Reddit Reddit reviews Black Power : The Politics of Liberation

We found 4 Reddit comments about Black Power : The Politics of Liberation. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Social Sciences
Specific Demographic Studies
African American Demographic Studies
Politics & Social Sciences
Black Power : The Politics of Liberation
Check price on Amazon

4 Reddit comments about Black Power : The Politics of Liberation:

u/nahmayne · 66 pointsr/socialskills

If you want advice from an actual black person and not someone who thinks that culturally black people are just so different and being "uncivilized" is a part of it, I'll give it to you.

I'll address the last part of your post first. Whether or not black people want to be seen the way you see them is irrelevant to most black people unless you specifically hinder or slander them in any way so we can throw that out of the window. We simply don't care as we have lives to lead. Stamping out this mindset in the minds of people who have power is a part of that life for many of us.

But as we are people we have other things to take care of as well. That's the first thing. Black people are people first and foremost. We do have shared experiences that only a black person, in America, could have. Sometimes those experiences transcend borders, too. But again, we are people. All with different aspirations, outlooks on life, upbringing, attitudes and a whole host of other traits assigned to humans.

Next time you see a black fight that you're apparently used to seeing now think that if they weren't black would you be assigning anything to them or their culture at all. Odds are you'd just see them as people in a fight that started for reasons you shouldn't really care about. Have you ever seen black kids getting beat up by black kids? White kids beat up by other white kids? Latinos beating up Asians? A good deal of crime happens in areas in proximity to the person doing the crime and America is incredibly segregated.

Now, your second paragraph. That's what we call the "good ones" rationalization. It's the way people can use the word nigger or other epithets and claim they have black friends but one of the good ones. It's flawed thinking and quite a few people in this sub, judging by this thread, would probably have the same mindset.

My advice to you is simple. Interact with people as people. There are people who will hurt you. There are people who will want to love you. Most people don't care about your life enough because they have their own to worry about. Some of these people may be black. Hell, all of them might be the ones that try to hurt you but they're people with their own motivations for doing so and attributing it to a whole group would be as silly as any of the other examples of things you fight. Hell, even those people might want to love you at some point as well.

I would recommend reading, though. Learn the history of black people in this country. Learn the state of black people as a whole today. Learn about why these thoughts aren't anything new or unique to you. Learn about why they have persisted.

A couple books I recommend are Black Power: The Politics of LiberationWhy Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria

I'd also say watch more things made by black creators. Dear White People is getting buzz on Netflix. Read articles from black writers. I'd recommend everything on verysmartbrothas.com

Here's one to start: “BLACK PEOPLE WOULD BE WEALTHY IF WE STOPPED BUYING JORDANS AND WEAVE” HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE BULLSHIT

u/ThatAgnosticGuy · 9 pointsr/socialism

>edit: my wish is for a nation of workers, a nation of socialists. Not a nation based upon racial identity.

African Nationalism and black Nationalism are results of a need to achieve self determination in the face of colonial powers.

The African American ethnic group is already a nation bound by their treatment in America and history of slavery. You will be very hard pressed to find black socialists who outright reject nationalism and Pan-Africanism, because the black liberation struggle is the liberation of black Americans from a state designed to oppress them specifically.

While everybody would want to see harmony, black socialist movements and white socialist movements faced different obstacles and circumstances and goals. The struggle for black liberation is directly tied to the struggle of the third world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_nationalism

I would suggest you read Black Power : The Politics of Liberation by Stockely Carmichael to get a better understanding. He was a black revolutionary and a leader of the All African People's Revolutionary Party.

u/frostyman4444 · 2 pointsr/changemyview

Let me address your last point first, because I feel it's the one I'm most confident about. I agree the ideas you mention are common, but they exist in a form that (although common) are still strawmen (strawmans?) of the sort of arguments that trickle down from the academia I originally heard these arguments from. In other words, should you really judge a movement by its most vocal radicals? Again, just because you hear them the most often doesn't mean they're the most common: consider the silent majority. Reddit has a huge problem with so-called feminists; why? Because they hate all the double-standard touting misandrists that they mistake for average more moderate feminists. The ones Redditors hate are caricatures of actual feminist thinkers and it's everyone's job to make sure that we don't mistake the volume of their voice for the accuracy of their arguments, and I'm sure that even now someone will read these words and insist that the people I'm mocking are representative of actual feminists. That's how bad I think most people are at separating the vocal minority from the quieter majority in their minds.

As for your Lena Dunham example, I'm not too familiar with this but now that I've read up on it I think this is the most fascinating event that's ever transpired in the contemporary theories and I completely disagree with the idea that there is such a thing as overanalysis. Read any deconstructionist today and they'll grind down every little detail to come up with the most grandiose conclusions; the best part is that if you don't immediately reject it as "reading too much into stuff" (these are intelligent academics after all, not simple eggheads), they seem quite right in their arguments! I mean if you can argue it well enough, how can someone else set an arbitrary limit on what constitutes too much thinking? When you think about, that's not the problem of the analyst, that's just the reader not being able to keep up with him/her (I'm thinking of Deleuze here especially). But as to why I love this event you brought up (and seriously, thanks so much for bringing this up) I see this event as two status groups who been historically ostracized by a greater authority competing for who has the claim to be "rightfully upset": black males (against white folk) or women (against the patriarchy)? When I frame the event in that light, do you see why an academic might say there is likely no shortage of arguments to be made concerning the conflict? You seemed interested in reading material so I can see you're intellectually curious (I applaud you!) so if you want to see the sort of "overanalytical" arguments that I mean, read someone like Adorno or Althusser (both are fascinating because their arguments have huge stakes when they discuss "culture," particularly Adorno). As for the black power movements, I think I recall one book specifically that I read for a contemporary American history class; this is the link: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Power-Liberation-Kwame-Ture/dp/0679743138 (I couldn't find a pdf on short notice). The author, Ture, is someone you might recognize by the name of Stokely Carmichael.

I really enjoy sharing the stuff I learn so feel free to ignore the rest of this paragraph cause I'll just be giving a short version of what the movements you were interested in were like. The black power movements, to really dumb it down unfortunately, could be considered an offshoot from the sort of activism you had with MLK. When Malcolm X criticized MLK's methods for being soft, some people decided to be somewhat more radical (again, being super blunt). One of the most famous groups that resulted from this division was the Black Panthers, who were notorious for their use of violence. These groups are excellent case studies as to why saying that all discrimination is equally bad is completely incorrect (I know you agreed with that), but also questioning whether some subversive reverse-discrimination might be necessary. These groups believed in playing with fire and they're not alone; the Dalit Panthers in India were modeled off them. Black Power movements ranged from being super socialist (realize that civil rights-era America was also ardently anti-socialist/communist America, so being black and being socialist was pretty much like being the antichrist) to nationalistic (you might have heard of the Back to Africa movement; it's exactly what it sounds like). One important group whose mannifestos you might be able to find was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, who was one of the principal agents that broke off from mainstream MLK nonviolence and argued that blacks shouldn't seek help from the system but find it of their own accord. Some groups were super Marxist; some were infiltrated by intelligence agencies, all of them represent why racial tensions in America really is a shit show.

Edit: here changed to hear; I also double-checked the book I recommended (I love you that much :3 ) and it's the one I remember reading. Then again, even if it wasn't Carmichael is pretty central to the topic and worth reading anyways.

u/btcthinker · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

> Taking a step back, institutional racism arises due to some property of the institution. It could be an overt formal policy, but it doesn't have to be.

Again, you're citing Wikipedia: part of the definition cited in the Wikipedia article comes from the book: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Power-Liberation-Kwame-Ture/dp/0679743138

The author of that book is Kwame Ture, formerly known as Stokely Carmichael, who was among the most fiery and visible leaders of Black militancy in the United States in the 1960s. So the source of that definition is not some widely recognized academic work, but the product of some Black militancy leader from the 60's! FFS, could this get anymore biased and unacademic?!?! The standards for sources in Wikipedia are abysmally bad! I'd much rather stick with the academic definitions.

> I'm asking if it's an injustice that Adam got hired instead of Bob, when the reason Adam was hired was because he was more qualified.

First and foremost, sorry for confusing Adam and Bob. Anyway, I don't see any sign of injustice on part of the institution in the example you provided. Adam is more educated than Bob, as you've specifically said- "Adam is more educated and Bob is not", and his credentials match those necessary for the job. No apparent discrimination was demonstrated in that example.

> These market effects have been in place for hundreds of years.

In the context of race, that the markets have not been left without intervention from government (e.g. slavery and Jim Crow laws). However, even in the Jim Crow times, the market did everything it could to compensate. There were businesses which illegally served black patrons, because the free market cares way more about the color of the person's money than they cared about the color of their skin. So the market clearly defied the institutional racism which was actually in place.

> You're focusing on what society is doing against the employer and I'm attempting to understand whether you think society should do something for the discriminated-against person.

What can you do, aside from imposing a cost on the employer? You want to impose a legal cost, such as having laws which prohibit discrimination, and I want to impose a financial cost. I happen to find that a financial cost is much more swift than the legal cost, it occurs at the moment of discrimination and it never fails.

> or making half or less what equally-qualified white people are making.

In that case the employer is paying a 50% penalty for being discriminatory. The employer which realizes that advantage will have a 50% advantage against the discriminating employer, which will drive that employer out of business and it will leave those white people jobless (i.e. out on the market, having to compete with black employees with lower salaries).

> Over what time frame will income disparity go away, when it's the result of racism?

Almost immediately! The penalty occurs at the moment the employer discriminates by offering another person a higher salary based on their race. From that moment on, the clock starts ticking for them and they have to compete with a business that doesn't. 50% of the companies fail within 2 years, 96% fail within 10 years. That is a very fast response to the inefficiency, much faster than it takes for government to implement a law, detect a violation, investigate the violation, bring forth a lawsuit and issue a judgment.