My Race is Human

By: Maria Brown

I think that adopting a state level policy prohibiting classifying people by race, color, ethnicity, or national origin would be very beneficial.  What is the real purpose of classifying people?  Why can’t we all just be human?  Classifying people is really segregation.  It’s another degree of separation and it clearly draws lines between certain groups of people.  There are too many opportunities to favor or hinder a specific group.  We are living in a time when discrimination is still rampant and certain groups of people still benefit from being classified as one race over another. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I understand that people already have a natural predisposition to stereotype others based on race/color of skin and classifying people or not classifying people won’t immediately change that.  However not classifying people can help control the harmful information and statistics that are put out in the mass media.  That same harmful information is what aids in the stereotypes that people have.  For example, saying that the prison system is filled with 85% black people fuels the public’s opinion that black people should be feared.  In turn, it hinders that same group of people from many opportunities. 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, affirmative action can be interpreted as reverse discrimination and it still favors one race or group of people over another. Not only is this not “fair” but it often strengthens the natural division between races.   

In addition, how can some people truly choose just one race?  For example, I have a white father and a black mother.  I am truly 50/50.  However there is never a check box on the race designation forms for me.  I'm always forced to choose one over the other when really I'm both.  

By designating everyone simply as human, we can begin the process of knocking down the walls of stereotypes, preventing discrimination and moving America truly towards the great “melting pot” that we claim to be.




Edited by Barbara Latimer

……………….Human With Government Needs 

By Barbara  Latimer

 

When anyone is first asked about the state policy of classifying people, the neck hairs start to tingle. All sorts of negative connotations come to mind and our instinct is to find the idea repugnant, but classifications of people by race, color, ethnicity, or natural origin actually serve a purpose in our lives. The collection and analysis of this data provide the means for documenting the demographic changes within our state and the resulting need for funding of critical social programs in our society.  States should have the right to classify groups of people as the benefits derived from this effort far outweigh any individual objections due to perceived racial extrapolations or labels.

Without the ‘personal’ data states and the U.S. Census Bureau collect, it would be impossible to keep abreast of statistically relevant demographic changes in a community, or anticipate constituent needs. If a community doesn’t know for example how many women reside within its borders, how can it anticipate the extent of domestic violence related services it may be called upon to provide, or the volume of childcare related requests for assistance it may theoretically receive? If a community doesn’t know how many immigrants have relocated there, how can it adequately gauge the impact to the ESL programs or standardized test results? I think you get the point. Government efforts, whether at the local, state, or national level to collect information do so in the furtherance of the common good.

Need more convincing……..let’s look at the latest data excerpt below from the U.S. Census for Morrow, Georgia. Consider why the data might be personally useful to know. If you are the city of Morrow, the more accurate the reporting of your comprehensive data, the more likely federal dollars will be allocated for funding schools, medical indigent care, road construction, law enforcement, and cultural awareness programs.

Percent of community Black:      45.5%

Percent of community White:    22.1%

Percent of community Asian:     25.5%

Percent of persons reporting two or more races: 2.6%

Percent where language other than English spoken at home, age 5+:      37.4% 

Detailed findings are available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/1353004.html.

Data, by itself is not harmful. How data is used can be problematic, but we cannot as a society forego its relevance because some humans can be narrow minded and bigoted. Humans must be dealt with through other avenues of consequence

 

With an Increase in Mass Shootings, Should There Be Tighter Gun Laws?

Changes to Current Gun Laws Need to Take Place Now

By: Mikki Dixon

Schools, movie theaters, office buildings, and gas stations.  Increasingly, the news is inundated with mass shootings and accidental deaths caused by guns.  Gun laws should be tightened and reformed.

It has become commonplace to turn on the news or to open the newspaper and see that another mass shooting has taken place in the United States.  The motives and excuses are as varied as the locations.  Whether it is students who were being bullied retaliating against their fellow students and teachers, disgruntled workers who have been fired, random crimes such as the shooting at a movie theater showing the Dark Knight Rises, or the belt-way shootings that took place at gas stations in Washington D. C., in 2002, it is evident that we need to reform the current gun laws.

Opponents of gun law reformation often assert that it is not guns that kill people, it is people.  Although they are correct, if there were tighter gun laws to control who can purchase a gun, how long the wait time is before a purchase can be approved, and allowances made for a thorough background investigation, we as a responsible society may be able to limit the number of senseless shootings that take place in the United States every year.

Opponents to gun law reformation are also keen to point to the second amendment to the Constitution.  They say it is our Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, but they forget that our forefathers had enough foresight to allow the Constitution, a living document, to be changed if and when it became necessary.  It is essential that we recognize the time has come, and Congress needs to make changes to the current laws because it serves the greater good. 

Proponents of tighter gun laws are not proposing our politicians need to take away the individual citizen’s right to bear arms; rather, proponents feel our country needs to take action to prevent more needless deaths.

Edited by Maria Brown.

Not So Fast: Guns Don’t Kill People; People Kill People  

By: Barbara Latimer 

It is not uncommon when a gun tragedy occurs to look for someone or something to blame. Too often we end up shifting the responsibility for these horrific actions from the single person committing the wrongdoing to gun owners in general. That is the logic that makes the current gun debates so virulent and the prospect of certain weapons being banned so divisive. Lost within all the rhetoric is the cognizance that guns are materially inanimate objects, and without human deliberateness misuse is not possible. We don’t need changes to gun laws. We need tightened enforcement of current laws and greater access to mental health services for our citizens. Think about this, each of the recent attackers had one thing in common: they were known to be emotionally unbalanced with anti-social tendencies.

Exchanges between proponent and opponent assemblies on the topic of gun rights and gun control do eventually circle back to the language contained within in the Second Amendment, and the intent of said language.  However, few debaters reference all 27 words of the Amendment: "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 state militias have been replaced by national military forces does that preclude citizens from bearing arms? Historically, the Courts have said yes.  They assert that the right belongs to the states and not to the persons in the states. That position, it seems, may be due for a makeover as even the President and both parties in Congress acknowledge a majority of Americans favor an individual's right to bear arms.

There are roughly 250 to 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. States have implemented varying degrees of structure around access to and ownership of these guns. In Wyoming, for example, guns and ammunition are easy to obtain with few delays or restrictions. Wyoming is a sparsely populated area in comparison to states with larger urban populations, but geography alone doesn't explain why there were only 21 murders in 2012. It may be as simple as although people owned guns, they didn't solve their problems with them.

Contrast Chicago, Illinois. It is an area subject to very restrictive gun laws, and they post more than 21 murders in any given month. Could it be that the social issues inherent in urban areas propel acts of violence, and the gun restrictions currently in place do little more than inconvenience law abiding citizens? Gun control is obviously not the end all be all solution for curtailing gun violence. If it were, these two examples would prove rather than disprove the theory that gun control curtails violence.

I accept, as fact, that gun violence needs to be decreased. I do not accept, as fact, that moving to ban certain weapons or adding more restrictions will change the situation. Perhaps we would be better served to address why these high profile shootings happened in the first place. Why do some in our society feel so alienated? Why do they want to lash out and harm others? We aren't going to figure this out without increased access to mental health services and earlier intervention. All the gun control in the world cannot close the door on violence unless we first reset the triggers that disallow some people to maintain self control.

Edited by Maria Brown.