.png)
The precept of black inferiority can be defined as the general consensus that black people were inherently inferior to white people. Higginbotham explores how the American legal system played a clear role in supporting, perpetuating, and sanctioning the precept of inferiority. (Higginbotham xxv) American law did not create the concept of “inferiority” although it
enforced this precept. The idea of superiority of white and the inferiority of black existed prior to the laws’ role in its perpetuation. In many instances of the law, the insubordinate treatment of black people in the United States has been justified by this precept of black inferiority. Higginbotham addresses the subtlety that the law takes in perpetuating the precept of black inferiority. It was never overt in saying that white people were superior to black people. For example, the institution of slavery was accommodated by the Constitution without ever stating the word “slavery” prior to 1865. This is not necessarily saying the founders saw something inherently wrong with the institution of slavery but were almost aware of the fundamentally evil nature of the word. They did not want the “great document” to be tainted (Higginbotham14-15). Looking to the foundations of American law it is clear to see how it was used as a tool to legally subordinate black people in the U.S. and codify the institution of slavery.
The precept of black inferiority can be revealed through the interpretation of legal writing. Sometimes legal writing is interpreted as it is written, and sometimes the law says one thing but “cherry-picks” who it applies to. In the Declaration of Independence, the language that “all men are created equal” did not actually mean ALL people but white men of privilege. This is further revealed in many of Thomas Jefferson’s writings, one of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and founding father of our country. In some of Jefferson’s writings from his Notes on the State of Virginia, he discusses in great detail the various physical and mental distinctions between blacks and whites that he believed rendered white people to be superior and black people inferior. (Higginbotham 26) To the white colonists of the time the founding documents were seen as a liberation from Britain, and the start of a great democracy. Despite these ideals, there was the purposeful intent to render black people inferior and subjugate them to a status below that of the white man. It was in their thoughts and then implemented into the law that we see the precept of black inferiority.
While we have made steps of progress from the founding, Black Americans are still reaping the consequences of the precept’s perpetuation into American law. From the past to the present the precept of black inferiority has been foundational to American law. After reflecting on this course, the literature, and history we have discussed and reviewed, it is obvious to me that the precept of black inferiority has been present in every era of the criminal justice system. Despite this, those in power have become more strategic in hiding this agenda by using race neutral terms to hide the real motives of laws and legal decisions. Michelle Alexander addresses this idea in The New Jim Crow. Intertwined with the precept of black inferiority in American law, are systems that have perpetuated black oppression. These systems are highly adaptable to the language that is culturally accepted at the time, but in reality, are used to achieve the same goal of perpetuating black inferiority. From slavery to the black codes, to Jim Crow, to the “War on Drugs”, and now to mass incarceration, political rhetoric has molded and changed, but has largely produced the same results of perpetuating systems of oppression. Just like the racism in these systems being highly adaptable, so has the precept of black inferiority. The precept of black inferiority is directly embedded in the current system of mass incarceration and can be back traced to when the ships of enslaved people touched the shores of the colonies.
Mass incarceration does not operate the same as the former racial caste system, but it is a reinvention of the system because it’s intended purpose is the subjugation and oppression of Black and minority individuals in the United States. Things have changed. Mass incarceration and Jim Crow are not mirror images of each other, but their similarities are too obvious to ignore. Mass incarceration acts as a vehicle for the creation of an under caste that holds black and brown people predominantly. White people are affected by the system but have become collateral damage of the system because black and brown people are the key targets. It cannot be argued that mass incarceration as a system only affects those that are black and brown, but it is clear that the system was meant to target certain groups over others.
Mass incarceration, like other systems of oppression, has served to define the meaning and significance of race in the United States. Alexander talks about how the definition of “blackness” was defined through each era of racial oppression and caste. Slavery defined blackness as being a slave, Jim Crow defined being black as being a second-class citizen, and today mass incarceration define being black as being a criminal. (Alexander 242) Associating blackness with criminality makes those that do not even commit crimes victims of the broader system. This association also shows that on its face mass incarceration aims to be “colorblind,” the impact and results of its policies show a clear racial bias stemming from the precept of black inferiority.
Mass incarceration also resembles the old system of oppression through the perpetuation of racial segregation. While Jim Crow created racial segregation in an explicit and legal way, mass incarceration sees the same obvious effects that lead to racial segregation even if the actions through which it is created are less explicit and written into law. Racial segregation under Jim Crow made the black experience quite invisible to many white people because they were so separate. This allowed whites to maintain racial stereotypes about black culture and values, and it made it easier for them to ignore and deny the suffering of black populations (Alexander 242). Mass incarceration acts in a very similar way by segregating people in prison, away from mainstream society, which happen to be disproportionately black and brown.
Mass incarceration is clear in its aim of legal discrimination and political disenfranchisement that are results of the system. Once people are release from jail and prison, they carry not only a social stigma but a legal stigma that keeps them from thriving after life in prison. Many of those who have been formerly incarcerated do not have access to many of the public benefits offered to those who are in need, they struggle to find employment and legal means to make a living, and they are politically disenfranchised. The way the system of mass incarceration operates, it never really allows the punishment to be over. Once you are labelled a criminal it stays with you forever, figuratively, and literally. This is even more emphasized for black and brown individuals that go through the system. Black and brown offenders are more likely to face prison time with felon status compared to their white counterparts who are more likely to receive misdemeanors or no jail time. Without a means to fully reenter back into society, be a part of the electorate, and have broader social capital, those who are considered criminals are relegated to an inferior position within society. The way in which mass incarceration is handled today claims to be racially neutral, but clearly shows the racially biased effects, pointing back to the precept of inferiority.
The precept of black inferiority is an integral part of the American legal system and still has lasting influences today. It calls into question whether a system built on this precept can truly be reformed when the system is operating in the way it was intended to. With each new version becoming more resilient at masking its true goal. Despite progress in the years since slavery and Jim Crow, the past to the present still reaps the consequences of the precept influencing the law. What will our future reforms of the legal system reflect as it pertains to the precept of black inferiority?
Alexander, M., & West, C. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press.
Higginbotham, A. L. (1998). Shades of freedom: Racial politics and presumptions of the
American legal process. Oxford University Press.
Paighton Brooks is a McConnell Scholar in the class of 2024. She studies political science and criminal justice at the University of Louisville.