"The New Jim Crow"

There is a clear reason why chapter five of The New Jim Crow is the titular chapter. A significant portion of the chapter summarizes and recycles information already expanded upon in previous chapters. I may even go as far as to say that if you only read this chapter, you would have a solid understanding of the book as a whole.

Chapter five discusses the similarities and differences (briefly) between mass incarceration and the Jim Crow Laws. From my interpretation, this is the premise of the entire book. A couple of pages into the chapter, Alexander begins “mapping the parallels” (190). In her opinion, the parallels between mass incarceration and Jim Crow include historical parallels, legalized discrimination, political disenfranchisement, exclusion from juries, closing the courthouse doors, racial segregation, and the symbolic production of race. All of these parallels have already been discussed thoroughly in other chapters.

Alexander discussed historical parallels in the first chapter, “The Rebirth of Caste.”

Both “The Rebirth of Caste” and “The New Jim Crow” discuss how both Jim Crow Laws and mass incarceration were policies adopted to keep poor whites and blacks from uniting against white elites.

Alexander discussed legalized discrimination in the fourth chapter, “The Cruel Hand.”

Chapter Four talks largely about how ex-offenders are barred from jobs, housing, public benefits, and public accommodations. In this chapter, Alexander compares this to how black people were segregated and barred from these same things during Jim Crow. She essentially restates one of her main points from the previous chapter.

Alexander discussed political disenfranchisement in “The Cruel Hand.”

My last blog post was entirely about disenfranchisement. Alexander makes the exact same points as she did in “The Cruel Hand,” comparing felon disenfranchisement to poll taxes and literacy tests.

Alexander discussed exclusion from juries in the third chapter, “The Color of Justice.”

This paragraph is particularly repetitive to me because there was no additional, strong connection to the Jim Crow laws. She only restated that prosecutors could strike jurors based on weak reasons, leading to greater discretion and covert racism.

Alexander discussed “closing the courthouse doors” in “The Color of Justice.”

She again talks about McCleskey v. Kemp and discusses how this Supreme Court decision made it nearly impossible to make claims of racial bias in the justice system. She connects this to Dred Scott v. Sandford from the mid-19th century.

In the interest of keeping this post a reasonable length, I won’t continue. I think you see my point. To me, this chapter seems largely repetitive of prior chapters.

I far prefered the section where she contrasted Jim Crow and mass incarceration. While she framed this section as the differences between the two, she was really refuting opposing arguments, which I found effective. One of the key differences between Jim Crow and mass incarceration is that white people are also impacted negatively by the latter. Alexander treats this as an opposing argument to her claim that mass incarceration is the “New Jim Crow.” She refutes this by going on what appears to be a tangent about drunk driving. She talks about how dangerous drunk driving is and how much of an issue it was during the 1980s. But, instead of waging a war on drunk driving, the United States wages the War on Drugs, which unlike drunk driving was not a perceived issue. 78% of drunk drivers are white males (207). She uses this information to show that, while white people were affected by the War on Drugs, it’s targeting the black population.

I also liked Alexander’s metaphor with the birdcage. She described mass incarceration as just one wire of a birdcage. On its own, it won’t trap the bird, but in combination with other, seemingly insignificant wires, it forms a cage that’s nearly inescapable. Birdcages have been used as a symbol for racial oppression many times, but I found this interpretation (although it was not Alexander’s; she credited Iris Marion Young) unique.

Overall, the repetition in this chapter overwhelmed many of the things I may have enjoyed. Yes, Alexander provided more evidence to support her claims, but she had already established those claims very well. At this point, it was just overkill. I like Alexander’s writing style, and I think the content is compelling, but it could be cut down.