I have read 120 pages of the book, "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander, and let me tell you, this book has become an incredibly interesting read. The last 60 pages contain some of the most informative and fact-filled writing I have read in my life. Each page is crammed with shocking claims that make me (and I'm sure other readers) do a double-take. Better yet, following each of those claims has been a pile of evidence that shocks the reader even more. I think that I have read enough to be able to explain her main argument in the book which I will do in this post.
Michelle Alexanders', "The New Jim Crow" is not only an academic and informational book, it is a passionate, powerful, and inspirational book that encapsulates how systemically biased and racist our American legal system is. Michelle argues that our legal system has been set up and run to be able to legally discriminate against minorities, especially black people. She believes that the design of our policing, prosecution and criminal treatment originate from all the way back before Jim Crow and was made to look like a colorblind system to the public eye, but be able to effectively discriminate against black people and even bar them of certain basic rights such as voting, employment, family, and safety.
Michelle approaches her argument with a few different techniques. The first and most prominent is with simple claims and evidence. Alexander introduces new claims and opinions, often at the beginning of a sub-section a chapter certain then immediately begins supporting her claim. This supporting evidence is consistently extremely strong and supportive of the claim and makes the reader begin to really believe Michelle. An example of this strong, claim supporting evidence comes on page 110. In this section, Alexander is talking about incarceration and prosecution of black men for drug offenses and specifically speaking on a certain case called Mcclesky vs Kemp in a Georgia courthouse. Paraphrased, Alexander says, "Georgia courts were disproportionately treating black defendants. According to NAACP research of over 2000 murder cases in Georgia, defendants who killed white victims received the death penalty 11x more often than those who killed black victims. Not only this, but 70% of cases involving black defendants who killed white victims the death penalty was used but only 19% of cases where white defendants killed black victims was the death penalty used." (p110) Alexander uses this kind of shocking and powerful evidence to establish credibility and support previous claims. I believe that Michelle must have spent just as much, if not more, time researching for this book than actually writing it. This evidence is also utilized as a tool to make readers more open to other methods of persuasion.
Michelle's next method of approach, often following strong facts and evidence, is the dramatic and saddening story's about victims of the racist legal system. I think Alexander purposely organized her book this way to create ethos using logos, then capitalize on this combination with pathos. These heartfelt stories of innocent minority's lives being destroyed through the abuse of the legal system. In one story on pages 75-76, Michelle tells of a 57-year-old black woman whose apartment was stormed by a SWAT team who threw stun grenades and put her into cardiac arrest. The woman died just hours later and as it turns out, the SWAT team had stormed her apartment thinking it was the apartment of a drug dealer who had already been arrested. The death was ruled to be a homicide but no-one was convicted. Stories like this show a real-life situation where the flaws in our legal system show. It is simply unacceptable that in America, one of the most advanced nations in the world, racial discrimination to this extent still exists.
Personally, I am agreeing and understanding Alexander's argument. The racial issues in our country are horrible and need to stop. Despite what people say, racism is not dead in America. Changes need to be made, but first people need to be aware. I believe that this book is important and its contents need to be widely heard and understood. The biggest enemy facing our country's racial equality is ignorance.
Works Cited
We Can Cut Mass Incarceration by 50 Percent. ACLU, 12 July 2019,
www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/we-can-cut-mass-incarceration-50-percent. Accessed 11 Mar. 2021.
Hi Andrew! I really liked the way you ended your post. I think a lot of people don't see direct racism in their lives and it leads them to believe that racism isn't a problem. There's a psychological "habit" of sorts called the availability heuristic. In short, it's a problem solving instinct which makes us believe something is more or less likely to happen based on how easily we can remember an example of that event in our life. In this case, a lot of people probably aren't able to think of many times they witnessed racism firsthand or many ways it impacts their life directly. Because of this, the problem may go overlooked by many, and I think you're right in that people need to get more educated on this issue. Just because not all of us experience it, doesn't mean the issue has been resolved. Books like this open our eyes to the way racism still prevails, which is a very necessary component of ending racism.
ReplyDeleteAudria :)
Andrew, I'm glad you're appreciating the book. One small thing: you sometimes refer to the author as Michelle and sometimes as Alexander. Stay consistent, and use her last name, since you aren't on a first name basis with her.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that there are points she makes that aren't as well supported as others? Does she, for example, tackle opposing arguments in her discussion of the problems of the justice system?
Thank you. I will make sure to refer to her as Alexander from now on. So far, Alexander has not had any particularly weak sections. I have come across maybe one or two claims that were mediocrely supported but the vast majority have been supported extremely well. In the book she definitely does talk about opposing arguments however she often talks about them in or in response to a claim arguing her point. She will talk about a subject that supports her argument, introduce an opposing argument and offer a rebuttal, then finish supporting the claim.
DeleteHi Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this blog, and the way you designed the narrative to include stories and facts. I think this blends really well throughout the blog as you are able to talk about your opinions and views on the matters at hand, and at the same time are able to give the reader a deeper understanding of the situation with facts and evidence from the book. I also really appreciated the mass incarceration section because I personally believe that mass incarceration is one of the biggest problems facing our society right now. How does it make any sense for a society to jail millions of their citizens for mental illnesses like drug addiction when what those people really need is help to stop their addiction, and many times help to get them out of poverty. I think it is so blatantly racist the way our systems works to target poor Black communities, and to imprison so many poor Black people who really just need help getting on their feet. How is a community of people ever supposed to ascend out of poverty if they are not able to get jobs because of petty drug offences, and their possessions are stolen because of the civil forfeiture laws. What are some things that you think would help with this? Or maybe even are there any solutions that Alexander has proposed?
Great Blog!
Ryan M.