In the 21st century, African-Americans enjoy more equality and freedom in the United States than ever before. However, in just the past few years, issues of civil rights have once again come to the forefront. The ruinous relationship between young black men and law enforcement has rapidly ascended to the height of public discourse and consciousness–at a level not seen since the 1960s and 1970s. Although there has been robust discussion regarding police-minority relations, a more comprehensive discussion of institutional racism in the media and the black identity it contrives has seldom been had.

Many theorize that this black identity may be a significant impediment to economic mobility within the black community, especially when many black boys will grow up either wanting to be like Michael Jordan or Tupac Shakur. Achieving that level of fame in athletics and music is clearly difficult to accomplish, so when these boys don’t make it, criminality can become a third path that is both viable and desirable. Critics of the black identity argue that possibly it is the legacy of the past that is reinforcing these career paths and preventing progress. Read on to learn about this criticism of the modern black identity, its roots in slavery, and its perpetuation in the media.

Athletics

Courtesy of Cliff via Flickr

Succeeding in sports, particularly basketball and football, is a status symbol in American society as a whole, but even more so in the black community. As John Milton Hoberman states, “the celebration of black athleticism as a source of clan pride exists on a scale most people do not comprehend.” Athletic greats like Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Jim Brown and many other black athletes enjoy a high level of reverence in their cultural community and function as role models for young black males. From a young age black males, many of whom live in areas of poverty, view these athletes and their humble backgrounds as a way out of poverty and the ghetto. They then begin to define themselves in terms of their athletic ability.

As Professors S. Plous and Tyrone Williams of Wesleyan University point out, this emphasis on athletic prowess today is predicated upon the emphasis on physical capabilities which once made slaves valuable. Slaves who were stronger and more physically capable were more proficient in their labor. Similarly, in the 21st century, many argue that too many black teens are infatuated with physical abilities through the medium of sports. The importance of African-Americans being physically more capable began in slavery, but has since evolved into a norm and a source of pride in the black community. There’s a worry that today it amounts to deluding young black male teens into undermining their education in favor of an improbable athletic career. These critics of the modern black identity point out that slaves did not enjoy the luxury of an education. Therefore, quality education is the necessary first step to reform these stereotypes and place black youth on attainable paths to success.

Music

Courtesy of Alex Const via Wikimedia Commons

Musical endeavors in the black community are also very common, however, as with sports, the music industry is a difficult field to break into. Nevertheless it is pursued vehemently by black youths. This emphasis on music, according to some, is also rooted in slavery. Slaves used music as a way to retain their African culture and as a coping mechanism to numb the pain of slavery. Author Megan Sullivan describes their negro spirituals as a type of “musical rebellion” in an essay writing,

Subsequent generations of Africans gradually became African-Americans as a rich culture infused with music developed under the harsh conditions of slavery. White Americans considered African-Americans separate and unequal for centuries, going to extraordinary lengths to keep Negroes oppressed and apart. Yet behind the strict, segregating curtain hung between ‘Black’ and ‘White,’ African-Americans created a distinctive music that sank its roots deeply into their American experience and drew from it an amazing evolution of sound that has penetrated that racist fabric and pervaded the entirety of American culture. Music became a way to remain connected to their African heritage while protesting the bleak conditions African Americans faced throughout history. Musical protest took on assorted forms and functions as Blacks strove to advance their social station while simultaneously retaining their cultural heritage.

These songs of slavery create an interesting parallel with rap and hip hop music, which also was conceived in a furnace of racial inequality and oppression, although in inner cities rather than cotton fields. Yet these critics of music’s preeminent role in black culture argue that we must acknowledge that the inner cities require a more nuanced approach to success, and not an insistence on past principles. They argue that historically music was utilized as a means of rebellion and defiance because it was absolutely necessary as millions were treated as subhuman. The argument follows that today’s music, specifically rap, is often used as a means of defiance, but is less needed as there are more constructive outlets now than in the time of slavery. This is especially true as some rap music continues to glorify and condone the third principle, criminality.

Criminality

Criminality is certainly not praised and revered in the black community as musical or athletic pursuits. However, according to black identity reformers, when the two fail, criminal behavior in many black communities is not only seen as palatable, but glorified, as it represents a form of rebellion against oppression. The emphasis on music, particularly rap music, perpetuates this glorification of criminality and further validates the lawlessness.

Interestingly, this is directly analogous to the conditions of slaves. As Sullivan mentioned, music was a means to organize rebellions and protest for slaves. Indeed the act of responding to oppression through crime as a justification for the lawlessness is also rooted in slavery. In the days of slavery, it was criminal for a black slave to seek liberty and equal rights as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Since black slaves were strong willed and conscious of their inalienable rights, many valiantly and fearlessly sought liberty even though at that time this constituted criminal behavior. In the same manner that criminality was conceivably deemed desirable by the black slaves seeking liberty, criminality continues to be deemed acceptable by some black Americans today fed up with their disparate equality of liberty, relative to other members of American society. Of course, according to proponents of fundamentally altering the black identity, there is a difference. They argue that in the past civil disobedience and criminality were morally justified, but today are morally ambiguous if not reprehensible.

The Role of Media

According to reformers, media plays a big role in the black community’s continued emphasis on physical and musical capacities, as well as criminality. Possibly some of the most prevalent black individuals on television are athletes and rappers, that latter of whom then-Senator Barack Obama stated, “move our young people powerfully.” Given that poor children–many of whom are black– watch significantly more television than their peers, the types of people they see on television play a more imperative role in their process of socialization.

Media also plays a role in reinforcing the criminality of black males. Stephen Balkaran describes this bluntly saying, “media have divided the working class and stereotyped young African-American males as gangsters or drug dealers.” The portrayal of black males as criminals is already destructive enough in the context of news and film, but it becomes further amplified when artists choose to focus on themes which are criminal in content.

These three identities are not mutually exclusive, making it difficult to eradicate one without eradicating the other. This is observable with rappers who also serve as gangster icons, or black athletes who emulate criminals and rappers themselves. Making distinctions between the three becomes exceedingly difficult, as they are in some ways monolithic and unified; seemingly cornerstones of black culture.

Yet the individuals who embody each precept hardly pay the price, because they are rich, successful, and most of all, lucky. It’s the young teen who attempted to act out the rap lyrics to his favorite song that gets tried as an adult, and it is the 25-year-old former high school basketball star who gets stuck working a low wage job who ultimately suffer. Therein lays the deceptiveness of media portrayal of the three principles. These figures on television are conspicuously wealthy and successful, yet when young impressionable teens attempt to emulate the behavior, they end up disappointed and disadvantaged.

Conclusion

No one is suggesting that a complete rejection of athletics or musical pursuits is necessary or welcomed. Obviously music and athletics are essential components of black culture and of American culture, generally. However, according to this theory of the black identity, the black community may need to recognize that the ubiquitous emulation of athletic ventures, music, and criminality, is not helpful.

In the face of the widespread institutional racism that continues to pervert Americans culture and disadvantage blacks, a more inclusive definition of blackness is needed–one which leaves room for black intellectuals and professionals to serve as apt role models. Once children expand their horizon and realize they are not limited to a binary decision, we will begin to see a widespread economic ascension in the black community that is advantageous to all members of society. America is a multicultural society and there exists social tensions; but no group rises or falls on its own accord.

Resources

Primary

Stanford Ethics of Development in a Global Environment: Portrayal of Minorities in the Film, Media and Entertainment Industries

Cornell: African-American Music as Rebellion: From Slavesong to Hip-Hop

Wesleyan University: Racial Stereotypes From the Days of American Slavery: A Continuing Legacy

Darwin’s Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of Race

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

Additional

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

CBS News: Barack Obama Clarifies Views On Rap

Huffington Post: Watching TV Can Lower Children’s Self Esteem, Study Finds

The Atlantic: The Data Are Damning: How Race Influences School Funding

NCAA: Probability of Competing in Sports Beyond High School

Mother Jones: Obama Encourages Students to Abandon Hopes of Becoming Great Rappers

    City Journal: How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legacy of the Past? Slavery’s Impact on Modern Black Identity appeared first on Law Street.

Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided appeared first on Law Street.