Fourth Reading

March 30, 2018
What is Alexander Trying to Say?

Hey all!

I am nearing the end of my book and have only one more blog post left (after this one). I have truly enjoyed reading this book, and I am not just saying that. I feel I have a solid, new understanding of our justice system and how detrimental it has become to people of color. For my second to last blog post, I want to really focus on Alexander's main argument. Although her viewpoint is clear from the beginning of the book, her main argument was not full developed. But at this point in the book, it is evident the point she is trying to get across.

The entire purpose of her novel is to spread awareness. But how can this be necessary? How does our country ignore the fact that African Americans constitute 2.3 million (or 34%), of the total 6.8 million in prison? How could the flaws of our justice system be overlooked when, "One in three young African American men is currently under the control of the criminal justice system—in prison, in jail, on probation, or on parole..."(Alexander, 9)? It seems so glaringly obvious, yet the majority of the population is ignorant to this idea. Nevertheless, Alexander explains that, "...we know and we don't know at the same time"(Alexander, 182). She clarifies that our population is largely unaware, but simultaneously ignoring the reality of mass incarceration. So overall, Alexander's purpose is to more simply explain the concept of mass incarceration to a population that is oblivious to the current matters.

So what is the argument anyways? I summed it up as follows: Although the Jim Crow laws are nonexistent, millions of African Americans are arrested for minor crimes and subjected to being disenfranchised, trapped in an under caste, and denied basic human rights, all because they are branded "felons". They all are put at an immediate disadvantage, making it difficult for them to be successful in society, similar to the era of Jim Crow laws when it affected their jobs, voting privileges, education, and more.

To develop this argument and explain the connection of Jim Crow to mass incarceration, Alexander articulates how race has become a major factor. Minority groups are jailed at a rate much higher than whites, which can be attributed largely to racial bias in many different areas of the justice system process. To highlight this, she focuses mainly on logos. By only using logos, it keeps her opinion out of the discussion making it so that her book isn't simply her own personal narrative to voice opinion. This technique makes the information much more significant. My thought process while reading was that....It gives off the impression that these are the facts, no opinion included. This is the truth. 

Then her style shifts to include more pathos. She uses emotional provoking stories to further support the logos. This is not always common. For example, in Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser first appeals to pathos then includes the logical reasoning in his argument of the corruption of the fast food industry. But in The New Jim Crow, Alexander appeals to logic before pathos. Her method is arguably more powerful because she is focusing on the audience's reasoning before she engages their emotions. The readers will think about how her argument logically makes sense before reading about the real world impacts, through these emotional stories. 

Now that I am nearing the end of the book, she has shifted more into the summarization of these concepts. As I have stated in previous blog posts, her writing is very dense. It is packed with information that is hard to digest. So by summarizing her main ideas, it reminds the reader of  the main argument. I think that it was a good choice to include this summary-style section, otherwise at the end of the book, I would have not really remembered what I had just read.

Do I agree with her claims? Yes. As I said earlier, Alexander's claims are most times followed by supporting evidence. Here are some examples to prove this...

        - "A vast majority of those arrested are not charged with serious offenses. In 2005, for example, four out of five drugs arrests were for possession, and only one out of five was for sales. Moreover, most people in state prisons for drug possessions have no history of violence or significant selling activity"(Alexander, 60).

        -"Most of these stops and searches are futile. It has been estimated that 95 percent of Pipeline stops yield no illegal drugs. One study found that up to 99 percent of traffic stops made by federally funded narcotics task forces result in no citation and that 98 percent of task-force searches during traffic stops are discretionary searches..."(Alexander, 71)

These are only two examples of claims that she supported with clear evidence. And Alexander does support most of her claims, however sometimes I find some of her claims are unsupported and you are left to take her word for it. One claim that I did not particularly understand was the idea that the War on Drugs targeted African Americans. I understand that the entire focus of the War on Drugs was to crack down on drug usage, which in turn directly impacted the African American population, but I do not necessarily agree that the government purposefully wanted to discriminate and negatively affect people of color. After reading this section of the novel, I had trouble understanding the exact motives of the government with the War on Drugs. I think that Alexander could have better supported this topic and explored it further But no matter, the facts and concepts that Alexander introduces in this book are shocking and discouraging to say the least.


Thanks for reading! On the homestretch to finishing the book!
Ellie M