The House I Live In Analysis

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

influx of the mass incarceration of African Americans and minorities in the United States. However, Alexander’s novel fiction book is less effective than Jarecki’s documentary because she provides a more logical argument that is limited to relying heavily on statistics to support her assertions while Jarecki is able to support his statistics with emotional and ethical appeals that influence the viewers to want to action in solving this problem.
The House I Live In provides insights into the background of the War on Drugs and how it has negatively effected the advancement of people from lower socioeconomic situations today. Jarecki interviews various members in the destitute black communities including drug dealers and members of the communities who have family members that have become lost to the drug industry. The most striking interview comes from Jarecki’s childhood nanny and housekeeper, Nannie Jeter, who ultimately lost her son to drugs in her community. During her interview Nannie speaks of how she left the south to escape poverty and racism, but to provide for her family that lived in the impoverished black neighborhoods in the north she sacrificed spending time with her family. Without having the ability to constantly keep eyes on her children after moving away with Jarecki’s family to continue working for them, she expresses how she ultimately feels responsible for him ending up on drugs and paying the ultimate cost by dying from an overdose. Next, the cause for stories like Jeter’s and others who have fallen victim to drugs in their impoverished communities is revealed to be Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs. Nixon primarily used the War on Drugs as a political ploy during election time to win over voters, in the years following Nixon, the War on Drugs gained traction and under Ronald Reagan incarceration for drugs skyrocketed after he introduced a series of mandatory minimum sentences. The film presents a staggering statistic about the years following the introduction of these policies that states, “Over the past 40 years, the War on Drugs has cost more than $1 trillion and accounted for more than 45 million arrests.” Also, one of the primary issues with these mandatory minimum sentences arose over crack cocaine, which is primarily found in the black impoverished communities, and powder cocaine that is primarily found in middle to upper class white communities. According to the documentary, although both substances are of the same chemical makeup, “Since 1986, there has been a 100 to 1 disparity in the sentencing of crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine offenses. This has accounted for a vast disproportion of crack users going to prison over the past 25 years. In 2010, after decades of protest from judges and activists, this disparity was reduced to 18 to 1.” Statistics like these lend itself to the notion of blacks being racially targeted and discriminated against. It also supports the War on Drugs propelling the cycle of poverty leading to drugs as income, which results in incarceration.
By presenting his assertions in the form of a documentary Jarecki is able to capture a large audience ranging from high school and college age students to adults of various races and socioeconomic backgrounds. Most notably his documentary is relevant for both those currently incarcerated and policy makers that can influence the criminal justice systems. The use of interviews and video of the various people that make up the drug ridden impoverished communities, like Jarecki’s childhood nanny, a former drug dealer, wardens, and judges support this documentary by allowing for the negative stigma and bias for those on either side to be extinguished. These images provide a visual aid allowing the viewer to easily see and comprehend the information presented and allows the viewers to be emotionally motivated and inspired to seek change through these ethical and emotional appeals. While The House I Live In provides a new way of interpreting the War on Drugs and all of the parties involved, it can also be seen as problematic. Because the narrator and director of this documentary is a white male, he can be criticized for not being able to identify with the socioeconomic status or racism faced by the people he is sympathizing with, this could consequently cause viewers to distrust him and his argument he is presenting. Also, while this documentary will likely have the most significant impact on those unaware of the realities of topic or subject, anyone growing up in an impoverished neighborhood where there is a prevalent drug problem would possibly not be motivated to escape the cycle because they would feel that the criminal justice system would do as the documentary states and systematically fail them.
To understand The New Jim Crow, it is important to recall how the old Jim Crow laws used during the late 1800s and into the Civil Rights Movement enforced and sustained the deliberate segregation and unfair treatment of African American people based on the criterion of their race. Alexander suggests that while it seems this ended in the 1960s, the Jim Crow laws have merely changed with the times and are still in effect today in a less overtly racist form. She insists that, ”We use our criminal justice system to label people of color “criminals” and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind… to [legally] discriminate against African Americans. Once you’re labeled a felon, the old forms of discrimination…employment, housing, denial of the right to vote [and] educational opportunity, denial of food stamps and other public benefits, and exclusion from jury service—are suddenly legal.”
The New Jim Crow addresses the same information as The House I Live In with the only significant difference being a slight variation in the target audiences.

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

documentary.