 |
| Book cover for "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" by Michelle Alexander. Image source. |
I very much recommend the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness [affiliate link], by Michelle Alexander. This book was originally published in 2010; the version I read was the 10th anniversary edition, published in 2020.
This book has had a big impact; it helped to start the Black Lives Matter movement. Personally, I think Americans- especially white Americans- should all read this. There's so much in here, so many very good points that Alexander makes, and I can't write about all of them in 1 book-review blog post. So go read the book.
In this blog post I'll mention some of the points that felt important to me- but seriously, there's SO MUCH to say. Go read the book.
---
Systems of control - from slavery to Jim Crow to mass incarceration
So, the idea is that American society has moved from one racialized system of control to another, several times throughout history. Each time one system falls, white people come up with another one to replace it.
The key thing here, I would say, is that just because one system of control becomes outlawed, doesn't mean that society believes in equality between white and black people. And this was something I totally never *got*, when I learned about this in school- and I wrote about it when I reviewed "The Cross and the Lynching Tree", in this post: Ending Slavery Didn't Address the Real Problem. Slavery ended, but a significant percentage of white people believed it would be just wrong for black people to have equal rights, so they came up with something else to control black people- Jim Crow. And then, similarly, when Jim Crow ended, well, you weren't allowed to say racist things directly, but you could talk about being "tough on crime" and "the war on drugs" and create a new racialized system of control in that way.
The United States has never really repented of slavery and Jim Crow. We just... pretend they don't matter any more. And that's why a new racialized system of control- mass incarceration- came to exist. In the book, Alexander says we can't solve this problem with little gradual steps. It requires a total overhaul of the whole system. The United States needs to really face the reality of this, and make it right.
So, what exactly do we mean by "mass incarceration" being a "racialized system of control"? In some urban areas in the US, the majority of black men are under state control- this includes prison or probation. And it's not just about spending time in prison- the real problem is that people who have a criminal record are then excluded from participating in society. They become part of an invisible underclass, and it's perfectly legal to discriminate against them. If you have a felony conviction, it's nearly impossible to get a job. Or have access to education, or public housing, etc. In some states, people who have a felony conviction can't vote, or need to pay a paperwork fee to get their voting rights reinstated- Alexander calls this a "poll tax," like the poll taxes that black people had to pay during Jim Crow.
Also, people with a felony conviction can't participate in jury duty. I was surprised to see jury duty being mentioned so many times in the book. In my experience, Americans don't like getting summoned for jury duty, because it means you have to miss a few days of work. I often hear about people trying to come up with some excuse so they don't have to do it. But here in this book, Alexander keeps saying that this is a right that's being taken away from many black people due to their criminal record. That "a jury of their peers" is very important- and it's wrong that people who actually have experience with the problems of the legal system are excluded from being on juries.
So this is the real issue- people are being separated into an "undercaste" based on race.
---
Colorblind
Now, of course, people will ask, how is this a "racialized" system of control? The law is colorblind. Well, yes, but police have a lot of discretion in terms of how they enforce the law. Statistically, white and black Americans use illegal drugs at similar rates, but black people are arrested for it much more often, and receive harsher sentences than white people.
Also, Alexander says that, for the system to be perpetuated, it does need some black people to be successful. This racial system of control relies on the fact that people don't notice it's a racial system of control- therefore it requires that some black people are successful. (Similarly, some white people are also jailed and suffer in the same ways that black people do.) The system relies on the idea of "colorblindness."
And therefore, Alexander says we cannot achieve real justice by being "colorblind." Go read the book- she makes a lot of good points here.
---
But they're criminals
I'm glad that this book addressed the "but they're criminals" argument. Yes, so... there are some innocent people who get arrested, and it's easy to get people to have sympathy for them- but the majority of black people in jail for drug-related crimes really did commit those crimes. Obviously there are arguments to be made about how it's not right to put people in jail for non-violent crimes, or how getting involved with drugs one time shouldn't mean you can never get a job ever again- but, yeah, at the end of the day, it's going to be hard to get the public to care about this, because "well they shouldn't have committed a crime."
So, yes, they shouldn't have committed a crime. But the whole system is set up to make people fail. (And it punishes black people for their failures more than white people.) That's the problem.
This is a difficult thing, and it makes it hard to get public opinion on your side. Makes me think about how the Black Lives Matter movement specifically choose the slogan "Black Lives Matter"- I remember seeing an article years ago that said we should NOT use arguments like "he was one of the good ones." Because the idea behind Black Lives Matter is, people don't deserve to get shot down on the street by police for some little minor crime. It's not about if the person is perfect/ has a criminal record/ whatever.
In our society now, people talk about "criminals" like they're a completely separate type of people, who don't deserve anything good. That's what Alexander means when she says this is an "underclass" and it is legal to discriminate against them.
---
Some outrageous things
So, there are some things about the police system that are just so outrageous they should make everyone angry.
For example, the book talks about police and "consent"- ie, courts have ruled that "a reasonable person" would know that if a police officer asks them to do something, they have the right to say no, therefore it's fine if police stop you for no reason at all and search you- as long as they kinda phrase it as a question and you kinda are too scared to say no.
There have been court cases where police searched people and found drugs, and the people who had drugs try to argue in court that this evidence should not be allowed, because the police violated their rights when they stopped them for no reason and searched them. Yeah, like I said, it's hard to get public opinion on their side here, because they really were doing illegal things and they're arguing that they shouldn't get in trouble because... the way they got caught wasn't valid???
But as I see it, that's not the actual issue. The issue is that police are stopping and harassing black people for made-up reasons. Most of these people were not doing anything wrong, so they don't get arrested or anything- but still, very traumatic to get harassed by police like that. It's not okay- but it's not something that's going to become a high-profile legal case. The ones that become actual legal cases in the headlines are the people who really were guilty of something. So... so that's the difficult thing, in terms of getting society to see that this is a problem.
The issue is, if a court rules that it's fine for police to stop and search whoever they're "suspicious" of, that will lead to more innocent black people being harassed by police.
Another outrageous thing: Because of mandatory minimum sentencing, innocent people plead guilty, to avoid going to court. Yeah, so... imagine you are innocent, and then you get charged with a crime that has a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison, if it goes to court and you're found guilty. In this situation, people may decide to take a deal where, instead of going to court, they plead guilty and get a much lighter sentence, because they don't want to take the risk of going to court. (And then, because they have a criminal record, they won't be able to get a job, etc... They're permanently stuck in the "invisible undercaste.")
This is just ridiculous, and everyone should be angry that this is happening.
Also, sometimes people plead guilty because they just don't have any resources to deal with going to court, can't take any time off work- their life circumstances force them to take the option that will get things done the fastest.
And then people lose their job, and then get evicted from their home because they have a criminal record, then lose custody of their kids because they don't have a home- and they might not even be able to stay at a relative's home because the relative could be evicted for associating with someone who has a drug conviction. It's just outrageous how something like this can totally spiral out of control and mess up everything in a person's life.
---
If you've ever applied for a job, you should know this is real
Even though this system of control is "invisible", well... Have you ever applied for a job, and the application asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony? Have you ever needed to get a "no criminal record" when you applied for a job? Then there's no excuse for not knowing that this "invisible undercaste" exists.
In my experience, this stuff about getting a background check or getting proof of "no criminal record" is just an annoying bit of bureaucracy. It's sort of taken for granted that you don't have a criminal record, and it's just kind of tedious getting the actual document that proves it.
But... does the average job applicant ever stop to think "but what if you do have a criminal record?" and realize that this underclass of people exists? If you do have a criminal record/ felony, then most companies (almost all companies?) would reject you just based on that.
There's a weird mismatch here... People need jobs in order to get money to live, and to feel like they are doing something important in life. But companies don't hire people for those reasons; companies hire people who fit the requirements of the specific roles that the company needs. It's weird that, in order to have enough money to live, you need to be chosen by an employer as the best candidate to do whatever task they need done. Yes, from a company's point of view, maybe it makes sense that they prefer not to hire people with a criminal record, because maybe those people will get in trouble again, and the company doesn't want to deal with that. (That's the intuition, but you'd need to find some actual statistics to find out if it's really true or not.) But then, how will those people get money so they can live? How is this supposed to work?
---
Conclusion
Like I said, this book makes a lot of very good points, and I can't cover all of them here, so you should go read the book.
The entire system needs to change.
And, black lives matter.
---
Follow-up post: Donate to Formerly Incarcerated People
Related:
Ending Slavery Didn't Address the Real Problem
Yes, I Want Justice (A post about white evangelicals and #BlackLivesMatter)
No comments:
Post a Comment