Talk:The New Jim Crow/Archive 1

Criticism
The criticism section is a little baffling right now... there's allusions to what the criticisms are but it's difficult to understand how they target the argument directly. This 'whitewashing' article looks interesting, I'm going to see if I can add some stuff from it. BTW I think the article's pretty good! but needs some subdividing up top for readability. Maybe even some more frontmatter that's not chapter by chapter. Groupuscule (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I added some context and objectivity to the intro part of the criticism section but the rest needs to be reorganized. The whitewashing section contains other criticisms that are not related to the whitewashing, counterrevolution, etc... Groupuscule is correct that it needs some sub dividing for readability. I look into the articles and see what I can find. I already read some of the Forman article and added a relevant quote which makes his criticism more understandable. Collapse1960 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Did some subdividing in criticism and added quote from Alexander for context and noted the disputed nature of criticisms.Collapse1960 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section is excellent but I am wondering whether the section "Exploitation..." actually contains any criticisms about Alexander or the book specifically or whether it is just a general comment on ambulance chasing leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.119.107 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the worst book articles on the project
It reads like little more than a fawning book report. In my opinion, this article should be entirely rewritten, with a neutral, dispassionate voice, and the majority of the article as it currently stands should be scrapped. LHM 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have performed a much-needed cut on the astoundingly overlong "summary" section. There are still many issues with this article, particularly regarding tone, but at least it's at a manageable length now. Note: Please do not re-add the cut material, as it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a dumping ground for a book report. LHM 14:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree; "fawning" is the appropriate word. While Ms. Alexander's contribution has some merit, her followers have adopted a zealous tone that has steadily intruded on the neutral tone of the article. Wikipedia is not the place to promote her work. Apostle12 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Complete information
I started this entry as an article about a phenomenon of extraordinary importance that I had noticed long before Alexander's book was published. I intended to use Alexander's book as a main reference, because I believed she was for the most part accurate. Then somebody changed this into an article about a book, so I cooperated along those lines. Now the whole thing is being eliminated (referenced material) and trivialized. The complete comprehensive information is in the March 21, 2013 version. Orczar (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that version of the article read like a book report or a one-source research paper. Wikipedia is not the place for such things. LHM 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article as it appears now is "trivialized." I have been working the past few days to clean up the writing, which was quite poor and didn't properly convey Alexander's message.  By now I think the article reads pretty well (always room for improvement) and makes her message clear to the average Wiki reader.  Doubt many would have perused the entire article previously--in particular, the chapter sections were just too long.  Apostle12 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Original Research;
The following is an admission by a contributor in talk: '''I started this entry as an article about a phenomenon of extraordinary importance that I had noticed long before Alexander's book was published. I intended to use Alexander's book as a main reference, because I believed she was for the most part accurate. Then somebody changed this into an article about a book, so I cooperated along those lines. Now the whole thing is being eliminated (referenced material) and trivialized.'''

I don't believe that 'the new Jim crow' was ever a term in common usage, and it is not deserving of a wikipedia article in itself. Nor is 'the new Jim Crow' a term in common usage today, except as the title of the book. Therefore this article, to the extent to which it should be allowed at all, should be an article about the book.

The article should be edited accordingly, especially the beginning. Joesonyx (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I decided to edit the beginning myself, done. Joesonyx (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Joesonyx (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Coatrack section
I moved this coatrack section here. The reference does not mention the author or her book. The logic seems to be that Alexander sometimes talks about Trayvon Martin so here is a section on Martin and how people exploit his death. That is the definition of a coatrack. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Exploitation of tragedy: Referring to the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin, which Michelle Alexander has repeatedly referenced in public appearances, race relations scholar and Senior Fellow Shelby Steele at Stanford University's Hoover Institution argues against the politics of victimization:


 * "And this points to the second tragedy that Trayvon's sad demise highlights. Before the 1960s the black American identity (though no one ever used the word) was based on our common humanity, on the idea that race was always an artificial and exploitive division between people. After the '60s—in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake."


 * "It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power."

Criticisms given undue weight
The "praise and awards" section has 360 words and the "criticism" section has 1557 words (4.3 times more criticism). The praise just lists the awards and the criticism has amazing detail. Does anyone else think that this is undue weight? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is about a book, not about the criticism of a book. The persons whom provide the critism appear to be weak. "The New Jim Crow is an “exceptional example of recuperation."". Firstly I find that to be suspicious in that the accusation appears to be original work and develops an obscure ideological thesis.

"In his essay Why Some Like The New Jim Crow So Much, Greg Thomas, an Associate Professor of Africana Studies and English at Tufts University" OK - in his essay ????. That is not much of a weighty assessment. I could write an essay, indeed I have written an essay (several). The only country in the world that thinks an "Associate Professor" is a professional or academic status is America, for the rest of the planet this means - has been paid at least once to provide a lecture in a university.

The rest of the criticism is pasted contextless quotes than are nothing more then an feeble series of ad hominem attacks that seek to bluster a consensus that really we should not read this book or heaven forbide - buy it

Trayvon Martin
I have removed that section again, it has nothing to do with the book at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Poorly written entry
It reads like a middle-school class project, where the teacher assigned a different chapter to each student. In need of a complete overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.66.169 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is just a summary of the book and the critique section is straight out of someone's homework. -TehNomad (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a (not yet complete) summary of the book and more importantly, of its main argument. Orczar (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This article lacks objectivity. It should collect major criticisms of the book being reviewed, and summarize them as well. My Freshman Composition class is going to revise the chapter summariesSwarfe (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I may look into that, once I'm done with summarizing the book. Orczar (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a section for criticism and summaries, as well as moved the section "media attention" to this article from the author's personal article. My thought is that the criticism by Shelby Steele should be moved to Alexander's personal article since it is about Alexander herself not necessarily about the book. Any thoughts? (James, 11:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The quotes by both James Forman Jr. and Shelby Steele deal with Michelle Alexander specifically and the New Jim Crow writers in general. I think this info should appear in both articles. If there is some concurrence on this issue, I will make the changes. Apostle12 (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the section "praise" should be combined with the section "awards," either that or it should be worked into the initial section which gives an overview of the book. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Unless there are any objections I will merge the praise section into one or the other when I get a chance.Iso700 (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands now lacks editorial work. The tone of the book description is fairly neutral, as should be. But the criticisms mostly come from a single writer, Joseph D. Osel, whose credentials are all but clearly identifiable, in a very minor publication. Entire sections (including their title!) seem to come directly from these papers, referenced multiple times in this entry. This vastly overstates the criticisms against the book.

More balanced accounts of critical appraisal can be found for instance here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2F%2522the%2Bnew%2Bjim%2Bcrow%2522%2F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.21.2 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
I Moved the criticism section here, it looks like it comes from someone's term paper and it relies on low ranking journals. There can, and should be criticism, but not an undue amount: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This duplicates what is in the article!? 2600:1001:B120:229F:69A3:3503:3C7F:5B0 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The New Jim Crow has received national acclaim since its debut. However, sociologists, race relations and black studies scholars have criticized Alexander for misrepresenting the problem of mass-incarceration in the United States by augmenting and "repackaging" existing social justice research on mass-incarceration to suit white middle-class consumers. Critics have argued that Alexander creates a strained analogy to the original Jim Crow laws, employs a counterrevolutionary conceptual framework, and marginalizes black and brown voices in favor of more mainstream and less radical perspectives. These critics agree that mass incarceration in the United States is a catastrophic situation, but disagree with Alexander with regard to its history, causes, and possible solutions. According to Alexander, her target audience are "people who care deeply about racial justice but who, for any number of reasons, do not yet appreciate the magnitude of the crisis faced by communities of color as a result of mass incarceration."

Strained analogy to Jim Crow
Yale University Clinical Law Professor James Forman Jr., son of James Forman, prominent civil rights leader of the 1950s and 1960s, has argued that Alexander simplifies and overstates her case by relying too heavily on her analogy to the original Jim Crow laws.

In his paper Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow, Forman Jr. identifies Alexander as one of a number of authors who have overstated and misstated their case. He observes that her framework over-emphasizes the War on Drugs and ignores violent crimes, asserting that Alexander's analysis is demographically simplistic. He suggests that Alexander does not analyze the way imprisonment is now heavily stratified by class, even among African-Americans, and notes that Alexander does not discuss the mass incarceration of other races, including whites. In the section “Overlooking Race” Forman Jr. writes that the Jim Crow analogy “obscures the extent to which whites, too, are mass incarceration’s targets," noting that “Alexander mentions them only in passing; she says that mass imprisonment’s true targets are blacks, and that incarcerated whites are ‘collateral damage.’”

Forman Jr. further suggests that the original Jim Crow should be kept separate as a unique historical event, and that the New Jim Crow writers leave out descriptions of atrocities, like lynching and torture, that the original Jim Crow entailed. In conclusion, Forman Jr. cautions that a movement against mass incarceration will need to address community safety and the treatment of prisoners, in addition to the sheer number of people imprisoned.

Recuperative and counterrevolutionary tendencies
The discourse of The New Jim Crow has been noted for its recuperative tendencies:

In his study Toward Détournement of The New Jim Crow, or, The Strange Career of The New Jim Crow, political sociologist Joseph D. Osel writes that The New Jim Crow is an “exceptional example of recuperation.” According to his study the book promotes a false understanding of mass incarceration in the United States. He observes that The New Jim Crow “paradoxically excludes an analysis of mass incarceration’s most central and defining factors," "omits all truly revolutionary stances from its discourse" (especially those of African Americans), "quietly denies the relevance of controversial American history," and "engages in a paradoxical counterrevolutionary protest that misleads readers about the context, causes and possible remedial methods of mass-incarceration in the United States.” To support his disputed contention Osel cites several contradictions from the text, including that the book does not contain the word “capitalism.” He writes: “The New Jim Crow is a book about a modern American “caste system” without even a single reference to the modern economic paradigm,” noting that "the particular omissions and critical immunizations in The New Jim Crow serve to limit the discursive consciousness of the potential revolutionary subject" and that this limitation "runs contrary to the actual needs of the subject(s) under consideration."

In conclusion, Osel writes that social justice advocates should be deeply concerned about the The New Jim Crow's wide acclaim and argues that a détournement of the text's "commercial misinformation and half-truths" could salvage the book as an instructive category of race relations, providing readers with "a powerful lens through which we could view the strange depths and modes of ideological domination and rhetorical schisms, which sustain societal problems even while challenging them." In his initial review of the book he also argues that The New Jim Crow lacks perspective on the larger systems of capitalism, colonialism, and racism that generate mass incarceration—partly, because Alexander's audience would be uncomfortably complicit with these systems.

In his essay Why Some Like The New Jim Crow So Much, Greg Thomas, an Associate Professor of Africana Studies and English at Tufts University, also criticizes Alexander's understanding of mass incarceration, emphasizing problems with her terminology. He writes that she uses the terms "Jim Crow," "mass incarceration," and "slavery," but not "racism,” “white supremacy," or "capitalism," positing that these choices serve to isolate the problem of mass imprisonment from larger systems of domination. Further, Thomas argues that Alexander's isolation of the "war on drugs" bars an understanding of mass incarceration, writing that "The rhetoric of a “War on Drugs” does not share space in Alexander's work with other language that is basic to other, prior political analyses of Black imprisonment or “mass incarceration,” and that there is "no critical language of “capitalism” or “class” or “exploitation” in The New Jim Crow." Thomas also argues that The New Jim Crow “hides from consumer view” more insightful, radical, and fearless ideas, writing that “Alexander cites everything but traditions of Black political and even academic radicalism,” marginalizes longtime activists as "conspiracy theorists" who are misguided to accuse the American government of genocide or to challenge the prison system itself," and ignores the history of political hip-hop, making only the broad generalization about "gangsta rap" that it enables black youth to identify with the stigma of being criminals.

In conclusion, Thomas argues that Alexander's solutions to the problem of mass incarceration are counterrevolutionary. Instead of demanding changes to the social structure of the United States, and "in lieu of any radical political action or activism," she asks for (Christian) love and for "civil rights," positions that will not create radical change.

Whitewashing and ahistoricism
One of the major criticisms Alexander’s detractors have raised is one of "bizarre omission:" According to Osel's review Black Out: Michelle Alexander’s Operational Whitewash: "while Alexander's book claims to be concerned with exposing and describing the history and mechanisms of mass incarceration or the American "caste system," which affects the poor and people of color systematically and disproportionately, her work systematically, strangely, and emphatically excludes these voices."

Osel contends that Alexander's work provides the history of criminal justice and imprisonment with "a vast rhetorical and historical facelift where the most relevant and affected voices on the topic at hand are safely expunged from the discussion, from relevance, from history." He writes: "According to Alexander's history, there is no Malcolm X or George Jackson, no Frantz Fanon, no Richard Wright, no Eldridge Cleaver, no Angela Davis, no Huey P. Newton, no Bobby Seale, no Black Panther Party, no Black Power Movement, no self-determination, no prison-struggles, no political prisoners… Suspiciously there is almost no 1960s, no 1970s, no Black History, no Black Criticism, no Black Radicalism, no radicalism, no class struggle...the radical voices of America's black and brown inmates, the strong voices of anti-oppression, anti-imperialism, anti-exploitation, the voices of revolt, rebellion, revolution, Black and Brown power, the most salient historical texts, speeches, time-periods, and philosophies - all these things have been miraculously purged from Alexander's lens in a sort of operational whitewash, a black out, apparently unnoticed."

Osel concludes that the "rhetorical limitation" imposed by Alexander renders The New Jim Crow "demonstrably ahistorical."

Greg Thomas’ heavily referenced essay Why Some Like The New Jim Crow So Much also criticizes Alexander for her Eurocentrism and omission of black history, arguing that her historical points of reference are the "founding fathers," "democracy," and "Obama," rather than radical black anti-prison leaders. He argues that Alexander meticulously ignores “all of the Black and non-Black radical movements of the 1960s and ’70s…” and repetitively affirms the reality of "colorblindness", writing that Alexander describes the marginalization of blacks as almost accidental. She writes, "Old fashioned racism seems out of the question," as though the marginalization of blacks is an afterthought that could not be caused by racial prejudice or bigotry.

Further, Thomas argues that the first chapter of The New Jim Crow, “The Rebirth of Caste,” is a rewriting of history, calling it a "a self-contained or isolationist U.S. history disconnected from the history of the world." He writes that The New Jim Crow "moves from “The Birth of Slavery” to “The Death of Slavery,” despite the fact that “slavery does not ‘die,’" arguing that "Alexander first lauds the “achievement” of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for “abolishing slavery,” and only belatedly concedes that it re-framed or re-articulated slavery instead of abolishing it. For “slavery remained appropriate as punishment for a crime.”’

Thomas concludes that “there is literally next to nothing to be learned from The New Jim Crow,” writing that “The New Jim Crow is not for “everyone” because from cover to cover “everyone” except advocates of white and middle-class liberalism – in the imperial context of U.S. settler nationalism – are placed totally and completely beyond the pale.”

Coatrack
The criticism part has become WP:Coatrack for the theories of Joseph D. Osel. I think they belong in an article on him and not an article on the book. Criticism should come from our standard array of reliable book review sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone restored that criticism section
Just wanted to point out that someone who isn't engaging in the "talk" section is edit warring over that "criticism" section. As has been noted in the discussion of that section above, the section is over 1,100 words long, much longer than many other sections actually about the book, and it doesn't actually manage to express a coherent critique for all that length. And no one has pointed out that these 1,100 words are attributed entirely to pieces by two scholars, each getting substantial attention in each of the sections. It's been pointed out above that they're "low-ranking journals," but that's putting it mildly: one is one of those scam journals whose email solicitations are well known to anyone in academia, where it doesn't have peer review guidelines and will take anything submitted. The other is a blog. Point being, given the amount of time necessary to write these sections, the obscurity of the material they're citing, and the personal commitment of an edit war, I would imagine that Joseph Osten or Greg Thomas is in here vandalizing the article to promote their own work by attaching it to a bigger name. 71.14.85.71 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)MOB


 * What goes on here - everybody says the Criticism section is awful, which it is (long jargon about "counterrevolutionary" by two obscure critics) and yet it is here TWICE, both in the article and on this page. What gives!? 2600:1001:B120:229F:69A3:3503:3C7F:5B0 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it again. I tried to read it three times, it made very little sense. I do not know if the problem is with the Wikipedia writer or the source material. It has become a WP:Coatrack for their theories. If they are notable the info can be migrated to Wikipedia articles on the authors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved here from article

 * These are tangential anecdotes: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexander's thoughts on the caste system and racial discrimination in the United States have been influential. On Alexander's web page for the New Jim Crow, the public has created groups to take action against the caste system, such as the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, a group committed to raising awareness and building movements from a faith perspective, The Campaign to End the New Jim Crow, an organization dedicated to structure a movement with the goal of replacing prisons and lifelong discrimination with caring communities, and the Formerly Incarcerated Peoples Movement, a group dedicated to achieving the full rebuilding of civil and human rights for all people, especially those who have been convicted by the criminal justice system. Alexander was able to reach a large group of people with The New Jim Crow, all of whom aim to work together to bring an end to all forms of hate and discrimination directed against people of color.

Readers of Alexander's book, like Dennis Moore, can relate to the events it details. Moore's son is one of many young African American men sent to prison. Moore recalls that seeing his son in chains inside the courtroom reminded him of when blacks were first forced to America from their homeland.

Moore is not the only one to speak out about the mass incarceration of young black men. An article from the Revolutionary Communist Party's U.S. website provides an essay written by a 14-year-old girl who has never spent time with her father because he has been in prison her entire life. She describes the incarceration of young African American men as "a judge locking away your freedom and throwing away the key."

Many of Alexander's readers have expressed their opinions and ideas of her book on discussion pages. One reader, a reporter named Michelle, shared her experience in the comments section of an article by The Atlantic. She noticed the mass amounts of African American men that were being brought into a criminal courthouse because they were caught carrying small amounts of marijuana with them. She explains that she knew there was something wrong with this image and reading Alexander's book helped her to better understand her view on the subject of African American mass incarceration.

For the fall of 2015, all freshmen enrolled at Brown University read The New Jim Crow as part of the campus' First Readings Program initiated by the Office of the Dean of the College and voted on by various members of the faculty.

Psychobabble

 * Almost every other word is in scare quotes: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This section I read three times, maybe I need a Ph.D. in this area to understand it. The article is about the book, not about criticism. Criticism and plot summary are about 50-50 now, which is still undue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC) In one essay, Greg Thomas, an Associate Professor of African Studies and English at Tufts University, also criticizes Alexander's understanding of mass incarceration, emphasizing problems with her terminology. He observes that she uses the terms "Jim Crow," "mass incarceration," and "slavery," but not "racism," "white supremacy," or "capitalism," noting that these choices serve to isolate the problem of mass imprisonment from larger systems of domination. Further, Thomas argues that Alexander's isolation of the War on Drugs bars an understanding of mass incarceration, writing that "The rhetoric of a 'War on Drugs' does not share space in Alexander's work with other language that is basic to other, prior political analyses of Black imprisonment or 'mass incarceration'," and that there is "no critical language of 'capitalism' or 'class' or 'exploitation' in The New Jim Crow." Thomas also observes that The New Jim Crow "hides from consumer view" more insightful, radical, and fearless ideas, writing that "Alexander cites everything but traditions of Black political and even academic radicalism," marginalizes longtime activists as "conspiracy theorists" who are misguided to accuse the American government of genocide or to challenge the prison system itself," and ignores the history of political hip hop, making only the broad generalization about "gangsta rap" that it enables black youth to identify with the stigma of being criminals. Thomas also argues that Alexander's solutions to the problem of mass incarceration are counterrevolutionary, and that instead of demanding changes to the social structure of the United States, and "in lieu of any radical political action or activism," she asks for Christian love and for "civil rights," positions that will not create radical change.