(ThyBlackMan.com) On March 30th colorlines.com posted an article titled “Michelle Alexander: More Black Men in Prison Than Were Enslaved in 1850.” The article represents a very common belief by racialists about the American justice system: essentially that it is severely racist. The article states: “It’s a heartbreaking, but often understated, reality that America’s criminal justice system imprisons black folks at astonishingly high rates.” It certainly hasn’t been understated in this article, with direct comparisons to Jim Crow laws, and a vague comparison to slavery. It is heartbreaking, but what is the implication? What exactly are we meant to be heartbroken about? That so many blacks commit crimes? That we have unfair laws? Or is it that only racial discrimination could be the cause? While this is probably the most important question, it is typically just treated as a given that racism must be the primary cause. With the type of language that is used throughout the article, and by racialists in general, it is as if the police are imprisoning completely innocent men.
Take for example the comparison to the Jim Crow laws, the subject of Alexander’s book, which “argues that prisons have become the latest form of economic and social disenfranchisement for young folks of color, 
particularly black men.” Jim Crow laws, and our incarceration of black criminals are different in every meaningful way. Jim Crow was a set of forced rules instituted by guilty people on innocent people. This is different than incarcerating the guilty to protect the innocent.
Alexander goes on to explain: “Once labeled a felon, you can be subjected to all forms of discrimination that once applied to African-Americans during the Jim Crow era. You may be denied the right to vote, you’re automatically excluded from juries, and you’re legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education, and public benefits, relegated to a second-class status much like… your parents or grandparents may have been…” It’s amazing “your parents or grandparents” wouldn’t be incredibly insulted by this defamation. Maybe one could argue that the punishment for these crimes are harsh, but treating it as if it is like they are being punished simply for being black, as was the case with Jim Crow, is both bizarre and offensive to those who lived through Jim Crow.
A racialist will hear that black males are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites and it is a given that racism must be the cause. Here is one of the several implications that racism must be the culprit: “If crime rates have fluctuated over the years and are now at historical lows, then why have rates of incarcerated men of color skyrocketed over the past 30 years?” This is hardly evidence of racism. As a matter of fact most people might expect crime rates to go down as more criminals are imprisoned. According to the FBI, in the last 20 years violent crimes have decreased by 25%, many people think that’s a fair trade for an increase in prison population. It’s certainly not good that so many of the men imprisoned are black, but this question doesn’t answer what the cause could be. Whatever she is implying (that police have become increasingly more racist over the past 30 years?), she certainly doesn’t provide any proof.
One should be more hesitant to jump the gun on what conclusions are drawn because the appropriate reaction depends entirely on the main explanation. Although racism is easy to wrap your head around, and easy to hate, the real explanation is more complicated. Another part of the explanation is mentioned in the article: “Most of that increase [of the rates of incarcerated men of color] is due to the War on Drugs, a war waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color.” This is true, but again it can’t be blamed squarely on racism. As she probably knows, one of the main reasons for the discrepancy of incarceration rates between races is because of the discrepancy of punishments for powder cocaine and crack cocaine (the former being popular with white drug users and the latter being popular with black drug users). Of course a racialist is likely to explain that the crack/powder discrepancy was devised by racists.
The explanation of the crack/powder discrepancy was said to be that crack was more dangerous. As evidence was produced that this was not the case, the racialists had their “proof” that racism must therefore be the reason they made that original claim. The truth is, yes people did want to target “poor communities of color.” They saw these areas as needing to be cleaned up much more than the white suburban powder cocaine users. The crack culture in some of these poor areas created horrible violence and was destroying the community. This is why members of The Congressional Black Caucus supported so much of the War on Drugs. They supported cleaning up specifically black neighborhoods, and they supported the crack/powder discrepancy (and even pushed for a wider discrepancy). Many people thought that it was racist for the police to sit by and let these black communities destroy themselves. Now people think its racist for the police to fight hard to clean up these areas. Racism seems to be the explanation no matter what.
People looking for racism are going to divide people by race, observe the result, and come to the conclusion that racism must be the cause. It’s how someone can create the illusion of a crisis out of thin air. Just because the person observing the statistic divided people by race doesn’t mean that’s where the discrepancy is formed. For example comparing the income of blue eyed people to brown eyed people doesn’t illustrate discrimination based on eye color. When looking at incarceration rates, the biggest factor is not race, it’s family structure. Comparing blacks who were raised by a single mother with similar whites will cause the racial disparity to substantially shrink. Including other variables such as income of parents, and the area growing up, brings us much closer to what really causes higher crime rates. In fact the Progressive Policy Institute, which is not a conservative group to say the least, says “It is no exaggeration to say that a stable, two-parent family is an American child’s best protection against poverty.” and the “relationship between crime and one-parent families” is “so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.”
One cannot deny that there are still racist police, judges, and juries, but to draw comparisons to Jim Crow and slavery is absurd. While fighting racism is a noble endeavor, its fixation has caused people to sacrifice all professionalism when seeking accurate explanations for social problems. The unfortunate result of this is the more serious problems, such as fatherless children, don’t receive the attention they need.
Staff Writer; A.R. Ward
More articles written by this writer can be found over at; ARWard.