Prison Labor: The New Convict Leasing

One "bloc" of my Junior Theme, which attempts to answer the question "Why are there so many African American people in jail," focuses on prison labor, the use of prisoners by companies for cheap labor. This practice is not a new phenomenon. It is rooted in slavery.

The history of prison labor goes back to the 1800's, at the beginnings of convict leasing. Post-emancipation, Southern states found that "commerce and transportation had collapsed" and "The railroads and levees lay in ruins" (Oshinsky 12). Additionally, many whites were angry and didn't know how to deal with the newly-freed African American population; they needed a new, formal way to control the free African Americans. "An extensive system was created in the South in order to maintain the racial and economic relationship of slavery" (Khalek 3). Convict leasing was born. Thousands of ex-slaves were imprisoned for the smallest of infractions and forced to "suffer and die under conditions far worse than anything they had experienced as slaves" (Oshinsky 35) for decades to come.

The post-emancipation practice of convict leasing bears shocking resemblance to the present-day practice of prison labor. Today, "private companies have a cheap, easy labor market... large corporations increasingly employ prisoners as a source of cheap and sometimes free labor" (Khalek 2). Prison labor, like convict leasing, is an extremely profitable practice that can be even cheaper for companies than the use of third-world sweatshops (Khalek 1). Both force convicts to work for nearly nothing, with harsh consequences for not complying, completely legally. Convict leasing allowed private plantations cheap labor and maximum profit; prison labor allows private companies to do the same thing.

Prison labor produces the same results as convict leasing did in the years after emancipation, though the legislation has changed with the times. Just as convict leasing was used as a new way to control the African American population, so too does the practice of prison labor. A shocking number of African Americans are imprisoned today as a way to continue this cycle of control, and as a means of cheap labor and for private companies to maximize profit.

One "bloc" of my Junior Theme, which attempts to answer the question "Why are there so many African American people in jail," focuses on prison labor, the use of prisoners by companies for cheap labor. This practice is not a new phenomenon. It is rooted in slavery. 

Inevitable Bias

For my Junior Theme I have been doing research in an attempt to begin to answer the question: Why are there so many African American people in jail? One potential reason I came across is very simple: bias. 

There are two kinds of bias: subconcious and conscious bias. The latter, what I refer to as "conscious bias," is perhaps not really bias at all, it is more choosing to target someone based on their race, but for lack of a better term, that's what I'll call it. The police must make "strategic choices about whom to target and what tactics to employ" (Alexander 104); there simply isn't enough time or resources to target every community, to do random traffic checks on every car. So, the law enforcement must choose specific neighborhoods and specific people to target. In the War on Drugs in particular, African American communities have been targeted by police at an alarmingly disproportionate rate compared to white neighborhoods. 

According to the NAACP, "5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites." Why? Because African Americans are the ones getting caught and arrested by the police. In Milwaukee County, "approximately two thirds of incarcerated African American males came from six zip codes in the poorest neighborhoods in the City of Milwaukee" (Milwaukee Courier). It is clear that police are targeting the poorest African Americans in the War on Drugs, which explains why African Americans are being arrested for drug crimes at a much higher rate than whites, but why are they targeted? This is where subconscious bias comes in.

In her book "The New Jim Crow," Michelle Alexander talks about a survey conducted in 1995, where a group of people were all asked the same question: "Would you close your eyes for a second, envision a drug user, and describe the person to me?" Ninety-five percent of responders pictured an African American drug user (Alexander 106). Media, especially once the War on Drugs began, taught the public that "drug crime is black anf brown" (Alexander 107). Law enforcement officials are not immune to this subconscious bias that labels people of color as drug criminals; they target poor African American neighborhoods because their subconscious tells them that that is where there are the most drug criminals, even if that is not the truth.

Racial bias is inevitable; "You hold negative attitudes and stereotypes about blacks, even though you do not believe you do and do not want to" (Alexander 107). In their report called "Seeing Black: Race, Crime, and Visual Processing," researchers Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, and Davies contend that "the mere presence of a person can lead one to think about the concepts with which that person's social group has become associated with." First, we must realize that this bias is inevitable, even in a system such as the criminal justice system that promises fair punishment for all people. Once we admit this, then what? What can be done to change this?

The Birth Of "The New Jim Crow"

For my Junior Theme, I have started to research the topic of mass incarceration in the United States, particularly focusing on the fact that there are a disproportionate number of African Americans in prison today- why? Through my preliminary research, I have found that there is a (surprisingly) large amount of history around this issue. The controlling of African Americans has been around for centuries; the method of doing it simply changes as society and the law changes. In the words of Michelle Alexander, "African Americans repeatedly have been controlled through institutions such as slavery and Jim Crow, which appear to die, but then are reborn in new form, tailored to the needs and constraints of the time."

Although prison may seem completely unrelated to slavery at the surface- we imprison people of all ages, genders, and races- the industry has deep ties to slavery in the United States- some would even argue that it is a result of it. Slavery was first introduced because white people needed cheap laborers. However, after slavery was abolished, "the idea of race lived on" (Alexander 26). Slavery essentially established an idea of racial superiority in the minds of the white people; they soon found they needed another way to control the African American population. Thus, another system of legally controlling African Americans.

The birth of mass incarceration started in the years and decades after the end of the Jim Crow South. In these years, "reported street crime quadrupled and homicide rates nearly doubled" (Alexander 41). Almost understandably, "the public debate shifted focus from segregation to crime" (Alexander 43); white people blamed the black people. Also at this time, an alarming number of black men were unemployed; the solution was to sell crack cocaine. This "crack epidemic" was used as a way for the Reagan Administration to dramatically increase funding and media for the War on Drugs, and "build public and legislative support for the war" (Alexander 5). This media frenzy surrounding the crack cocaine epidemic essentially turned the War on Drugs into an actual war.

The War on Drugs was allegedly declared to, in the words of President Nixon, crack down on "public enemy number one." (Although at the time the war was declared, "less than 2 percent of the American public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the nation" (Alexander 49).) The cause seems good, as drugs are clearly bad. However, this war was clearly intented to "crack down on" the African American population moreso than the white population. The punishments for crimes related to crack- associated with African Americans- were made much harsher than the punishments for crimes related to powder cocaine- associated with whites (Alexander 53). Why? Perhaps because the United States needed a new way to systematically control the African American population. (Of course, all legislation was formally race-neutral and did not involve intentional race discrimination.)

As the War on Drugs became more popular in the media and received much more funding, the prison population boomed: "The Clintion Administration... policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history" (Alexander 56). African Americans were being imprisoned at an alarming rate("Ninety percent of those admitted to prison for drug offenses in many states were black or Latino" at the turn of the century (Alexander 58), although, as I stated above, all legislation was formally race-neutral. This is perhaps because following the end of slavery and the Jim Crow South, white people needed another way to systematically control African Americans. It's a cycle. In the words of Michelle Alexander, "the New Jim Crow was born." 

The Power of the "N-Word"

This past week in American Studies class, while discussing Junot Diaz's The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, the topic of the "n-word" came up. Is it okay for white people to use this word? Is it okay for anyone to use this word, and if so, when? Personally, every time I hear the word I cringe. It hurts my ears. Here's why.

First of all, the "n-word" is extremely offensive and, to me, blantantly racist. In the words of Abiola Abrams, author of "The Sacred Bombshell Handbook of Self-Love," award-winning blogger, and 'Dare' speaker, "I just don't understand why white people want to use the n-word." The word started out as "negro," and in the 17th century, turned to "the n-word" as an intentional, explicit, derogatory towards African Americans. Now, in the era of extreme political correctedness and colorblindess, the word has become the ultimate insult, and is one of the most offensive words I can think of.

Secondly, the power of language. (This is something we talk a lot about in American Studies, too). Language is the most powerful tool we have, which is something some people don't understand. When teachers tell young kids that "words hurt," they're right. Words give people the power to "name" other people, and names are what define us. Calling someone the n-word is literally giving them that name, they are forced to believe that they are that insult, they are that name. Language is powerful, and in the words of Abiola Abrams, it has reprocussions. Let's think about how we use it.

In your opinion, is it ever okay for one to use the "n-word?" If so, who, and under what circumstances?

Gun Control in the U.S.: What It Really Means

This past Tuesday, States United To Prevent Gun Violence, a group of gun-control activists, set up a fake gun store in an attempt to show potential buyers the true dangers of guns. The facts made potential buyers think twice about buying a gun, and perhaps changed some minds about gun control in the United States. “It made me actually think, ‘I’m not going to buy that gun,'” said one customer after the true purpose of the fake gun store was revealed. Some would say these gun control activists took things a bit too far, but their intentions were true. Perhaps the United States should think a little more about our laws regarding gun control and what allowing civilians to carry guns truly means for the safety of our country. 

According to FBA data, "410 Americans were 'justifiably killed'" by police in 2012. 409 commited by guns. In the same year in Britain, police shot total of three times. In fact, with the exception of Northern Irelanhd, police only carry firearms in the United Kingdom under special circumstances. Why are these numbers so drastically different? Perhaps in part because of the difference in gun control laws in the United States and the United Kingdom. 

In the United States, more than a third of the population reports that either they or someone in their household owns a gun. In contrast, only about 6.7 percent of people in the United Kingdom own firearms. This means that the police force in the United States is under a much higher risk of facing civilians with guns, and therefore potentially having to shoot in self defense. The police force in the United Kingdom does not come in contact with nearly as many civilians with guns and shootings, and therefore have to shoot at civilians much less often. It seems to me that perhaps letting the American civilian population own guns is not really protecting them, it is backfiring. 

How would the statistics be different if gun control laws changed in the United States? What do gun control laws really mean to the American civilian population?

"Role Models Not Runway Models"

Last month, Jamie Brewer, famous for her acting in American Horror Story, made the headlines as the first model with Down Syndrome to walk in New York Fashion Week. This was a huge step in showing all women that they are beautiful, that they can look amazing in the clothing shown in Fashion Week. What's amazing, though, is the designer whose clothes Brewer modeled, Carrie Hammer. Her mission was to "feature role models over actually runway models." (Her line is actually called "Role Models Not Runway Models," and inspiring and empowering women from around the world are featured as models.) She did just that, and what an amazing impact her message had on the nation.

When Hammer was asked to show her designs at New York Fashion Week last year, she chose to use her own clients instead of real runway models. This included Danielle Sheypuk, the first model in a wheelchair to be featured in Fashion Week, and other models varying in height, weight, and ethnicity.

Jamie Brewer walking in Fashion Week

Carrie Hammer's mission to include real clients of all types modeling her clothing means so much to me and women throughout the world. As I said before, she has shown women that everyone can wear the clothes they see in Fashion Week, that everyone can feel beautiful.  Most importantly, though, Hammer has shown the world that a woman's image does not define them; it is only a small part of who they are. What's most important is a person's mind, what they do with their life, and who they are inside. Hammer realizes this and it is reflected in her models and clothing line.

It's Okay

In American Studies class on Friday, we discussed Frank Bruni's article "How to Survive the College Admissions Madness," which was in the New York Times on March 13th. (If you haven't read it yet, please do so now before reading my opinions on it). Perhaps because I find myself perpetually stressing over grades and the ACT and college, I found the topic that Bruni struggles with important and relevent. However, I do not agree with some of his points.

This article tells the story of two young students, Peter Hart and Jenna Leahy, as a way of showing that "it's okay to get rejected." Bruni first tells us Hart's story- rejected from his dream schools, he attended Indiana University for college. But it's okay that he got rejected, because he eventually made it to Harvard. Believe me, I think it's great that Hart eventually got to Harvard and thrived. But I think that, for the sake of high school students stressing out about college, we need to realize that it's also great that he got into Indiana University in the first place. Not everyone can go to the Ivy's, and there are other great schools. Yes, it's okay to be rejected, like Bruni says, but it's also okay to never make it to the Ivy's, to never be the elite-elite of the country.

Bruni then goes on to tell Jenna Leahy's story. Leahy was rejected from her top choice schools, and ended up attending Scripps College. Bruni goes on to explain how Leahy accepted and eventually thrived and took risks because of her previous rejection from elite schools. He quotes her as saying "I never would have had the strength, drive, or fearlessness to take suck a risk if I hadn't been rejected so intensely before." This is great, but again I feel that Bruni is patronizing "the rejection" too much. It seems much more understandable that Leahy's success stemmed from her high quality education at Scripps College, not from her rejection of highly selective, elite schools.

I get where Frank Bruni is coming from, and I think his intentions are good; it is okay to be rejected. However, I believe that we need to realize that highly selective, elite schools aren't the only good schools in the world. It's perfectly okay to go to schools like Indiana Univserity. In fact, it's great; it's more than most of the world gets to do.