France is burning…again.

Almost exactly two years after the 2005 riots, France was once again thrown into a period of civil unrest this past week, as a number of youths took action against public infrastructures, as well as actual police officers, in the Parisian suburb of Villiers-le-Bel.

This situation is eerily reminiscent of the 2005 riots, when two teenage boys died while trying to escape from police chasing them. What followed was an eruption that had not been known to France in a long time, expanding throughout the country. For about five weeks, youths expressed their anger towards public authorities and the State by burning cars and other public buildings, leading the president to reinstate the state of emergency that had not been used since the Algerian war!

This time around, anger escalated quickly, but has not so far stretched out through France. The riots were triggered by another encounter between two youths and police officers, when the two youths were killed riding a motorcycle that collided with a police car. According to the rioters, the police fled the scene without ensuring that appropriate medical care was given to the two youths, who were fatally injured in the crash.

Quickly following the crash, groups of youths from this suburb organized themselves against the police, attacking a number of local buildings such as libraries, and using various weapons against police officers, including Molotov Cocktails. This continued over several nights after the incident. While enquiries are being made into the nature of the accident, obviously strong reprisals are taken against the rioters, with a number already being sentenced.

What is important to note here, however, is that the main issues leading to the 2005 riots have not yet been dealt with. French youths, especially those of foreign origin, are feeling abandoned by the State, and face extremely high levels of discrimination in employment, housing and education as well as constant harassment by the police. After 2005, many promises were made to attempt to rehabilitate the economic and social slump existing in the suburbs, but these promises have not yet been kept.

While the current uprisings seem to have quieted for the moment, I can only wonder, when will the next round be?

“American Gangster”: A Glimpse into the Making and Unmaking of an “American Dream”

Being a truly devoted Denzel fan (I forgave him for Inside Man and Man on Fire a long time ago…), I pre-ordered tickets to see American Gangster on its opening night.   The movie lived up to the hype, with an all-star cast consisting of Denzel Washington,  Russell Crowe, RZA, Common, and, last but not least, T.I.  The characters were well-developed; the plot was intriguing; the acting was flawless; and the supsense was high.  You get the idea: the movie was a hit.

But more than just being a blockbuster, American Gangster was a sociological inquiry into one of American society’s most hegemonic values: the American Dream.  The concept of the American Dream dates back to the 16th century.  Since then, it has been publicly and actively endorsed by prominent historical figures  ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Franklin; politicians, including Alberto Gonzales and W. ; and a number of celebrities, such as Diddy and Britney (remember their “I Am the American Dream”  shirts?). 

At first, the American Dream was used to bring English settlers to America, which was depicted as the land of abundance, opportunity, and freedom.  Throughout history and in the present-day, the American Dream has relentlessly promoted the idea that “hard work,” self-reliance (read, rugged individualism), and one’s innate abilities will lead to prosperity and financial success and in turn, in the context of capitalism, happiness and freedom.   

The American Dream has also been used to keep people ”in line” and keep potential “agitators” ”in their place.”  For example, false promises of success and equality for all, were used to lure Civil Rights activits towards civil obedience  and mitigate a movement that could have lead to an overhaul of an entire system of social, political, and economic oppression.  However, as history has shown with both Dr. King and Malcolm X, when people challenge the American Dream and its mythical premise, they often end up dead. 

The American Dream is not just a myth.  It is a form of social control used by those in power to ensure that we all–especially the most “threatening” of us–are kept ”in check.”  The American Dream is a powerful force that has been used time and time again to distract us from the reality that profound (and increasing) social inequalities exist in American society, which prevent most of us from achieving prosperity and economic security.

But we all buy into it.  Afterall, who doesn’t want freedom, equality, and success?

Frank Lucas, played by Denzel, was no exception.  Lucas, who was born in North Carolina in 1930, is often described as a drug lord and the orchestrator behind the epidemic sale of heroin in Harlem during the 1960s and 70s.  But he was much more than that. 

He was a calculating and confident, yet desperate and tragic, man. 

Like many of us then and now, Lucas was just trying to get a piece of the pie.    Lucas was a brilliant strategist and businessman who used his innate capabilities and worked hard to achieve prosperity for himself, his family, and friends. 

Isn’t that what the American Dream is all about? 

Isn ‘t that what the American Dream wants for all of us?

Well, not quite.  See, Lucas was Black.  Black people were never supposed to actually achieve the American Dream.  While the powers that be are content with letting Blacks think that someday we will be succesful and prosperous (i.e., as a form of social control)–this was never supposed to happen.  Blacks achieving prosperity and success (as a group, not as individuals) would upset the “natural order of things.”  Just like the movie pointed out, Blacks were never supposed to outdo the Italian mafia.  The world is just not supposed to work that way. 

In the case of Frank Lucas, it did–at least for a little while.  But at what cost? In order to achieve the American Dream, Lucas exploited an entire group of people to which he belonged, an entire community of people that he was a part of.  

In many ways, Lucas had no choice.  Faced with the reality of racial inequality and restricted economic opportunities, Lucas saw selling heroin in Harlem as his only way “out” of economic insecurity and towards the promise of the American Dream.  The American Dream left him with no other choice but to exploit his own community to achieve its promise. 

Herein lies the tragedy of Frank Lucas. 

And herein lies the tragedy of the American Dream for those who are not born with power, prestige, money, wealth, and beneficial social and economic networks.  Every day of our lives, we are encouraged to “work hard” in order to “make it” in this world.  But what happens when your hard work doesn’t pay? What happens when hard work hasn’t payed for generations and generations of people like you?  Some people give up.  Others keep on keeping on with the hope that it will get better someday–if not on earth, then somewhere up there.   And others, like Frank Lucas, look for a loophole. 

Lucas realized that the American Dream was never meant to be for him, but he decided to take it by any means necessary.

 Except, those aren’t the rules of the game.  Selling heroin doesn’t count as hard work.  Even when it is the only option you have.  But again, the American Dream was never meant for people like Frank Lucas to achieve. 

And when a game isn’t meant for you, what other option do you have but to make up your own rules?

This is probably why I, and many others, left the theater feeling admiration and empathy for Frank Lucas.  He was just another Black man in America trying to get what is constantly being dangled in his face, but has a big red warning sign that reads “Sorry, not for you” on it.  He did what he had to do to rise to the top in a country that spits on the very ground he walks on.

But I also felt sorrow and pain.  How could Lucas do that to his own community? How could he exploit his own people to achieve the American Dream?

We have to create a better way. 

m.

Teaching Teach for America

I just crush a lot.

Let’s say you’re a teacher.  Maybe you have a ruler, the wire-rimmed glasses, a paddle.  Whatever, you’re a big punisher, it’s cool. What if someone asked you about Teach for America, the service-du-jour for the millenial generation.  Would you talk about a lagging education system and underserved school children?  Would you mention (regressive and property) tax policy, de facto segregation, Brown v. Board, globalization & immigration, the concept of a national language, universal living wage, academic freedom, culturally-appropriate textbooks, bilingual instructors, access to counseling and academic tutoring, after-school programming, comprehensive sex education, gender and racial equity? 

 You nasty twin.  I don’t care.

The real problem with Teach for America isn’t that people fail to talk about the real issues underpinning the American education system (especially No Child Left Behind); it’s (1) because people think it’s a good model, and (2) because Teach for America bills itself as a way to make change in American education system(s).  Yes, we need more teachers.  You’re right: we need exciting and energetic young people to empower kids to learn, achieve…um…”overcome.”  But we need more than a summer of training for fresh-out-of-college folks; we need more than a short-lived import-export system; our schools require more than self-reflexive service for post-college wanderers.

Don’t stop, get it, get it.

And then there’s the global expansion of the model.  People should let me know if I’ve drawn the wrong schemata, but here’s how I see the model:

1. Recruit highly educated folk from elite schools.  2. Train them to “teach” over one summer.  3. Place them in key areas (domestically and now internationally) about which they know nothing.  3. Send them off after two years.

That schemata is certainly a reduction; it’s distilled to an extreme degree.  I know this.  I’m just wondering if, given the gains that Teach for America claims, their model may increase the marginalization of “real” teachers, encourage kids and schools to value imports rather than their own, and further the degradation of communities where schools neither have the resources to build classrooms nor the programs to foster endemic talent.

Long as you show class, and pass my test

With increasing teacher turnover, draconian salary scales, and brain drain from our most underserved communities, why are we sending in folks from the outside?  Why not empower communities with training and resources, as well as policies that don’t require onerous testing just so a school can receive some arbitrary passing grade that’s inextricably linked with federal funding?

Hmm.  A service program that filters talented young people into organizations that advocate for progressive federal policies wouldn’t be as sexy, right?  Recent grads wouldn’t be jonesin’ for a review of the Federal Register or a lunch break with the Department of Education’s budget.

While I’m certain that we need more teachers in the field — especially those who will capitalize on their experiences and advocate at the federal level for real, lasting, and systemic change — I’m not sure Teach for America is the be-all-end-all model.  Or the way we should be directing young folks who are interested in making change.

To me, billing Teach for America as the education change model is as bankrupt as matching a post about the plight of American education with a Big Pun song.

Elevator to the top, hah, see you later, I’m gone

Cartoon courtesy of http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/ESEA173.shtml

A word (up) about stats (down)

This is no surprise. 

I love these New York Times census reports. 

I especially cream my pants when they fail to mention that, as the poverty rate has, er, “declined,” the top tier of Americans are getting richer and richer. 

When the top 10% control 70% of the wealth, isn’t it time to analyze those census statistics, not just regurgitate?