Author: johnson.6657

Week 15, Contextual Research Presentation: Neo-colonialism

by

Most of us understand what colonialism is. But what is neo-colonialism? The Britannica Dictionary defines neo-colonialism as “the control of less-developed countries by developed countries through indirect means”. (Halperin, 2020) Essentially, we are talking about modern day colonialism. This term is most often used when economic power is taken from a region (even if the region is independent) and is given to those of foreign countries, taking away economic freedom and shaping politics. An example of this economic power is the tourism industry.

Tourism seems like an industry that would help places such as the Caribbean Islands in the sense that it creates jobs for locals and brings cash flow from those enjoying their vacation. However, the primary institutions of the tourism industry such as airlines, tour operators, cruise ships, travel agents and hotels are majority owned, controlled and managed by larger outside corporations from larger countries. (Graham, 2021)

When discussing neo-colonialism, the topic of racism may come up for some. In the studies of journalist Polly Pattullo, it is suggested that many of the issues in the tourism industry are deeply rooted in slavery and colonialism in the sense that people of color in these countries are making a living through serving white tourist. With tourism being the main financial resource for small islands, it leaves native people of color with only menial jobs. Pattullo goes as far as to explain that the predominantly white American tourists bring their own racist attitudes and behavior on vacation with them, and locals often find themselves being dehumanized, treated as objects of fascination, and unwelcome on their own beaches and hotels. (Williams, 2012)

The consequences neo-colonialism on places such as the Caribbean over time can be understood through the reading of Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place. Tourism in Antigua as described in this book is a perfect example of a form of neo-colonialism. The harmful history is colonialism from the British has heightened their economic dependency on tourism and government corruption rooted in an oppressive history.

 

 

Halperin, S. (2020, May 6). neocolonialism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/neocolonialism

Graham, M., & Dadd, U. L. (2021). Deep-colonising narratives and emotional labour: Indigenous tourism in a deeply-colonised place. Tourist Studies, 21(3), 444–463. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1177/1468797620987688

Williams, T.R. (2012). Tourism as a Neo-colonial Phenomenon: Examining the Works of Pattullo & Mullings.

The Hate U Give: Text Review Assignment

by

The Hate U Give (an acronym for “thug”) is a powerful book and movie centering on social justice for African Americans in the
United States. Throughout this movie, the population facing discrimination and unfair treatment is specifically African Americans. There are many characters within this movie that experience discrimination based on their race, class, and gender. The main character, Starr Carter, not only witnesses discrimination towards her family and friends throughout the movie, but also experiences it first hand many times. The entire movie is centered around a basic police traffic stop ending in the fatal shooting of Starr’s childhood friend Khalil.

We see examples of “othering”in the plot of the story when Star and Khalil get pulled over by a police officer late at night and the officer makes the assumption that Starr, a young Black woman, is a prostitute, and that hairbrush being picked up by Khalil, a young black man, is a gun. The officer, who is a white male, not from the neighborhood Starr and Khalil are from, made discriminatory assumptions about these children who did not fit his category of what high schoolers leaving a local party to go home for the night look like.

This movie shows the intersectionality of Starr, facing the realities of being a young women, Black, living in the hood, but also attending a wealthy private school. Real life examples of discrimination in her daily life are displayed through  microagressions and racist comments. The ultimate theme of the movie relates to our module on “Can The Subaltern Speak” earlier in the semester. As news media and protests break out over the fatal shooting of Khalil, the nation seems to be split between communities of color and white people in power. As the decision to not even take the officer to trial is made, it brings up the question of whether these communities of color facing unjustified police killings will ever be heard, or will those in power continue to dismiss cases and protect its own.

I think that this was an extremely powerful movie that sends a message that will leave audiences reflecting on their own personal beliefs and behaviors. I think the author wants us to think about both side of stories like these and inspire conversation around power and injustice. For this movie to show the policing system through the lens of the African American community, white communities, and through the perspective of Starr’s uncle, a Black cop, can really challenge our thoughts, regardless of ones personal or political affiliations. You can turn on the news and see almost identical stories to this one weekly, which make it even more personal and relevant for us to challenge our ideas and fight for social change and justice for communities facing unjust treatment.

Yo… Is This Oppressive? – Yo, Is This… Podcast (J. Johnson)

by

Yo… Is This Oppressive?: TRANSCRIPT

Welcome to today’s podcast, my name is Jaylen Johnson, and we’re here to discuss… Yo, Is This Oppressive?

 What is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the words “Voter Suppression?”

  • Perhaps you think of limited polling locations in certain neighborhoods
  • Maybe you think of voter registration restrictions and strict ID laws
  • If you know a thing or two about congressional maps and gerrymandering, you might think about how legislators redraw district lines in favor of their political party

While those are all very real issues affecting a variety of populations across the United States, we’re going to discuss a different focus, a topic that I don’t hear about too much surround the issue of voter suppression.

Before we get started, let’s ask ourselves two important questions.

First,

  • Do all U.S. citizens, 18 years of age and older, deserve the right to vote?

Second,

  • Are there instances in which the right to vote can justifiably be striped away from a U.S citizen, 18 years of age and older?

Some of us might have to think about that question for a second… “What about those that experience severe mental illness?  Or those that are domestic threats??”

Others might not have to think it over at all “Voting is a birth right regardless of the situation!”

Maybe you’re somewhere in-between, or unsure.

Wherever your thoughts and opinions are, this decision has already been made for millions of Americans. Today, where going to dive deep into the subject of Felony Disenfranchisement, or in other words, voting laws that deprive convicted felons from participating in elections.

Let break down the facts.

  • As of 2020, 5.2 million Americans were prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses.
  • Of this 5.2 million, 75% of disenfranchised voters (that’s about 2.2 million) have already completed their sentence and live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision. This means that only 25% of those that cannot vote are actually IN prison

(Chung, 2021)

I’ll add that felony disenfranchisement does vary by state, and over the past few years there have been state governments that have or are attempting to restore voting right to its felons on conditional terms.

So, what do we think about this?

It this fair?

Do certain crimes deem a person incompetent or unworthy of voting?

Can felons be trusted to make good decisions at the polls?

I, for one, wonder how these laws and policies even came about. This whole topic brings up memories from high school American History classes, where we learned about the Jim Crow era and legislators trying to block Black Americans newly won right to vote by enforcing poll taxes, literacy tests, and other barriers that were nearly impossible to meet.

And that brings my mind to another question: are there certain populations being disproportionately effected by these laws?

We often hear that Black and Hispanic people face harsher sentences than white people for the same offenses, so could felony charges that strip away voting rights be affecting these populations at a higher rate?

Well, a quick Google search answered this question for me. It turns out that communities of color ARE disproportionately being affected. Black Americans of voting age are nearly FOUR TIMES more likely to lose their voting rights than the rest of the adult population. (Chung, 2021)

That brings us even more food for thought…

On top of being a debate on the systemic injustice of American voter suppression, is there reason to be concerned about systemic injustice against Black and brown people, specifically?

I’ll let you all answer that for yourselves, but lets get back to the basics.

When a person receives a felony conviction as a result of a crime, we all know that it comes with multiple consequences that ultimately follow a person for years, even after they have served their time in prison; but is the long-term consequence losing ones right to vote in election oppressive?

What is oppression? Let’s look at a few definitions.

  • The Webster dictionary defines oppressions as “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power”
  • The Cambridge dictionary defines it as “a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom”
  • Or my favorite version, found in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, states the oppression, is “the social act of placing severe restrictions on an individual, group, or institution. Typically, a government or political organization in power places restrictions formally or covertly on oppressed groups so they may be exploited and less able to compete with other social groups. The oppressed individual or group is devalued, exploited, and deprived of privileges by the individual or group who has more power.

After reviewing the meaning of oppression, lets take a moment to evaluate…

Do we think our government is overstepping their authority by prohibiting a specific population, in this case referring to convicted felons, from voting?

Well, according to the definition, that would mean that the government devalues felons and is using their power to treat felons unjustly, restricting them from having freedoms, all while exploiting this population in doing so.

I was surprised to see the term “exploiting” in one of the definitions of oppression.

This would mean that in saying felons are being oppressed when it comes to voting rights, we also suggesting that they are being taken advantage in a way that benefits our government.

But what could our government benefit from in keeping 5.2 million Americans prohibited from voting?

That’s a heavy question that I’m sure we all have opinions on.

My first thought is, perhaps politicians make assumptions about what political party the majority of felons identify with.

Maybe certain political party’s make the assumption that felons have lower education rates, so would prefer they don’t have an input that could effect their wins.

Or maybe certain political party’s assume that felons are more likely to be poor and vote for more aid and assistance programs.

Maybe there are political parties that assume felons will vote against politicians that support the privatization of prisons after their potential negative personal experiences.

I don’t know what politicians assume, but I do know that 5.2 million votes are A LOT of votes. It’s enough to change the entire course of not only local elections, but national and presidential election results as well. And I also know that, well; exploitation in the name of political gain is nothing new to American.

So, let take it all the way back to our original questions.

  • Do all U.S. citizens 18 years of age and older deserve the right to vote?
  • Are there instances in which the right to vote can justifiably be striped away from a U.S citizen, 18 years of age and older?

After bouncing all of these thoughts and ideas around, do you find yourself answering these questions differently?

Personally, I believe that once a felon has served their sentence, they should be eligible to vote. I think that felony disenfranchisement is a violation of a person’s inherent right, as well as an example of systemic injustice disproportionately affecting Black people.

I even lean towards giving those still IN prison serving time the right to vote. I mean, laws, policies, and government leaders are still actively affecting their lives too, so why shouldn’t they be voting?

I’m not here to say my opinion is the right opinion, but regardless of your opinion on this matter, it’s necessary that we all stand for what we believe to be just. When we see certain systems or practices that are confusing or don’t sit right with us, it is important to have conversations that explore and educate said issue, even if there is no resolution.

That being said, what do YOU conclude? Is felony disenfranchisement, or in other words, voting laws that deprive convicted felons from participating in elections, a form of systemic injustice that is oppressive?

Feel free to answer this question and share your opinions in the comments.

Thank you for listening.

 

References

Chung, J. (2021, July 28). Voting Rights in the Era of Mass Incarceration: A Primer. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/felony-disenfranchisement-a-primer/

Diary of Systemic Injustices Showcase – Voter Suppression

by

Voter suppression is term we have heard often over the past few years. Today I would like to discuss the disenfranchisement, or deprived voting rights, against criminals and felons who have served their sentence. I learned about this issue when reading a news article on the American Civil Liberty Union’s (ACLU) website on the disenfranchisement of felons. When a person receives a felony conviction as a result of a crime, it comes with multiple consequences that ultimately follow a person for years, even after they have served their time in prison. One of these long-term consequences includes losing their right to vote in elections. Depending on the state a person lives in; they can be banned from voting while incarcerated as well. This article insightfully mentions how the criminal justice system disproportionately affects Black and Brown people, meaning that these laws are disproportionately suppressing Black and Brown votes. There is a correlation here that these laws blocking felons from voting while incarcerated, and after the sentence is served, is rooted in the Jim Crow era, when Black Americans votes were suppressed through poll taxes and literacy tests. After learning this information, voter suppression sounds like a clear violation of a persons rights, and an example of systemic injustice. This article made me think about the class reading of “Can The Subaltern Speak?”. It made me wonder if felons, who are human that deserve to be heard, will ever have a voice that people with higher power socially and politically will ever be willing to listen to. Felons are a population that have historically been labeled as “less than” other groups because of their past actions, which could make them a subaltern. In the discussion of voter suppression, this is power dynamic that gives one population a voice to control over another population who have no say, Because felons cannot vote in most states, they cannot use their voice or be heard because the power dynamic deems them unworthy of voting. Using Spivak’s idea, those who fall on the oppressed side of examples cannot speak because these are groups that are socially and/or politically excluded from the hierarchy of power. But who is to say that felons don’t deserve the right to vote during/after their sentence? If local and national laws and policies are still affecting felons, then shouldn’t they have a say in their State and Country issues/representatives in elections? Below is a video of personal testimonies from individuals who have been incarcerated and have lost their rights to vote.

References

American Civil Liberties Union (2021, August 18). Block the Vote: How Politicians are Trying to Block Voters from the Ballot Box. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/

The Sentencing Project (2020, October 14). Free The Vote. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCeNFeMuoAM&t=254s