Gun violence: The presence of race in police brutality

Take a look at this website: http://copcrisis.com/. “This year, 983 Americans have been killed by cops.” “Cops are indicted in less than 1% of killings, but the indictment rate for Citizens is 90%.” “Only a small fraction of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies track misconduct reports.”

Allegations of the use of excessive force by U.S. police departments continue to make headlines year after year. Ranging from false arrest, to racial profiling, to actual shootings, it seems that every week new names of police violence victims appear in the media. Recall the case of Michael Brown, August 9, 2014. Darren Wilson, a white police officer, shot and killed this unarmed 18 year-old African American boy. Wilson was not indicted. Remember Trayvon Martin, 17 years-old, also an African American boy. Martin had gone to a convenience store to purchase some candy and a drink, and not too long after got in an altercation and was shot. The one who shot him, Zimmerman, was not charged.

How many of these kinds of shootings are justified, and how many of them are motivated by racial biases that result in a quick pull of a trigger? And when these are shown in media, how is each party portrayed? In the case of Michael Brown, there had been an altercation before Brown starting running. When he turned around the officer shot him—several times. Wilson later revealed that he was just “[doing] his job” and the shooting was justified as defensible, not violating Brown’s civil rights. When Trayvon Martin made headlines, Zimmerman was described as a “white Hispanic.” In court he was, similar to Wilson, relatively unscathed. Both instances were made to be a black-white perception divide, however vulnerable to a number of racial biases. Yet, these are only two examples of many. Sometimes it seems as if the criminal justice system targets predominantly on black, brown, and poor people.

So how exactly does race and power affect police brutality? And how does the frequency of such events (as well as the media portrayal) continue to affect our own perceptions of other social identity groups? It’s frustrating to see how race, socioeconomic status, and mental health all seem to result in use of force/higher level of force than really necessary. And even though many of us are told to remain calm and be compliant when confronted by a cop, sometimes it’s not that simple. People get scared when stopped, many might feel like they’ve been wrongfully accused. Others grow up learning to fear the police because they are worried that a certain identity will immediately raise more suspicion and subject them to further inquiry. So many displays of violence appear to reinforce unequal power relations based on race, privilege, wealth, and access.

          
       

Links:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/22/is-police-brutality-color-blind/

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/11/the-number-times-black-people-were-brutalized-by-police-this-year-unknown/

Race, Gender, and the Medical Community

Have you ever heard of the name, Henrietta Lacks? Even if you have never hear of her, you, in some way, have benefited from her.

Her cells were part of research into the genes that cause cancer and those that suppress it; they helped develop drugs for treating herpes, leukemia, influenza, hemophilia, and Parkinson's disease; and they've been used to study lactose digestion, sexually transmitted diseases, appendicitis, human longevity, mosquito mating, and the negative cellular effects of working in sewers (Skloot, p. 4).

Henrietta Lack’s body was placed into the center of gene research, and through this exploitation of her body, her cervix, her cells, “the first immortal human cells ever grown in a laboratory,” were used to develop an infinite amount of medical technologies. For a long time, she remained invisible, and prior to the publication of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot, she was no more than “a black woman” in a picture, who may or may not get mentioned in a classroom for a fleeting moment only to be erased “in one fast swipe” at the end of class. Her cells changed the medical world forever, yet neither she nor her family received the respect that the scientific community should be obliged to give. The medical professionals gave little to no respect to Henrietta as they took her cells, from her cervix, an extremely private and sacred part of the female body, without her knowledge or permission. There was no punishment for the theft of her cell tissue. Moreover, there was not only zero compensation for the cells that became the foundation of human cell research, but also there was no respect given to the person who unwillingly had her body claimed by other people for the gain of so many others with the exclusion of her or her family who knew nothing of the deception until much later.

This robbery is a blatant act of disrespect to a human being; it was not until after they had exploited her did anyone recognize her humanity. Not long after her death, the scientists, who had already stolen her cell tissue while she was alive, returned to collect more samples for their testing. In that moment, one of the scientists recognizes that their test subject is a real person. She explains to Skloot that she saw the shipped toenail polish and thought, “Oh jeez, she's a real person… it hit me for the first time that those cells we'd been working with all this time and sending all over the world, they came from a live woman. I'd never thought of it that way.” She was not considered a person, nor was she respected as human being. Many factors play into this, primarily her race and gender, because of the double jeopardy of being not only a woman but also a woman of color, a black woman. Medical professionals were able to take advantage of Henrietta Lacks because of her lack of social power as a woman. She was used for other people’s gain, even by women people of color; “black scientists and technicians, many of them women, used cells from a black woman to help save the lives of millions of Americans, most of them white. Furthermore, for the researchers, it was better to exploit a black woman than animals because “monkeys were expensive.” In other words, there was little care for the ethics of the situation because money is/was the main incentive and focus, and working on Henrietta Lacks, without her permission, was better because she was unknowing and free, where as monkeys were protected and costly. Leaving Henrietta powerless and voiceless.

In closing, the Lacks family, due to their race and the inequality between people of color and white people, did not have the social capital to access knowledge about medicine. And through this fundamental imbalance of power, white medical professionals were able to take advantage of black people. The scientific community took advantage of Henrietta Lack’s lower position in society as a black woman as well as her family for the gain of others.

Today, Henrietta Lacks is widely known as the “black woman whose body, they say, was exploited by white scientists.” In a perfect world, the Lacks family would receive monetary compensation for not only exploitation of Henrietta Lacks but also the invasion of the family’s privacy. However realistically, I highly doubt that the family will get compensation of that sort. If nothing else, the Lacks deserve respect and recognition for all that they have endured and what their family member has done for the field of medicine. In the words of Sunny Lacks, “I'm proud of my mother and what she done for science. I just hope Hopkins and some of the other folks who benefited off her cells will do something to honor her and make right with the family.”



Here's some helpful links for more information about the book and Henrietta Lacks.
http://rebeccaskloot.com/the-immortal-life/
https://youtu.be/1vow1ePzuqo
http://www.biography.com/people/henrietta-lacks-21366671

References
Brinker, Wendy. "James Marion Sims; Father Butcher by Wendy Brinker." James Marion Sims; Father Butcher by Wendy Brinker. Web. 5 Oct. 2015. <http://www.whale.to/a/brinker.html>.
Pappas, Stephanie. "7 Absolutely Evil Medical Experiments." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 28 Feb. 2011. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.
Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown, 2010. Print.
Spettel, Sara, and Mark Donald White. "The Portrayal of J. Marion Sims' Controversial Surgical Legacy." The Journal of Urology: 2424-427. Print.

The History of Racism in our Healthcare System.

            Throughout history, there have been several incidents that have exposed the structural and institutional racism within our healthcare system.   The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, and the development of the HeLa cell are all examples of how these racist undertones have manifested themselves.  Over time, the black community has internalized their oppression by our healthcare system.  To this day black citizens are much less likely to seek medical help for their issues then white citizens. 

            The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment took place between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama conducted by the US Public Health Service.  Around 600 participants were enrolled in the study.  The participants were black sharecroppers who were given free health care, meals, and burial insurance.  The study was conducted to record the natural progression of untreated syphilis.  A little over half of the participants had syphilis before the experiment, and the rest were injected with it.  The participants were not told that they had been injected with syphilis, let alone that they were purposely not being treated for it.  The lack of informed consent, communication of diagnosis, and treatment opened up a large ethical debate and scarred the black community.  The majority of the participants, 40 wives, and 19 children died as a result of the experiment. 

            The medical community continued to profit off of the exploitation of black patients after the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment began.  Henrietta Lacks, a black woman living outside Baltimore, was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1951 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Henrietta underwent treatment for her cancer at Hopkins, but was kept in the dark about what all the tests, procedures, and treatments she was undergoing.  She was never told what “cancer” meant, nor was she told that the treatments would leave her infertile.  Without Henrietta’s informed consent, doctors at Hopkins took a sample of her tumor during her biopsy.  Her cells, renamed “HeLa” went on to become the first immortal human cell. 

HeLa cells were the first cells to be mass produced and sold, and were used in countless studies.  Research on HeLa cells led to massive medical developments, including the polio vaccine and the discovery that humans have 46 chromosomes.  Henrietta’s cells launched a billion dollar industry, and many profited immensely.  However, her family was never notified of the existence of the HeLa cell, and was kept in the dark when doctors came knocking on their door asking for blood samples.  To this day, although their DNA is often referred to as the most important development in modern medicine, the Lacks family cannot even afford to see doctors, let alone any of the drugs created because of HeLa.  

 Henrietta Lacks never received any recognition for her contribution to science.  There is no way to know how exactly Henrietta would have been treated if she had been white or male.  Perhaps she would have been treated the same, or perhaps she would have been declared a hero of science.  If HeLa had come from a white man, it certainly would have made for a more romantic and glamorous story.  Perhaps his doctors would have had more open communication with him.  Perhaps he would have been comfortable voicing his discomfort. Perhaps the media would have painted him as a sort of martyr, dying in the name of science.

While such blatant displays of racism are no longer present in our healthcare system, the events of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and the exploitation of Henrietta Lacks still haven an effect on the relationship between our healthcare system and the black community.  There is still a distrust of the healthcare system ingrained in the black community.  Institutional and structural racism is still very present in the healthcare system as informed consent and accessibility continue to be issues,

Multicultural ideals and Sizeism in the Workplace

Multicultural body image, emergence of “sizeism” and fat shaming in our society has immensely influenced how I view myself and how I feel like our society portrays minorities, especially minority women. Something that really irks me and something I want to change in terms of institutional and in turn structural discrimination. 

The problem with size and appearance discrimination is unlike most of the identities we talk about in class, it isn’t binary; size is fluid, relative, and is valued differently in different cultures. From my experience as an Indian-American, women are often discriminated in the acting and modeling industry completely shuts down women of certain skin colors, having a stick thin body is considered “sick.” Yet, “ethnic” beauty and the exotic look is seen as sexualized in American media, which is mostly geared towards caucasian, middle and upper class communities. Lip plumping, injections, and darkening of eyebrows are common procedures taken by middle and upper class white women. Thus, women of color are seen as inferior, yet white people who carry the “exotic” features of our cultures are praised and sexualized. 

The intersection of size and race is multifaceted. Regardless of Race or Ethnicity, multiple studies (one I have linked to below) show that the vast majority of employers look down upon job prospects who are “overweight,” often citing being viewed as “less productive” and “unable to fulfill the role in business.” Even more concerning is that women, particularly white women, are judged more harshly by employers, while African-American women are judged, but judged less harshly by African American employers, due to cultural acceptance and ideals being of being more “curvy” and “voluptuous.” Thus, people of color are judged within their culture, and with the caucasian ideals of women and men. 

Institutionally, Michigan is the only state that has laws that ban weight discrimination (hooray)! Nevertheless, 49 states don’t have any legislation that addresses this concern. Deeper concerns rise with company maintenance, as insurance costs for overweight and obese people are significantly hire, costing the company more to equate employee benefits. 

In essence, our society views the “ideal” body as more powerful and a more productive member of society. What is ideal varies from race to race, yet is still a tool of oppression. Companies are discriminating, ostracizing certain ideals, and creating a sense of shame of the body in order to “cut costs.” But are companies really saving money, or are they missing out on talent due to discrimination? 

Suggested posts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/fat-discrimination-women-experiences-size-prejudice_n_3308012.html 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11522021/Nearly-half-of-employers-unlikely-to-hire-overweight-workers.html 

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/05/21/408414783/is-the-war-on-fat-harming-our-children 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/09/13/ethnic.beauty/ 

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/21/health-weight-career-forbeslife-cx_avd_0521health.html 

Sizeism Blog Post

In IGR classes, we have the opportunity to talk about all of the “isms”...but sizeism is one that doesn’t always get a lot of attention. From things like not being hired because of your size, to people making comments and assumptions about your health (whether you are “too think” or “too large”). Sizeism and issues surrounding body image are real and well in today’s society. I am going to focus on two current forms of size discrimination in retail.

The first of these current events is one of Urban Outfitter’s many controversial shirts. This retailer has been know to make controversial items in the past, but the one specifically related to sizeism is the grey v-neck that features the phrase “Eat Less” on the front. Actress Sophia Bush, after hearing about the shirt, decided to boycott Urban Outfitters and all of their products and make a public display of her discontent with the content of the shirt. In an open letter to Urban Outfitters, Bush expressed disbelief that the company would’ve voted “yes” on such a design.

    In lieu of her passion against Urban Outfitters, she sported a shirt that says “0 is not a size”. Though I understand that she is trying to give support to bigger women (which is problematic in itself that she is only acknowledging body image with women), I feel that this shirt does not give people a more positive body image, however only ostracizes a different group of people. For example, there are many people who wear a size zero naturally and would love to gain weight but aren’t able to for a variety of reasons. Or, in my own process of recovery from an eating disorder, there have been several times where size zero pants were even a little loose on me - the message that Sophia Bush is sending would not have been empowering if I saw this while I was in that stage of my recovery.  To me, it feels as though people trying to make positive body image campaigns, end up just trying to shift feelings of inadequacy to other groups of people. If having a washboard stomach isn’t “in” anymore, then it means I have to have really big curves.

A second current issue I would like to mention, is that of Abercrombie and Fitch and their refusal to sell size 10 and larger clothing. Additionally, they will not sell XL or XXL clothing for women because they don’t want women of that size wearing their clothing. It is rumored that they’ve kept XL and XXL Men’s sizes on the shelves in hopes of having bulky and muscular men wear their clothes. Furthermore, to keep their image, Abercrombie will not donate clothes that are damaged, but burn them to avoid people experiencing homelessness wearing their clothing. It is impossible to ignore that decisions like these not only disproportionately affect people of size, but discriminates against people of color who are more affected by homelessness than white folks.

The CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch was questioned about why they would make this decision even though the average size of a woman in the US is a 14. He responded by saying that “A lot of people don’t belong in their clothes” and that they were “absolutely” exclusionary. “We want to hire cool, good looking people”, he further stated. Actress Kristy Allen took a stance against Abercrombie saying that she would never buy clothes from Abercrombie and that she is learning how to love the way she looks now after 30 years of people telling her in Hollywood how she “should” look.

Though I would love to say that Abercrombie and Fitch and Urban Outfitters are just “behind the times” I think that issues like this are more prevalent than we tend to notice. Size discrimination and prejudice takes place in more than just retail clothing stores. It happens in the workplace, at restaurants, in daily interactions, the list goes on. However, I always think the first step to social change is realizing that there actually is a problem, and to move forward from there.

Articles for reading (some linked above):

Urban Outfitter’s:

http://www.mtlblog.com/2013/09/sophia-bush-declares-war-on-urban-outfitters/

http://www.hawkhillnews.com/article/2014/09/urban-outfitters-contro

Abercrombie and Fitch:

http://www.businessinsider.com/abercrombie-wants-thin-customers-2013-5

http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-and-inclusion/size-matters-for-abercrombie-fitch/