The Long War on Drugs

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne L. Foster
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
War On Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Ethnic Chinese ◽  
Richard Nixon ◽  
American Society ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Modern War

The beginning of modern war on drugs in the United States is commonly credited to President Richard Nixon, who evoked fears of crime, degenerate youth, and foreign drugs to garner support for his massive, by early 1970s standards, effort to combat drugs in the United States. Scholars now agree, however, that the essential characteristics of the “war on drugs” stretched back to the early 20th century. The first federal law to prohibit a narcotic in the United States passed in 1909 and banned the import of “smoking opium.” Although opium itself remained legal, opium prepared for smoking—a form believed to be consumed predominantly by ethnic Chinese and imported into the United States—was not. All future anti-narcotics policies drew on these foundational notions: narcotics were of foreign origin and invaded the United States. Thus, interdiction efforts at U.S. borders, and increasingly in producer countries, were an appropriate response. Narcotics consumers were presented as equally threatening, viewed as foreigners or at the margins of American society, and U.S. lawmakers therefore criminalized both drug use and drug trafficking. With drugs as well as drug users defined as foreign threats, militarization of the efforts to prohibit drugs followed. In U.S. drug policy, there is no distinction between foreign and domestic policy. They are intertwined at all levels, including the definition of the problem, the origin of many drugs, and the sites of enforcement.

“The Folk of the Nation”

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Gough ◽  
Peggy Seeger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Folk Music ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethnic Composition ◽  
Theodore Roosevelt ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
Federal Music Project ◽  
Academic Recognition ◽  
American Society ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter provides a definition of folk music. Precise definition of the term folk music has long confounded scholars and been the source of endless debate and controversy; general agreements, either popular or academic are rare, and misunderstandings abound. Folk music in the United States reflects the complex history and diverse ethnic composition of American society. Indeed, academic recognition of these native musical forms preceded the development of the Federal Music Project (FMP); in 1882, Theodore Baker published a scholarly study of American folk music, and in 1910, Theodore Roosevelt wrote a preface for John Lomax's groundbreaking Cowboy Songs and Other Frontier Ballads publication. Meanwhile, some scholars argue that if a song has a known author, it cannot be classified as folksong “because the original meaning of folk music was something ancient and anonymous.”

American Ethnic Geography

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence E. Estaville ◽  
Susan W. Hardwick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethnic Identification ◽  
Population Geography ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
American Society ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
American Ethnicity ◽  
Ethnic Geography

Because the American Ethnic Geography Specialty Group was established in 1992 and was, therefore, not a part of the original Geography in America anthology in 1989, we think it is beneficial to present briefly the development and context of American ethnic geography into which we can place more current work. In 2000 the American Ethnic Geography Specialty Group changed its name to the Ethnic Geography Specialty Group; but because almost the whole of this report deals with the decade of the 1990s, we use the specialty group’s original name throughout. American ethnic geography encompasses the geographic dimensions and experiences of ethnic groups in the United States and Canada. Its roots are in cultural-historical and population geography. As such, American ethnic geography reflects the epistemologies and methodologies of human geography. Like geographers in general, most American ethnic geographers are empirical and inductive in their research. Because ethnicity is a complex concept, scholars who research ethnicity have been troubled over the years by definitional conundrums. Although in his 1974 study Isajiw determined that most ethnic researchers never explicitly define the meaning of ethnicity, he examined twenty-seven characteristics of ethnicity to construct a definition of North American ethnicity as “an involuntary group of people who share the same culture or . . . descendants of such people who identify themselves and/or are identified by others as belonging to the same involuntary group” (ibid. 122). To Isajiw, then, a person is either born into an ethnic group and is therefore socialized as Anglo, Chinese, French, Polish, etc., or can decide at some point in her/his life which ethnic identity fits best, or other people can perceive a person’s ethnicity. As underscored in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (1980), these latter internal/external modes of ethnic identification have become increasingly more significant in North America. Paradoxically, in today’s multiethnic American society, many ethnic groups are celebrating their heritages with renewed vigor, while, simultaneously, many people are less bound by past ethnic loyalties and have either used innovative terms of self-identification to describe their multiethnicity or simply refused to be categorized ethnically.

scholarly journals Settler Salvation and Indigenous Survival: George Copway’s Reconciliatory Vision, 1849–1851

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-153
Author(s):  
John R.E. Bird
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The United States ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation Commission ◽  
Literary Celebrity ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation ◽  
North Americans ◽  
American Society ◽  
Theological Critique ◽  
Definition Of

From 1849 to 1851, Canada’s first international literary celebrity, the Mississauga writer Kahgegagahbowh, or George Copway, travelled the United States, Great Britain and Europe promoting his vision for the future of Indigenous peoples in the United States. Building on a theological critique of settler colonialism, he called for the creation of a new Indigenous territory west of the Mississippi led by a legislature made up of English-speaking Indigenous Christians. Copway believed that through the establishment of this territory he called Kahgega, European settlers would be able to atone for the sins committed against Indigenous North Americans, thus escaping the impending wrath of God. More importantly, believing that Indigenous peoples faced imminent extinction, he saw Kahgega as a permanent means of preserving his people and safeguarding their shrinking lands and political agency. Though Kahgega failed to impress the public, Copway’s vision offers a fascinating window into an early attempt at reconciling the Indigenous and non-Indigenous halves of North American society. Using the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s definition of ‘reconciliation’, this article shows that past, often failed, Indigenous political visions reveal the complexities and tensions inherent in dialogue surrounding reconciliation.

Bring it on Home: Home Drug Testing and the Relocation of the War on Drugs

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Moore ◽  
Kevin D. Haggerty
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
War On Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private Security ◽  
Drug Regulation ◽  
Free Drug ◽  
The State ◽  
The Family

While the war on drugs is often claimed to have failed in multifarious ways, anti-drug strategies in the United States continue. The discourses through which anti-drug sentiments and policies are forwarded are, however, being reinvented in light of this failure, favoring an inclusionary and less state-centered disease trope for certain populations of drug users. In this article we argue that the privileging of the disease trope within anti-drug rhetoric facilitates the introduction of home drug testing as a means of 'state-free' drug regulation offered to specific populations. The advent of home drug testing is congruent with neoliberal trends towards mobilizing private entities like the family to engage in regulatory practices that were previously concerns of the state. A market for home drug testing has evolved out of rhetoric around private security, and the commodification of notions of safety. Home drug testing is theorized as a tool of surveillance that offers a very particular scientific gaze trained on the seemingly indefensible adolescent body. Teens, however, are not defenseless in this scheme. We document the concomitant rise of resistance technologies and tactics designed to assist teens and others to 'beat' the tests.

The Literatures of America—A Comparative Discipline

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lauter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Literature ◽  
The United States ◽  
Normative Model ◽  
Writers Of Color ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
American Society ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
And Behavior

An image has long haunted the study of American culture. It limits our thought, shapes our values. We speak of the “mainstream,” and we imply by that term the existence of other work, minor rills and branches. In prose, the writing of men like Franklin, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, James, Eliot, Hemingway, Faulkner, Bellow—to name some of the central figures—constituted the “mainstream.” Others—writers of color, most women writers, “regional” or “ethnic” male and female authors—might, we said, be assimilated into the mainstream, though probably they would continue to constitute tributaries, interesting and often sparkling, but finally of less importance. They would, we tacitly assumed, be judged by the standards and aesthetic categories we had developed for the canonical writers. At best, we acknowledged that including in the canon writers like Wharton, Cather, Chopin, and Ellison might change somewhat our definition of the mainstream, but the intellectual model imposed by that mainstream image, this Great River theory of American letters, has persisted even among mildly revisionist critics. Such critics have continued to focus on a severely limited canon of “major” writers based on historical and aesthetic categories from this slightly augmented mainstream. The problem we face is that the model itself is fundamentally misleading. The United States is a heterogeneous society whose cultures, while they overlap in significant respects, also differ in critical ways. A normative model presents those variations from the mainstream as abnormal, deviant, lesser, perhaps ultimately unimportant. That kind of standard is no more helpful in the study of culture than is a model, in the study of gender differences, in which the male is considered the norm, or than are paradigms, in the study of minority or ethnic social organization and behavior based on Anglo-American society. What we need, rather, is to pose a comparativist model for the study of American literature. It is true that few branches of academe in the United States have been so self-consciously indifferent to comparative study as has been the field we call “American literature.”

Is This the Care We Need?: An Examination of Childcare Policy in Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennie Sweet-Cushman ◽  
Ashley Harden
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Child Care ◽  
Current System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Women And Politics ◽  
Richard Nixon ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Childcare Policy

For many families across Pennsylvania, child care is an ever-present concern. Since the 1970s, when Richard Nixon vetoed a national childcare program, child care has received little time in the policy spotlight. Instead, funding for child care in the United States now comes from a mixture of federal, state, and local programs that do not help all families. This article explores childcare options available to families in the state of Pennsylvania and highlights gaps in the current system. Specifically, we examine the state of child care available to families in the Commonwealth in terms of quality, accessibility, flexibility, and affordability. We also incorporate survey data from a nonrepresentative sample of registered Pennsylvania voters conducted by the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics. As these results support the need for improvements in the current childcare system, we discuss recommendations for the future.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Valls
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Construction ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Racial Inequality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
Color Blind ◽  
American Society ◽  
Liberal Political Theory

The persistence of racial inequality in the United States raises deep and complex questions of racial justice. Some observers argue that public policy must be “color-blind,” while others argue that policies that take race into account should be defended on grounds of diversity or integration. This chapter begins to sketch an alternative to both of these, one that supports strong efforts to address racial inequality but that focuses on the conditions necessary for the liberty and equality of all. It argues that while race is a social construction, it remains deeply embedded in American society. A conception of racial justice is needed, one that is grounded on the premises provided by liberal political theory.

Populism and Liberal Democracy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takis S. Pappas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Theory ◽  
The People ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Great Relevance ◽  
Definition Of

Based on an original definition of modern populism as “democratic illiberalism” and many years of meticulous research, Takis Pappas marshals extraordinary empirical evidence from Argentina, Greece, Peru, Italy, Venezuela, Ecuador, Hungary, the United States, Spain, and Brazil to develop a comprehensive theory about populism. He addresses all key issues in the debate about populism and answers significant questions of great relevance for today’s liberal democracy, including: • What is modern populism and how can it be differentiated from comparable phenomena like nativism and autocracy? • Where in Latin America has populism become most successful? Where in Europe did it emerge first? Why did its rise to power in the United States come so late? • Is Trump a populist and, if so, could he be compared best with Venezuela’s Chávez, France’s Le Pens, or Turkey’s Erdoğan? • Why has populism thrived in post-authoritarian Greece but not in Spain? And why in Argentina and not in Brazil? • Can populism ever succeed without a charismatic leader? If not, what does leadership tell us about how to challenge populism? • Who are “the people” who vote for populist parties, how are these “made” into a group, and what is in their minds? • Is there a “populist blueprint” that all populists use when in power? And what are the long-term consequences of populist rule? • What does the expansion, and possibly solidification, of populism mean for the very nature and future of contemporary democracy? Populism and Liberal Democracy will change the ways the reader understands populism and imagines the prospects of liberal democracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document