Analysis Of The 13th By Assata Shakur

“We have nothing to lose but our chains” was once said by Assata Shakur amidst the fight for her basic human rights. Shakur was one of the most influential activists for the civil rights. It was this very movement that some identify as a catalyst for the infamous War on Drugs. Originally coined by President Nixon in the late seventies, the War on Drugs is the metaphorical turned literal mobilization against the problem of drugs occurring in America. Much like what was previously stated, in the documentary The 13th by Ava DuVernay argued that the War on Drugs was essentially a weapon used to criminalize African Americans. Coming from a different point of view was the article The War on Drugs: American Democracy under Assault by Morris J. Bachman

DuVernay portrayed the “so-called War on Drugs as a war on communities of color. President Reagan took economic inequality, hypersegregation and drug abuse, all things unfortunately associated with minorities due to the previous War on Crime, and criminalized them into the War on Drugs. It was the primary sources and first hand accounts DuVernay used that helped her fully examine the War on Drugs. The main point DuVernay was trying to make was that the road from Slavery to Mass Incarceration that millions of African Americans had to face was made more possible with the War on Drugs. She started the solidification of her point by citing the Thirteenth Amendment and its lamentable loophole. Yes, it ended slavery, but it could only be legal if it was a punishment of a crime. This is where America saw its first spike in the prison population, and it was only the beginning. During the 13th, it was also pointed out that Nixon was the trailblazer for the criminalization of drug abuse versus rehabilitation. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's own advisor, admitted they “[got] the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin” before criminalizing them, in the hopes of disabling their communities. As DuVernay was focused on explaining the causes of the War on Drugs, Bachman and Sharpe were sure to point out the

Bachman and Kenneth E. Sharpe thoroughly analyze the possible ripple effects that could potentially come from the War on Drugs. Written in 1990, they had not yet seen the full effect of the War on Drugs, as it was still relatively new. However, because there were so many indicators of what may come, their predictions remained valid. Bachman and Sharpe portrayed the War on Drugs as threat to American people and fundamentals, for it would only do more harm than good and violate many aspects of the constitution. In their examination of the War on Drugs, they had different sections of points that the reader could differentiate between, filling their paragraphs with plenty of facts, statistics and quotes. Bachman and Sharpe definitely dedicated the entirety of their article to criticizing the War on Drugs. As can be seen in their title alone, the War is described as an “assault” to democracy which many Americans, including the authors themselves, value. Even out of their 30 page article, the refutation of how the War on Drugs will help lower drug related crimes was half a paragraph and quickly combated with how rehabilitation is proven to be more effective. This leads to the authors’ main argument of the War on Drugs imperiling American freedoms. Bachman and Sharpe pointed out each amendment right that would be compromised, from right to privacy to protection against unreasonable