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