the stereotype is based upon individuals that have behaved in such a way to make an impact on culture, the imposition of that behavior upon strangers defines a prejudice that impacts the experience of the individual who has done nothing to earn that imposed set of expectations. In other words, walking on a street and seeing a young African American male should not evoke a feeling of threat. There has been no observed or experienced behavior to impose that threat. However, many people feel that because of cultural mythologies, they must take a protective stance and be more vigilant. The impact of being constantly seen as a threat can create a variety of responses, some of which are precisely in line with the assumptions that are being made. The media has characterized the African American experience through criminality, drug use, absent fathers and prostituting mothers. The constant pressure of this type of a characterization creates low self-esteem and disenfranchising behavior (Harris and Miller 122). The problem with even that much of a conclusion is that it assumes low self-esteem and disenfranchising behavior. These types of assumptions delineate social groups, this perpetuating the idea that group behavior is the same as individual values and character. What is seen through the lens of the extremes that create public awareness, such as the death of Tupac Shakur, suddenly becomes a measure against which the behaviors of those who represent a social group are suddenly guilty. This means that when a person sees a young African American male walking on the street, a sudden bristling may occur, the signs of distrust automatically becoming visible in the movements that are made. The purse is clutched more tightly or the hand moves to check that the wallet is still where it should be within the clothing. The response is to the negative images that are ingrained in the mind of the individual. There is a natural fear that grows from the unknown, and this has been created within society that has suggested that a person represents the unknown. In being cautious, communities have come to a state of mistrust of all of their fellow inhabitants, but more so of those who represent characteristics that evoke stereotypical responses. This impacts the African American community the hardest in that this prejudice and imposition of behavior means that they are targeted by police officers for criminal investigation on a far more frequent basis, thus leading to harsher treatment in general within the legal system. Statistics show that while African American and Caucasian drivers commit the approximate same number of traffic violations, 73.23% of the drivers stopped are African American drivers, while 13.5% were of another racial grouping (Harris 265). This indicates the great disparity that is shown in the treatment of African Americans in comparison to other racial delineations. When the break down of population is considered, the statistics of traffic stops and how it represents police authority in relationship to attention paid to social groups, the information is even more startling. African Americans, according to the 2000 census, only represent 12.3% of the total population (Census 2000). Conclusion The nature of life within a society of multiple ethnic origins, in terms of modern experience, is defined by the social groupings that are made. The unfortunate consequence of this type of social division is that the most prominent negative images will impact how people treat one another. The concept of the stranger will elicit heightened responses to the stereotype, assigning behaviors to an individual who may have never expressed those behaviors, but must live with the condemnation of society in regard to the stereotype identification. It is unfortunate that social relationships cannot heal from highly influential impacts of these types. This means that people will always have to navigate the differences that impede peace and forward advancements in human enlightenment. Until that time, humanity is crippled. Works Cited Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1979. Print. Brown, Rupert. Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print. Census 2000. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin. Census U. S. Government. March 2001. Web. 10 May 2011. Dovidio, John F, Peter S. Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman. On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2005. Print. Foreman, Murray and Mark Anthony Neal. That’s the Joint! The Hip Hop Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print. Harris, David A. “The Statistical Analysis: The Stories, The Statistic, and The Law: Why "Driving While Black" Matters”. Found in Race, Racism and the Law Speaking Truth to Power!!. Minnesota Law Review 84 (1999): 265-326. Harris, Othello, and R R. Miller. Impacts of Incarceration on the African American Family. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2003. Print. Moore, Donald S. Race, Nature, and the Politics of Difference. Durham [u.a.: Duke Univ. Press, 2003. Print. Phillips, Gary, and Jervey Tervalon. The Cocaine Chronicles. New York: Akashic Books, 2005. Print. Young, Elizabeth. Disarming the Nation: Women's Writing and the American Civil War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Print. Read More