American Gangster

“No black man has accomplished what the American mafia hasn’t in a 100 years!”

The white guy who yells this in the movie’s preview was the reason I went to see American Gangster - to learn about the black man who sold more drugs, killed more efficiently and controlled the streets of New York City better than the Italian Mafia. But why? Later I would realize that the previews sold me and I am sure countless other future viewers with the promise of learning about a glorified black drug dealer. Walking into the theater, I was excited to watch a film about one of Harlem’s sons, a black entrepreneur who lived the American Dream, rather than a film about its most notorious dope supplier. Although the film did not glorify Frank Lucas the way I had assumed it would, what drove me to pay the $11.25 for the ticket is troublesome: an urge to see a glorified black American drug dealer beat “the system”, even if it meant pumping his own community with drugs that would soon destroy it. The unsettling part is that I know I am not alone. I can imagine young inner city kids walking out of the theater idolizing Frank Lucas, crowning him “real” and maybe even wondering what it’s like to be like him. Now this does not mean that I would rather the film not have been made. I would love to see similar movies about famous black criminals and crime bosses the same way moviegoers adore the Godfather Trilogy, Casino, Goodfellas and other Italian Mafia movies. My problem is that it took far too much introspection for me to see Frank Lucas for who he really was: a ruthless killer and avaricious heroin dealer who desecrated the bodies of American soldiers killed in Vietnam by having doped shipped back in the caskets of sometimes dead men. Instead, my initial perception of him was not the drug dealer, but the black entrepreneur. Not the killer, but the upholder of justice in his community. Not a virus to America, but its living dream. He was a “real” black man simply because he beat “the system” and accomplished more than the white man, even if it compromised the health and safety of his own people. Thinking back on my initial thoughts and feelings, I learned something: that I am still somewhat brainwashed with the belief that black people will always be victims and therefore should not be held to the same moral standard as others…...this is a grave misperception.

The Feast of The Goat

Growing up in a traditional Dominican home, I remember my grandmother telling me about the glory days of the Trujillo dictatorship. "Nobody stole", "the economy was strong", "people respected each other", she would tell me. On her dresser was a black and white photo of Trujillo in military garb sporting a mustache similar to that of Hitler's. Amidst the stories and photos, however, something felt wrong: my grandmother's idealized recollections and what I was taught about freedom and democracy were complete polar opposites; they both couldn't be right. Why would my grandmother idolize a dictator? Why would her brother proudly carry his draft card that initiated him into Trujillo's military? With this in mind, I decided to read Mario Vargas Llosa's, The Feast of the Goat.

The story is about a young female expatriate that returns to the Dominican Republic many years after the Trujillo dictatorship of the 1950’s. Having left the island in her teens, Urania returns in her forties and recalls what the island was like when "his Excellency" was in power. The bulk of her memories take place during the final days of the dictatorship and the rough transition to democracy. The novel reads like a Quentin Tarrantino movie as we see the planning of the assassination, the attempt itself, and the aftermath through the eyes of the conspirators: the Goat, and future Dominican President, Joaquin Balaguer.

Although the novel starts slow, it quickly picks up speed as the conspiracy begins to take shape, and then becomes hard to put down. Undoubtedly, the stars of this novel are Trujillo because of his cruel, despotic tendencies and Joaquin Balaguer, who with Machiavellian skill has to fill a power vacuum, facing both the threat of assassination by the old regime and invasion by the United States.

Expecting just a well-written novel, I was surprised with the rich history lesson I received. Not only did I learn a lot about the Dominican Republic, but I also learned about how people are conditioned by their political surroundings. Much like my grandmother and the Dominicans who lived under Trujillo, a people starving enough for dignity, democracy, and an end to government corruption will eventually begin to idealize an era of torture and brutal repression.

The Logic of Life

For decades now, Americans have been well trained on either side of the Roe v. Wade debate. You are either pro-choice or pro-life, with very little grey in between. Another social issue, though not as casually popular, is the death penalty. Once again, you are either for or against the death penalty, with a very little grey area. Both sides can pose very convincing arguments, causing I am sure, regular people to flip-flop back and forth on these issues. Traditionally, liberals believe that fetuses aren’t yet real people, thus abortion not constituting murder, and that the government should refrain from telling women what to do with their bodies. With regards to capital punishment, it’s barbaric, it doesn’t work and innocent people are sometimes killed are some of a liberals core arguments. On the right, abortion is immoral. “Protect the sanctity of life” is uttered from one conservative to the next as a badge of "wholier than thou" honor. "If there's any doubt, stand by the side of life". Yet, when it comes to capital punishment, the idea of “Life” gets confounded. Here is what Alan Keyes has to say:

“There are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is in fact essential to our respect for life. If we do not, in our law, send the message to everyone that by calculatedly, coldly taking a human life — in a way that, for instance, assaults the structures of law in a society, or shows a cold-blooded and studied disregard for the value of that life — if we are not willing to implement the death penalty in those circumstances, then we are actually sending a message of contempt for human life”

What!

Alan Keyes will not be the first, second or tenth black president, but his conservative position on social issues is representative of conservative talk and radio show hosts and most of the major republican figures in this country. Can he or any individual logically explain how killing someone, even a convicted killer, sends a message to our citizenry and the world that we respect the sanctity of life and/or by not killing someone send a message of contempt for human life? There is a deep contradiction that exists when conservatives, the Republican Party or anyone for that matter legally opposes abortion in the name of preserving the sanctity of life and simultaneously supports the death penalty in the name of preserving the sanctity of life. To the logical-minded citizen, this should be one of the great inconsistencies in politics today.