A Set of Sobering Statistics
The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander first grabbed my attention with a title that is already making assertions unfamiliar to a white teen living in the middle of nowhere. I have a general interest in social justice, especially how far we've seemed to progress in that regard, yet this book's title alone made me question my faith in the system. The idea that the spirit of the Jim Crow Laws still exists in a society that prides itself on growing opportunities for people of color is extremely disturbing, especially from the perspective of someone who was honestly wholly ignorant on the matter beforehand. And the title by itself could barely prepare me for what was soon to come.This book introduces what seems to be its main idea very early on, on page 2 of the introduction. Alexander simply states, "we have not ended racial caste in America; we have simply redesigned it." This statement further asserts the uncomfortable connotations of the title, as racial castes are not something the average rural white kid would see as prevalent in today's society, and I would consider myself among the confused. Additionally, it talks about another concept that is entirely foreign to someone like me, who isn't particularly invested in politics or inner-city social movements: the war on drugs, which The New Jim Crow claims supports our current racial caste system.
Now, this book brings to attention more disturbing statistics than I could realistically cover. However, a few stuck with me for being particularly unsettling. On page 49, Alexander states that "between 1980 and 1984, FBI antidrug funding increased from $8 million to $95 million." The idea that so much money can be funneled into a system that almost exclusively targets inner city black communities is honestly terrifying. Additionally, the book looks into Bill Clinton's anti-crime policies, in which he reduced government funding for public housing by 61% and increased funding for corrections programs by 171%. The idea that our government has taken drastic measures to create an overly massive prison system when that funding could've gone toward public education and rehab is sickening to me. And that, Alexander claims, wasn't the end of Clinton's involvement in marginalizing minority groups, as she states on page 57, "TANF [A program that replaced America's previous welfare program] imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, as well as a permanent, lifetime ban on eligibility for welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense--including simple possession of marijuana." If marijuana possession was considered enough to completely take away support from needy families, I don't see how it could be argued that these policies weren't created to marginalize those who were already weak enough.
One last thing that terrified me was a bit about government bribes given to the police force, mainly the police's power to force forfeiture of property with a successful drug search. On page 81, Alexander speaks about the story of millionaire Donald Scott, who was shot and killed in a raid on his massive ranch in search of marijuana. It was later made clear that the motivation had nothing to do with "justice" or "cracking down on drugs"--the goal of those involved was to use drugs as an excuse to gain Scott's property. I'd like to end on that note; this book has already unearthed so many dark truths about a world I've never really seen, and I'm quite intrigued as to where it'll go next.
I fully agree with your shock from the beginning of the book. I felt the same thing unease from these "Sobering Statistics" as you put it. One thing I thought was interesting was the way show no defensiveness as you describe your fear/shock of the statistics. Defensiveness is easy to feel as a white person when talking about the horrible things white people have done and especially when the author has an accusatory tone (even though it seems to be a rightful tone for this topic). Your lack of defensiveness shows true self reflection and I commend that. Your tone throughout was never bashing the author for anything arbitrary, and that is really just a mask for the discomfort the piece arises within ourselves. I wonder if her tone will shift to more of a blaming one or if it will stay at this moderate tone throughout? I suspect a moderate tone throughout will become boring so I wonder where the book will go? I wonder if this fear or shock is the emotion the author is trying to make the reader feel?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you when you said "racial castes are not something the average rural white kid would see as prevalent in today's society." Like we were discussing in class the other day about white privilege, I think the idea of this "racial caste" is very hard to understand and that's why it's still a debate today. However, I didn't totally get what you meant when you said: "On page 49, Alexander states that 'between 1980 and 1984, FBI antidrug funding increased from $8 million to $95 million.' The idea that so much money can be funneled into a system that almost exclusively targets inner city black communities is honestly terrifying." How is antidrug funding targeting inner city black communities? I might've misunderstood your claim but that was just something I thought about. Overall, your point of view on is pretty interesting!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I see where you're confused. One of the book's main arguments is that the war on drugs, while not explicitly race-based, only really effects poor minorities (with things like black people being vastly more likely to be searched for drugs without probable cause.) I should've clarified, the laws weren't necessarily intended to harm black communities, but that's basically all they achieved. Plus, that antidrug funding was mainly going toward things like drug busts, attempting to find illegal drug users/dealers and put them behind bars, and that money could've gone toward rehab programs and better drug education in poor communities. Thanks for asking, I should've made my opinion there a bit more clear.
DeleteI'm particularly fond of this blog project because of the way that it allows everyone to develop their voice in not such a dry, academic way that's necessary for research projects. And, boy howdy, does your voice shine through. You're clearly not afraid of first-person perspective, and that works really well for your discussion of this book. Experiencing the book as someone who comes from a very racially and culturally homogeneous region is a very effective way to convey the book's purpose as, in a way, people like you and me are the target audience. People who are interested in - or at least aware of - social justice but are often unaware as to the scope of needed social change will most definitely be affected by this book, as it seems from your experience. I'd like to know what you think - do you think the truths can get any darker?
ReplyDeleteThomas, a good overview of some of the main ideas of the text so far. Remember that not everyone is reading the same book you are, so it might be helpful to be a bit more detailed in your discussion of the text.
ReplyDeleteOne of the claims Alexander makes is that the policies were intentionally race-related, such as some of the policies she describes occurring under Nixon. Do you think this is the case or that they are inadvertently racist?
The way you acknowledge your own background and how the book impacts and informs you on a topic you're less familiar with is great. Calling parts of the book "dark" gives a sense of power to the information in the book. Your contrast between opportunity and segregation was well thought out.
ReplyDelete