"I Wish I Was In Dixie!"

Due to my strong sense of pride of my Southern heritage, it was inevitable that the day would come when I would address the Confederacy and the racist sentiment that surrounds the topic. As an example, I'm writing about the Confederate Anthem, "Dixie."

The song "Dixie" was written by Daniel Decatur Emmet and first performed in the 1850's in a Blackface Minstrel Show. While blackface mintrels could be viewed as racist, as they were whites impersonating blacks, some view that it taught whites about the black cuture at this time without the intent of being racist. (Try comparing this idea of performance to those of Carlos Mencia or Dave Chappell in which whites are not just characterized or impersonated). The subject of the melody is that of a Black man wishing to return to the plantation where he was born. As the Civil War progressed, versions of "Dixie" adapted for the wartime, and became the unofficial anthem of the Confederate Army. Fact: "Dixie" was one of President Abraham Lincoln's favorite songs and was played at his enauguration. Can this song truly be considered "racist"?

Capital Punishment and Assisted Suicide

What Makes Them Wrong or Right, Neither or Both

Both topics of discussion are known for their controversy. While both regarding the death of an individual, they are presenting the idea that either death is not wanted (the Death Penalty), or death that is desired (Assisted Suicide). My goal is to present the ideas of both.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
Capital Punishment is either positive or negative depending on the person you ask. Though some might think that capital punishment is exclusively for murderers, in some states there are other reasons for the death penalty. These include treason, harming a child (ages vary from younger than 11 to younger than 14), repeated rape, airplane hijacking, or placing a bomb near a bus stop, to name a few.
(For morer information on capital punishment, check out www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)

ASSISTED SUICIDE:
Similar conclusions can be drawn about assisted suicide, because it too involves someone taking the life of another. This is not to be confused with suicide caused by depression or other mental illnesses, but rather desired as a result of a medical condition. (I am not advocating suicide, but rather showing how from a purely medical perspective, it can be justified).
(For more information on assisted suicide, check out www.balancedpolitics.org)


When comparing the pros and cons of both Capital Punishment and Assisted Suicide, I realize that although they may sound like two different topics, I submit that they are not at all that different; they both deal with one person taking away the life of another. But what DOES make them different, or like I mentioned earlier, wrong or right, neither or both? One can argue that the death penalty is a punishment. But what about those death-row inmates who HAVE realized that what they done was wrong, and accept that they should pay for their actions? If they accept this fact and are willing and asking to die, does this make their execution an "assisted suicide"? This brings up the idea that in some cases, death may not be a punishment, in regards to capital punishment, but rather a release, a suicide. So what's the difference? (I am clearly leaving out the obvious argument that in some cases death for capital punishment is unwanted and death for assisted suicde is wanted). Another argument for assisted suicide is life support. If a person is unresponsive, and their will cannot be heard, is it a punishment or murder to take them off life support? Or is it compassionate, assisted suicide?

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

In 1986, Congress sanctioned the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws. These laws were created primarily to stop "big time" drug dealers by discouraging them through the mandatory minimums they would face if caught. However, due to these obligations, small time drug users, and those who are not linked to major drug trade were also sentenced with mandatory minimums, regardless of the severity of their crime.

One group, Families Against Mandatory Minimums (http://www.famm.org/), brings up the point that mandatory minimums takes the control away from judges. Not only does it make it impossible for judges to control the sentencing, but judges can also no longer consider the individual or the individual's crime. Regardless, kingpins and small time drug users and dealers are tried in the same manner.

The article provided by FAMM goes on to state that 56% of adults no longer favor mandatory minimums.


As a Sweet Briar student, you may be wondering how this affects you, or why it is important.
Here's why:
In April 2007, in the middle of Hampden-Sydney College's "Greek Week," the DEA and local police department went into H-SC and made arrests. As Sweet Briar students, most of us have close ties with the all-male college members and most of us, knew someone, whether personally or as an aquaintence, that was arrested. I personally new a few, one of which was my boyfriend, pictured above, second from the left. He was federally arrested and found guilty of selling 1.8 grams of marijuana. 1.8 grams. Less than a cigarette. Due to mandatory minimums, he has been in prison since June 13, 2007. His release date is April 25, 2008. Over 10 months due to something that was created to bust big drug dealers. Is this justice? Let me conclude with this: not only was the jury crying when they found him guilty, but so was the judge because he couldn't stop an injustice from happening.