Globalization, Poverty, and Slavery - Aljazeera's "The Nigerian Connection"

Drug use and sex work are topics that tend to evoke high emotion in the general public. Viewed as victimless crimes by some, others note that victimization is an integral component of international systems where people are trafficked as contemporary slaves in robust drug and prostitution rings.

Aljazeera’s People & Power recently produced an outstanding two-part series on human trafficking that focuses on global connections between Italy and Nigeria. Titled “The Nigerian Connection,” the first piece examines an Italian community, Territorio di Castel Volturno, where Italian and Nigerian Mafia’s compete for supremacy of the local organized crime scene, as the second piece turns to Nigeria.

In sociology and the broader social sciences, globalization is hot topic that refers to the increasingly efficient connections facilitating economic exchanges across the global landscape. This includes everything from legal modes of communication (e.g., the internet), to money exchange industries (e.g., Western Union, typical banking corporations), to the trafficking of drugs and human beings, provided these transactions cross international borders.

While globalization has existed for centuries, today’s international exchanges occur much faster, and illegal exchanges frequently transpire under the radar of law enforcement, that is unless corrupt law enforcement agencies are directly involved in the trafficking. Conservative figures estimate that approximately 27 million people are trapped as slaves in a given year, more in absolute number than at any time in the 18th or 19th century. Most are forced to work in the agricultural sector, though slaves are also forced into drug trafficking, sex work, and industrial tasks.

Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, defines slavery as the total control of one person by another for purpose of economic exploitation. Bales argues that overpopulation in low-income countries has created an increasingly large and vulnerable labor class. An extremely exploitable proletariat, this class is treated by greedy and corrupt capitalists as disposable. Bales further notes that contemporary slavery is characterized by seven qualities that distinguish it from slavery in centuries past:

1. Legal ownership of slaves is avoided
2. Slaves can be purchased at very low cost (for as low as US$90, see here)
3. Slavery yields high profits since slaves are inexpensive
4. Due to overpopulation, the world has a surplus of potential slaves
5. Slaves are disposable, replaceable because of the global surplus
6. Being disposable, slaves have a short relationship with slavers
7. Ethnic differences between slavers and slaves are less important (it is not uncommon to see slavers and slaves from the same ethnic group)

Most of today’s slaves are tricked into slavery through debt bondage – the individual pledges him/herself against a loan of money tied to an inflated cost of transportation to a new country, where the individual will presumably work in a conventional, legal job. However, upon arriving in a new and unfamiliar place, the workers are forced into slave-based jobs with conditions that make it virtually impossible to pay off their debts, escape, or seek help from legal authorities (e.g., passports are taken away).

Watching Aljazeera’s two-part documentary, one can clearly see the seven qualities Bales presents that characterize modern-day slavery, as well as how globalization is facilitating slavery tied to prostitution.

Part I (25 minutes):



Part I offers additional insights into important sociological concepts. For instance, cultural norms are corrupted in order to control the Nigerian female prostitutes via a “Juju oath” that women are forced to take prior to leaving Nigeria (@16 minutes; and @ 12:00 minutes in Part II). This oath is used to control the women while enslaved in Italy. Patriarchy is also clearly evident, as systems are established that privilege men over women. With the prostitutes being predominantly female and without official paperwork, laws are established that further criminalize them. Though prostitution is legal in Italy, sex workers can be arrested (by mostly male police officers) if they do not have residency papers, which obviously these women lack since they are forced to work off the books (@ 17:30 minutes). Note also the comments by the nun regarding a male market (@ 22:30 minutes) that keeps the industry flourishing. Part II shifts to Nigeria’s economic deprivation and internal corruption that fuels an exploitable slave class.

Part II (25 minutes):



Returning to one of Bales’s key points, Part II displays how agents in Nigeria are often Nigerians themselves, who trick young Nigerian women into sexual slavery (@ 5:00 minutes). This further demonstrates the decreasing status of race and ethnicity as rigid markers in the slavery system. Mass poverty is also highlighted as a contributor to the human trafficking machine, with one third of the population in this Nigerian state living on less than $1 per day (@ 7:50 minutes). As such, becoming a human trafficker of one’s own people emerges largely out of economic desperation, while globalization and global stratification provide the distant places of hope that seduce poverty stricken Nigerians into deceit. Part II closes by exploring the illegal trafficking of Nigerian babies (@ 18 minutes).

The two videos provide for excellent pieces on discussions surrounding globalization and contemporary slavery.

Feminized Firearms: Marketing Violence Through Gender Norms

NPR has a story up that discusses the ways gun stores are now catering to an increasingly female client-base. The images pictured here illustrate the symbolic gendering of color plastered onto these feminized firearms.

The story also has an interesting quote from a female buyer: "'If you listen to the news at night, all you hear are women in parking lots — someone coming up, or threatening them for their purse or threatening their life, or raping [them],' she says."

If in fact the news in this woman's community reports cases of women being assaulted in parking lots incessantly, her community is highly abnormal (or the news is probably over-reporting street crime, while not realizing violence within households between intimate partners is among the most under-reported type of crime).

Not to dismiss the seriousness of being attacked by a stranger, but research shows overwhelmingly that on average (1) women are at far greater risk of being assaulted in their own homes and/or by a friend than on the street; and (2) having a firearm does not enhance one's own protection (Plaxico Burress anyone?).

This just makes me wonder, is a moral panic being created to identify a new female market who will buy more guns?

Pic vis NPR.


blog

Sporting Violence and Men's Health

SocProf over at The Global Sociology Blog has motivated me to review some of the ways that sporting violence and masculinity intertwine in contemporary society, resulting in the systemic deterioration of men's health. Indeed the picture displayed, above, is a vivid example illustrating how so many boys are socialized to positively to value violence, both within and beyond sport.

Perhaps the young boys' smile as he watches this hockey fight is the most telling aspect of the picture. However, the picture is of former National Hockey League (NHL) player, Bob Probert, who recently passed away. From The New York Times:

The Fighter: Bob Probert
Bob Probert, who died last summer from heart failure at the age of 45, was notorious for his brutal style of hockey, which included 246 fights with other N.H.L. players over his 16-year career. But these altercations may have also contributed to his chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease, which was diagnosed after his death. While the N.H.L. has taken recent steps to reduce brain trauma, it has preserved the league-sanctioned fighting that many argue is part of the sport’s tradition and appeal. Players such as Probert, known as each team’s “enforcer,” continue to be employed, and often admired. The following YouTube videos are a sampling of Probert’s many fights [note: only one shown here].

The entire New York Times story can be read HERE. I would agree that socialization plays a central role in teaching young males over the life course to view engagement into certain types of violence positively. This was a key finding in my interviews with adult mixed martial arts (MMA) fighters, so many of whom grew up watching MMA with key father-figures, fighting with peers, fighting with family, learning to “fight” through wrestling, and so on. Violence in a variety of contexts became a very normalized aspect of their lives.

On the other hand, as Loic Waquant (2001) has noted in his research with boxers in Chicago, males involved in combat sports are not completely blinded by their socialized history to simply engage in sporting violence without thinking to varying degrees about their choices. Rather, boxers – and male athletes in general – are frequently keenly aware of the risks they take, and the ways they may be exploited when making strategic choices to pursue their athletic and occupational goals. Two boxers quoted from Waquant’s study:

All boxers, are what they call, figure of speech: they’re fucked over. You know, you see, they’re pimps, the promoters, you know. And boxers is like the whores, you know, so you pimp him. Yeah, that’s the way that go, I’m pretty sure. They don’t really have the bes’ interes’ in the fighter, you know. They jus’ goin’ for the gusto, the gusto is the money. (dejected but matterof-fact) They jus’ goin’ for the money. (p. 182).

If you go in dere with a nice tough fight, man, rewar’ dis man. I tol’, I saw Highmower fight dis boy, man, man! (chuckle) I hated fightin’, I hated boxin’ ever since, I’m serious. Because, Louie, (incensed) Highmower an’ dat boy nearly killed each other. Man, d’ crowd wen’ crazy, Ralph [the matchmaker] – I’s, I’s like, ‘Look at dis shit!’ Boy, this is slavery all over again. I mean, look at dis shit! Dese men is seriously killin’ each other for (lowering his voice and whispering in joint disbelief and disgust) for a hun’red dollars (stressing each word to dramatize his point) Highmower-cut, that-man-cut, they-all-wen’-down, three-an’-four-time-a-piece. Botha’em wen’ to d’hospital, fer what, fer two hun’red dollars, hun’red each man? I said (shaking his head vigorously), ‘No, that ain’t – tha’s not right.’ (p.183).

Despite having an awareness of their own exploitation, these boxers continued fighting as "flesh peddlers." This is because the individuals weighed the pros and cons that accompanied boxing, making calculated decisions that involved an assessment of their current resources (e.g., time invested in training, dependents, rent to be paid), potential acquisition of additional resources, social status (including the genered social prestige they would gain with victory), and their physical health.

Today, with the emerging research on traumatic brain injury manifesting through sport, there is little doubt that young athletes are aware of the long-term costs that can come with prolonged participation in collision sports. This insightful interview with former professional wrestler and Harvard football player, Christopher Nowwinski on NPR’s Fresh Air speaks to the evolving research that increasingly demonstrates how repeated concussions harm athletes (the entire interview is thought provoking):

Concussions, a type of traumatic brain injury, generally occur when the head either spins rapidly or accelerates quickly and then stops — like when a player tackles another player on the field. The National Football League and Congress have both held hearings on the head injuries, which can cause memory loss, confusion, nausea, blurred vision and long-term neurological effects, including symptoms of dementia, headaches and concentration problems.

The central problem is not that male athletes are unaware of the potential harm that comes with collision sports, or attendant violent sporting activities (namely, fighting). Instead, the problems are:

• Some athletes, in particular those with fewer resources, must make the uneasy choice to sacrifice their long-term physical and mental health for immediate rewards. And for many of these athletes, those immediate financial rewards are not terribly impressive.
• Secondly, male athletes too often view the short-term status increases that accompany participation in violent sport (and fighting) as a positive tradeoff. In other words, male athletes know that by partaking in violent activities (and especially if they win), the public will reward them as males, not only financially, but also through gendered adoration. Sporting violence exalts their public masculinity, if only temporarily.

Both of these social problems can be seen in FX’s recent boxing television series, "Lights Out," where the protagonist boxer must weigh his lost wealth, decreased status, and emerging family crises as he risks his mental and physical health in the ring:

Scholars that examine masculinity and its ties to different types of violence have often argued that men need to see how perpetuation of violent masculinities hurt men (e.g., gun-related homicides happen most commonly among men over slights of disrespect). But what is more critical is that (1) we do not see more vulnerable men with fewer resources seduced into violent sport; and (2) males are not rewarded socially for their violent behaviors.

Changing these two criteria means decreasing social stratification in society so that financially vulnerable men are not disproportionately risking their bodies and minds for sport's very limited rewards, and revamping media that glorifies violent men.

Michelle Martin on “Tell Me More” probably says it in a more profound way:

But it's time to ask whether sports in this country are like oil in the Middle East and Africa. We think sports are making us rich, but are they really making us poor, by keeping us from doing other things that might matter as much or more in the long run? It's an uncomfortable question, but as a fan myself, I have to ask.

Reference:
Wacquant, L. (2001). Whores, Slaves and Stallions: Languages of Exploitation and Accommodation among Boxers. Body & Society, 7 (2/3), 181-194.

Japanese Manga and Social Norms

The New York Times has an interesting story up regarding the manga phenomenon in Japan and its highly sexualized content, specifically with regard to portrayals of female minors - "Japan Debates Depictions of Young Girls in Comics."

The article offers some good examples of the way that patriarchy is weaved into Japan's formal social structure, namely, into the law. To put it mildly, manga comics frequently display animated pictures of girls in sexually suggestive situations. The industry is very lucrative, and has a history:

Japan, which has long been relatively tolerant of the open sale and consumption of sexually oriented material, lately has developed a brisk trade in works that in many other countries might be considered child pornography. But now some public officials want to place tighter restrictions on the provocative depictions of young girls — referred to as “junior idols”— that are prevalent in magazines, DVDs and Web videos.

One particularly big target is manga comic books that depict pubescent girls in sexual acts. It a lucrative segment of the $5.5 billion industry for manga, illustrated books drawn in a characteristic Japanese comic-book style.

[...]

Manga taps into a history of erotica that dates at least as far back as the ukiyo-e prints of 17th- to 19th-century Japan, including Hokusai’s famous portrayal of a fisherwoman and octopi in a salacious encounter. But it was as recently as the 1980s that comic magazines like Lemon People introduced a wider audience to sexual manga featuring young girls.

A new law specific to Tokyo's metropolitan government offers very moderate regulation of manga comics, ostensibly in order to prevent child exploitation. However, and unsurprisingly, the law doesn't have a lot of teeth.

The new Tokyo law, which applies to anyone under 18, bans the sale of comics and other works — including novels, DVDs and video games — that depict sexual or violent acts that would violate Japan’s national penal code, as well as sex involving anyone under age 18. The ordinance also requires guardians to prevent children younger than 13 from posing for magazines or videos that depict them in sexually suggestive ways.

Legal experts say that Japan’s laws against child pornography are lax by international standards. Japan has banned the production or distribution of any sexually explicit, nude images of minors since 1999, when Parliament passed a law in response to international criticism of the wide availability of such works in the country. But even now, unlike the United States and most European countries, Japan does not ban the possession of child pornography.

If patriarchy is defined as a system that privileges men over women, then we have a clear example of patriarchy here. Within Japan's current legal structure (at least since 1999) it is completely legal to own child pornography. And while child pornography harms girls and boys, the manga culture appears heavily centered on sexually embellished girls.

To this end, it is argued that the manga culture cultivates values that denigrate girls, increasing their vulnerability to male manga consumers who cannot (or choose not to) separate a patriarchal fantasy from real life experience. The manga culture is said to diffuse into the broader Japanese culture, altering cultural values and norms among males:

Hiromasa Nakai, a spokesman for the Japan Committee for Unicef, said the abundance of child pornography in Japan made it even easier for those who would normally not be considered as having clinical pedophilia, a psychiatric disorder characterized by a sexual obsession with young children, to develop a sexual interest in children.

“To a degree, it has become socially accepted to lust over young girls in Japan,” Mr. Nakai said. “Condoning these works has meant more people have access to them and develop an interest in young girls.”

And this diffusion impacts girls' self-images as well. The article describes a 13-year-old girl and her aspirations, clearly influenced by the manga industry:

“I loved the white bikini,” Ms. Iinuma, the 13-year-old model, told the adult male fans who turned out at the Sofmap electronics store in Tokyo for an event to promote the release of her second DVD, “Developing Now.” It is a plotless 70 minutes of Ms. Iinuma in various costumes and poses.

At the gathering, Ms. Iinuma performed a short dance, spoke about the video shoot, then posed as men approached her to snap photos, while her mother looked on from the back of the room.

Of course those advocating on behalf of the manga industry (or the sector of the industry that is under fire) argue that consumers are mature enough not to have their attitudes and behaviors actually impacted by the media.

The industry’s defenders say comparing manga to pedophilia involving real children is absurd. “Depicting a crime and committing one are two different things; it’s like convicting a mystery writer for murder,” said Takashi Yamaguchi, a Tokyo lawyer and manga expert.

And finally, the industry's economic health is said by some to be more important than wiping out dimensions of patriarchial culture.

Some also worry that stronger regulations will harm an industry whose fortunes have already fallen in recent years; sales of comic magazines, in particular, have dropped by a third over the last decade, to $24.3 million in 2008.

In short, eradicating sexism is not prioritized when placed against free market business ventures. And as noted previously, the society protects this patriarchial culture through the law.

Oh, and this cultural norm has diffused to some degree into American popular culture. Anyone remember the blockbuster film, Kill Bill 2, where we see the intersections of manga-influenced youth, sexism, and violence manifest in this character?




academics

What if Jared Loughner had a Latino Last Name?

Over at "All Things Considered" on NPR, Daisy Hernandez explains the political fallout that would have likely emerged had Jared Loughner been Latino. Hernandez's viewpoints illustrate how our society operates as part of a social system, where an individual's actions are attributed to different causes based on racialized perceptions, and that result in differing, racialized policy efforts:

I wasn't the only person on Saturday who rushed to her Android when news came of the Tucson shooting. I wasn't looking however to read about what had happened. My auntie had already filled me in — "Someone tried to murder una representante. People have been killed," she'd reported. What I wanted to know was the killer's surname.

My eyes scanned the mobile papers. I held my breath. Finally, I saw it: Jared Loughner. Not a Ramirez, Gonzalez or Garcia.

It's safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo. Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn't be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they'd be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border, more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for hiring brown people. Obama would be attending funerals and telling the nation tonight that he was going to increase security just about everywhere.

Hernandez then goes on to state the social significance of a gay, Latino man coming to the aid of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, given Arizona's current political climate revolving around immigration:

It's painfully ironic that a gay Latino man came to the aid of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the storm of gunfire. Daniel Hernandez, an intern with the congresswoman, ran to Rep. Giffords and helped to stop the bleeding. If a judge hadn't blocked provisions of Arizona's SB 1070 law, the intern's surname would have easily qualified him as a target for police under different circumstances on Saturday.

But because Loughner comes from the majority group in the United States (and Arizona), his actions are not attributed to his social in-group, but instead to a unique mental illness that does not typify white males to a significant degree in the popular public consciousness. This perspective that does not associate Caucasians, or more to the point, political conservatives, with Loughner in any way is present in Sarah Palin's perspective:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

Really, had Loughner been Latino, would Palin be expressing similar sentiments? Or, would she be staunchly using the tragedy to heighten a culture of fear and drive American immigration policy in line with a nativist agenda? And seriously, for a former Vice-Presidential candidate to say that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own" and are unaffected by any variety of other social circumstances is rather naïve. Agreed, we all have individual power, choice, and autonomy.

Likewise, we are all significantly influenced by our social surroundings. Automatically discrediting political ideology from Loughner's actions is as absurd as automatically attributing his actions wholly to his political beliefs and/or political loudspeakers. Considering that an assisination attempt was made on Congresswoman Giffords (an obvious political figure), political ideology should at the very least be explored as one variable that contributed to this tragedy.

Picture via NPR (story also available for listening via podcast).


academics

Distancing Mass Killings from Systemic Patterns

Criminologists have long lamented the ways that white males suspected of committing mass shootings and being serial killers are typically profiled. As the public discourse continues to develop regarding suspected shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 6 deceased and 14 additional wounded victims, Jared Lee Loughner, we are seeing the typical pattern emerge among those on the conservative side of the political spectrum: the violence can be attributed solely to mental illness, and not to any systemic influences tied to political ideology.

Attempts to distance Loughner's alledged attack from right-wing political ideology have grown largely because Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik pointed out the possible ties between exaggerated, vitriolic political discourse and the violence that has now been thrust upon someone who was once targeted symbolically by Sarah Palin (see picture, top of post).



Now in reading through the posted explanations by those on the conservative right, we see an intensified attempt to maintain the typical explanation for mass violence committed by white males - the alleged white male suspect is an individual anomaly with mental illness who has no ties to any institutional groups and/or their influence.

In contrast, mass violence perpetrated by individual minorities is typically tied to the perpetrator's minority culture, weather that be a said culture of poverty, culture of terrorism, drug culture, etc. SocProf explained this phenomenon first:

This list is quite long and definitely establishes a pattern of political violence. But if every incident is treated as an individual act, taken in isolation, and explained by reference to individual characteristics of the perpetrator, then, the social, political and cultural background disappears, leaving the emerging social movement unexplained and unaccountable.

It is a common phenomenon, long studied and explained by social psychology that when individuals from our in-group or privileged individuals commit questionable acts, these acts are explained individually. When individuals from out-groups, or groups that are socially unpopular, commit questionable acts, these acts are explained as part of group membership, as categorical. The former are exceptions, the latter are representative. That is how racial and ethnic prejudice persist and how white privilege is preserved. One only has to imagine what media discourse would be, had the shooter been non-White, Latino or Muslim.

It is not difficult at all to now find data illustrating this phenomenon while browsing through the comments of various news stories. Liz Halloran recently penned a piece on NPR titled "'Vitriol' Cited As Possible Factor In Arizona Tragedy" that as of 5:00pm Hawaii Standard Time has 2,701 reader comments. Here are few that demonstrate how individuals are trying to distance these violent actions from right-wing ideology (obviously, this is not a representative example, as I have not conducted a full content analysis with coding and accounting for "rec's"; these are simply a few examples):

• Rhetoric is not the issue here...this was a lone nutbag, with his own mad view on things, hell bent on killing many. It's a shame that both sides are trying to reap some kinda political points for this. (Sunday, January 09, 2011 8:16:15 PM).
• I listened to this Sheriff again this morning and he is completely out of line and is using this tragety to promote a political agenda and I hope the good people of Pima Co. remember this when he is up for re-election... Freedom of speech cannot be closed down because there are unbalanced people that will twist the meaning of what is being said into a call to kill people... This event was caused by this man's mental illness period. (Sunday, January 09, 2011 2:32:35 PM).

And this from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash, "You know, his favorite books are 'the Communist Manifesto' and 'Mein Kampf.' I think it's important that we recognize that this is an individual that had -- that has mental challenges, and we need to act appropriately in dealing with him and making sure that justice prevails here" (emphasis added), contrasted with the following from Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md (FoxNews):

Far too many broadcasts now and so many outlets have the intent of inciting, and inciting people to opposition, to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral. And I think that is a context in which somebody who is mentally unbalanced can somehow feel justified in taking this kind of action. And I think we need to all take cognizance of that and be aware that what we say can, in fact, have consequences.

Without jumping to conclusions, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility that exaggerated political discourse was a significant component in this tragedy. Shouldn't all possible contributors to physical violence be explored in order to prevent future violence? By being immediately defensive about the possible connections between vitriolic political rhetoric and physical violence, rational attempts to uncover all the underlying causes of violence are thwarted.

Suggested reading: "Climate of Hate"


academics blog

More Football Violence

Sometimes it's difficult for me to reconclie being a football fan. As you can see in the video, he got up and walked away on his own.



Made me think neckrolls might be appropriate for the NFL.

Permissible Violence: Kobe Bryant, Jimmy Kimmel, and Call of Duty: Black Ops

In 1997, Hutchins and Phillips published an important article in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, titled "Selling Permissible Violence." The article utilizes Australian rugby to illustrate that standards of violence fluctuate in society. These fluctuating standards of violence are contingent upon the market's commodification of violence, evolving technology and media, and political ideology. And while Hutchins and Phillips's article centers on sporting violence, the concept of permissible violence can be extended to other forms of popular culture, as well as war.

To this end, recently, National Basketball Association (NBA) icon, Kobe Bryant, and television late show host, Jimmy Kimmel, were featured in an XBOX 360 advertisement for the recently released game, "Call of Duty: Black Ops," re-enacting combat in war. Here's the commercial:



Link to commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yzeCsv-qrM

It is important to note a few other dimensions of the commercial. First, it makes a concerted effort to include a very diverse array of additional characters -- men, women, younger people, older people, those from different ethnic and occupational/class groups. This diversity tactic then leads to an ending slogan: "THERE'S A SOLDIER IN ALL OF US." In other words, all of us (supposedly) have the innate capacity and desire to partake in war (or at least buy the video game).

The commercial has generated a small degree of controversy. On ESPN, sports pundits discuss whether or not Bryant's participation in the commercial warrants a response from NBA Commissioner, David Stern:



Bomani Jones hits the nail on the head. With approximately 1 minute left in the video, Jones points out that if Bryant was re-enacting what's portrayed in the video game, Grand Theft Auto (e.g., murder, assaults, prostitution), he would be reprimanded by Commissioner Stern. However, because Bryant, Kimmel and the other actors are re-enacting war against each other, and presumably against American enemies in the game, the portrayed violence is at the very least permissible, and more likely glorified as a kind of American patriotism.

And this is the problem with America's blind fascination with war -- the general public only sees what our media wants us to see. We see the most extreme violence (death) glamorized and commodified in "benign" video games, leaving the public completely misdirected from the realities of war.

Bryant and Kimmel's participation in the commercial, and in turn support of this war-based game, speak nothing to the physical and mental health concerns soldiers (including American soldiers) experience because of war (listen to Terry Gross's fantastic interview for a discussion on soldiers' mental health concerns: Psychologist Craig Bryan: Treating Vets For PTSD).

Likewise, "Call of Duty: Black Ops" speaks nothing to the alleged war crimes that American soldiers have been accused of committing in Iraq and Afghanistan (Leaked U.S. Video Shows Deaths In Baghdad; A Murder Controversy in Afghanistan).

What we see in this commercial, is that war is not just permissible. It is cool. If Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Kimmel can have fun re-enacting war games and show "they have a soldier in them," video gamers should likewise view war-based video games that bring death upon others in fiction uncritically. But in real life, these media blitzes simultaneously and covertly also support American military efforts, without problematizing the tragic outcomes of war on all sides of the battlefield.

Should society be glamorizing war to make money, and turning to celebrities to peddle these products? I wonder, how many of the marketers for "Call of Duty: Black Ops" have been in combat, lost a limb, dealt with severe war-related mental health problems, killed someone, or had a loved one killed?

Photo via ESPN; more from The Orlando Sentinel: ESPN shot down by Call of Duty Black Ops creators over Kobe Bryant ad, Examiner.com: Activision denies ESPN use of COD: Black Ops commercial with Kobe Bryant, 'Call of Duty: Black Ops' video game commercial controversy, Media Bistro: Activision Shoots Down ESPN’s Request To Air Kobe Bryant Commercial.


academics

Reading Eminem and Rihanna's 'Love The Way You Lie'

Ever since Eminem and Rihanna's video for their hit song "Love The Way You Lie" was released, I've been thinking about the song's violent lyrics and its video's violent imagery. The folks over at Sociological Images helped me wrap my initial thoughts around the video:

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a beautiful song. Rihanna’s vocals are gorgeous; it’s was hard to not feel heartfelt while listening to them. And that’s the problem. It’s a powerful form of socialization. That we might internalize the message that passionate love and incontrollable rage go hand-in-hand is really very scary. It suggests not only that you should tolerate interpersonal violence but that, if there is no violence in your relationship, perhaps you don’t really love one another.

How many individuals feel happy when their partner expresses jealousy, even goes into a jealous rage? Why is that dynamic normalized in varying degrees? There's no denying the song's popularity. According to Yahoo! Finance, "Love the Way You Lie," "...has reigned at No. 1 on the Digital Songs chart for five consecutive weeks and has sold more than 1.4 million downloads." A portion of the lyrics:

Told you this is my fault
Look me in the eyeball
Next time I'm pissed
I'll aim my fist
At the dry wall
Next time
There will be no next time
I apologize
Even though I know it's lies
I'm tired of the games
I just want her back
I know I'm a liar
If she ever tries to fucking leave again
I'mma tie her to the bed
And set the house on fire

Graphic and shocking to say the least, as are the images in the video, which features movie and television stars Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan:

Graphic and shocking was largely the point. The song was authored by Eminem, who then asked to collaborate with Rihanna, in part because of her history as an intimate partner violence (IPV) victim (listen here for an excellent discussion on Rihanna, Chris Brown, and the gendered politics of IPV). Against my general principles, I dug into the "bee-bop" popular culture internet sites to see what I could find about how this song and video were intended to address IPV. In fact, there are direct connections being made between the video and IPV.

For instance, Megan Fox has donated her video appearance fee to a shelter for battered women. And in a VH1 interview with Rihanna, the music star explains her and Eminem's personal connection to the song's theme:

"It's something that, you know, [Eminem and I have] both experienced, you know, on different sides, different ends of the table," she said.

"It just was authentic. It was real," Rihanna continued. "It was believable for us to do a record like that, but it was also something that needed to be done and the way he did it was so clever. He pretty much just broke down the cycle of domestic violence and it's something that a lot people don't have a lot of insight on, so this song is a really, really powerful song and it touches a lot of people."

[...]

Ultimately, the song was something Rihanna felt was in line with her past relationship. "The lyrics were so deep, so beautiful and intense. It's something that I understood, something I connected with," she revealed.

Dominic Monaghan ads:

"The concept of 'Love the Way You Lie' was essentially a look at the relationship that Eminem was in with his wife, Kim, so I kind of felt like I was playing Eminem a little bit, and Megan Fox was kind of playing Kim.

"It's the story of them getting to know each other, and it's the story of their tumultuous relationship, and it was the story of the breakdown of their relationship," he continued. "Ultimately, what I think he's trying to say in the song ... is that he should have walked away a little bit quicker than he did and not let it get as messy as it did."

At least explicity, there was critical thought put into this popular culture artifact. My question is, how will young people from different demographics and different life experiences interpret the song's and video's violent content? The one empirical study I could find on Eminem's music and its effects on listeners found that young adults who listened to his songs with misogynistic lyrics were largely unaffected by them, though the study was only conducted with research participants who were college students (Cobb & Boettcher, 2007).

In my dissertation, adolescent research participants spoke quite openly about the ways they saw IPV as completely normal. These were teens who had experienced multiple forms of violence throughout their lives (peer, family, romantic, drug, physical, verbal) -- certainly not the average college student. I wonder what their interpretations would be.

Then yesterday, I heard a male radio DJ essentially state the following after "Love The Way You Lie" was played: "You know, Megan Fox is supposed to play an abused victim in that song's video, (chuckling) but in the video, she's the abuser. I didn't see her get hit once. She was doing all the hitting!" Uh, yeah, real funny. Was that the video's intent? And did he miss all the punching of the walls (physical intimidation)? Contrast that point of view with a female student in my Sociology of Popular Culture class:

As for the video, I think maybe it has good intentions, especially using two artists who have a history with IPV, but I don't think it will be beneficial. Using [Dominic Monaghan] and Megan Fox (a sex symbol for everyone today) [it] seems to glorify the topic by using two high end celebrities. This video seemed like it wanted to make domestic violence look sexy and possessiveness look masculine.

Perhaps for some listeners, the song and video do raise consciousness regarding IPV prevention -- what Monaghan said the video is intended to accomplish. But certainly not for everyone. For the student quoted above, the video was offensive and reified traditional gender norms. To get a little academic, from John Storey (1993):

...an image containing references to pop music culture might be seen by a young audience as an index of freedom and heterogeneity, whilst to an older audience it might signal manipulation and homgeneity. Which codes are mobilized will largely depend on the triple context of the location of the text, the historical moment and the cultural formation of the reader (p. 80).

Since people with different social histories interpret popular culture differently, I'd be interested to see how young people from different demographics digest this song and video. Do the cultural artifacts problematize IPV (the stated intent) or further normalize and perpetuate this form of violence?

Or, as indicated by the radio DJ, does this video mobilize codes that perpetuate misunderstandings about co-occurring violence in intimate relationships? For instance, too many people assume that when males and females hit each other, the physical ramifications are equally harmful. Does the video gloss over the fact that verbal abuse, social isolation, and other forms of control (e.g., forcing what a partner wears) can be more damaging than physical violence?

The song's and video's influence will likely diminish over time. Nonetheless, "Love The Way You Lie" demonstrates how people's readings of the same cultural product can vary greatly, and how received meanings can be shaped more by audiences' past experiences than by the cultural producers.

Non Internet Sources:

Cobb, M. D., & Boettcher, W. A. (2007). Ambivalent Sexism and Misogynistic Rap Music: Does Exposure to Eminem Increase Sexism? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (12), 3025-3042.

Storey, J. (1993). An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press.


Blogging

Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?

Before jumping into a Marxist analysis of MMA, I wanted to follow up on my previous opinion piece posted here a few days ago, titled “Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts (July 23, 2010).” The essay gained a little bit of traction across the MMA blogosphere discussed on BloodyElbow, Sherdog, and the UG. Not a terribly big deal, but I believe responses were a bit unfair to Zuffa, LLC and the UFC specifically, both in the receptive headlines and general discourse. My original article did not mention the UFC too much more than Strikeforce. However, it seemed the UFC was presented as the sole MMA organization to be held responsible, as opposed to an example of a profitable organization that may want to foster safety measures beyond its current organization.

Additionally, I was careful not to explicitly state that any MMA organization (UFC, Strikeforce, whichever) should be responsible for investing in a kind of minor league, MMA farm system. From the final paragraph in my original piece: “Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions…” Considering broader investment in safety-based infrastrcutre across smaller organizations is not radical by any means.

A good example of a model would be the WEC before the folks at Zuffa decided to cut the heavier weight classes. Under the Zuffa umbrella, the WEC ostensibly served as a farm system for fighters in multiple weight classes (155lbs – LHW) who could matriculate into the UFC when their talents warranted promotion. And with the WEC under the Zuffa banner, it was (and still is for the WEC fighters in lighter weight classes) understood the strictest, most thorough safety precautions would be taken, in large part because the parent company (Zuffa) could afford them.

If we are going to focus on Zuffa, this could mean the Fertitta brothers, Dana White, and company identifying smaller, regional MMA organizations with whom they would like to forge formal partnerships and investing in their organizational development (e.g., promotional strategies, fighter recruitment). This would also mean enforcing the most thorough medical/safety precautions that may frequently exceed state regulations. In return, hopefully the best fighters would gravitate towards those farm organizations and safely progress to the UFC.

No model is perfect. Tensions could emerge between whatever parent MMA organization is running the show and the smaller feeder organizations over any number of issues. Mapping out and implementing such a plan would take years, but prominent, successful organizations have vision and make long-term organizational plans. One central focus (and the one with which I am obviously most concerned) is broad-based prevention. This was never and is not now an alarmist response to two deaths in sanctioned MMA. This is a public health-type prevention response, arguing those tragedies are important, and long-term, it would benefit the industry if wide-spread measures were taken to prevent/minimize future deaths and major injuries.

If we can agree that Zuffa provides the best medical precautions, why not work to expand that infrastructure? Then the issue of cost comes up, and presumably, Zuffa shrunk the WEC at least in part because having so many weight classes was not fiscally profitable, leading me to my next point…

A Marxist Interpretation of MMA

In a developed society like the United States that leans heavily towards capitalism and the free market, a highly successful private enterprise is obviously not responsible for ensuring other, smaller companies are implementing any level of worker safety. As noted in the original essay, although the bigger MMA organizations rely on the smaller ones for worker development/recruitment, there is to my knowledge no formal relationship between them. On the contrary, MMA organizations big and small may even identify one another as competition and have antagonistic relationships. And that is part of the crux in this discussion (sorry, what follows is gonna get a bit lengthy and lecture-ish).

If applying a very Marxist viewpoint, in a for-profit company, those at the top will never pay its workers their full value, let alone workers outside of their organization. In fact, capitalist companies world-wide know that the best way to maximize profit is not via sales (though sales are necessary), but via under-paying labor. Hence, within a capitalist system, the proletariat (fighters) will always be at odds with the bourgeoisie (promoters/owners), as maximizing worker cost minimizes profit margin. Thus, it is not in any company’s best interests financially to support workers, especially workers industry-wide.

Sticking with the Marxist lens, the difficult part for fighters is so many have what Marx called “false consciousness” – they genuinely believe that to a large degree they benefit from more than they are harmed by the bourgeoisie, industry, and social structure. Not only does the promoter pay the fighter, but through the industry, fighters report learning positive values (e.g., discipline) and attain a certain status (e.g., celebrity, alpha male). This status coupled with financial compensation helps fighters cope with a sense of alienation from their own bodies. Their own bodies become defined as tools for the MMA industry, in this case tools valued for their ability to destruct other fighters and absorb pain in the short-term, rather than healthy bodies over time.

And while previous research shows that fighters are keenly aware of their own exploitation (see Loic Wacqunt’s qualitative work with boxers), fighters will inevitably invest their efforts in fighting each other rather than the power structure. Supporting the company line and defeating a fellow fighter yields far more social rewards now than working with fellow workers to secure worker rights years from now (never mind trying to do so individually). And management knows this. Keeping workers invested in the company and divided among themselves means there is no collective working-class resistance to conquer.

Hence, even when the most socially powerful fighters like Randy Couture challenge management, the collective silence of all other fighters vastly outweighs Couture’s protest, and eventually he is compelled to return if he wants to continue practicing his craft at the highest level. And high-level, well-compensated fighters, like Couture, Brock Lesner, and Chuck Liddell, are portrayed almost as a norm, even though they are outlying exceptions with regard to worker compensation across the MMA landscape.

The other issue at hand for Marx is the broader public, or in this case, MMA fans. Capitalism functions more efficiently when workers as a whole have leisure time to re-charge (hence, we have weekends, holidays, vacation). Sport functions in society for workers as a site where one can have a reprieve from work, only to go back to work without complaining about it. The MMA industry is built largely from the reality that much of our society values and has commodified violence as a form of entertainment.

Thus as capitalist enterprises, MMA organizations know they can increase profits not only by increased gate and pay-per-view sales, but also through advertising deals, DVD sales, clothing sales, and so on. And as long as enough of the larger society values violence as a form of entertainment, the broader public will support the industry that creates this manifestation of violence, but not the workers that enable the industry to run.

If workers outside the MMA industry value quality MMA fights but don’t want to pay unreasonable costs to watch them, they are not going to seriously advocate for the fighters’ rights. Doing so would increase MMA company costs and in turn costs of MMA pay-per-views, tickets, and merchandising. Consequently, those who utilize their bodies as labor are resigned to (in this case literally) fight for themselves and against one another. They don’t get broad-based, radical support from the bourgeoisie, each other, or the broader public.

One could reasonably argue, fighters engage in fight sport as a personal choice, and that is ultimately true, but it is true to different degrees for different people. People are born with vastly different life chances. It is no coincidence that such a high proportion of boxers from different ethnic demographics have come from very working-class backgrounds over the decades.

And while MMA currently has a larger proportion of fighters from middle-class backgrounds, one can go back to the way our society values masculine violence as a form of entertainment. This will inevitably influence heavy numbers of males to pursue a pro MMA career, often at the expense of other, more likely and lengthy vocational paths. And back to the issue at hand, sacrificing the more likely career path means not crossing the boss once in the MMA industry.

With all this in mind, who is going to support the fighters, and not just the ones that already make six figures?


Blogosphere

Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts

In late June of this year, mixed martial arts (MMA) experienced its second death due to competition from a regulated event. Tragedies in sport and society are distressing enough for those directly involved. Added media attention does not always help, and in some cases can contribute to families’ and friends’ grief for their deceased loved ones. For this reason, I will not go into detail about the particular event noted (responsible writing on this and a previous death linked to sanctioned MMA can be found here, here, and here). Rather, this tragedy reminded me of the intrinsic competitive nature of sport, MMA’s evolving structure, and how society regulates violence in sport.

First, however, it is important that violence is properly understood and defined. Depending on an individual’s personal background, his or her threshold for violence can vary immensely, to the degree that an event may be considered violent for one individual and not another. A few years ago, for example, dog fighting received extensive media attention as a highly violent, brutal, and cruel practice following the Michael Vick controversy. In Afghanistan, however, dog fighting as a social institution has risen in popularity since the Taliban’s ousting in 2001. While not all in Afghanistan support the practice, it should not be surprising that violence like this is celebrated among a significant proportion of males, given the country’s war-torn history and lack of entertainment outlets. In short, context is critical to one’s threshold for violence.

The World Health Organization defines violence as such:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. (p. 6).

If applying this definition to sport, and to MMA specifically, MMA is at its core, violent. Injuries, even death, are a risk in all sports. Even in non-contact sports, such as long distance running, deaths occur on occasion (though the absolute number of long distance runners is massive in comparison to MMA). However, in most sports, there is not intent to harm. In combat sports, "the intentional use of physical force…against…another person" is required and formally sanctioned.

Furthermore, MMA competitions have a high likelihood of injury. Research published in peer-review academic journals has noted that MMA competitions yield injuries similar in prevalence to other combat sports, typically facial lacerations, contusions, and joint injuries. This of course, does not automatically mean MMA is the most violent or dangerous sporting practice, but to deny its potential for brutality would be remiss.

The danger in MMA’s structure lies in its under-funded feeding grounds. Within the United States, prominent MMA organizations such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Strikeforce have the resources and existing infrastructure to prevent, or at least minimize, the most serious, tragic levels of violence. Earlier this year UFC welterweight contender, Thiago Alves, was forced to withdraw from competition because of a discovered brain irregularity. These and other medical procedures (e.g., thorough blood work) cost money that smaller, regional organizations and local fighters may not be able to afford on a consistent basis.

The conundrum for the UFC and other established MMA organizations is that they need these smaller "minor league" organizations to nurture future competitors who can one day reach the highest level of competition (currently the UFC). Yet, the major and minor MMA organizations lack a formal relationship. None of the major MMA organizations provide smaller, regional ones with the financial backing that would allow for a more robust medical infrastructure and help prevent the most serious ramifications of sporting violence. Thus, up and coming fighters must gain experience in smaller organizations, where the risky consequences of more serious violence and injury rise.

In other sports, even violent, collision-sports, such as football, an infrastructure exists that at least in theory is there to help prevent tragedy at all levels, from the NFL, down through the collegiate, high school, and even Pop Warner levels (true, serious injuries, even deaths, still occur on occasion). Granted, MMA has only been formally institutionalized in the United States now for 17 years. Still, we as a society know the immediate and long-term risks of collision and combat sports (football induced head trauma is now well documented).

Professional and semi-pro mixed martial artists – frequently seduced by the financial gains and popularity that the sport’s biggest stars enjoy – should be treated as human beings, not as collateral damage dismissed in the wake of the sport’s growth. Neither society’s thirst for violence nor a sport’s increasing popularity should be cited to justify or excuse athlete safety.

Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions – obviously a major financial undertaking and one unlikely to transpire. However, this would be an investment in the fighters, who at the lower levels receive less reward for more risk. Bottom line – until some structural change is made, sporting violence will continue to harm MMA athletes at the lower levels to a disproportionately large degree.


Blogcatalog

Youth Violence and Indigenous Peoples

The Centers for Disease Control has their Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) that provides rates of different types of risk for 9th-12th graders across the United States. The 2009 data are out, and there's some extremely interesting findings.

To begin with, those going to the site can break down the data by grade, state, "race," and sex, and even test for statistical significance when making comparative requests. It's quite impressive, so that's what I did.

First, with regard to "race," there are the typical concerns. The sample size is just over 16,000, so its representativeness is suspect, especially when considering certain groups. The "Asian" group for instance, has just under 750 subjects, and the rates of risk tend to be low when compared to other groups. Of course, "Asians" are comprised of Japanese, Chinese, Laotians, Filipinos, Cambodians, etc. Southeast Asians typically have much higher risk rates than East Asians, so it's a problematic and small "umbrella" category, but one that would become even smaller if broken down by all the ethnic groups that comprise the "Asian" rubric. Same concern for "Hispanics" -- how do specific Latino groups differ?

Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's look at the rates of different types of violence, compared by "race" and sex. I've bolded the two groups (males and females combined) with the highest prevalence rates for each type of violence, also providing percentages ("yes" respondents) and sample sizes for each group.

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

1. Carried a weapon on school property on at least 1 day (for example, a gun, knife, or club during the 30 days before survey)

• Total 5.6% (N=16,256) females 2.9% (N=8,239) males 8.0% (N=7,958)
• American Indian or Alaskan Native (AI/AN) total 4.2% (N=138) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=81)
• Asian total 3.6% (N=746) females 0.9% (N=402) males 6.3% (N=344)
• Black total 5.3% (N=2,795) females 4.0% (N=1,437) males 6.6% (N=1,351)
• Hispanic total 5.8% (N=4,712) females 3.7% (N=2,424) males 7.9% (N=2,277)
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) total 9.8% (N=177) females N/A (N=85) males N/A (N=91)
• White total 5.6% (N=6,848) females 2.4% (N=3,415) males 8.3% (N=3,426)
• Multiple race total 5.8% (N=552) females 4.7% (N=309) males 7.3% (N=243)

2. Did not go to school because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from school on at least 1 day (during the 30 days before survey)

• Total 5.0% (N=16,371) females 5.3% (N=8,268) males 4.6% (N=8,040)
• AI/AN total 8.7% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
• Asian total 2.9% (N=749) females 3.4% (N=403) males 2.3% (N=346)
• Black total 6.3% (N=2,817) females 6.6% (N=1,445) males 5.9% (N=1,365)
• Hispanic total 8.1% (N=4,750) females 8.3% (N=2,432) males 7.9% (N=2,305)
• NHOPI total 10.6% (N=179) females N/A (N=85) males N/A (N=94)
• White total 3.5% (N=6,886) females 3.8% (N=3,424) males 3.3% (N=3,455)
• Multiple race total 5.5% (N=558) females 5.4% (N=311) males 5.6% (N=247)

3. Threatened or injured with a weapon on school property one or more times (for example, a gun, knife, or club during the 12 months before survey)

• Total 7.7% (N=16,367) females 5.5% (N=8,264) males 9.6% (N=8,041)
• AI/AN total 16.5% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
• Asian total 5.5% (N=750) females 1.6% (N=403) males 9.4% (N=347)
• Black total 9.4% (N=2,828) females 7.4% (N=1,448) males 11.2% (N=1,373)
• Hispanic total 9.1% (N=4,742) females 6.3% (N=2,429) males 12.0% (N=2,301)
• NHOPI total 12.5% (N=179) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=94)
• White total 6.4% (N=6,883) females 4.9% (N=3,423) males 7.8% (N=3,453)
• Multiple race total 9.2% (N=557) females 5.2% (N=311) males 14.0% (N=246)

4. In a physical fight on school property one or more times (during 12 months before survey)

• Total 11.1% (N=16,089) females 6.7% (N=8,150) males 15.1% (N=7,879)
• AI/AN total 20.7% (N=135) females N/A (N=53) males N/A (N=80)
• Asian total 7.7% (N=732) females 4.1% (N=397) males 11.4% (N=335)
• Black total 17.4% (N=2,769) females 12.5% (N=1,430) males 22.2% (N=1,332)
• Hispanic total 13.5% (N=4,676) females 9.3% (N=2,400) males 17.7% (N=2,263)
• NHOPI total 14.8% (N=175) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=91)
• White total 8.6% (N=6,771) females 4.3% (N=3,371) males 12.4% (N=3,394)
• Multiple race total 12.4% (N=541) females 7.5% (N=302) males 18.3% (N=239)

5. Bullied on school property (during 12 months before survey)

• Total 19.9% (N=15,633) females 21.2% (N=7,838) males 18.7% (N=7,734)
• AI/AN total 33.8% (N=133) females N/A (N=52) males N/A (N=79)
• Asian total 17.5% (N=650) females 13.9% (N=344) males 21.0% (N=306)
• Black total 13.7% (N=2,728) females 15.5% (N=1,399) males 11.9% (N=1,322)
• Hispanic total 18.5% (N=4,440) females 18.9% (N=2,254) males 18.0% (N=2,175)
• NHOPI total 20.4% (N=146) females N/A (N=68) males N/A (N=77
• White total 21.6% (N=6,756) females 23.5% (N=3,341) males 19.9% (N=3,409)
• Multiple race total 23.9% (N=497) females 22.8% (N=273) males 25.1% (N=224)

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE

6. Carried a weapon on at least 1 day (for example, a gun, knife, or a club during the 30 days before survey)

• Total 17.5% (N=16,110) females 7.1% (N=8,203) males 27.1% (N=7,848)
• AI/AN total 20.7% (N=137) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=80)
• Asian total 8.4% (N=745) females 3.8% (N=401) males 13.0% (N=344)
• Black total 14.4% (N=2,746) females 7.8% (N=1,427) males 21.0% (N=1,312)
• Hispanic total 17.2% (N=4,667) females 7.9% (N=2,412) males 26.5% (N=2,244)
• NHOPI total 20.3% (N=175) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=90)
• White total 18.6% (N=6,807) females 6.5% (N=3,405) males 29.3% (N=3,395)
• Multiple race total 17.9% (N=550) females 10.9% (N=308) males 26.2% (N=242)

7. Carried a gun on at least 1 day (during the 30 days before survey)

• Total 5.9% (N=15,664) females 1.7% (N=7,916) males 9.8% (N=7,690)
• AI/AN total 7.6% (N=135) females N/A (N=54) males N/A (N=79)
• Asian total 3.4% (N=662) females 0.8% (N=347) males 5.7% (N=315)
• Black total 7.6% (N=2,736) females 1.8% (N=1,417) males 13.2% (N=1,312)
• Hispanic total 5.1% (N=4,430) females 1.9% (N=2,266) males 8.2% (N=2,154)
• NHOPI total 10.4% (N=145) females N/A (N=69) males N/A (N=75)
• White total 5.8% (N=6,778) females 1.5% (N=3,377) males 9.5% (N=3,395)
• Multiple race total 7.2% (N=502) females 3.3% (N=279) males 11.7% (N=223)

8. In a physical fight 1 or more times (during the 12 months before survey)

• Total 31.5% (N=16,130) females 22.9% (N=8,183) males 39.3% (N=7,890)
• AI/AN total 42.4% (N=135) females N/A (N=53) males N/A (N=80)
• Asian total 18.9% (N=737) females 13.2% (N=399) males 24.9% (N=338)
• Black total 41.1% (N=2,759) females 33.9% (N=1,426) males 48.3% (N=1,326)
• Hispanic total 36.2% (N=4,672) females 28.5% (N=2,404) males 43.8% (N=2,255)
• NHOPI total 32.6% (N=174) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=90)
• White total 27.8% (N=6,825) females 18.2% (N=3,402) males 36.0% (N=3,417)
• Multiple race total 34.2% (N=549) females 26.7% (N=306) males 42.9% (N=243)

9. Injured in a physical fight one or more times (injuries had to be treated by a doctor or nurse, during 12 months before survey)

• Total 3.8% (N=15,749) females 2.2% (N=7,938) males 5.1% (N=7,752)
• AI/AN total 7.9% (N=134) females N/A (N=53) males N/A (N=79)
• Asian total 2.9% (N=702) females 1.7% (N=378) males 4.1% (N=324)
• Black total 5.7% (N=2,748) females 4.4% (N=1,414) males 7.0% (N=1,327)
• Hispanic total 4.7% (N=4,462) females 3.3% (N=2,270) males 6.0% (N=2,181)
• NHOPI total 7.3% (N=164) females N/A (N=79) males N/A (N=84)
• White total 2.9% (N=6,732) females 1.3% (N=3,343) males 4.2% (N=3,383)
• Multiple race total 3.9% (N=528) females 1.9% (N=294) males 6.2% (N=234)

10. Hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend (during the 12 months before the survey)

• Total 9.8% (N=16,217) females 9.3% (N=8,196) males 10.3% (N=7,957)
• AI/AN total 13.4% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
• Asian total 5.5% (N=740) females 5.3% (N=399) males 5.8% (N=341)
• Black total 14.3% (N=2,803) females 14.8% (N=1,443) males 13.8% (N=1,353)
• Hispanic total 11.5% (N=4,713) females 11.4% (N=2,414) males 11.7% (N=2,286)
• NHOPI total 13.1% (N=177) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=92)
• White total 8.0% (N=6,803) females 7.2% (N=3,380) males 8.8% (N=3,416)
• Multiple race total 12.2% (N=548) females 11.2% (N=307) males 13.4% (N=241)

11. Every physically forced to have sexual intercourse (when they did not want to)

• Total 7.4% (N=15,735) females 10.5% (N=7,926) males 4.5% (N=7,748)
• AI/AN total 13.1% (N=135) females N/A (N=52) males N/A (N=81)
• Asian total 5.7% (N=733) females 6.4% (N=396) males 4.9% (N=337)
• Black total 10.0% (N=2,492) females 12.0% (N=1,286) males 7.9% (N=1,201)
• Hispanic total 8.4% (N=4,680) females 11.2% (N=2,391) males 5.7% (N=2,276)
• NHOPI total 11.9% (N=175) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=91)
• White total 6.3% (N=6,696) females 10.0% (N=3,309) males 3.2% (N=3,380)
• Multiple race total 9.3% (N=540) females 11.2% (N=301) males 6.9% (N=239)

SUICIDE

12. Felt sad or hopeless (almost every day for 2 or more weeks in a row so that they stopped doing some usual activities during the 12 months before survey)

• Total 26.1% (N=16,232) females 33.9% (N=8,199) males 19.1% (N=7,969)
• AI/AN total 30.8% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
• Asian total 23.5% (N=741) females 26.4% (N=399) males 20.5% (N=342)
• Black total 27.7% (N=2,811) females 37.5% (N=1,444) males 17.9% (N=1,360)
• Hispanic total 31.6% (N=4,723) females 39.7% (N=2,420) males 23.6% (N=2,290)
• NHOPI total 33.4% (N=177) females N/A (N=83) males N/A (N=93)
• White total 23.7% (N=6,801) females 31.1% (N=3,381) males 17.2% (N=3,413)
• Multiple race total 31.1% (N=544) females 35.8% (N=304) males 25.4% (N=240)

13. Seriously considered attempting suicide (during 12 months before the survey)

• Total 13.8% (N=16,200) females 17.4% (N=8,189) males 10.5% (N=7,966)
• AI/AN total 19.0% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
• Asian total 14.9% (N=740) females 16.9% (N=399) males 12.9% (N=341)
• Black total 13.0% (N=2,805) females 18.1% (N=1,438) males 7.8% (N=1,360)
• Hispanic total 15.4% (N=4,722) females 20.2% (N=2,417) males 10.7% (N=2,292)
• NHOPI total 19.2% (N=179) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=94)
• White total 13.1% (N=6,792) females 16.1% (N=3,377) males 10.5% (N=3,408)
• Multiple race total 18.0% (N=545) females 21.2% (N=306) males 14.3% (N=239)

14. Made a plan about how they would attempt suicide (during the 12 months before survey)

• Total 10.9% (N=16,213) females 13.2% (N=8,183) males 8.6% (N=7,965)
• AI/AN total 17.0% (N=139) females N/A (N=55) males N/A (N=82)
• Asian total 12.6% (N=740) females 14.7% (N=398) males 10.4% (N=342)
• Black total 9.8% (N=2,798) females 13.3% (N=1,433) males 6.2% (N=1,358)
• Hispanic total 12.2% (N=4,720) females 15.4% (N=2,418) males 9.0% (N=2,289)
• NHOPI total 13.2% (N=177) females N/A (N=84) males N/A (N=92)
• White total 10.3% (N=6,796) females 12.3% (N=3,376) males 8.5% (N=3,413)
• Multiple race total 13.2% (N=545) females 14.4% (N=306) males 11.8% (N=239)

15. Attempted suicide 1 or more times (during the 12 months before survey)

• Total 6.3% (N=14,609) females 8.1% (N=7,475) males 4.6% (N=7,082)
• AI/AN total 10.0% (N=122) females N/A (N=51) males N/A (N=69)
• Asian total 4.0% (N=681) females 3.7% (N=367) males 4.3% (N=314)
• Black total 7.9% (N=2,308) females 10.4% (N=1,206) males 5.4% (N=1,096)
• Hispanic total 8.1% (N=4,132) females 11.1% (N=2,151) males 5.1% (N=1,972)
• NHOPI total 11.9% (N=155) females N/A (N=73) males N/A (N=81)
• White total 5.0% (N=6,459) females 6.5% (N=3,237) males 3.8% (N=3,215)
• Multiple race total 12.4% (N=509) females 13.7% (N=289) males 10.8% (N=220)

Okay, that's a lot to unpack. To begin with, there are some prevalence rates that merit discussions in their totality. The last survey item on suicide attempt(s) surprised me a bit. Over 1 in every 20 youths reports a suicide attempt within the last year. Survey item #11 on sexual assault also surprised me, with about 1 in 10 girls reporting forced sexual intercourse. These are American high school students. I knew these rates were high for young adults, but not this high for high schoolers.

Now onto the prevalence rates by "race." For 12/15 survey items displayed here, "American Indian or Alaskan Native" youth had either the highest or second highest prevalence rates. They had the highest rates for 8/15 survey items. "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" youth were in the "top two" for 11/15 survey items. None of the other construted "race" groups ranked among the "top two" slots nearly as much.

One could easily aruge the sample sizes for these groups are too small to make generalizations, and thus, they are not representative. That's a valid concern. At the same time, one cannot help but notice that these groups are also the colonized groups in the United States (well, for the NHOPI group, Hawaiians are). True, their proportion of the total U.S. teen population is small, but that is largely because of their colonial history.

These consistently high rates across numerous youth violence constructs demand further research with those communities and further illustrate colonialism's deleterious impacts on indigenous peoples. Without strong data, these communities have a more difficult time advocating for services and policy change. The feds need to get the concentrated research with indigenous communities conducted, and start providing these communities with more robust youth, family, and occupational resources, now!

Top Sites