In this section the author started off by talking about the stereotype of black men being absent fathers about breaking down that stereotype in this section. Then goes back to the whole book's main focus about black men getting disproportionately arrested for drug crimes.
This chapter's main argument and how the author achieved her argument bothered me. One of Her main arguments was that black fathers are not present because they are ripped away by the justice system, and that they would want to be part of the children’s lives, if the justice system hadn’t taken them away. She used strong verbiage relating to cages, repeatedly saying they were behind bars of cages, and even going into a full analogy of the cage as the criminal justice system. She said cages so many times it was synonym for prison she used. Using cages makes it seem like they’re being treated like animals and that they’re forced to be there. She went more into this idea of being forced into the prison system, saying they didn’t want to be taken away in handcuffs from their children. Completely leaving out the fact that these people voluntarily committed crimes. Barely even mentioning the fact that these people did commit crimes. Leaving the reader feeling empathetic for these criminals.
Yes the Reader can be empathetic of the fact that a black man was charged with a crime and the white man did the same thing and didn’t get charged. Which is a huge issue. But just because the white man did not get charged does not mean that the black man shouldn’t get charged, it means they should charge the white man to. If a person is speeding on the highway and the police officer is looking for red cars that are speeding, yes it is an issue that the police officer is specifically looking for red cars but that does not take away from the fact that the red car was speeding. The gray car that was also speeding should get the same punishment. The crime does not become any less valid based on who did or did not get punished for it. I found this to be a huge discrepancy within this chapter and almost made it seem like she was justifying crimes if not everyone is charged. Another issue I had with her argument in this section. Is the negative association with the criminal justice system. She laid it out very clearly the three steps of the criminal justice system towards black communities. First is the round up which she personifies as an unjust action towards black people, but it’s really just the arrest for crimes they committed. Step two is formal control which is literally just their incarceration, she personifies it has this evil thing done to control black people. The third step is invisible punishment which is the societal punishments associated with being a felon, she implies that these invisible punishments are more prominent within black communities. She made a bold statement of saying “ If you say to anyone “ we have got to do something about white crime“ they will laugh and find it humorous. I know this was more of a statement then an actual claim but I wanted to put it to the test. I know having only a few subjects does not prove my point valid regardless I asked my entire family that question, and what white crime is. They all said crime committed by a white person. I know this does not show her point invalid but I think her generalization is too broad and abrasive.
Her main point throughout this entire book is the war on drugs is disproportionately targeted towards black communities. This section was no different but I found her sub point in the section about fathers not wanting to leave their children, and negatively personifying the criminal justice system, very ineffective and I personally disagreed with it.
I liked your blog and how you went about explaining why you disagree with the author's argument. I am not reading this book, but I have heard enough about it in the past month to know what it is about. I believe your statements when you talk about how the author addresses the way Black criminals are being treated because in the world we live in today, people seem to care more if a Black person has been imprisoned than a White person since people immediately jump to the conclusion that imprisoning a Black criminal was an act of racism. Therefore I believe that the author of this book "completely [left] out the fact that these people voluntarily committed crimes." I also liked how you compared the issue addressed in this book to cars speeding on the road. The author of my book also generalizes too much information and then doesn't always support it with specifics. Overall, you're blog was good!
ReplyDeleteMadison,
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog post because I appreciated your critique of the author. I felt the same when reading the section, but did not include it in my post. I am glad I can relate to you and see that others have a similar opinion. I didn't feel as strongly about some of your points compared to others but overall the main idea I found you did a good summary of how it could be dangerous of Alexander to generalize such a large problem.
I am also glad that you included her three steps in your blog. It was very helpful in understanding another reason you did not agree with her. You explained your disagreement very well so I commend you for that.
Hey Mady!
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I like your honesty. You speak what you feel about how the author wrote this section of the New Jim Crow and expressed your clear disagreement you have with her. As I read this post, I found it a little hard to follow what you were saying about black and white men not facing the same charges and convictions, but when you referred to speeding cars, I fully understood what you meant. Your metaphor of red cars is simple and makes the ideas of inequality within law against certain groups very clear and parallels nicely. I agree that being convicted is not always discriminatory however, when you say "just because the white man did not get charged does not mean that the black man shouldn’t get charged, it means they should charge the white man to", I'm not sure to what extent this applies. There are many small crimes people commit (ex. steal a pack of gum), and a person of color is more likely going to get a worse punishment, when really, everyone who does so should get fined the same amount. For small crime, I don't think it makes sense for anyone to be punished to the same degree many colored people do, therefore maybe the black person gets the same minimal punishment as the white person.
Larger crimes (like homicide), a person of color might get life in prison meanwhile, a white person could only serve 10 years and have parole. A white person might need a longer time in prison, but I
I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense (it does in my head). In general, I think a "happy medium" needs to be found, so no one gets overly punished for something small, or under punished (?) for something big.
Hi Mady,
ReplyDeleteI really like hearing your opinions on the New Jim Crow rather than just reading about Alexander's support! After reading your blog, I found myself agreeing with some parts of your argument but disagreeing with others.
While I agree that Alexander should not have passed over the fact that these fathers have done illegal actions and should therefore be reprimanded, I think there is a greater point that the criminal justice system treats blacks and whites differently. You mention how law enforcement may be looking for "red cars." I think your analogy works very well because it highlights this idea of racial profiling, which is extremely unjust.
I also agree that the law should treat all races equally.
I think my disagreement comes from a different interpretation your quote from Alexander. Without context, I believe that she is not trying to say that issues with white crime are nonexistent but rather that they are not what people associate with necessary reform. In my experiences, I have definitely been exposed to a wide held stereotype about the low-income and racial profile of American criminals. Either way, when people think of crime, they often turn it into a racial issue. I believe that this is just an effect of a bigger problem: an invisible and unbreakable social caste system which your family has been born into. While I am certainly not saying that I believe these stereotypes, I think Alexander may have been using this bold claim as a rhetorical strategy rather than something to be taken literally.
Madison, I like your example of the red car speeding. I think the analogy to Alexander's point would be that, if the red car is African Americans, that there is a whole system that preceded the red car speeding, which led to the red car being more likely to speed, as other options were less possible. And then, when the red car is speeding and caught, the punishment is more severe than it is for the other cars caught speeding, even if they were speeding at the same rate, or perhaps the other cars were speeding even more.
ReplyDeleteAnd then, once the car is caught speeding, it doesn't have the resources or access to legal aid to keep it out of prison, as opposed to the other cars, which can get off with community service or a warning.
Certainly both cars have broken the law, but what led to those laws being broken and the consequences for breaking the same law, are disproportionate. I see that as Alexander's main point.
Not sure if you would agree with that or not.