The New Jim Crow

While Alexander makes several good points about the dilemma of the US criminal Justice system, a system admittedly with many flaws, she constantly employs false dichotomies and uses single statistics to overreach and convey a conclusion that simply isn\’t supported by her evidence. It\’s hard to take cold, generalized statistics and apply them to every single individual case accurately. When you begin taking individual cases one by one, these cold statistics don\’t always show the conclusion that someone like this author hopes they might. In one instance, the author attempts to paint President Clinton as a closeted racist, liberal sellout, and conservative crony intent on deploying the death sentence on as many black males as he can in order to sway white voters by falsely reporting the details of an execution he attended while Gov. of Arkansas. In the first chapter the author writes that in an effort to appeal to the white lower class voter, \”Bill Clinton vowed that he would never permit any Republican to be perceived as tougher on crime than he. True to his word, just weeks before the critical New Hampshire primary, Clinton chose to fly home to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little conception of what was about to happen to him that he asked for the dessert from his last meal to be saved for him until the morning.\” At first glance I found this to be quite an appalling thing for the then Governor to focus on. It seemed as though some mentally impaired man had been a victim of his own impairment, possibly committing a crime he had no intention of committing or any knowledge of what he was actually doing, and that the state of Arkansas was about to murder him simply for being less intelligent than the general public. Alexander makes it sound as though this man was innocent. Her words lead you to believe Bill Clinton is the monster in this story and that Rector was the victim of racial prejudice. What she didn\’t write, is that Ricky Rector murdered a man at a club because the bouncer wouldn\’t let his friend, who wouldn\’t pay the $3 cover charge, in to the building. Rector became angry, pulled a gun, and fired several shots at the bouncer, wounding two bystanders and killing one man instantly, after the man was struck in the throat and spine by Rector\’s .38 caliber revolver round. Rector fled the scene, evaded police for 3 days, and eventually agreed to surrender to a police officer he\’d known since childhood. This police officer, Robert Martin, visited Rector at Rector\’s mother\’s house, where it was implied the surrender would occur. Once in the house, Robert Martin was eventually shot twice in the back by Rector, and died shortly after. Rector now had 2 assaults and 2 murder\’s on his list of pending charges. And by the way, he is not mentally impaired, at all. That comes next. Rector, realizing his grievous error in life choices decides enough is enough and walks out the back of his mother\’s house, having just shot and killed Robert Martin, and puts the gun to his own head. He fires, but misses slightly. The round penetrates his skull, destroying his frontal lobe, but leaving him alive nonetheless. This is where his \”mental impairment\” begins. This doesn\’t sound like much of a victim to me. This mental impairment the author appeals to is one of his own doing, and one resulting from a choice he made to kill himself after consciously deciding to fire several shots into a crowd of people and then intentionally killing an indefensible man. This sort of sweeping logic the author does in order to keep the dirt she want\’s out and the rest under the rug makes for a difficult and frustrating read. You want to agree with her on most points, but she blatantly misrepresents the facts on so many occasions that you end up writing amazon reviews to express your frustration. This book started off okay, but it\’s false implications like this that show the author\’s intentions. While they are likely coming from a point of genuine concern, they are not in good faith, nor those of someone coming from an unbiased point of view. Read it, but don\’t just take it at it\’s word. Just like any other opinion.

Started reading this book today at the suggestion of a friend and I already have some questions: 1. CLAIM: The book claims that the practice of racial discrimination in employment, housing, access to public assistance of old was made illegal, but has now been reinstituted against black people because if you are a convicted felon you can be denied all of those things. QUESTION: wouldnt it be the smart things to do to just not commit felonies in the first place? If the right to vote and have a job and a place to rent or buy or have access to public services was so valued, why then engage in a lifestyle that threatens that? Isnt the real difference is that the black man living in the Jim Crow south had arguably done nothing to be denied these things and the felon of today has? 2. CLAIM: On page two she says as she walked out of the party celebrating the election of Barrack Obama, she was reminded of the harsh realities of the new Jim Crowe in America because she saw a black man handcuffed by the police, yet she doesnt mention why or for what he was in cuffs? Question: isnt that relevant?? Was he in cuffs for being black? Or because he had committed a crime or had an outstanding warrant? Is THIS really the evidence that we are living in an age of the new Jim Crowe? Are the cops NOT supposed to respond to a call for service? 3. CLAIM: We use the criminal justice system to label people of color as criminals. Question: doesnt that apply to European, Hispanic and Asian Americans too? Isnt just about everyone convicted of a crime labeled a criminal? 4. On page 4, the author declares Quite belatedly, I came to see that mass incarceration in the United States had, in fact, emerged as a stunningly comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized social control that functions in a manner strikingly similar to Jim Crow Question: so she believes that there is a conspiracy among European American legislators and executives in America that secretly conspired to pass laws in order to go after a segment of the black population that is typically living under the poverty level, oftentimes not particularly well educated and far too often either unemployed or underemployed, while allowing the middle class and upper-middle class black folks (made up of carpenters, electricians, bank executives, salesmen and women, accountants, restaurant owners, dentists, lawyers and doctors) who have more purchase power with their higher incomes and better connections due to their jobs and social statuses flourish? Why go after the poor and downtrodden when they have no power to really deny white America of anything? Why would they want to do that? Wouldnt it actually benefit these evil, racist white men at the top to see the poorest of the poor in the black community (and every other community for that matter) get good paying jobs, improve their homes or buy/build new ones, buy new cars, see less crime and all of the other things plaguing too much of the black community? 5. The author then goes on to state again that once released from prison, they have lost all the same rights that were denied to black folks under Jim Crowe. Question: assuming that is true, why then commit crimes if you are going to be denied these things? And, arent Americans of all backgrounds denied these things when they are convicted felons? It doesnt just apply to black Americans, does it? 6. On page five the author states that 75% of black males can expect to spend time in prison. Question: how is this an indication of racism, especially in a city like the District of Columbia that has a black mayor, a police department that is 59% black and only 32% white, a city council of 13 democrats of which seven are black? Are the police simply driving around and arresting young black males and putting them in prison for loitering, or is the Metropolitan Police there in DC responding to serious crimes and calls for service? 7. The author states on page seven that in some areas in the United States, as many as 80% of young black males have criminal records and are now legally discriminated against. Question: Is it not THEIR fault that they have criminal records? And if they are now discriminated against, is it because of their color? Or their crime? 8. On page nine the author states that as a national average, one in three black men are in some stage of the criminal justice system, yet incarceration trends are seen as a crime problem and not as a racial justice or civil rights issue. Question: are they in jail because of their color? Or their crime? And if the likelihood of them being incarcerated for longer periods of time because the laws are targeted at them, why are they committing crimes in the first place? And who in their community is setting the right example and ALSO making them aware of the fact that if they do even the slightest thing they are going to pay a heavy price?

All I will say is if you read this book, check the footnotes and do your own independent research. The claims the author makes in this book are not supported by the truth. Are some issues that should be addressed raised? Yes. But the bulk of this book is unfair, not supported by facts, and simply more of the same in today\’s discourse which often lacks a shred of truth or rational thought.

I have a master\’s degree in education and am very acquainted with looking at situations from as many perspectives as possible. I wanted to take a class simply to broaden my thinking. this book was assigned reading. I read the 27 page\”updated preface\” and had serious doubts and then the foreword and decided to drop the class. It is 365 pages of the ACLU lawyer\’s angry opinions and very difficult to follow her ramblings.

I came to this book as part of the \’final nail in the coffin\’ that were the documentary \”13th\” and the angering documentary on Khalief Browder, a young, intelligent, conscientious African American who courageously (heroically, as it cost him his life) stood up to a racist system that was bending backwards into crushing and breaking him because he had the sole audacity of standing up to it for his civil rights and innocence, rather than letting it relegate him to the 2+ million others (and more, as one should count those processed by the legal system as legitimate victims too) that had been \”beaten\” into submission. I was enthralled and subjugated by this well-argued and written book until reaching the point where I stopped, completely perplex and in utter shock to the argument and example raised by Ms Alexander (the use of \”Ms\” and stripping of any academic title she might hold is a conscient choice) and the sheer, utter ignorance that it implies. It is impossible to not conclude that she is unable to process the fact that she has implied the claim that ultimately, \’some lives matter more than others\’, it just depends on \”whose foot the shoe is on\”. Please hear me out, as the \’surface details\’ seem to be discussed in many blogs, but not the underlying, blatantly discriminatory and \’self-apologetic\’ \”matter of fact\”. According to Alexander \”The harm white people suffer in the drug war is much like the harm Iraqi civilians suffer in US military actions targeting presumed terrorists and insurgents\”. The author then goes on to state soon after \”Saying that white people are collateral damage may sound callous\”, then presenting the question to the readers of a situation reversal (i.e what-if \’whites\’ would be criminalised like \’blacks\’) and concluding from this that \”The criminalization of white men would disturb us to the core\’\”. She then finishes her full line of argumentation with an italicised question the readers should ask themselves: \”Whom do we care about?\” I have read this passage 10 times and cannot understand the sheer ignorance of the argument and the stupidity of choosing exactly this one in face of any other possible. In case of a \’blue moon\’ the author might read this, please read/research a little more about the subject (https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html). An estimated 576,000 Iraqi children (aged zero to seven years old) were wiped off the face of this world in the matter of 4.5 years (1991 1995) in order to \”get rid\” of a dictator who owed his rise to power via the overt and covert logistical and operational support, financial support and weaponisation and help of successive US governments (so much an ally that Saddam was, that Iraq even \’apologetically\’ and accidentally bombed a US warship with no retaliation whatsoever). When asked about \”whether the price [of these half million dead children] was worth it?\”, the US Secretary of State said in a national US TV interview that \”We [the US government and administration] think it was worth it.\”. These innocent half a million lives are the ones that are systematically and CALLOUSLY referred to as \’collateral damage\’, but the author completely skips and obliterates this point to such an extent that the only \”callous\” question involved is regarding a hypothetical \’white\’ person(s), if they were to be put in a \’black\’ person(s)\’s situation. ??!???!??! I have in vain, looked for a hint of \’sarcasm\’ or \”sense of sardonic\” regarding the example given, but there is none to be found in this abhorrent and shocking example given. I cannot finish reading this book, although I enjoyed it until this unconscionable \”disaster\” (I have no word to describe it, so lets just use disaster) but had to stop for a simple reason. I could not help myself from started to replace the words \’black/Afro-American\’ with \’Iraqi\’, \’Jim Crow\’ with \’Saddam\’s regime\’ and/or \’coalition forces\’ and \’whites\’ with the \’US forces and government\’. The replacement of the words and argument to the Iraqi case being acceptable and nothing more than \’collateral damage\’ was tenable, and according to the author\’s example \”acceptable\” under the auspices of \’collateral damage\’. Then the full shock and hypocrisy, the ignorance of it all could only lead to one conclusion: \”it is obvious and inherently observable that some lives matter more than others. So what?\” I beg to disagree with this perspective and find it so disheartening when a valid and important subject matter is \’erased\’ by such a self-annihilating \”example\”. But the abysmally ignorant and shocking example given by the author, gives full credence and justification to anyone shrugging shoulders and saying \”Black Lives Matter? Hey…. (.collateral damage). If I could, I\’d like my money back for this book. The author with that one comment (and it\’s underlying \”whitewash\”/obliteration of half a million children) has done a dis-service to the discussion of wanton and systemic discrimination (racism), as well as to the BLM. On the contrary, the extent of the ignorance, ignominy, prejudice, and unfair stereotyping involved in the author\’s example is exactly the same as the one the author wants to decry and with great reason. Im dumbfounded. Hope the title of this review makes more sense now.

Galaxyaudiobook Member Benefit

- Able to comment

- List watched audiobooks

- List favorite audiobooks

- Bookmark will only available for Galaxyaudiobook member