It’s part of the human nature to fight and survive against any danger. Since our creation, we have been fighting and defending ourselves against the nature and the wild life, regardless of what color our skin is. In the United States, people are allowed to have weapons for personal defense. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The original “stand your ground “laws were written for white, heterosexual, property-owning men. But, there have been many changes in Constitution over the years. In the past, only white men were allowed to have fire arms. Today, people of all races and colors are allowed to bear arms and we can see that. Any adult person, over the age of eighteen (in some cases twenty one), with a clean record is allowed to purchase a firearm, after going through a background-check. Today, everybody has the right to defend their property and their loved ones. If someone uses lethal force to kill an intruder, his actions are justified.
Defending someone or something is apart of human rights. When a person fears their own safety or the safety of others they try to defend them selfs, and what do they do? Kill or attack the person trying to hurt them. However there is more ways to settle this issue. Instead of using weapons or even your hands. Sorting out the issue by talking or finding a way is possible. But when the "race" issue is brought up everything changes. The laws have changed over the years and will continue to change, while living in the United States we all know you can own a registered gun with having a clean record for the use of your own self. We all get that today race is still considered to be a big issue especially after the 2017 election year. But we also acknowledge that every being in this country have equal rights and must be equal. So owning a gun and using it for your defense and safety is normal for our generation today.
1. Identify the problem It’s a social issue because of unequal perception, social inequality, imposed on colored people of America by the “class of people” who holds the resources to control perception, the media. Historically, colored people have been abused and treated unfairly. You can say they were all victimized and treated unfairly, which is true, and now the perception is still held as the same. And consequently, as they started to defend their rights and fight back, they are labeled as the aggressors and dangerous. When in reality, these behaviors were the cause of how they were treated combined with the human need to survive, for instance, being able to whether carry a gun or not. We can see in today’s society, if a colored man fights back, he or she is perceived as the victim of being treated unequally and/or dangerous, both unfavorable perception. Meanwhile, the white police are framed as the one treating them unequally, which in my opinion, reinforces the subtle underlying perception that white race is the superior race, or the label White Supremacy. To me there’s two problems that needs to be addressed. On a macrosociology scale, this is a very clever psychological frame that subtly states a certain race is the one with the choice to abuse or not and people respond with hashtags such as black lives matter. When in fact, it was one instance out of a million criminal activities where an ignorant police man who believed a certain race was superior, is now being blown out of proportion by the media. Which in return gets everyone to acknowledge the issue of racism, and again it was one person’s ignorance. Hence giving the media the power to control how you perceive the world, and accepting the idea of superior race just by acknowledging. The problem isn’t whether the colored people should have weapons or not. It’s the fact that they are framed as the criminals and aggressors. They are fighting the label given by the “supreme race” of being aggressive or criminals, when they shouldn’t even be giving them that power to label any race on what they are and aren’t. Second, on a microsociology scale, people need the ability to question the frame that’s being set by this article or the media. The colored race is being treated unfairly by a certain race. The fact that you believe in this race supremacy is the fact that you are giving your power away to this label and not being responsible for the potential power you have as a human being. It’s not a race war rather realizing there are other factors which influence how much power an individual can make in the world regardless of race or whatever other factors these people want to believe including the gun’s law to protect themselves.
2. Conflict Theorist Perspective Karl Marx would state there’s a power division of society by who have the power to persuade the perception of masses with a label on a race and gender, which leads to articles such as these which comes from the perspective of underlying reason being racism. And the rest who must deal with the labels or perceptions they are dealt to which they believe they must accept or fight, which is the mentality of working class. Hence the Author, Karen Bates, is already coming from the perception that was given to her. To support her idea of unfair treatment by a “superior race” she gains evidence by a man named Philip Smith. “We don't want to bother anyone, but we're not going to let anyone come and break into our house at 2 in the morning, when you're going to sit there and wait for the police to come and get killed in the interim. We're going to protect ourselves.” He clearly, whether wants to admit or not, sees and believes himself as part of the label where colored society who are dangerous and such by the “people above” when in fact, you have a right as an individual to do whatever you please and put out your own perceptions on the gun control. They may make you want to believe the laws are created unfairly, which in fact, laws are sometimes created for the favor of those who’s creating them. And at the end of the day, these games are subtle power games being played, and majority believes they have to accept the choices dealt given by the media. Either be labeled as criminals and aggressors when holding a gun, or victims, when in fact there’s your own option. I carry the gun to protect myself against anyone who comes on my property and I have the right to be aggressive if needed be, as anyone else in this world.
3. Reflection I commented on this post because it’s labeled as a controversial topic and something people need to be politically correct about. That itself is a social issue if people believe in talking about races as a “sensitive subject’. This is one of the major social issue that needs to be addressed yet people wants to shy away from it. It’s not about race war but disregarding the perception given as a race war. At the end of the day, I don’t believe in racism, classism, unequal rights and so on. I believe in what people choose to believe and how they choose to interpret events. As long as people believe in the ideas of racism and classism, there will always be rationalizations that support the idea of racism. What I’m saying is you can’t stop a mainstream culture from presenting an event that’s favorable to a certain race, gender, or whatever factor. However, as an individual, you have the power to perceive things your own way and believe in things that empower you as an individual the most to gain your own social status that can’t be ignored. An example is when Michael Jordan was told he should limit his Jordan sales for his own race of people. And when ignored that perception and became an icon for the people of any color, he became one of the first “black billionaire” when in fact it’s his mentality and his own way of perceiving the world that got him there. That’s why it’s relevant in the field of sociology. People have the power to change things about themselves that they can control by understanding the perception game being played. People have the power to set their own perception about the world and keep achieving things that aligns with it until people have no choice but to accept that. But the answer isn’t finger pointing with racism or classism whether it’s the problem with the gun laws or not. If it comes from a perception of a racial unfair treatment, there will always be more problems and rationalizations to fix a minor effect, but not the true cause
I am responding to this post because it is the one with which I have a point of disagreement, and I thought this would make for a more interesting intellectual exercise. If I understood the author’s points correctly, he felt that the issue of race in general supersedes the issue of gun ownership, and that the current racial hierarchy is perpetuated my both the media and the individuals who validate this hierarchy by giving it attention. I agree that on an individual level it may be true that racism can be abolished only if people are not taught to think in racial terms in the first place (i.e. by not acknowledging the hierarchy). However, many people do already think in racist terms without even being conscious of it. I’d argue that if we are not conscious of our own patterns of thinking, then there is absolutely no chance that those patterns can change. This is why I disagree (in part) with the author’s point that highlighting these inequalities (via organized movements or media attention) serves only to strengthen or validate them. I think highlighting them might be the only possible starting point for dislodging and airing out thought patterns that are so entrenched in our collective psyche.
I do see his point that we sort of validate the racist framework by giving it attention, and that this could possibly reinforce (rather insidiously) the very thing we hope to abolish. I felt precisely this way about the candidacy of our current president: our frenzied reactions to every crazy thing he said seemed to grant his behaviors a legitimacy they did not merit, thus turning him into a viable candidate. So I do see the logic in the author’s argument with regard to race. But my counterargument would be that it is too dangerous to just let things be, in hopes that racial problems will magically resolve themselves on a massive scale. This sounds like a Functionalist logic that does not strike me as constructive in this case. While we wait for a better order to just emerge spontaneously, people of color will continue to be killed, incarcerated, and subjected to every brand of societal injustice at levels far greater than those seen in the population at large. (continued in next post)
(Rebecca J., continued) Today’s young people are purported to be more tolerant and accepting than their predecessors, so maybe a resolution is possible with only the intervention of time. But even if this is true (and I hope it is), we still need to address the fact that our social institutions evolve more slowly than individuals do, and they are unlikely to change soon without explicit intervention. I am not content to accept systematic mistreatment of a minority group, expecting oppressed individuals to stop “giving” the dominant group their power through acknowledgement of social ills. The fact is, this is a sociological issue, and whites (as a group) do in fact hold most of the power in our society- mostly by way of a racial privilege that is rarely felt or admitted. There are loads of data and statistics to demonstrate this. So, the issue must be addressed at the sociological level if we are to actively make any headway in resolving it. The effects of an institution as utterly dehumanizing as slavery are unlikely to just fade out on their own anytime soon if we just wait it out.
In regards to gun ownership, I’m generally ambivalent about it, but it certainly does not make sense to say that one racial group can have/use guns with relative impunity while another group cannot. Again, this brings to mind a Functionalist-style logic that says that as long as everyone adheres to the current social norms (even if those norms are immoral), all will be right with the world. This logic is analogous to our government’s bizarre thinking about nuclear weapons: that we (the only nation that has ever used them) are entitled to have them, but any country full of brown-skinned people is not.
The author seemed to employ an Interactionist perspective in his proposed solution to the problem, arguing for an alternative perceptual framework as the key to addressing this issue. So, I’ll take the viewpoint of Conflict Theory. A Conflict theorist might make the following argument: of course those who have power will want to keep it, and they will not look favorably on anything that might threaten their status. The arming of lower status groups could certainly be construed as a direct and even ultimate threat to that power. The only way to address racial injustices is to do so explicitly, on a large scale, and to apply the same standards to everyone. This was the approach taken during the Civil Rights and Women’s Suffrage movements, with citizen organization on an enormous scale. There will always be individuals who, for whatever reason (luck, money, exceptional smarts or talent), can transcend social constraints. But at the societal level, almost every improvement to the lives of minorities in this country has been hard-won, forced on the government by the people. Collective action seems to be the only thing that garners attention sufficient to provoke a system-level redress of grievances. A silent, contemplative affirmation of one’s own personal power is unlikely to catalyze societal change.
When we are faced with a harmful event, we have the ability of reacting with a "fight or flight response". It is our natural instinct to fight back those who try to hurt us or the people we love. On the other hand, we can choose to walk away from the issue. This subject can be related to the Second Amendment, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and how they take advantage of it. An example of how a fight response and the ability to own a firearm is taken into action is the case of The U.S. v. Trayvon Martin. An American man named George Zimmerman fatally shot an African American unarmed, teenage pedestrian who was returning home on a rainy day from a store. He was with his friend when they noticed they were being followed and thought the man might be a sexual predator. When they confronted each other, a fight began to take in and resulted with the death of Martin. Martin's death can relate to "Stand Your Ground" laws, in which Zimmerman used deadly force onto Martin, thinking that he was "suspicious looking". In result of this case, Trayvon Martin was put on trial, not George Zimmerman.
An interactionalist would respond to this social issue in that citizens have the ability to take matters into their own hands and solve the issue on their own. Thus, this trend cause many innocent people get hurt or even die.
This blog post allows me to express my opinions towards today's issues regarding race and ethnicity. This specific topic made me understand the standpoints and problems that still exist in today's society. Sociology is the science of the society, in which people interact with each other, either positively or negatively. This is why the death of Trayvon Martin is relevant to Sociology.
The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As americans most of us believe carrying a gun will keep us safe from intruders and danger, in most cases that is true and according to our "stand your ground" laws its legal, but being a person of color might not make this so true. Keith Childress, Bettie Jones, Kevin Matthews, Leroy Browning, Roy Nelson, just a few names from a list of over hundreds of UNARMED African american people that were shot and killed by police officers. So have the "stand your ground" laws really changed that much from before when whites could lethanly discipline the natives that wouldn't cooperate when terrorizing their people? Or when African americans weren't allowed to own guns when the Klu Klux Klan was parading around in their cities lynching their families? Gun or no gun does this make any of us safer?
1) Although carrying a gun does make people feel safe and protected, I agree that there are certain circumstances in which having a gun will have the opposite affect. Unfortunately, as stated above, we have witnessed many deaths of innocent colored people, simply for the fact that they look "suspicious." It isn't fair to judge another human being based off of the color of their skin. I chose to comment on this topic because of how often we see this happening, and no real changes have happened despite all of the lives lost up to this day. How many more lives will be lost until we choose to actively make steps towards change?
2) From a functionalist perspective, everyone in society depends on each other and functions as one unit. It is important for everyone to be equal and feel safe, and if people are targeted just for their race this will create an imbalance in society. If certain races are afraid of the police, the same people who's job is to protect them, this will cause huge problems, and has already caused many. We, as a society, should work to fix these problems.
The second amendment, our "inalienable" right to bear arms has been under many reforms and is not strictly limited. The major issues surrounding gun laws is wether they actually do good or harm for all citizens. On one end it gives people potential protection against intruders or criminals looking to cause harm, on the other end it can give the people looking to cause harm the ability to carry the weapons to do so. This article however, focuses on gun laws against African Americans a how they have been unfairly limited from practicing their "inalienable" right. It clear that there is a clear divide between who was able to own weapons and it gave an unfair disadvantage to African Americans.
Looking at this from a Functionalist perspective, we not that this divide is clearly dysfunctional. If laws are placed to allow guns and protection to citizens, it should apply to all citizens and not just certain groups. A gun protection law should be universal to all people.
I think that there should be a more equal coverage of the law and that gun laws should be applied to all. If a certain group is allowed the ability to exercise their freedom to carry guns, then the law should be extended to all groups.
Although vague, Alex’s response was straight to the point; to a certain degree I do agree with Alex as he plainly put it, “If a certain group is allowed the ability to exercise their freedom to carry guns, then the law should be extended to all groups.” According to “LIGHT: When you look at what really happens out in the world and the way that especially African-American men are treated when they're armed, already the deck is stacked against people who are judged to be or perceived to be a threat, as are people of color, particularly men of color, in the United States.” I chose to comment on Alex’s comment for the very same reason as to what I think about this blog; the very statements mentioned earlier by Alex and Light can also be applied to other ethnic groups who are either classified as minorities or considered to be of the lower socioeconomic class. From a personal standpoint, as a Mexican-Filipino growing up in the hood of Boyle Heights, East Los Angeles I, along with my brothers, cousins, friends, and neighbors were profiled by the local authorities as well as by other pompous authority figures in higher status’ as no good for nothing hoodlums. Majority of the time we were treated as if though we were already packing heat (carrying loaded firearms) to commit a crime; yet, I couldn’t help but notice that the white studious-looking kid within our circle (Huero) was more often than not left alone and usually asked, “What’s a good kid like you hanging out with these delinquents?” As we got older, most of us joined the military or got into the law enforcement scopes of practices as police officers or security officers to say the least and all of us legally had our permits to carry concealed firearms because of these jobs, but nonetheless in our civilian clothing we were treated like terrorists as soon as we’d admit that we were carrying our concealed firearms with our permits.
The topic is a good one because it addresses some of the many issues being dealt with in regards to both matter of race & ethnicity and the selective set of principles around lethal self-defense; besides, its relevance is essential to sociology because it falls into the social norms (written and unwritten) within our nation as the United States of America. The truthful application and stigmas behind these issues are no different than DUI’s. If I got caught drinking and driving with a B.A.C. of 0.26% (more than 3 times the legal limit) I’d be dealing with a 9 month DUI program and $3k to $5k in penalties and restitution, but if it were a Congressman or even our Governor who committed the same offense chances are they’d probably receive 8 hours of community service along with a public apology, at the most.
From an interactionist perspective, for example, the NRA is a national iconic acronym which stands for National Rifle Association. According to “BATES: Today, the National Rifle Association seeks to convince potential members that their guns remain as necessary as they were during frontier days. And it's broadened its outreach to ethnic communities.” Bottomline, as stated by https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii Amendment II - “RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS” passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments from the Bill of Rights: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, regardless of my race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, skin color, sexualpreference, or gender it is my constitutional right to utilize lethal self defense against domestic or foreign enemies with firearms within justifiable legal reason if need be.
Arlen Mehrabian
ReplyDeleteIt’s part of the human nature to fight and survive against any danger. Since our creation, we have been fighting and defending ourselves against the nature and the wild life, regardless of what color our skin is. In the United States, people are allowed to have weapons for personal defense. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The original “stand your ground “laws were written for white, heterosexual, property-owning men. But, there have been many changes in Constitution over the years. In the past, only white men were allowed to have fire arms. Today, people of all races and colors are allowed to bear arms and we can see that. Any adult person, over the age of eighteen (in some cases twenty one), with a clean record is allowed to purchase a firearm, after going through a background-check.
Today, everybody has the right to defend their property and their loved ones. If someone uses lethal force to kill an intruder, his actions are justified.
Defending someone or something is apart of human rights. When a person fears their own safety or the safety of others they try to defend them selfs, and what do they do? Kill or attack the person trying to hurt them. However there is more ways to settle this issue. Instead of using weapons or even your hands. Sorting out the issue by talking or finding a way is possible. But when the "race" issue is brought up everything changes. The laws have changed over the years and will continue to change, while living in the United States we all know you can own a registered gun with having a clean record for the use of your own self. We all get that today race is still considered to be a big issue especially after the 2017 election year. But we also acknowledge that every being in this country have equal rights and must be equal. So owning a gun and using it for your defense and safety is normal for our generation today.
ReplyDeleteBryan J Lee
ReplyDelete1. Identify the problem
DeleteIt’s a social issue because of unequal perception, social inequality, imposed on colored people of America by the “class of people” who holds the resources to control perception, the media. Historically, colored people have been abused and treated unfairly. You can say they were all victimized and treated unfairly, which is true, and now the perception is still held as the same. And consequently, as they started to defend their rights and fight back, they are labeled as the aggressors and dangerous. When in reality, these behaviors were the cause of how they were treated combined with the human need to survive, for instance, being able to whether carry a gun or not. We can see in today’s society, if a colored man fights back, he or she is perceived as the victim of being treated unequally and/or dangerous, both unfavorable perception. Meanwhile, the white police are framed as the one treating them unequally, which in my opinion, reinforces the subtle underlying perception that white race is the superior race, or the label White Supremacy. To me there’s two problems that needs to be addressed. On a macrosociology scale, this is a very clever psychological frame that subtly states a certain race is the one with the choice to abuse or not and people respond with hashtags such as black lives matter. When in fact, it was one instance out of a million criminal activities where an ignorant police man who believed a certain race was superior, is now being blown out of proportion by the media. Which in return gets everyone to acknowledge the issue of racism, and again it was one person’s ignorance. Hence giving the media the power to control how you perceive the world, and accepting the idea of superior race just by acknowledging.
The problem isn’t whether the colored people should have weapons or not. It’s the fact that they are framed as the criminals and aggressors. They are fighting the label given by the “supreme race” of being aggressive or criminals, when they shouldn’t even be giving them that power to label any race on what they are and aren’t. Second, on a microsociology scale, people need the ability to question the frame that’s being set by this article or the media. The colored race is being treated unfairly by a certain race. The fact that you believe in this race supremacy is the fact that you are giving your power away to this label and not being responsible for the potential power you have as a human being. It’s not a race war rather realizing there are other factors which influence how much power an individual can make in the world regardless of race or whatever other factors these people want to believe including the gun’s law to protect themselves.
2. Conflict Theorist Perspective
DeleteKarl Marx would state there’s a power division of society by who have the power to persuade the perception of masses with a label on a race and gender, which leads to articles such as these which comes from the perspective of underlying reason being racism. And the rest who must deal with the labels or perceptions they are dealt to which they believe they must accept or fight, which is the mentality of working class. Hence the Author, Karen Bates, is already coming from the perception that was given to her. To support her idea of unfair treatment by a “superior race” she gains evidence by a man named Philip Smith. “We don't want to bother anyone, but we're not going to let anyone come and break into our house at 2 in the morning, when you're going to sit there and wait for the police to come and get killed in the interim. We're going to protect ourselves.” He clearly, whether wants to admit or not, sees and believes himself as part of the label where colored society who are dangerous and such by the “people above” when in fact, you have a right as an individual to do whatever you please and put out your own perceptions on the gun control. They may make you want to believe the laws are created unfairly, which in fact, laws are sometimes created for the favor of those who’s creating them. And at the end of the day, these games are subtle power games being played, and majority believes they have to accept the choices dealt given by the media. Either be labeled as criminals and aggressors when holding a gun, or victims, when in fact there’s your own option. I carry the gun to protect myself against anyone who comes on my property and I have the right to be aggressive if needed be, as anyone else in this world.
3. Reflection
I commented on this post because it’s labeled as a controversial topic and something people need to be politically correct about. That itself is a social issue if people believe in talking about races as a “sensitive subject’. This is one of the major social issue that needs to be addressed yet people wants to shy away from it. It’s not about race war but disregarding the perception given as a race war.
At the end of the day, I don’t believe in racism, classism, unequal rights and so on. I believe in what people choose to believe and how they choose to interpret events. As long as people believe in the ideas of racism and classism, there will always be rationalizations that support the idea of racism. What I’m saying is you can’t stop a mainstream culture from presenting an event that’s favorable to a certain race, gender, or whatever factor. However, as an individual, you have the power to perceive things your own way and believe in things that empower you as an individual the most to gain your own social status that can’t be ignored. An example is when Michael Jordan was told he should limit his Jordan sales for his own race of people. And when ignored that perception and became an icon for the people of any color, he became one of the first “black billionaire” when in fact it’s his mentality and his own way of perceiving the world that got him there. That’s why it’s relevant in the field of sociology. People have the power to change things about themselves that they can control by understanding the perception game being played. People have the power to set their own perception about the world and keep achieving things that aligns with it until people have no choice but to accept that. But the answer isn’t finger pointing with racism or classism whether it’s the problem with the gun laws or not. If it comes from a perception of a racial unfair treatment, there will always be more problems and rationalizations to fix a minor effect, but not the true cause
Rebecca J.
DeleteI am responding to this post because it is the one with which I have a point of disagreement, and I thought this would make for a more interesting intellectual exercise. If I understood the author’s points correctly, he felt that the issue of race in general supersedes the issue of gun ownership, and that the current racial hierarchy is perpetuated my both the media and the individuals who validate this hierarchy by giving it attention. I agree that on an individual level it may be true that racism can be abolished only if people are not taught to think in racial terms in the first place (i.e. by not acknowledging the hierarchy). However, many people do already think in racist terms without even being conscious of it. I’d argue that if we are not conscious of our own patterns of thinking, then there is absolutely no chance that those patterns can change. This is why I disagree (in part) with the author’s point that highlighting these inequalities (via organized movements or media attention) serves only to strengthen or validate them. I think highlighting them might be the only possible starting point for dislodging and airing out thought patterns that are so entrenched in our collective psyche.
I do see his point that we sort of validate the racist framework by giving it attention, and that this could possibly reinforce (rather insidiously) the very thing we hope to abolish. I felt precisely this way about the candidacy of our current president: our frenzied reactions to every crazy thing he said seemed to grant his behaviors a legitimacy they did not merit, thus turning him into a viable candidate. So I do see the logic in the author’s argument with regard to race. But my counterargument would be that it is too dangerous to just let things be, in hopes that racial problems will magically resolve themselves on a massive scale. This sounds like a Functionalist logic that does not strike me as constructive in this case. While we wait for a better order to just emerge spontaneously, people of color will continue to be killed, incarcerated, and subjected to every brand of societal injustice at levels far greater than those seen in the population at large.
(continued in next post)
(Rebecca J., continued)
DeleteToday’s young people are purported to be more tolerant and accepting than their predecessors, so maybe a resolution is possible with only the intervention of time. But even if this is true (and I hope it is), we still need to address the fact that our social institutions evolve more slowly than individuals do, and they are unlikely to change soon without explicit intervention. I am not content to accept systematic mistreatment of a minority group, expecting oppressed individuals to stop “giving” the dominant group their power through acknowledgement of social ills. The fact is, this is a sociological issue, and whites (as a group) do in fact hold most of the power in our society- mostly by way of a racial privilege that is rarely felt or admitted. There are loads of data and statistics to demonstrate this. So, the issue must be addressed at the sociological level if we are to actively make any headway in resolving it. The effects of an institution as utterly dehumanizing as slavery are unlikely to just fade out on their own anytime soon if we just wait it out.
In regards to gun ownership, I’m generally ambivalent about it, but it certainly does not make sense to say that one racial group can have/use guns with relative impunity while another group cannot. Again, this brings to mind a Functionalist-style logic that says that as long as everyone adheres to the current social norms (even if those norms are immoral), all will be right with the world. This logic is analogous to our government’s bizarre thinking about nuclear weapons: that we (the only nation that has ever used them) are entitled to have them, but any country full of brown-skinned people is not.
The author seemed to employ an Interactionist perspective in his proposed solution to the problem, arguing for an alternative perceptual framework as the key to addressing this issue. So, I’ll take the viewpoint of Conflict Theory. A Conflict theorist might make the following argument: of course those who have power will want to keep it, and they will not look favorably on anything that might threaten their status. The arming of lower status groups could certainly be construed as a direct and even ultimate threat to that power. The only way to address racial injustices is to do so explicitly, on a large scale, and to apply the same standards to everyone. This was the approach taken during the Civil Rights and Women’s Suffrage movements, with citizen organization on an enormous scale. There will always be individuals who, for whatever reason (luck, money, exceptional smarts or talent), can transcend social constraints. But at the societal level, almost every improvement to the lives of minorities in this country has been hard-won, forced on the government by the people. Collective action seems to be the only thing that garners attention sufficient to provoke a system-level redress of grievances. A silent, contemplative affirmation of one’s own personal power is unlikely to catalyze societal change.
Suzy Semerdjian
ReplyDeleteWhen we are faced with a harmful event, we have the ability of reacting with a "fight or flight response". It is our natural instinct to fight back those who try to hurt us or the people we love. On the other hand, we can choose to walk away from the issue. This subject can be related to the Second Amendment, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and how they take advantage of it. An example of how a fight response and the ability to own a firearm is taken into action is the case of The U.S. v. Trayvon Martin. An American man named George Zimmerman fatally shot an African American unarmed, teenage pedestrian who was returning home on a rainy day from a store. He was with his friend when they noticed they were being followed and thought the man might be a sexual predator. When they confronted each other, a fight began to take in and resulted with the death of Martin. Martin's death can relate to "Stand Your Ground" laws, in which Zimmerman used deadly force onto Martin, thinking that he was "suspicious looking". In result of this case, Trayvon Martin was put on trial, not George Zimmerman.
DeleteAn interactionalist would respond to this social issue in that citizens have the ability to take matters into their own hands and solve the issue on their own. Thus, this trend cause many innocent people get hurt or even die.
This blog post allows me to express my opinions towards today's issues regarding race and ethnicity. This specific topic made me understand the standpoints and problems that still exist in today's society. Sociology is the science of the society, in which people interact with each other, either positively or negatively. This is why the death of Trayvon Martin is relevant to Sociology.
Imani Story
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As americans most of us believe carrying a gun will keep us safe from intruders and danger, in most cases that is true and according to our "stand your ground" laws its legal, but being a person of color might not make this so true. Keith Childress, Bettie Jones, Kevin Matthews, Leroy Browning, Roy Nelson, just a few names from a list of over hundreds of UNARMED African american people that were shot and killed by police officers. So have the "stand your ground" laws really changed that much from before when whites could lethanly discipline the natives that wouldn't cooperate when terrorizing their people? Or when African americans weren't allowed to own guns when the Klu Klux Klan was parading around in their cities lynching their families? Gun or no gun does this make any of us safer?
Nayiri K.
Delete1) Although carrying a gun does make people feel safe and protected, I agree that there are certain circumstances in which having a gun will have the opposite affect. Unfortunately, as stated above, we have witnessed many deaths of innocent colored people, simply for the fact that they look "suspicious." It isn't fair to judge another human being based off of the color of their skin. I chose to comment on this topic because of how often we see this happening, and no real changes have happened despite all of the lives lost up to this day. How many more lives will be lost until we choose to actively make steps towards change?
2) From a functionalist perspective, everyone in society depends on each other and functions as one unit. It is important for everyone to be equal and feel safe, and if people are targeted just for their race this will create an imbalance in society. If certain races are afraid of the police, the same people who's job is to protect them, this will cause huge problems, and has already caused many. We, as a society, should work to fix these problems.
Alex N.
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment, our "inalienable" right to bear arms has been under many reforms and is not strictly limited. The major issues surrounding gun laws is wether they actually do good or harm for all citizens. On one end it gives people potential protection against intruders or criminals looking to cause harm, on the other end it can give the people looking to cause harm the ability to carry the weapons to do so. This article however, focuses on gun laws against African Americans a how they have been unfairly limited from practicing their "inalienable" right. It clear that there is a clear divide between who was able to own weapons and it gave an unfair disadvantage to African Americans.
Looking at this from a Functionalist perspective, we not that this divide is clearly dysfunctional. If laws are placed to allow guns and protection to citizens, it should apply to all citizens and not just certain groups. A gun protection law should be universal to all people.
I think that there should be a more equal coverage of the law and that gun laws should be applied to all. If a certain group is allowed the ability to exercise their freedom to carry guns, then the law should be extended to all groups.
Although vague, Alex’s response was straight to the point; to a certain degree I do agree with Alex as he plainly put it, “If a certain group is allowed the ability to exercise their freedom to carry guns, then the law should be extended to all groups.” According to “LIGHT: When you look at what really happens out in the world and the way that especially African-American men are treated when they're armed, already the deck is stacked against people who are judged to be or perceived to be a threat, as are people of color, particularly men of color, in the United States.” I chose to comment on Alex’s comment for the very same reason as to what I think about this blog; the very statements mentioned earlier by Alex and Light can also be applied to other ethnic groups who are either classified as minorities or considered to be of the lower socioeconomic class. From a personal standpoint, as a Mexican-Filipino growing up in the hood of Boyle Heights, East Los Angeles I, along with my brothers, cousins, friends, and neighbors were profiled by the local authorities as well as by other pompous authority figures in higher status’ as no good for nothing hoodlums. Majority of the time we were treated as if though we were already packing heat (carrying loaded firearms) to commit a crime; yet, I couldn’t help but notice that the white studious-looking kid within our circle (Huero) was more often than not left alone and usually asked, “What’s a good kid like you hanging out with these delinquents?” As we got older, most of us joined the military or got into the law enforcement scopes of practices as police officers or security officers to say the least and all of us legally had our permits to carry concealed firearms because of these jobs, but nonetheless in our civilian clothing we were treated like terrorists as soon as we’d admit that we were carrying our concealed firearms with our permits.
ReplyDeleteThe topic is a good one because it addresses some of the many issues being dealt with in regards to both matter of race & ethnicity and the selective set of principles around lethal self-defense; besides, its relevance is essential to sociology because it falls into the social norms (written and unwritten) within our nation as the United States of America. The truthful application and stigmas behind these issues are no different than DUI’s. If I got caught drinking and driving with a B.A.C. of 0.26% (more than 3 times the legal limit) I’d be dealing with a 9 month DUI program and $3k to $5k in penalties and restitution, but if it were a Congressman or even our Governor who committed the same offense chances are they’d probably receive 8 hours of community service along with a public apology, at the most.
From an interactionist perspective, for example, the NRA is a national iconic acronym which stands for National Rifle Association. According to “BATES: Today, the National Rifle Association seeks to convince potential members that their guns remain as necessary as they were during frontier days. And it's broadened its outreach to ethnic communities.” Bottomline, as stated by https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii
Amendment II - “RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS” passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments from the Bill of Rights:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, regardless of my race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, skin color, sexualpreference, or gender it is my constitutional right to utilize lethal self defense against domestic or foreign enemies with firearms within justifiable legal reason if need be.