In Chapter 5, Michelle Alexander writes about how Jim Crow and mass incarceration are similar and how they are different. The similarities are argued in the previous chapters  and they include historical parallels, legalized discrimination, political disenfranchisement, exclusion from juries and closing of courthouse doors, and symbolic productions of race. What she recently addressed was segregation, which interested me, especially due to the untrue claim that segregation is over. The claim that segregation is over masks the effects of de facto segregation, something that ensures that segregation occurs just as much, maybe even more, than it did during Jim Crow. Differences from Jim Crow included absence of racial hostility(I slightly disagree with this- I believe that there is a reduction, but not a complete absence), white victims of racial caste as a way to “prove” that the criminal justice system is not racist,  and black support for “get tough” policies(but she argues that a lot of black people are perplexed about whether or not the policies are beneficial). In the end, she argues that Jim Crow and mass incarceration are pretty similar, but not completely the same.

Chapter 6 mentions about Alexander’s belief in collective action as a way to eliminate mass incarceration, starting with the Jena 6 protest, which had a lot of potential, but eventually died. She mentions about the denial of civil rights advocates and criticizes them for focusing on affirmative action, which she believes does more harm than good. She also criticizes such advocates for being “colorblind” and for supporting the “good black person” as compared to the “criminal”. She criticizes Obama’s approach on drug policies as well as the civil rights advocates’ support of him. Alexander, in the end, mentions about the All or None approach, which would include all races, including poorer whites, believing in a different approach to civil rights that would ensure collective action rather than the emphasis on the successful black people.

I generally have mixed views on the last chapter, since I do agree with some of her approaches to her argument, but disagree with others. The idea of calling Affirmative Action a “racial bribe” and pitting it with white privilege did not appeal to me, especially since affirmative action does benefit other groups otherwise than black people. In addition, her approach to how collective action should ensue was a little shaky. But, there were areas in the chapter that were extremely effective, such as the fact that we should not equate racial success to a black president or just “good black people” and that we should ensure the success of everybody.