How Much Does the Argument Impact the Outcome?

Hello again, and welcome back to my blog! Since I am now more than halfway through The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander, I feel that I have a pretty good idea of the author develops the arguments in her writing. In the last section that I read, Alexander wrote about the horrific injustice that African-Americans are often subjected to in the United States legal system. Through her powerful use of rhetorical appeals and her vivid and emotional descriptions....she described the problem with so much strength that I, and I assume most other readers, were compelled to wonder, “why?”, and most importantly, “how?” How does this sort of thing go on with so little knowledge in our country, and when exposés like this book are released, why does it continue? In this section, like in the one I wrote about in my last post, Alexander addresses this in her main argument, through a combination of real stories, facts, and statistics, which she then takes her own opinions from, and expresses them clearly, which I will get more into soon.

Throughout this book, I have noticed a trend in the way that Alexander uses the element of shock to strengthen her argument. One way this is done is by drawing parallels between historical and modern-day racial inequality. One disturbing parallel that stood out to me appeared when Alexander wrote about the struggle that African-Americans faced in the mid-1800s. She explains how “[n]orthern emancipation was complete, but freedom remained elusive. Blacks were finally free from the formal control of their owners, but they were not full citizens-they could not vote, they were subject to legal discrimination, and at any moment, Southern plantation owners could capture them on the street and whisk them back to slavery . . .  . Slavery may have died, but for thousands of blacks, the badge of slavery lived on” (Pgs. 140-141). In earlier sections of the book, Alexander described in much detail the lifelong complications that meet those who have been imprisoned, which, as is made clear in this book, is mainly African-Americans. Some of these complications include not being able to vote, discrimination, and the constant possibility that they could be sent back to prison for either a warranted or unwarranted reason. I didn’t even have to read Alexander’s analysis of this parallel that came next, to see the clear similarities between this and the treatment of former slaves in the 1800s. I think that itself is a clear clue that she is presenting and developing her argument in an effective and concise way, to the extent that as a reader, I can begin to make these important connections on my own; this is important, because due to the nature of the book, getting readers to do this is clearly what Alexander’s goal was when she wrote it. I have found the parallels like this in in the entire book, and especially this section, to be scary, but also fascinating. I will be exploring them in much more depth in my next post.

I feel that while the past sections of the book were more to provide background information and introduce the argument, this section was more cut to the chase, essentially. The author focused on making her points clear in a more direct way, for example, when she wrote, “[t]his is the War on Drugs. The brutal stories described above are not isolated incidents, nor are the racial identities of Erma Faye Stewart and Clifford Runoalds random or accidental. In every state across our nation, African Americans-particularly in the poorest neighborhoods-are subjected to tactics and practices that would result in public outrage and scandal if committed in middle-class white neighborhoods. In the drug war, the enemy is racially defined” (Pg. 98). This is clearly a bold claim to make, yet it seems justified given the extensive amount of analysis and evidence that Alexander uses to lead up to this claim. Because of this, as a reader, I don’t feel at all compelled to question this, or any of her other bold claims, because I feel that she has built up enough of a strong argument that I can believe everything she is saying. Though this book has contained a lot of lead-up, I think that it has all been used wisely, as a way for Alexander to develop her argument more thoroughly, rather than just bringing it out with no prior evidence/analysis. The book contains a lot of depth as far as the information and ideas go, but the central claim is essentially an acknowledgment of the clear racism that is common in the United States legal system; mostly brought on by what Alexander refers to as the “War on Drugs”. I may be writing more about how Alexander argues her ideas more in a future post, depending on what else I notice as I continue to read the book. I have found it interesting how the writing style has evolved argument-wise, and I will definitely be continuing to pay attention to its impact.

I also paid attention to Alexander’s use of strong and impactful word choice in this reading. There was not as much imagery and descriptive writing as in my last reading, so it wasn’t as prevalent as it was then. However, I did notice a few examples, which I feel really strengthen her argument. She often uses strong and dramatic words to bring attention to certain points in her argument, making them stick more with readers. For example, she writes about “lethal chokeholds” (Pg. 128) and “[t]he churning of African-Americans in and out of prisons . . .” (Pg. 143). This word choice, to me at least, provided extensively unsettling imagery, which clearly works in the favor of Alexander’s argument. In general, word choice is always important in persuasive writing, and I think it especially is in this case, because the persuasiveness of the book holds so much power. It seems to me that the power to put an end to the racial inequalities of the legal system is in the power of the readers of this book, which is why this word choice is so impactful. When readers can picture a tragic situation when they read about it, they will be more likely to initiate change. I will also be on the lookout for more strong word choice in the book, because I have noticed throughout so far that it is very impactful.