The mass incarceration of significant percentages of the African American population is the "new Jim Crow." This is Alexander's foundational premise in her book The New Jim Crow. There is an inherent racial caste system in the United States that actively locks racial minorities (viz., African Americans) into inferior positions in society. Using racial language no longer works and therefore a new language must be adopted. Instead of using terms like "Negro," one must use terms like "criminal."
Before the civil rights movement innocent "Negros" were oppressed and enslaved. Alexander argues that things have not changed - oppression and slavery remains. The only difference is that we now use the criminal justice system to rename the target population. Innocent Negros are no longer enslaved, guilty criminals are. Alexander quotes Richard Nixon saying, "It's all about those damn Negro - Puerto Rican groups out there." This quote followed an election ad where Nixon pledged to establish order in the United States.
Since the Civil Rights movement, politicians and the those in public office have developed a strategy of exploiting racial hostility for political gain without making explicit reference to race. The author argues that this racial hostility lies not under the rhetoric of black and white (like it used to be), but under the rhetoric of those who "deserve" and "do not deserve" entitlement dollars. She writes, "The not-so-subtle message to working-class whites was that their tax dollars were going to support special programs for blacks who most certainly did not deserve them."
The inherent message of many political campaigns was not racial in nature but moral. Whites were not led to hate blacks, but they were encouraged to become embittered toward those who were taking and using their tax dollars unjustly. Blacks with food stamps were eating t-bones while struggling whites without food stamps where eating hamburger. You don't have to be a genius to see the natural effects of this portrait. And you certainly don't have to live in America long to see that this portrait is a reality in the American mind.
Michelle Alexander's statements almost seem hyperbolic and exaggerated. I have been taken back a number of times by certain allegations she makes, whether implicitly or explicitly. I will say, however, that she has made no arbitrary allegations thus far. Here work is well done. Her history is thorough and her logic, for the most part, consistent. Beginning with the pre-Civil War era and slowly combing through the racial dynamics of the following years of American history, Alexander points out clear oppressive and destructive patterns that have plagued African Americans for centuries.
I will end this post with one of her post-emancipation examples. After the abolition of slavery in America, plantation owners in the South faced financial collapse. State governments were broke. Properties and families were completely destroyed by the war. The culture was demoralized by the effects of an unsuccessful war. And when you throw in millions of newly freed slaves, circumstances grow increasingly complex. Those in power in the South immediately sought to develop a new racial order. Blacks were the problem in their eyes, not part of the solution.
Therefore, taking advantage of their ability to make and enforce laws, Southern states adopted black codes - vagrancy laws being an example. These vagrancy laws made it a criminal offense not to work. These laws were selectively applied to blacks. And here is the rub: Eight southern states enacted convict laws allowing for the hiring-out of county prisoners to plantation owners and private companies. Prisoners were forced to work for little to no pay.
So as the federal government made strides to end slavery, those in power at the state level found ways to continue the practice under the new legal system. While it was illegal to force an innocent man into slavery, laws were made to force the innocent man into being a guilty man. And it is not criminal offense to force a guilty man to do the work slaves used to do - after all, he deserves it.
If Alexander's history is true, the mass incarceration movement of the 21st century may not be as simple as it seems. We just might have a new Jim Crow on our hands. For me, the picture is at least plausibly set. More color must be added. Given the nature of the first few chapters, I fully expect such strokes of the literary brush. I will keep you posted.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Incarceration Among Black America: A Review of "The New Jim Crow"
Being a white male with very little history with the police (when I was 15, I was arrested for possession of alcohol), I was a bit skeptical when I began reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Her premise is that, despite our efforts to end a racial caste system, where those of a single race or social group are marginalized, oppressed, and kept from making significant contributions to society, we have only redesigned it. Though we have elected an African American into office, we have fallen asleep to the tragic and immense incarceration of large percentages of the African American population.
Just as the black population before the civil rights movement was kept from voting, participating in juries, and relegated to a racially segregated and subordinated existence (hence the reference to Jim Crow in the title), so is a large portion of the same racial group kept from participating in those same significant social areas and activities today.
We can look back and see that the Jim Crow laws were unjust and wrong. But today, while the same end is taking place, we are less likely to see the injustice. The movement now works under the guise of criminal justice. Those who suffer its consequences deserve to suffer - right? We wish it were that easy.
So far, Michelle Alexander has at least argued that it is not. The criminal justice system and the laws that support and execute under its authority, is not so simple. There are laws that are commonly overlooked. There are less-than-right practices in the court rooms that have been adopted as commonplace and pragmatically necessary. And there are statistics, since the declaration of the War on Drugs, that are staggering only to those who currently constitute the substance of the statistical data.
The comment that demanded my attention was, "There is no doubt that if young white people were incarcerated at the same rates as young black people, the issue would be a national emergency." I had to agree.
Here are some statistics that Alexander lists - statistics that, at least for me, demand an open ear to what she has to say:
1. One in three young Africa American men will serve time in prison if current trends continue, and in some cities more than half of all young adult black men are currently under correctional control - in prison or jail, on probation or parole.
2. In two decades, between 1980 and 2000, the number of people incarcerated in our nation's prisons and jails soared from roughly 300,000 to more than 2 million.
3. By the end of 2007, more than 7 million Americans - or one in every 31 adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole.
4. There are more people in prisons and jails today just for drug offenses than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980.
5. Approximately 500,000 people are in prison or jail for a drug offense today, compared to an estimated 41,000 in 1980 - an increase of 1,100 percent.
In her book, Alexander argues that "mass incarceration is, metaphorically, the New Jim Crow and that all those who care about social justice should fully commit themselves to dismantling this new racial caste system...The widespread belief that race no longer matters - has blinded us to the realities of race in our society and facilitated the emergence of a new caste system."
She insists that, contrary to popular belief, "the fact that more than half of the young black men in many large American cities are currently under the control of the criminal justice system (or saddled with criminal records) is not just a symptom of poverty or poor choices, but rather evidence of a new racial caste system at work."
I am currently on the second chapter. The verdict is still out, but my social senses are at least awakened and sympathetic toward her argument. When I read books like this I have to force myself to look hard into my racial blind spots. I have to try and see life, sin, injustice, and other important issues from different perspectives. I am glad for this book so far. I will be posting as I read.
Just as the black population before the civil rights movement was kept from voting, participating in juries, and relegated to a racially segregated and subordinated existence (hence the reference to Jim Crow in the title), so is a large portion of the same racial group kept from participating in those same significant social areas and activities today.
We can look back and see that the Jim Crow laws were unjust and wrong. But today, while the same end is taking place, we are less likely to see the injustice. The movement now works under the guise of criminal justice. Those who suffer its consequences deserve to suffer - right? We wish it were that easy.
So far, Michelle Alexander has at least argued that it is not. The criminal justice system and the laws that support and execute under its authority, is not so simple. There are laws that are commonly overlooked. There are less-than-right practices in the court rooms that have been adopted as commonplace and pragmatically necessary. And there are statistics, since the declaration of the War on Drugs, that are staggering only to those who currently constitute the substance of the statistical data.
The comment that demanded my attention was, "There is no doubt that if young white people were incarcerated at the same rates as young black people, the issue would be a national emergency." I had to agree.
Here are some statistics that Alexander lists - statistics that, at least for me, demand an open ear to what she has to say:
1. One in three young Africa American men will serve time in prison if current trends continue, and in some cities more than half of all young adult black men are currently under correctional control - in prison or jail, on probation or parole.
2. In two decades, between 1980 and 2000, the number of people incarcerated in our nation's prisons and jails soared from roughly 300,000 to more than 2 million.
3. By the end of 2007, more than 7 million Americans - or one in every 31 adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole.
4. There are more people in prisons and jails today just for drug offenses than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980.
5. Approximately 500,000 people are in prison or jail for a drug offense today, compared to an estimated 41,000 in 1980 - an increase of 1,100 percent.
In her book, Alexander argues that "mass incarceration is, metaphorically, the New Jim Crow and that all those who care about social justice should fully commit themselves to dismantling this new racial caste system...The widespread belief that race no longer matters - has blinded us to the realities of race in our society and facilitated the emergence of a new caste system."
She insists that, contrary to popular belief, "the fact that more than half of the young black men in many large American cities are currently under the control of the criminal justice system (or saddled with criminal records) is not just a symptom of poverty or poor choices, but rather evidence of a new racial caste system at work."
I am currently on the second chapter. The verdict is still out, but my social senses are at least awakened and sympathetic toward her argument. When I read books like this I have to force myself to look hard into my racial blind spots. I have to try and see life, sin, injustice, and other important issues from different perspectives. I am glad for this book so far. I will be posting as I read.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Why We Must Love
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, or drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kin dome of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Those described above will not inherit the kingdom of God. They will not live for eternity in the redeemed creation, among the redeemed and glorified community. And this is precisely why we must love them. This is precisely why we must resist looking down our noses at those who "practice such things." Whatever their characterization, they all fit under the categorical umbrella of the "whosoevers" of John 3:16.
This passage should humble everyone who reads it - especially those who have been set free. The reason comes in the next verse: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus CHrist and by the Spirit of our God.
I am so thankful that someone saw through my immorality and idolatry. Lord, give us all the grace to love people today.
Those described above will not inherit the kingdom of God. They will not live for eternity in the redeemed creation, among the redeemed and glorified community. And this is precisely why we must love them. This is precisely why we must resist looking down our noses at those who "practice such things." Whatever their characterization, they all fit under the categorical umbrella of the "whosoevers" of John 3:16.
This passage should humble everyone who reads it - especially those who have been set free. The reason comes in the next verse: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus CHrist and by the Spirit of our God.
I am so thankful that someone saw through my immorality and idolatry. Lord, give us all the grace to love people today.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Why We Won't Love
In our efforts to become more practical, we tend to neglect the most profound. In thinking through who and how to love, we tend to neglect the profound (and simple) commandment to love in the first place. One of our greatest mistakes is making our love dependent upon the actions of the object of our love. Before taking that first step in their direction, certain stipulations have to be met. We must run their countenance, culture, behavior and character through our filtered "biblical" filter. If they pass, we love. If they don't, we keep our safe distance - and justifiably so!
But Jesus makes his commandment inconveniently simple - not dependent upon the object of love, but upon the God who is love itself. Jesus frees us from the slavery and complexity of other people by making us his slaves. We may not use another person's actions as an excuse as to why we should not follow his command to love them. He gives it independently of them. This is what makes love so glorious. It is also what makes love so impossible.
Too often our filters are based not on what the other needs, but on what we refuse to give. We don't like the surrender involved. We don't like not knowing what may be required. We don't like pouring our lives out for someone who could care less about us. And we are seemingly allergic to placing our schedules in the hands of irresponsible people. This is precisely the rub. Those Christ calls us to love - orphans, widows, foreigners, and the poor - are not particularly as "tidy" as we are. That's our definition of irresponsible right? - not as "tidy" as we are.
The poor don't base their life around iCal. Orphans don't typically have a gym membership, Netflix, or plans to go on vacation. And widows are typically too broken to be addicted to Starbucks. These people have probably never even thought of the top ten things we place on our most important list. Therefore, to love them would mean to forfeit those things. And this is why we won't love.
Paul Miller said it so well in his book Love Walked Among Us. "It is one thing to notice a blind man; it is quite another to stop and talk with him - that gets scary. He might ask for money or interrupt our schedule. It's as if we are afraid that his blindness might affect us. This fear is not irrational - when we pause to have compassion, something of the other person's problems comes on us. Some of his pain touches us. At the very least, slowing down and noticing someone takes time...Compassion affects us. Maybe that's why we judge so quickly - it keeps us from being infected by other people's problems. Passing judgment is just so efficient."
Love has become far too simple for me. Simplicity, however, should not be considered synonymous with easy. It is the simplicity of Christ's command that makes love so impossible. When we try to love, we are immediately confronted with our inability to do so. Temptations flood our minds to cover love up with practicality - with strategies on how to "help" others without surrendering ourselves. We want to cure without taking up a cross. We want to show mercy without becoming messy. This is my life anyway. And Jesus is jacking me up.
Our union with Christ is the only rescue. The gospel is our only hope. In order to love we must know what love is. To know what love is, we must look nowhere but Christ - the love who walked among us. And as we cling to him in faith, we are empowered by his Spirit to feel, surrender, repent and love. In union with him we trust that surrender is eternally safe, and that because of Christ, our enemy is not excluded from the category of those we are called to love.
Love is far from convenient. It is not, however, more inconvenient than that filter that we have been carrying around to see if others are convenient enough to love or not. Christ's words are true - he who loses his life will save it.
But Jesus makes his commandment inconveniently simple - not dependent upon the object of love, but upon the God who is love itself. Jesus frees us from the slavery and complexity of other people by making us his slaves. We may not use another person's actions as an excuse as to why we should not follow his command to love them. He gives it independently of them. This is what makes love so glorious. It is also what makes love so impossible.
Too often our filters are based not on what the other needs, but on what we refuse to give. We don't like the surrender involved. We don't like not knowing what may be required. We don't like pouring our lives out for someone who could care less about us. And we are seemingly allergic to placing our schedules in the hands of irresponsible people. This is precisely the rub. Those Christ calls us to love - orphans, widows, foreigners, and the poor - are not particularly as "tidy" as we are. That's our definition of irresponsible right? - not as "tidy" as we are.
The poor don't base their life around iCal. Orphans don't typically have a gym membership, Netflix, or plans to go on vacation. And widows are typically too broken to be addicted to Starbucks. These people have probably never even thought of the top ten things we place on our most important list. Therefore, to love them would mean to forfeit those things. And this is why we won't love.
Paul Miller said it so well in his book Love Walked Among Us. "It is one thing to notice a blind man; it is quite another to stop and talk with him - that gets scary. He might ask for money or interrupt our schedule. It's as if we are afraid that his blindness might affect us. This fear is not irrational - when we pause to have compassion, something of the other person's problems comes on us. Some of his pain touches us. At the very least, slowing down and noticing someone takes time...Compassion affects us. Maybe that's why we judge so quickly - it keeps us from being infected by other people's problems. Passing judgment is just so efficient."
Love has become far too simple for me. Simplicity, however, should not be considered synonymous with easy. It is the simplicity of Christ's command that makes love so impossible. When we try to love, we are immediately confronted with our inability to do so. Temptations flood our minds to cover love up with practicality - with strategies on how to "help" others without surrendering ourselves. We want to cure without taking up a cross. We want to show mercy without becoming messy. This is my life anyway. And Jesus is jacking me up.
Our union with Christ is the only rescue. The gospel is our only hope. In order to love we must know what love is. To know what love is, we must look nowhere but Christ - the love who walked among us. And as we cling to him in faith, we are empowered by his Spirit to feel, surrender, repent and love. In union with him we trust that surrender is eternally safe, and that because of Christ, our enemy is not excluded from the category of those we are called to love.
Love is far from convenient. It is not, however, more inconvenient than that filter that we have been carrying around to see if others are convenient enough to love or not. Christ's words are true - he who loses his life will save it.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
What Does Scripture Say About Children and Having Children?
It is good to be reminded from the Word of God what the Lord says about children and having children. If we allow our culture to have the last and only words about this matter, it is proven and statistically reasonable that certain cultures - yes, even ours - will cease as we know it.
With that said, here are a few things the Scriptures have to say about the subject - this exclusively taken from Psalm 127:
1. Children are from the Lord. Too often we, even Christians, believe that children are ultimately from us. Our biological contributions are the beginning and the end of our offspring. But this is clearly not the case. They are from the Lord.
2. Children are a reward. They are a positive contribution to one's life, home and society - yes, even one's eternity. This is a much needed word, especially in a culture that seems to intrinsically view children as a burdensome curse.
3. They are like arrows. Arrows are usually made from less than straight and perfect branches. The warrior takes much care in forming the arrow, and when it is straightened out, sharp and fully prepared, he shoots it into the world with purpose and mission. Yes, our children are purposeful, not just for us, but for the world, for the kingdom. They must be straightened out in order to fly with precision. They must be sent out in order to fulfill their ultimate calling. And they must be sharp so that the enemy of Christ may not triumph over them.
More on this. Parents are the warriors that shape this weapon of war. When others raise our children, they are less likely to form the arrow properly. In the end, we are responsible. Others should not spend more time with our children than we do.
4. The work of raising children is better done in one's youth. Marriage and child bearing days are getting pushed later and later in life. I have three, almost four children now, and I am tired. I could not imagine having them later in life. I would probably not have as many. And while this is not an argument for how many children one should have (I could not possibly decide that for you), it is an argument that, if a culture decides to have children later in life, the culture will soon have less children, and consequently slip away.
5. Blessing follows those who have children. If you have a lot of children you are considered odd these days. According to this passage, you are blessed. The one who fills his quiver is blessed! Enough said.
This verb "to fill" gives us an idea as to how many children we should have. It lures us into child bearing with the idea and truth that those who "fill" their quiver will be all the more blessed. How many children should you have? The Word of God is clear - filling your quiver is good. Let the couple decide with their sanctified wisdom how many their quiver can hold.
6. Children are a good thing when we are old and cannot provide, protect and care for ourselves any more. They are a better retirement and investment than a 401K. Money will not argue for your rights (in the gate) when you cannot. Money will not change your diaper when we are too old. Money will not protect and comfort when we are dying. But children will. They will fight off our enemies and care for us as we lose the ability to do so for ourselves.
Simply put, children are a blessing. They are a sacrifice, but a reward. This passage is a refreshing confrontation of our popular culture today. We'd do well to pay attention. Our reward will be great!
With that said, here are a few things the Scriptures have to say about the subject - this exclusively taken from Psalm 127:
1. Children are from the Lord. Too often we, even Christians, believe that children are ultimately from us. Our biological contributions are the beginning and the end of our offspring. But this is clearly not the case. They are from the Lord.
2. Children are a reward. They are a positive contribution to one's life, home and society - yes, even one's eternity. This is a much needed word, especially in a culture that seems to intrinsically view children as a burdensome curse.
3. They are like arrows. Arrows are usually made from less than straight and perfect branches. The warrior takes much care in forming the arrow, and when it is straightened out, sharp and fully prepared, he shoots it into the world with purpose and mission. Yes, our children are purposeful, not just for us, but for the world, for the kingdom. They must be straightened out in order to fly with precision. They must be sent out in order to fulfill their ultimate calling. And they must be sharp so that the enemy of Christ may not triumph over them.
More on this. Parents are the warriors that shape this weapon of war. When others raise our children, they are less likely to form the arrow properly. In the end, we are responsible. Others should not spend more time with our children than we do.
4. The work of raising children is better done in one's youth. Marriage and child bearing days are getting pushed later and later in life. I have three, almost four children now, and I am tired. I could not imagine having them later in life. I would probably not have as many. And while this is not an argument for how many children one should have (I could not possibly decide that for you), it is an argument that, if a culture decides to have children later in life, the culture will soon have less children, and consequently slip away.
5. Blessing follows those who have children. If you have a lot of children you are considered odd these days. According to this passage, you are blessed. The one who fills his quiver is blessed! Enough said.
This verb "to fill" gives us an idea as to how many children we should have. It lures us into child bearing with the idea and truth that those who "fill" their quiver will be all the more blessed. How many children should you have? The Word of God is clear - filling your quiver is good. Let the couple decide with their sanctified wisdom how many their quiver can hold.
6. Children are a good thing when we are old and cannot provide, protect and care for ourselves any more. They are a better retirement and investment than a 401K. Money will not argue for your rights (in the gate) when you cannot. Money will not change your diaper when we are too old. Money will not protect and comfort when we are dying. But children will. They will fight off our enemies and care for us as we lose the ability to do so for ourselves.
Simply put, children are a blessing. They are a sacrifice, but a reward. This passage is a refreshing confrontation of our popular culture today. We'd do well to pay attention. Our reward will be great!
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
A Crafty Twist of God's Commands: A Case In Point
I wrote a post a few days ago discussing how we often beat each other over the head with the Bible. We use the Word of God as a cover up for our own selfish ends. People should love and care for other people. This is what the Bible says, right? We then make it our goal to ensure that people follow such a command for us.
We typically get all bent out of shape when others are disobedient - not because it offends God, but because it inconveniences us.
I love watching and learning from children. My kids often provide me with the undignified expressions of practical theology. They are image bearers that haven't learned how to cover themselves well. From them we can learn important truths concerning prayer (ask often and persistently!), dependency, disobedience, and trust.
We can also see in children twist that we place on God's commands mentioned above. We have a common rule in our home about sharing. If your brother or sister (or anyone) would like to play with the toy you have, sharing is not optional. You must share.
The other day, my little boy was eyeing the toy my littlest girl just picked up. He wanted it and asked her for it. Now, she is not even two yet and hasn't really grasped the rule. But my boy didn't care. He quickly said, "You have to share with me. Daddy says so!" After she didn't give over the toy, he ran to me and said, "Daddy, Camille won't share her toy with me. Will you tell her to give it to me?"
Interesting. Sin is so crafty. The command that my boy was calling into play was not actually in full accordance with the house rule. The command is "YOU must share," not "THEY must share." There is a huge difference.
When our heart's desire is that God would enforce his commands upon others for our benefit, we should really consider repenting of such desires. They do not deserve to be answered with a reward, but with the rod.
We typically get all bent out of shape when others are disobedient - not because it offends God, but because it inconveniences us.
I love watching and learning from children. My kids often provide me with the undignified expressions of practical theology. They are image bearers that haven't learned how to cover themselves well. From them we can learn important truths concerning prayer (ask often and persistently!), dependency, disobedience, and trust.
We can also see in children twist that we place on God's commands mentioned above. We have a common rule in our home about sharing. If your brother or sister (or anyone) would like to play with the toy you have, sharing is not optional. You must share.
The other day, my little boy was eyeing the toy my littlest girl just picked up. He wanted it and asked her for it. Now, she is not even two yet and hasn't really grasped the rule. But my boy didn't care. He quickly said, "You have to share with me. Daddy says so!" After she didn't give over the toy, he ran to me and said, "Daddy, Camille won't share her toy with me. Will you tell her to give it to me?"
Interesting. Sin is so crafty. The command that my boy was calling into play was not actually in full accordance with the house rule. The command is "YOU must share," not "THEY must share." There is a huge difference.
When our heart's desire is that God would enforce his commands upon others for our benefit, we should really consider repenting of such desires. They do not deserve to be answered with a reward, but with the rod.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)