Godfathers And Gangstas: The hypocrisy of how we view criminals

Everybody loved "The Sopranos". The Mafia crime drama that captured the imagination of millions. Mind you, it was a well written drama with superb acting, and well rounded characters, and was good entertainment for those that chose to watch it. People couldn't wait to see the escapades of Tony Soprano, and revel in what sort of chaotic scenarios he and his crew were going to get into involving violence, extortion, secrecy, and other aspects that The Mafia lends itself to on a day to day basis. People began to like Tony Soprano as a character, and loved his henchmen within the family, and his tortured soul as he sought psychological help for his turmoil within. Women thought the men were hot, and men thought their activities, and how they carried themselves were cool to emulate. This is a complete carry over from "The Godfather" days of cinema where some of the most violent twisted minds and activities on film mirrored the actual members of the Mob, and their brutal activities were given life to the big screen. A funny thing has happened in both instances. There is some very strange romanticism about characters of organized crime that is almost borderline love and admiration. In real life, In the 1980's, Gambino Mafia Boss John Gotti was loved and revered by millions, and was almost a media star. He was dapper, cocky, wore the best expensive suits, quick witted, and slick..And the public loved him. But here is the problem: He was a murderer, extortionist, a thief of the highest order, and ran an empire of illegal activities that made millions off of the backs of innocent people. Someone who would make your stomach twist... But the public couldn't get enough of him. And in a way, that is sick.

Criminal behavior is nothing new in our society, and often criminals do things and hide in the shadows until they are caught. Most times the ones caught are the ones who either got greedy, or who were not smart. The most heinous acts are perceived as physical hands on brutality where there is bodily harm, or even murder involved. Where these acts occur is primarily in the poor urban neighborhoods and performed by violent folks who are desperate, and desensitized to the extreme conditions around them. Kids in gangs, "Gangsta wannabes" jacking cars, robbing people, and stealing items while conducting low level turf wars, and drug deals. There is no romanticizing these folks in the public eye. They are considered the lowest forms of humans on the earth. The urban jungle is their wasteland, and without them, most in our society say that life in America would be much better. Funny..They are doing exactly what the Mob does, but only on the ground level, and with less desire to look like legitimate businessmen in the process. Car jacking, murder, and physical robbery, are the exact same things as racketeering , whacking someone, and extortion. But without the romantic aspects of honor involved. Widespread drug distribution across state lines ordered by a Don in a suit is perceived to be less heinous than small time drug distribution within neighborhoods perpetuated by thugs in hoods. They are exactly parallel.  Strange? Or are few and far between giving this issue thought?

There is somehow some weird noble aspect of organized crime that people want to be close to, or are fascinated to watch. I myself am a big reader of Mafia history, because I am fascinated with history in general, but there are people who admire this aspect of psychopathic criminal behavior because once again there is an aspect of the perception of class, and ethnicity involved. No one wants to point that out but I will. An Italian member of the Mob, despite all of the investments into illegal activities, physical threats to people, engaging in and conducting themselves within a system that is designed to make illegal money, is considered a possibly honorable individual. Why? Because of the illusion of honor. Someone has to get "made", someone has to take an oath to the "Family", and there is a bond of loyalty subscribed to..it's an illusion because it's crime in $700.00 suits, and not crime in $150.00 sneakers. The only difference between "Organized" crime, and "street" crime whereas acts are concerned, is that the orders given from the top down, to the actual deeds in organized crime, are a much longer chain of command. In Street crimes, one or two are making a decision to commit a crime. a Black kid in the ghetto has no "La Cosa Nostra" that kisses him on the cheek for making the cut. No "Family" name that he becomes affiliated with that has a history. No house that he runs his operation out of as his wife takes care of kids, and no mistress that he sees and pays for, while supplementing her lifestyle. He steals, he may murder, has no empathy for others, and doesn't care about anything but himself. But the strange thing is that exact mentality and those actions take place in the organized arena. The Big shot fantasy is reserved for crime on a higher perception scale, and many people don't even realize that they are perpetuating that fantasy. Yes, there are the funny jokes about someone Italian being in the Mafia, or friends coming to break kneecaps, but that is in jest. I am talking about the bigger picture of crime as it is in our culture, and how it is viewed by the people who view it, and what the attitudes are toward the people that are perceived to commit it.

This twisted way of looking at crime, and criminals has a negative result. It once again puts in the minds of people that organized people in suits are wonderful, and their crimes hurt no one, and are actually productive members of society in some sense, who happen to be complex people with values. And yet some poverty stricken people in rough neighborhoods are the problems and bane of America. It divides crime in our society, and someone who is a "Business man" can't be touched, while jails are stuffed to the gills with small time flunkeys.Truth is that there are complex people living in the streets also with tortured minds and who can't get out of their own way. Because they are poor, and the crime is dirty and street level, they are deemed dangerous. Which they may be, but just as dangerous as the wonderful Italian man that loves his mother, and engages in racketeering, and extortion.
 The most heinous damaging thievery acts of the 21st century so far, was committed by members on Wall Street wallowing in their own greed. Millions of people were affected by their irresponsible actions, and our romanticism with power, and our twisted perception of who commits crimes that are dangerous, has allowed them to go untouched. That is the total problem with the view of "Godfathers, and Gangstas". It is not a level playing field of perception, and the Mafia is in our lexicon of culture, where Capone is cool, The Godfather is an American dramatic achievement, and the Sopranos are a portrait of an American family that people like to see, and can identify with.Greed is perceived as good, and to have money, and power is the American way. There is no identification with "Gangstas". The general public reviles them, and incarcerates them in their perceptions, and eventually physically. My point in this is that the same thing needs to be done with criminals in suits whether it be on some drama, or in real life. These are criminals also who given the chance will murder, steal, and engorge themselves in expensive things illegally gotten at the expense of others. That is a fact, and just because they are 'Organized" doesn't make what they do less heinous.

This is once again a testament to how race and class are at the forefront of how people feel about other people. The criminals that have things are perceived as not really criminals, and they "earned". The criminals that have not, are that way because they don't want to work. A white individual driving an expensive car, and in a suit is perceived as a businessman, and has probably earned his assets. A Black kid from a poor neighborhood wearing sneakers and a sweat suit, and driving the same thing, is perceived as having stole something somewhere along the line.This is the romanticism result, where class conflicts with perceptions of crime.This is how a great deal of America thinks, and it is dangerous in a land where the truly biggest thieves are actually the best dressed, and considered the least dangerous. There is nothing wrong with enjoying good drama, or even having these aspects within the lexicon of our culture. the problem is when one doesn't understand just what they are romanticizing, nor the reasons for doing so. A criminal is a criminal. Whether it be at the corporate level, within the hierarchy of the mob, or if  it is on the streets of some urban jungle. That is the bottom line, and should be acknowledged as such. Understand just what you are romanticizing about, and who you are demonizing, and don't try to justify one over the other. To fantasize about a lifestyle of crime, enjoy seeing it portrayed, or look forward to a show that depicts it, is just that. A fantasy, and acceptance of crime, as it pertains to power, and status. Then to turn around and say that some street kid in a gang on TV or in real life is setting a bad example, is not only hypocritical but laughable.
The two items are the exact same thing. Both bad examples. One is just held to a higher standard than the other. And that is not only hypocrisy, but a crime in itself.

Context Winners: The Telephone game on steroids

The game is "Telephone". Often played by little kids who sit around a room, or table, and one person whispers something into another person's ear. What was said travels around the room as a whisper to each person, until it makes its way back to the originator. With any luck, by the time it gets back to the first child, it will resemble the original statement. Knowing children though, it sometimes can be slightly different, or completely different, and is indicative of how children not only hear and process information, but how they relay it as well. Usually the hearing on their part has omitted, or changed an important aspect of what was was originally stated not out of malice, but just by the fact that children hear certain words, and phrases better than others because of familiarity rather than the nefarious behavior of leaving something out on purpose. But it's definitely an interesting game exercise nonetheless, because it gives a window to how not only children, but adults can receive and send bad information or twist things even when presented with the source right in front of them. Usually in that game, it is hard to figure out just who messed up the initial statement because everyone has whispered, so that's actually what makes it funny. Somewhere the connection to what was first said was lost, and everyone laughs because they are kids, and kids are harmless. When it is NOT funny is when adults do the same thing.

There are plenty of adults out there who could not play "Telephone" if their life depended on it simply because they have decided to see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, and not what has been presented to them.Their way of processing information, and relaying it is suspect, or in their interpretation of an event that took place, they have chosen to omit certain important aspects that really need to be known for the whole picture to be taken in. Adults are interesting, because even though some like to make the claim that no one thinks for them, and their mind is their own, they look for herd mentality, and they seek out others who they can partner with in thought. The only problem with that is that the herd works very much like kids playing "Telephone". The only difference is that adults have an agenda for themselves, and usually that agenda is to look for a way to forward their idea on how the world works. There is nothing wrong with someone having an opinion. Different opinions however detestable are important to growth. The problem lies with how people came to that conclusion, and if you look at the source of those that choose to try to articulate how they arrived at something, the answer is usually a deviation from what is actually the truth in the source matter. It just got converted in the transfer of information within the telephone line..

How many times have you seen people get up in arms, and beside themselves over a news headline, and they can't wait to rant and rave, and raise hell over what they have seen? Only to read the entire article to realize and acknowledge all of the things not stated in the headline, and that everything now makes perfect sense in context, and is a non issue. I believe that sometimes when people read, they either half read an article, or cherry pick words or phrases that get them riled up and pissed, because that's what they want to be anyway. People see the world, and things as they are, I get that. That does not make it OK to see things by carefully picking out the things that contradict how you want to see them. We are all hypocrites to a certain degree, and our opinions often conflict our behavior, and other opinions that we have inside of us, but there are people who make this philosophy their way of life because they play "Telephone" to specifically change things around to benefit what they think.

I am sure that many of us have gotten a phone call from someone asking why we said such and such a thing, because John, or Joe, or Jane said that you said whatever. Usually the information is spotty, with incredible gaps in the story that a 100 car train could go through. The response is usually something like, "Well did Jane tell you about the part where X,Y, and Z happened to lead up to why I said that?" Usually the answer is a "No" or silence. And this is because down the telephone line there was a decision of omission. In order for the tale to work for whatever reason, there needed to be a headline, and perhaps someone was banking that the full story wouldn't be read. And the full story not being read benefits the agenda. In the age of information this seems to be unthinkable, but it is even more rampant. It's not like the days of folk hero John Henry vs the Steam Train, where people have to speculate about whether it is true or not. the information is often accessible and available for review. people choose not to review it for their own ideals sake. No one wants to be wrong, but it happens, and will happen to you hundreds of times if you are lucky. Being wrong is good because it forces you to rethink yourself, and what you believe, and that can only mean growth. Bad information, or omission of information does no one any good, because it creates chaos. And those who love chaos, are unfortunately usually the ones towing the telephone line.

In this day and age of no attention span, even with  mountainous amounts of information around them, and at their fingertips, people don't listen carefully, nor interpret wisely. This country is divided not by race, or religion, or by any big issue that red or blue present. It is divided into people who listen, and people who don't..By people who understand things 3 dimensionally and by people who can't or choose not to. By people who look at the headlines, and by people who read the whole article. It's the "Telephone game" on steroids played by adults whose mission is to hear things and see things the way a child would. As I get older, I desire more and more to hang out with individuals who can play the telephone game, and get the information back to the beginning unhindered as it should be. I desire to deal only on a superficial level with individuals that can't. As wrong as their behavior is, and as limited as their insight may be, it is fascinating from a human observation level. It certainly isn't fun to watch, because kids are harmless..Adults when they do this are dangerous. And all of the so called individual thinkers engage in herd mentality. And herd mentality leads seamlessly to mob rules mentality.

Ignorant, oblivious, nefarious, self indulgent, desperate or dangerous. Whatever words you come up with to describe some individuals who are adults who get on the line, and change or omit the story, makes it obvious that I would rather play the "Telephone Game" with kids. They have much better and more interesting things to say.