Like Old, like New
The New Jim Crow approaches its final act in the fifth chapter, which is simply titled "The New Jim Crow." Up to this point in the book, Michelle Alexander has primarily focused on the issues plaguing African-Americans through the corrections system and the war on drugs, the issues forming the racial caste itself. However, throughout this whole book, a question exists in the reader's mind; it did in my case, at least. This question might enter your head the moment you lay your eyes on the book: "The New Jim Crow? That's ridiculous... could modern society really be comparable to the period of the Jim Crow laws?" Well, Alexander makes it quite clear that she does not believe this to be an exaggeration: she draws out all the parallels (and differences) between the old and new Jim Crow, and all of the little pieces I had read thus far were coming together to form the larger whole. Alexander calls the system of mass incarceration a "birdcage with a locked door." On page 185, she says, "It is a set of structural arrangements that locks a racially distinct group into a subordinate political, social, and economic position, effectively creating a second-class citizenship. Those trapped within the system are not merely disadvantaged, in the sense that they are competing on an unequal playing field or face additional hurdles to political or economic success; rather, the system itself is structured to lock them into a subordinate position." She makes it clear that, while perhaps not every metal wire of a birdcage was made to lock up a bird, they still come together to achieve that purpose. That's how a set of "color-blind" policies end in racially-charged results.
First, I would like to summarize the parallels Alexander brings up between the old and new Jim Crow. The most glaring one she brings up is legalized discrimination; while the original Jim Crow was clearly legalizing discrimination against people of color, the new excludes felons from society, and as Alexander has made pretty clear, "African-American" and "felon" have unfortunately nearly become synonymous in the systems of mass incarceration. Now, other parallels, like political disenfranchisement and exclusion from juries, are more self-explanatory, and don't really need to be covered in detail. However, one parallel stands out in particular: racial segregation. Since mass incarceration forces many African-Americans into prisons, it DOES separate "us" and "them," creating distinct populations of "non-criminals" and "criminals." Additionally, on page 197, Alexander explains mass the new and old Jim Crows' parallel of symbolic race production. This concept is quite easy to grasp: the old Jim Crow DEFINED black people as second-class citizens, and mass incarceration policies define black people as criminals (and criminals are treated as second-class citizens.) Society decides what race is. Since it is a social construct, we ultimately decide what makes a white person white and a black person black. And while having separate racial cultures is ultimately a good thing, defining these racial lines along negatives (such as criminality) is clearly immoral. Due to all these parallels, it's pretty clear to justify calling mass incarceration "the new Jim Crow."
Now, while I do wholly agree that the comparison between the two is justified, you can't ignore that the analogy isn't spot-on. The primary difference, and the only one I'm really going to cover, is the lack of racial hostility. Ultimately, nowadays, people don't hate black people. People hate criminals without really acknowledging the connection we've created between crime and race. And this is precisely where I see an answer to mass incarceration and the problems it creates: you can hate crime as much as you want, but remember that there's a person attached to that crime. People need to be conscious of who they're hurting when they pull someone over, or give them a ridiculous sentence, or impose impossible debts. When the person, not just the race, is separated from the crime, we can be a truly equal society.
First, I would like to summarize the parallels Alexander brings up between the old and new Jim Crow. The most glaring one she brings up is legalized discrimination; while the original Jim Crow was clearly legalizing discrimination against people of color, the new excludes felons from society, and as Alexander has made pretty clear, "African-American" and "felon" have unfortunately nearly become synonymous in the systems of mass incarceration. Now, other parallels, like political disenfranchisement and exclusion from juries, are more self-explanatory, and don't really need to be covered in detail. However, one parallel stands out in particular: racial segregation. Since mass incarceration forces many African-Americans into prisons, it DOES separate "us" and "them," creating distinct populations of "non-criminals" and "criminals." Additionally, on page 197, Alexander explains mass the new and old Jim Crows' parallel of symbolic race production. This concept is quite easy to grasp: the old Jim Crow DEFINED black people as second-class citizens, and mass incarceration policies define black people as criminals (and criminals are treated as second-class citizens.) Society decides what race is. Since it is a social construct, we ultimately decide what makes a white person white and a black person black. And while having separate racial cultures is ultimately a good thing, defining these racial lines along negatives (such as criminality) is clearly immoral. Due to all these parallels, it's pretty clear to justify calling mass incarceration "the new Jim Crow."
Now, while I do wholly agree that the comparison between the two is justified, you can't ignore that the analogy isn't spot-on. The primary difference, and the only one I'm really going to cover, is the lack of racial hostility. Ultimately, nowadays, people don't hate black people. People hate criminals without really acknowledging the connection we've created between crime and race. And this is precisely where I see an answer to mass incarceration and the problems it creates: you can hate crime as much as you want, but remember that there's a person attached to that crime. People need to be conscious of who they're hurting when they pull someone over, or give them a ridiculous sentence, or impose impossible debts. When the person, not just the race, is separated from the crime, we can be a truly equal society.
While I might agree that there isn't, for most people, a clear sense of hatred towards black people, do you think that current events might suggest that there is still enough hatred or fear or prejudice that it does have something to do with race, versus criminality?
ReplyDeleteWhile have good discussion of aspects of the book, some of the project requirements aren't fully met.