The House I Live In Analysis

1231 Words3 Pages

Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, as well as Eugene Jarecki’s documentary, The House I Live In, both discuss the controversial issues surrounding the War on Drugs, mass incarceration, and drug laws. Ultimately, both Alexander and Jarecki concede that the court systems have systematically hindered growth and advancement in black communities by targeting young African Americans, primarily male, that have become entangled in drugs due to their socioeconomic status. There is a disturbing cycle seen in black underprivileged neighborhoods of poverty leading to drug use and distribution to make money that inevitably ends with the person in question landing in prison before likely repeating these actions upon their release. Both Jarecki and Alexander present their case, asserting that the effects of the War on Drugs acted as a catalyst for the asymmetric drug laws and …show more content…

The New Jim Crow primarily appeals to more mature audiences consisting of young adults and adults of various socioeconomic backgrounds and races, those already incarcerated, policy makers, and those that are skeptical about these racial issues in the criminal justice system. While it may seem that Alexander’s book limits readers by forcing them to formulate their own interpretation of the information presented which can ultimately downplay the severity of the issues at hand, her substantial amount of credible facts and statistics forces the reader to step out of their comfort zone and truly visualize the staggering statistics presented. While The House I Live In and The New Jim Crow are both effective and complement one another, Alexander’s use of concrete statistics and factual information fails to dominate the heavy use of imagery and ethical appeals Jarecki’s uses in conjunction with the statistics presented in his

Open Document