Urban Struggle

One fight that the American government has had a constant uphill battle against is the belief that the system is too big to handle the pressing issues of urban culture. My artifact, the recent movie American Gangster, details the life of storied criminal Frank Lucas and his control of the heroin drug market in the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s. Mr. Lucas is an example of one man who wasn’t able to use traditional means to provide a living for himself, but did what he could to survive and to make the life of his family better. I believe that this example is a microcosm of the great struggle that is found on a daily basis in urban neighborhoods where good opportunities are few and far between. At the same time that local residents are using illegal means just to get by with the basic necessities, the government is trying to shutdown a drug market that has engulfed the inner city lifestyle. It raises the question of whether something can be wrong in the eyes of one while being a lifesaver in the eyes of another. I believe that this also goes along with the semester long theme of government and how it tries to regulate a nation while giving everyone the basic resources to prosper. I intend to use this particular artifact to demonstrate that while there are many problems with the gangster lifestyle, which the movie tries to eliminate the glory from, too often urban citizens have no choice but to adopt this life because of the government’s failure to address the bigger problems of urban life.

In the movie, Frank Lucas used brutal force to acquire control of the Harlem streets, which made him a target by the authorities, but a hero for the locals. With his wealth escalating quickly, he was known to use his money on food and supplies for the members who weren’t able to pay for everything on their own. The kindness that he supplied, albeit through illegitimate means, was not forgotten by the neighborhood, as the community quickly began to revere Frank Lucas, protecting him not only in the neighborhood, but defending him when he was finally brought down by the authorities. However, even with the help, he was eventually sentenced by the system to prison, where he would serve 15 years behind bars. During this time, he provided names of the corrupt officers who had infiltrated the police force. All of this brings me to my key theme, which is based around the difficult choice of deciding if something is wrong, even if it is benevolent to more people than it potentially hurts. In this example, even though Mr. Lucas is selling heroin for all the wrong reasons, in the end, if it is coming back and helping his community, through ridding the streets of corruption and helping out the less fortunate, does he still deserve severe reprimand for his actions?

While this movie was based on one man’s representation of New York City in the early 1970’s, one important question to ask is its relevance to today, and why it was produced only two years ago, even though it is almost four decades from the original event of the plot. Whether or not this was the intention of the creator of the movie, I believe that the timing of this movie had to do with the two wars that America has been fighting over the last decade. Ever since September 11th, the focus of the government, and thus the national media, has been on foreign affairs and trying to solve the problem of instable nations. However, this movie reminds the audience that there is a battle that is waged everyday in the inner city against poverty and discrimination. While the federal government has tried to learn the intricacies of the Middle East, it has brushed aside the problems of America’s cities into one collective category, thus trying to erase narcotics from the culture. By doing this, the government has failed to understand the plights of the struggling American, not realizing that the elimination of drugs takes away a large source of income from the downtrodden, while insufficiently replacing this resource with other jobs for the locals to use to survive.

As the drug epidemic expanded, the average age of the drug dealer was becoming progressively younger as new generations of youths saw this as their one opportunity to be self-sustaining. A study conducted by Robert Fairlie, entitled “Drug Dealing and Legitimate Self-Employment,” analyzed the results of national studies of the spreading of narcotics and the background of the seller. Comparing it to the non-drug dealer, Fairlie exposed the fact that there were many more young men who either dropped out of high school and/or failed to enroll in a school of higher learning. (Fairlie, 546) One theory that could be drawn from these statistics is that these young men failed to see much value coming from furthering their education if they continued to live in a situation that did not provide many opportunities. However, as narcotics were easily accessible during the 1970’s and 1980’s, the easy alternative was to become a drug-dealer and thus be “self-employed.” Even with all of the well known possible consequences, such as incarceration or physical attacks from muggings by desperate drug users, the youth saw it as an opportunity to take a chance against the establishment which was holding them down and to escalate themselves out of the classes defined in urban society.

Another issue in which the government fails to properly address is the strong sense of family that is found in urban settings. Because of the difficult surroundings, extended families often live in closer proximities for reasons such as safety in numbers, saving on expenses when money can be tight, and creating a sense of neighborhood within a foreign community. Because of this, either a father, or if the father isn’t present, an eldest sibling will be a role model for the rest of the family. For example, in the movie, Frank Lucas was the eldest male in his family, and thus he became the leader of his cousins and brothers. As Frank’s mother stated in the movie, if he had become a doctor, his siblings would have become doctors. If he had become an honest businessman, the rest of his family would have followed suit. Thus, the point is the strength of family ties and how much one member of the family can influence everyone else. Too often, brothers and sons would see their fathers and brothers battle back against the establishment. If they failed, it was up to the younger members of the family to pick up where the last one left off. As new generations were growing up, the government had the opportunity to open new doors for the young, showing them a better way to live. However, because this was never placed a high priority, the youth were shaped by their neighborhood, and their destinies were set before they were old enough to either understand the consequences or to clear themselves from potential danger.

I believe that this movie may have forced certain issues into the national spectrum by giving different audiences, of varying types of ethnicities and economic backgrounds, a better understanding of what is happening in the inner cities. As urban culture is mainly composed of African Americans, as well as other groups who are disadvantaged, there is commonly a social divide by the groups who are on the outside looking from a distance. Too often, assumptions are made about the less fortunate that they are either unwilling or too lazy to better their surroundings through the hard work and dedication that has been a blueprint of America. However, the power of ethnicity is underestimated even more than is realized, meaning that African Americans and other ethnicities usually don’t have the same opportunities as Caucasians do in succeeding on their own. What this group doesn’t understand is that when minorities turn to narcotics and other questionable means, it is not by desire, but necessity. If the government is not willing to provide adequate opportunities equally for all citizens, it is unfair to classify minorities as subordinates because of their methods to stay alive.