User:Jessemcmanus/sandbox

Chapter 5: The New Jim Crow
Michelle Alexander uses The New Jim Crow as an analogy to show different parallels and similarities between the old racial caste systems and the system of mass incarceration, what she argues is creating a modern racial caste system. She begins by presenting the audience with the question, "where have all the black men gone?", opening up with examples like Obama's speech on the black stereotype of missing fathers and also explaining how many touch upon this idea but don't quite answer the question. Her answer is simply that "they are warehoused in prison, locked in cages" (Alexander). Throughout the chapter she details many implicitly oppressive laws and regulations within mass incarceration which, for the most part only seem to be affecting the poverty-stricken African American population and how similar the situations are compared to the old Jim Crow era. In addition, Michelle Alexander references racial indifference as a main contributor to past and present racial caste systems. The main theme that echoes throughout this chapter is that mass incarceration is the New Jim Crow because of how it works to trap mostly people of color within it and how similar it is to the old racial caste systems.

old summary :

=== Chapter 5: The New Jim Crow ===

Chapter 5: The New Jim Crow argued that there are many parallels between mass incarceration and the former Jim Crow legal system. Alexander posits that there is a striking similarity between the current and past racial caste systems in terms of their function and effects, even though the systems differ significantly. She contends that the similarities include: racial stigma and shame, as well as the presence of an elaborate system of control that involves disenfranchisement and legalized discrimination.

The Limits of the Analogy
In this section, Michelle Alexander discusses the differences between the old racial caste system, Jim Crow, and the new racial caste system as seen by her, mass incarceration. Though Michelle Alexander sees them both as systems of control and having similarities, they differ from each other in major ways. One such difference that she points out is that mass incarceration appears race-neutral ; this means that while the laws themselves are race-neutral (or appear to be race-neutral), the enforcement of these laws (and sometimes the laws themselves, like drug laws) is where the discrimination occurs. She expands more on this in the sections “Absence of racial hostility” and “White victims of racial cast”.

Absence of racial hostility
With the change in public view regarding racial hostility, there is a decline in outright racial hostility and violence, but it does still exist in public and in the prison systems according to Michelle Alexander. ; She states that racism isn’t based on doing harm to a certain race, but about controlling that race or racial group.Michelle Alexander makes the argument that racial indifference, not racism, is the main driving force behind the current racial caste system, mass incarceration, and past racial caste systems. ; With the public view of outright racial hostility becoming more unacceptable, Michelle Alexander points out that racial indifference has taken a more central role in the new system of mass incarceration. She also points out that racial hostility being used as a means primarily for harm is misguided. To build on that, she mentions that in times of slavery plantation owners were more focused on making money cheaply and used slavery to accomplish that goal in a cost effective manner. ;

White victims of racial caste
--This will be linked to caste system page that other students in the class are creating--

Michelle Alexander points out one important difference between Jim Crow and mass incarceration is that the current racial caste system also includes poor whites, meaning that this racial caste system has evolved to meet the needs of the current times. Michelle Alexander explains that this racial caste system is only able to work in this day and age because of the “colorblind” mentality that America has adopted. In the words of Michelle Alexander: This allows us to “maintain our self-image as a fair and unbiased people”.

Michelle Alexandergoes on to declare that Whites being caught in the Drug War doesn’t mean that they are the true targets, but that they are collateral damage; the true targets are African Americans. ; However, currently, as reported by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the percent of White inmates in Prison is 59.1% while black inmates account for 37.5% and the majority of offenses for these statistic are drug offenses which could indicate a change in the system. The drug war on crack would not have occurred if the major dealers and sellers were white Michelle Alexander claims. In addition, Michelle Alexander references Economist Gary Loury: Can we envision a system that would enforce drug laws almost exclusively among young white men and largely ignore drug crime among young black men?”

To better understand the divide in drug law inequality, Michelle Alexander delves into the differences between drunk driving offenses and offenses concerning crack. Michelle Alexander points out that while the drug war was a movement started by politicians, the movement against drunk driving and alcohol related issues was a bottom-up movement, pushed into the spotlight by the Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision. In addition, deaths associated with drugs and drug offenses (including violence associate with drugs) was approximated at 21,000 deaths, the deaths from drunk driving, which were approximated at 22,000, and other alcohol related deaths which totaled at about 100,000, are considerably higher. and goes on to say: “The criminalization of white men would disturb us to the core.” With these death counts in mind, the punishments for each offense are staggeringly different. As Michelle Alexander explains, many states have a mandatory sentence for both drunk driving and possession of crack. Possession of crack holds a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison while drunk driving is punishable by a couple days in jail for a first offense and two to ten days in jail for a second offense. ; Michelle Alexander goes on to explain that the majority of offenders for drunk driving are white (78% in 1990 when these laws were initially being implemented), which has been shown as more dangerous than crack offenses, are offered programs to be reintegrated with the community while crack offenders are sent to prison with little to no help at all.