“The New Jim Crow” from They Say/ I Say
I agree with Alexander's assertion that the racial dimension of mass incarceration in America is an astounding feature never experienced by other nations (239). The main argument is what studies have shown concerning drug abuse. Alexander (239) mentions that studies have shown that people of all races in America abuse and sell drugs and that the extent of use and sale is remarkably similar in all races. If anything, Alexander asserts that white youth have been determined to abuse drugs at the highest rates, yet the numbers of incarcerations do not match.
When one visits American prisons, Black and Brown people are charged on drug cases twenty to fifty times more than their white counterparts despite the consumption similarities (240). The CIA also confirmed it supported the Guerilla armies in smuggling drugs into the USA, which led to Black people getting charged. This shows how the system is continually against people of color. Also, the incarceration rates in America pointing at least three of four Black men to serve jail any time only proves further that the system is rigged. Lastly, Black incarcerations cannot even match the South African Black arrests at the height of the apartheid regime or any other nation with more repressive regimes like China, Iran, and Russia (239). All these expose the unfounded Black incarcerations in America.
Alexander, Michelle. "The new jim crow." Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 9 (2011): 7.
Michelle Alexander continually incorporates and responds to other perspectives throughout “The New Jim Crow.” Locate one example of where she does this and explain how she indicates that the view belongs to another and not her.
On page 239, Alexander asserts, “The racial dimension of mass incarceration is its most striking feature. No other country in the world imprisons so many of its racial and ethnic minorities” (239). Based on the evidence that Alexander has provided, do you agree or disagree with this assertion?
Does Alexander answer the “So What?” or “Who Cares?” questions in her piece? What does she indicate is at stake with her argument?