When reading the thoughts of Michelle Alexander on today’s racial injustice particularly towards the African-American group, I sensed that she is rather biased and therefore, only finding ways to defend for her fellow righteous African-Americans and their ancestors. While there is no doubt that the slavery and the establishment of the Jim Crow laws in American history were extremely harsh and unfair towards this racial group, I think comparing those historical events to African-Americans subjected to underprivileged and less favorable conditions due to criminal activity and record is not exactly the right correlation. It just so happens that there is a much higher percentage of African-Americans falling into this category of felons, and that is out of their own doing and actions to become those felons, not because another racial group forced them to commit such crimes. In my eyes, people are judged by what they have actually done nowadays because we don’t have ‘mass incarceration’ just because they are simply of African descent. No matter which President we have, a white, black, asian, etc. one, criminals are going to be treated the same way to get what they deserve for their wrongdoings. However, I am not objecting the fact that there are loopholes in the American criminal justice system, especially when racial stereotyping is put into play, but as with life, we have to fight for what is right.

The racial caste system is an interesting perspective. Alexander says that “We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” (2) Of course, there are still minorities all over this country and ‘white’ people are considered the majority. I’m not going to deny that minorities usually have to put a greater effort to achieve greater political power in this country. However, I think with the election of President Obama, it shows that many racial boundaries have broken and that they don’t exist anymore as the way we have understood those boundaries for many years. Everyone has a chance to exercise their rights and they are not taken away from us unless we let them get taken away. Do you think there is a clear racial caste system in our society today? Do you think there is a “continuing legacy of slavery and Jim Crow” that has led to Alexander’s arguments thus far?

My first thought upon reading through the Introduction and first chapter of this book was that this is a subject matter that people are afraid to discuss. The election of Barack Obama in 2008 seemed to be the ultimate achievement for an oppressed class, the fact that an African-American took the highest office in the most powerful country in the world, finally erased the boundary between blacks and whites. Well, It didn’t.

Mass incarceration, to be quite honest, isn’t good for anyone. First, it encourages racial profiling and discriminatory sentencing, and second, the cost of this large-scale incarceration puts a further strain on the economy, while not effectively inhibiting crime. My question is: how can we change the justice system to make it do its job in both an equal and effective way?

I found the idea of the New Jim Crow interesting. I’ve never looked at  incarceration as another form of Jim Crow even though the numbers of those in prison are overwhelmingly African Americans. I however think her ideas are exaggerated. To compare incarceration due to someone committing a crime to slavery and Jim Crow laws that only applied to African Americans seems a bit extreme. I do however agree with her that racial discrimination is still extremely apparent in America today. In the big cities in America, it may be less apparent but once you travel more South, you can see that many people still hold onto the ideas of pre civil war days which is quite sad.

The idea that we’re stuck in a caste system is intriguing especially since America is known for the idea of there being social mobility. I think that people are not indefinately bound to their social class and there is social mobility, however it get’s harder as you go down the social class pyramid and especially harder for those who have been incarcerated to make it up the pyramid again. There should be better ways for those who have been incarcerated to integrate back into society.

In the preface, when Alexander wrote that she is writing this book for people like her, people who cared about racial equality, it almost gave me chills. The reason why is because racial equality, to me, is so natural. Obviously, whites and blacks should have the same rights and be treated equally. For someone to go against that seems “not normal”. I quickly became interested in what Alexander’s “new” Jim Crow laws were.

I especially liked Alexander’s writing style and how she introduced Cotton and then traced back to his great grandfather and the rights that he, too, were denied. It helped to tie how racial issues were still prevalent today, especially in the criminal justice system. I never would have thought of this new Jim Crow law of mass incarceration. It is interesting to see how policies and ideas that were prevelant during slavery are still prevalent in America, today.

“The language of case may well seem foreign or unfamiliar to some” (Alexander 13). It does seem foreign because Americans are constantly fighting for equal rights and criminals should also deserve their rights after they have done their time. Otherwise, there is always a potential that the same crimes may be done and the reality that they will not be able to support themselves or their families.

My question is, how well spread in America is this notion that mass incarceration is a form of inequality.

The Jim Crow laws were thought to be completely illegal and wiped away from the face of America. African Americans were considered completely equal, as they had all the same rights. However, Alexander starts the book in quite an interesting fashion when she talks about Jarvious Coton and his ancestors. She dscussed how him, his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather could not vote. While the reason his ancestors could not vote were because of the Jim Crow laws, the reason Cotton could not vote was because he was a convicted felon.

Alexander argues that mass incarceration happens extensively in the U.S. and the African American minority group is targeted. She shows how the moment after a person becomes a convicted felon, everything that was illegal before now suddenly becomes legal. For example, prior to conviction, it is unlawful to deny a man his right to vote. After conviction, however, this becomes legal.

I thought it was extremely ironic how Alexander came to the realization that the Jim Crow Laws have not gone, but merely exist in another form, on the day of President Barack Obama’s victory. A day that was supposed to be one of jubilance and celebration African Americans and other minority groups rather became a day where Michelle Alexander realized the complete unfairness and inequality that exists within today’s society.

Like several of my classmates, I was intrigued by the idea of a “New Jim Crow” as I hadn’t really considered the United States’ high rates of incarceration in this way.  A major point I got from reading the introduction and first chapter is just how strong of an influence political agendas and power have on impacting public opinion and perception.  Based on the data Alexander presents, like how 1 in 4 black males will serve time in their lifetime, it is clearly an important issue.  However, most people (myself included prior this reading) are likely not educated on just how race-centered so many “crime-fighting” legislation are in the post-Jim Crow era.  I was shocked how the War on Drugs occurred in a time when a very small percentage of the population felt it was a pertinent matter.  Similarly, the extreme rates of incarceration in our country are not fed to us as something that needs changing and thus, we typically do not heed them as pressing in our voting preferences or even our frequent thoughts.

Nonetheless, social issues can be changed as years pass when proper media attention is given, as evidenced by the Gay Rights movement of the last few decades.  I couldn’t help but compare the Civil Rights progression outlined in the first chapter to how Gay Rights are evolving in the United States.  I remember hearing about how in the 1990s, as soon as public opinion shifted to an ever so slight majority of people who were in support of Gay Rights, gay characters began being featured on shows like Friends, Will and Grace, and Sex and the City.  It’s almost eerie just how powerful the media can be on popular opinion, and vice versa.  As this acceptance continues, and public interest increases, issues like the repeal of DOMA and a possible constitutional definition of marriage take center stage in  political agenda.  One can hope that Alexander’s book will help raise awareness and take the first of many steps in fixing racial discrimination and unlawful incarceration.

Did anyone else compare mass incarceration to other current issues facing the United States?

-Jacqui Larsen

When I started reading “The New Jim Crow” I was intrigued by the ideas brought forth by the author because I had never heard of or even considered them before. When people talk about the slavery or Jim Crow in America they generally refer to it as over, with some remnants of racism remaining. It was intriguing to read a point of view that said that not only is the battle against racism not over, but that it is the same battle in different disguises. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with Alexander, because even though she admitted that her theory is a little out there, she seemed to me a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Her hypothesis does have evidence supporting it, but I feel like many rational explanations can be given for many of it. I also got the impression that she is picturing a bunch of fat old rich white men sitting around discussing how they can band together to make the lives of African-Americans horrible. I am not trying to defend racists, just I think Alexander is superimposing ideas of racism onto everything she mentions in the book, whether it is applicable or not.

On the first page of the introduction, Michelle Alexander states, “In each generation, new tactics have been used for achieving the same goals – goals shared by the Founding Fathers. Denying African Americans citizenship was deemed essential to the formation of the original union” (1). I was surprised by this statement because I never thought about how doing such a thing could be essential. I knew that it was not addressed when creating the original union, but why would this still be a goal today?

It was interesting when I found out that “the War on Drugs began at a time when illegal drug use was on a decline” (6). For once, I think I’m convinced that the data pointing to a conspiracy was not coincidental. If the CIA knew that the guerrilla armies they were actively supporting were smuggling illegal drugs to the United States, why would they block efforts to investigate this crime? However, it’s not as surprising that an illegal drug crisis would suddenly appear after the drug war was declared because people tend to focus on sensational media. I remember writing in my paper about community about how most people gain strength after a crisis, but the media focuses on those who are devastated. In this case, “people of all color use and sell illegal drugs are remarkably similar rates,” but there are “stark racial disparities” between the rates at which people are imprisoned (7).  I thought it was interesting how there was a time when people thought there would no longer be a need for prisons when about thirty years later, Clinton “slashed funding for public housing by $17 billion (a reduction of 61 percent) and boosted corrections by $19 billion (an increase of 171 percent),” especially after studies recognized prisons to be failures (57).

Everyone says that they want to be treated as equals.  However, we continue to have racial discrimination in ways that help (Affirmative Action is supposed to help) and hurt minorities.  Why does it seem like America, which is supposed to be all about equality, discriminates even more than other countries?  While Alexander stated that the concept of race didn’t mean anything until Whites started conquering everything, European countries discriminate less than America.

Just by reading the introduction of The New Jim Crow, I could tell that it was going to be a very bold and controversial novel. The introduction really serves as a foundation of what you can expect the author to argue. I’ve never really heard of the term the “New Jim Crow”, and how it can relate to mass incarceration. The author seems to want to draw parallels between present day society, the Jim Crow era, and slavery. It does really seem like a stretch to compare the standing of African Americans in the 21^st century to those of slaves in the colonial era.

The author does draw some good points when discussing the destruction and re-birth of multiple caste systems. However, she seems very biased and one-sided. She doesn’t give the progress that African Americans have made throughout time any justice. The author seems to briefly mention a positive event for the progression of African Americans, and then sweep it under the rug. It was interesting to see her “conspiracy” view of the government. From what I understood, she was trying to say that many former presidents, some of which are alive, were raging a war against African Americans and any people of color. She goes on to mention the fact that the “War on Drugs” was just another way of cracking down on racial minorities. In my opinion, these claims reek of hyperbole. The author is very narrow sighted and seems to just focus the negatives aspects that exist in our society. It will be interesting to read her claims that will argue about the existence of New Jim Crow.

My question is from what you read do you think the author may be exaggerating in her opinions? Does she really objectively present the development of African Americans throughout history?

David Zilberman