Concluding The New Jim Crow

The other day in my  class reminded me just how much of a disconnect there is between the reality of colorblind racism and the version of reality that we are fed by media and politics and social conditioning. We were talking about Ursinus and how particular issues are difficult for students to discuss and that they often avoid, like race and wealth inequality. My teacher is Spanish and she talked about how in Spain race isn't as big of an issue as it is in the United States and she speculated that this was because we have such a recent and turbulent history of racism and slavery in the US, which alligns with Alexander's assertion that "our understanding of racism is therefore shaped by the most extreme expressions of individual bigotry, not by the way in which it functions...embedded in the structure of a social system" (183-184). She also talked about how absurd she found the practice of checking ethnicity/race boxes on forms and talked about the arbitrary nature of these different categories,  such as how she is expected to mark Hispanic but is technically Caucasian. I would definitely have to agree with her about the absurdity of these categories. Then, we were discussing one of her  black students who went abroad and dated someone in Sevillle. She told us that she immediately felt pity for the student when she told her that she had been dating someone there, because she knew that it would end, because "A true Seville man--and I'm sorry to say this--will never marry a black woman." It absolutely blew my mind that she could say race wasn't a big deal or a concern in Spain and then in a matter of 10 minutes make a statement like that.  Clearly, race is a big deal in Spain and will continue to be until such a statement isn't possible.

When Alexander discussed how the civil rights movement and lawyers became disconnected from the people whom they were supposed to serve, it reminded me a lot of the environmental movement and how this happened with organizations like the Sierra Club, who nowadays treat their members like subscribers or consumers,  sending things through the mail and asking for monetary donations, rather than asking for their time and work. The bureaucracy that accompanies these groups often obscures their original purpose and distance themselves from the very people whom they meant to advocate for, which is why I find it can be detrimental for organizations to enter the legal . For although legislation and winning cases is very important for the cause to fight for rights, once again I believe that ideological shifts are the primary vehicle to change people and keep the interests of those who the fight is for at heart. I think a lot of the struggle involves changing public thought and  years social conditioning from the media, law enforcement, politicians, etc.  It is difficult for movements to not morph in this way, given the fact that they often depend upon playing by the rules and focusing on feasible reform rather than having revolutionary goals and mindsets. I understand the need for figures like Rosa Parks in terms of fighting against prolific racial stereotypes and getting validation in the system, but using "poster boys" to prove that some black people are worthy only panders to white people and doesn't challenge the problematic stereotypes and the system itself.