Best african american demographic studies according to redditors

We found 184 Reddit comments discussing the best african american demographic studies. We ranked the 72 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about African American Demographic Studies:

u/binchmaster9000 · 140 pointsr/circlebroke2

A review of his book basically said as much:

>Grammy-winning musician Davis gets taken for a ride by the KKK in this futile and pointless volume. When a friend of his says he is joining the Ku Klux Klan, Davis approaches a few local heavies hoping to find "common ground'' on which they can stand. Surprisingly, Davis is able to form friendships with some of the racists he meets--or so it would seem. What never occurs to Davis is that he may be being used by these people. For instance, Roger Kelly, who is still active in the KKK, is depicted as a white "separatist'' as opposed to a white "supremacist.'' Davis seems oblivious to Kelly's smooth way of talking out of both sides of his mouth and casts him as a victim in an episode of "reverse discrimination'' at Howard University, where Kelly is denied entrance to a talk show on racist groups. In the most ridiculous case, Kelly names Davis godfather to his newborn daughter. Nowhere during these scenes does the author consider that his book might be the perfect vehicle by which Kelly can gain new members. In another truly offensive scene, Davis visits the National Holocaust Museum, where he interviews several luminaries on the hate scene who are protesting the museum but neglects to mention their purpose--the protesters deny the Holocaust took place. Indeed, the anti-Semitism of the KKK is a massive blind spot for Davis. Finally, he endlessly makes excuses for Klan members who are no longer violent, as if this somehow mitigates their continued membership in such a terrorist organization. The dual dangers of this book are that some readers will find tacit support for their beliefs that blacks are easily led and others will view the Klan as "not all that bad'' and perhaps join where they otherwise might not have. (16 pages photos not seen) -- Copyright ©1997, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Also there's a clip from his documentary that I can never seem to find where he won't even consider Kwame Rose's extremely valid points against him. This guy is bad.

u/panosc · 93 pointsr/conspiracy

It's not something Google made, but a paint (or collage?) from Gordon de la Mothe book "Reconstructing the Black Image"

More here

Edit: WTF! What is the cost of this book in Amazon? $0.01 or $946.05 ?

u/teflange · 90 pointsr/videos

Thomas Sowell is a black economist and author who writes on these (and other) topics very clearly and convincingly. In short: it's not about race at all - various ethnicities have been subjugated and marginalized throughout history around the world. Many have overcome adversity and become wildly successful...but it's always due to cultural values of work ethic, focus on education, and trying to create better opportunities for children, in spite of whatever social barriers may exist. Whenever political methods of "equalization" are tried they never work, because they don't come from within that group and don't address what's necessary for a given group to become successful.

u/quirt · 70 pointsr/TrueReddit

On average, black Americans are poorer than white Americans. This was initially due to pre-Civil Rights Movement blatant racism and discrimination. After the Civil Rights Movement, blatant racism started to fade away, but our educational system has kept blacks from escaping from their poverty. Schools are funded by local taxes, so when the people are poorer, the schools aren't as good. The abundance of land and quality of roads has allowed the wealthy to geographically isolate themselves from the poor (usually black, but also white and Hispanic).

However, African American culture may also play a detrimental role, as addressed in this book by anthropologist John Ogbu.

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


u/hga_another · 55 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Wow, but this guy is ignorant, which I guess has become mandatory for the mainstream libertarianism that Reason represents.

> I'd imagine that some of the most conservative students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural backgrounds. And point three is also true, though some conservatives evidently feel that their professors will retaliate against them if they speak up (though they could be wrong about this—feelings are not facts).

By and large, if reports about what this book says about competitive admissions are true, at places like Cornell they've found ways to all but eliminate admitting strong non-legacy conservative students. And those "feelings" he denigrates are very much "factual" given that there have been for years, decades really, too many well publicized horror stories about conservative students speaking out in class and getting anything from failing grades to actions trying to and as I recall at least a few times getting them expelled. Plus starting in the Obama era it's become trivial for a female peer to arrange expulsion in far too many colleges.

He also claims to be ignorant in words I've not quoted of all the fields that in the US have become almost or entirely closed to conservatives, like science and math; today I wouldn't even try to become a scientist, and the signs were clear when I started that process in higher education back in 1979.

u/sah_mei · 22 pointsr/TumblrInAction

You really do.

>In his book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal; Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life, Espenshade notes that the biggest testing advantage belongs to African-American students. Black students who were accepted into these elite schools could have SAT scores on a 1600 scale that were 310 points lower than a white, middle-class applicant. Hispanic applicants enjoyed a 130 point advantage.
>Low-income students, regardless of race, also enjoyed a 130-point advantage and working-class applicants got a 70-point advantage. Upper-middle class students enjoyed a 50-point advantage.
>The applicants who were hurt the most by the affirmative-action admission policies were Asian students, who had to earn 140 points more than the typical middle-class, white applicant to gain admission.

No one even denies this nonsense; The Atlantic even argues that affirmative action hasn't gone far enough and only concedes that it's sometimes discriminatory in terms of the negative effect on Asian students.

u/MaggieMae68 · 18 pointsr/AmItheAsshole

Dude. I'm trying to help you and provide some information but you seem really dug into the "I'm not a racist" knee-jerk defensiveness. I might suggest a couple of books if you really care about learning about this stuff. These should get you started.

u/throwaway37421 · 15 pointsr/asktransgender

> if I have a ton of POC family whom I never saw as any different until people got angry for me for seeing them as equals, how could I be racist?

Colorblindness ("I don't see race") is a step backwards. See this book.

>Actual racists aren't friends with people of color

Considering how it's a cliche now that racists say "But some of my best friends are black!," this is also bullshit.

u/Tufari · 15 pointsr/Blackfellas

Buy and read this book. Then read your posts here again and you'll understand what people are getting at. It's not that people don't want you to do your best to be an ally. It's that you're kind of coming into a black space to tell black people about how not-racist you are. It's good that you're speaking out against racism, but coming to the black section of reddit is kind of preaching to the choir. Reddit in general has a racism problem, so it's best to spread these types of messages in those spaces.

Even just reading the first few chapters will give you an idea of what people here are saying.

u/[deleted] · 12 pointsr/videos

When you control for all of the things you're mentioning, blacks are still convicted more often and receive harsher penalties than their white counterparts.

This is a well established, well researched, well documented fact of social life.

Google scholar can pull up more articles on structural racism than anyone cares to read. A good book to start with is "Racism Without Racists", which addresses some of the softer parts of racism.

u/notallittakes · 12 pointsr/sjsucks

Naturally, almost all white people are like this.

They start by defining a contradictory term:

> Colour-blind racism

Gender-blind sexism anyone? Use contradictions to increase the edge!

> is racism that acts as if skin colour does not matter – even when it does.

This could be an interesting concept. Too bad they forget to write about it.

> also known as aversive racism

It's not, actually. Good thing they mentioned this though, because that seems to be what the rest of the post tries to talk about.

I don't really know what to say about this. Is it a strawman? It seems contradictory on multiple levels, and they never actually describe a racist behavior. They seem to just be saying that they're oppressed because white people just think racist things while somehow not realizing it. Then they complain about white people stereotyping others, while stereotyping white people like crazy.

What really gets me though is simply the terminology. It's not enough to call it racism, or 'stealth racism' or 'subconscious racism' - simply saying exactly what you mean is not postmodern enough. Apparently this particular term was made popular by a book which:

  • Sets up a case of a white person discriminating
  • Asserts that the white person is not a racist
  • Concludes that you can have racism without racists

    I just can't anymore.
u/pihkal · 11 pointsr/indieheads

I can't speak for BBES, but respectful allies are usually welcome.

If you want learn more than you'll get out of a Reddit thread, I find So You Want to Talk About Race? is a great primer for people who want to understand, and are looking for a place to start.

u/Explosive_Diaeresis · 11 pointsr/blackladies

Some additional recommended reading is Killing the Black Body, Dorothy Roberts goes into some detail on how Black feminist issues are intentionally ignored by the feminist movement at large. Since her focus is on reproductive rights, she largely discusses the interplay between the negative portrayals of Black reproduction, and how that goes into the larger discussion of reproductive rights.

u/tjefferson_1776 · 9 pointsr/The_Donald

For anyone interested in my notes on this interview with Harvard, Columbia, and University of Chicago educated Thomas Sowell, on his book Intellectuals and Race (no affiliate link), please see below. I was watching it on Youtube at 1.5.x, and it's just so packed full of common sense, backed by research, that I had to take notes to do it justice. Keep in mind these are my notes, and not all are just straight quotes. So there's some intelligence guided by experience.

Substandard English (e.g. black-speak) is holding black people back. Aspects of the language (e.g. "axe" for "ask" ) traces back to both the south and Britain before that - not Africa.

In societies where widespread multiculturalism and diversity exists, you find societies that are barely able to constrain widespread violence. (e.g. India barley coheres as a nation; the number of killed between Hinduism and Muslims ran into the hundreds of thousands when Britain made India free).

Diversity in college acceptance policies doesn't produce integration. Before affirmative action, particularly in the form of diversity quotas in College acceptance policies, and you find increased division. Institutions in eras prior to diversity mandates generally had better integration and less racial division. The data for diversity programs doesn't support the existence of diversity programs - it refutes it.

The black subculture in America today is is holding blacks back. Intellectuals today should be fixing the problem, instead of extending, or exploiting it.

Progressives were the racists. Under Woodrow Wilson, certain aspects of segregation began enforcement. Liberals by insisting on their views repeatedly, without data supporting their views, setup an intellectual culture that made things worse - not better. Multiculturalism - bringing students into institutions that they're ill-qualified for, sets the students back. The " intelligentsia" pays no price for its views because there's not test, nor evidence for the basis of their ideas.

"Intellectuals" have deep intelligence in very limited areas and it's dangerous. E.g. they're a mile-deep, but an inch wide. Most have not studied affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc. But the ideas, amidst the intellectual crowd have expanded - like a plague.

"No individual or Group can be blamed for being born into circumstances that lack... advantages. But neither can 'society' be automatically assumed to be either the cause or the cure for such disparities." - Despite centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, bad policy in urban environments, etc. For the child born into challenging circumstances (e.g. Detroit vs. Greenwich, CT) - no one (e.g. not society, not whites, not me) is to blame (expect perhaps that child's parents). The average black kid today is, materially, better off than the average black kid growing up in the 50s. The difference today, is that the schools are worse, and that's bad policy (primarily, bad liberal policy - since liberals run many/most urban schools). Circumstances are not the fault of slavery, or anything else that happened 100 - 200 years ago.

James Flynn; after the Second World War, black and white American Soldiers had children. And those children, growing up in Germany, showed no IQ differences at all. The black and white kids had the same IQ. The reason that blacks and whites had the same IQ in Germany, unlike int he US, according to Flynn, is that the children growing up in Germany grew up with no black subculture. (e.g. there was no gangster rap in Germany).

... Also, just because I think it's appropriate... "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

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.

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/FolksYaGottaLaugh · 8 pointsr/worldnews

The Pew Research Center found that a significant majority of whites voted for Trump, regardless of their education level or economic status. To paraphrase Ijeoma Oluo, the election wasn't just about race, but race was a factor.

u/dan_blather · 8 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Cites you want?

There have been many studies done on the schools in Shaker Heights, Ohio, an affluent (generally middle class to very wealthy), racially integrated suburb of Cleveland. Even in one of the best funded districts in the state, black students perform worse than white students.

Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb presents an interesting departure from traditional studies of the Black and White achievement gap. A trio of elements made this study uniquely different. First, the school district is considered to be one of the best in the nation. Second, Shaker Heights is an upper middle-class suburb with a median family income of $66,000. Third, Shaker Heights is a highly educated community with an estimated 61% of the residents over 25 years old holding at least a bachelor's degree. The presence of these three elements, which are traditionally used to explain the achievement gap, adds a perplexing dynamic to the research contained in this book.

The gap in academic achievement between Black and White students in Shaker Heights led to the fundamental question that guided this research: Why do Black students, who seemingly have the appropriate conditions of life that should lead to academic success, still perform far below their White counterparts? Interestingly, the academic performance of Blacks in Shaker Heights was above the state and national average for Black students.

A few more cites: (considered the most authoritative study) (pdf) (pdf)

For several years, I lived in South Euclid, a lower middle- to upper middle-class, stably racially integrated suburb not too far from Shaker Heights. There was the same gap between black students and white students, with special programs at the high school targeted specifically towards black students to ensure they graduate.

TL/DR: the district didn't succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Meanwhile, district officials, led by Superintendent Bill Zelei, refused to let daunting national trends discourage them. Half of black male students drop out anyway. Why bother trying? They didn't ship the new arrivals to special ed or let them coast in dumbed-down classes. They didn't pull money out of the high school and into majority-white elementary schools. They kept the honors courses, the Japanese language instruction, the art classes, and the drama club.

u/BradleyB636 · 7 pointsr/wholesomememes

Not everyone who lacks a house wants one. That was an interesting take away from when I read this really good book in college.

u/hrmdurr · 7 pointsr/FanFiction

I'm having some issues finding information on desegregation experiences in schools (USA, particularly private schools in the north-east).

This article is the best one I've found so far. As far as books go, I read Going to School in Black & White but it wasn't really what I was expecting. So You Want To Talk About Race was an excellent (if not always enjoyable) read though. I've also read a few general books on the civil rights movement, and more articles/blog posts than I can name.

Also looking for books about "The Stanley Plan" in Virginia.

Would anyone be able to point me towards some more resources? I'll take anything really: timelines, anecdotes, books/biographies or speculation (just label it as such). I'm also looking for information from both perspectives (white vs PoC)... and I'm aiming for realism, not happy go-lucky unicorns that fart rainbows. There is a reason that (it seems like) a lot of the first PoC admitted to previously white schools transferred out after all, and while I can make some guesses about the reasoning that's all it would be.

For background -

>!This is for a Harry Potter -ish story set at Ilvermorny during the 60s, with the assumption that Rappaport's Law essentially banned muggle-borns from the school until it's repeal in '65, and discrimination is a pretty big theme. A lot of it revolves around the whole blood purity thing, the racism that those muggle-born kids learned from society/parents and how those things interact. Also: the squib marches, voldemort's rise and first wizarding war from a foreign perspective, the civil rights movement and how that effects MACUSA's policies, and so on. Yes, the story spans a few years :D!<

u/thatkatrina · 7 pointsr/blackladies

Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts.

I picked up the book (but haven't read it yet) when I was reading for my Critical Narrative Theory class and found this in a footnote:

"In one study where "the rate of positive results for [substance abuse by] white [pregnant] women (15.4 percent) was slightly higher than that for Black women (14.1 percent)," black women were nonetheless "ten times more likely than whites to be reported to the government authorities"

This, of course, after the revelation (also from Brown's book) that:

"it has been legally accepted for the state to remove to protective custody the infants of black cocaine addicts but not babies born to white well-to-do alcoholics, even though 'injury to a fetus from excessive alcohol far exceeds the harm from crack exposure'"

Anyway, as a feminist and a scholar interested in Critical Race Theory it seemed right up my alley. I have a sneaking suspicion this would be the right crowd for this book. And I really, really need an excuse to read it.

u/HarimadSol · 7 pointsr/SRSDiscussion

Maybe have a look at this:


>...LB: I find that as a hip hop fan who also keeps some mainstream feminist company, I find myself defending the very existence of the genre among other feminists. Uche, I know you’ve addressed this before in prior interviews more generally, but what do the HH4L ladies have to say to feminists who accuse hip hop at large of too much sexual bravado and objectification of women?

>Uche: When I first began discussing the concept of HH4L, I got mixed responses. People said everything from there is not enough music to support that to Hip Hop doesn’t talk about love and even expecting us to not deal with certain subjects or play certain songs. Sexual bravado and objectification of women happens in every culture. Hip Hop is not the only one. If you are not attuned to the culture of Hip Hop or anything remotely related to the experience of those that make or enjoy this varied and layered music, I would suggest you do some real investigation into it before labeling it as such. All hip hop music does not have sexual bravado and objectify women just like all feminists aren’t white man hating lesbians. Right?

>Lenée: I’m taking a deep breath as I type this, because I have so very much to say. First, Hip Hop culture and music are the result of a colonial history: the history of Black folks in the US. Hip Hop culture exists as a mirror of larger US culture and also as a filter of that culture. As an agent of the culture, the music speaks to an array of experiences and perspectives. Yes, the primary media makers in the culture are heterosexual cisgender men of color (mostly black-identified). Yes, there is sexual bravado, and yes there’s objectification of women. I think that the tendency of people I identify as outsiders — usually academics, often white people, and way too often white cisgender women who ID as feminists — is to be outraged first and ask questions later.

>LB: (Also, dear readers, there is about ten-plus years of womanist and feminist scholarship by women of color on hip hop, on women in hip hop, and hip hop feminism, so please google-fu if this is news.)

>Lenée: If a straight man makes a song about someone he’s attracted to, we know it sure as shit isn’t gonna be a song about one of his homeboys. So, objectification of women is gonna happen. It cannot be avoided. The extent to which it goes is my concern. As far as the sexual bravado goes, I’d like to direct any and everyone with this critique to study stereotypes about black men — namely the construct of the big black buck. Sometimes rappers reinforce the constructs, sometimes they build their own identities in the shadow of those constructs… And other times, nobody’s paying attention to what doesn’t fit what they’re looking for. Just so they can be outraged first and ask questions later. Also: Lady (“Yankin’”) is just as full of braggadocio as any song by a man that we’ve played on the show, if not more. I’m certain that different ideas apply because she’s a woman and the decency police feel differently about her. But that’s probably a blog post in and of itself.

>LB: No kidding. I was googling Lady out of curiosity and saw that she gets a lot of blowback about that song. (I can’t even begin to dissect the video.) Sure it’s sexually explicit, but it’s not meant to be a deep song. What it is is an affirmative, body-positive song about getting laid. The narrator has agency, she’s enjoying herself, it’s consensual. There’s a place for that and it’s a worthwhile narrative, so I think the real problem — and there is considerable scholarship on the “acceptable” roles for women in hip hop — is when the only available slots for women in the mainstream are the super-sexy Trinas or the crunchier Lauryn Hills.

>Uche: The song “Yankin’” and those like it have its place in Hip Hop. The whole social construct that it’s taboo for women to speak on their sexual prowess is really outdated (to me anyway).

>Lenée: I agree. It’s really simple to me: dudes rap about the presence of alcohol and/ or drugs in sexual encounters. They talk about being great in bed, good in bed, the king of cunnilingus or whatever. A lot. T.I. (he calls himself the pussy pumper!), for instance, talks about handing out bottles of Grey Goose and ecstasy pills as he has multiple partner sex. In more than one song. I’ve heard the most harsh criticism about Lady from “real Hip Hop heads,” people who actively and vocally ask for the return of Leaders of the New School, DAS Efx, and LL Cool J’s first nose. I think Lady’s song is epic. It’s fun. It’s got a good beat. And at the end of the day she’s not hurting anyone. Lots of folks seem to have gone out of their way in online spaces to decry “Yankin’” and act like it’s The Sole Reason Black People Can’t Have Nice Things. As if it isn’t R. Kelly. (Jokes.)...

Lauren Bruce interview with Uche and Lenée, hosts of Hip Hop is For Lovers (a multimedia web experience dedicated to looking at love, sex and intimacy through the lens of hip hop culture. Its centerpiece is a weekly woman-centered, queer-friendly and justice-heavy podcast that features discussions about a variety of relationship topics punctuated with the best in rap.)

u/smemily · 7 pointsr/WTF

Statistically there are more random traffic stops on blacks than whites.

Anecdotally, when I lived in small town Utah, my employer hired a black news photographer from out of state. He got pulled over an average of 3 times daily for the first several weeks he worked for us, for reasons like "it looked like your license plate light was out", and never got ticketed. After he'd met every officer in town he stopped getting stopped.

u/Jon-A · 6 pointsr/Jazz

In a wide-ranging life, Hentoff made some vital contributions to Jazz. Some of the things I've personally found to be of great worth:

Co-author with Nat Shapiro of Hear Me Talkin' To Ya, an invaluable oral history of Jazz musicians.

As A&R Director of Candid Records, he was responsible for many great records, including:

Charles Mingus Presents Charles Mingus


Cecil Taylor's The World Of..., Air, Cell Walk For Celeste, Jumpin' Punkins, and New York R&B

and many others...

u/rhetoricetc · 5 pointsr/Feminism

Colorblind racism is a researched concept itself, you can read more about it here in lay terms or the actual scholarship here.

I also don't see them defining racism so much as explaining how they chose to measure racist attitudes given their data set. In academic settings racism is almost always defined as systemic, rather than your definition.

To answer your other questions, they likely rescaled variables to make the data easier to interpret and/or compare. To account for the oversampling, they used propensity score weights, which you can read about here.

u/ReadBastiat · 5 pointsr/Libertarian

He has written maybe a dozen books about it:

But here is a speech he wrote about three such books (Race and Culture, Migrations and Culture, and Conquests and Cultures.)

Note he immediately points out not only that things aren’t equal or just, but also that there’s no reason one should expect equality, nor that we should expect everyone to behave morally. That’s specifically what I was responding to re. your post.

u/themsc190 · 5 pointsr/Christianity

That’s what I’m saying. The laws don’t explicitly target Black people but they disproportionately affect Black people. It’s like what GOP strategist Lee Atwater said:

>Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Bonilla-Silva has discussed this in Racism Without Racists, terming it “color-blind racism.” And Bobo et al have called it “laissez-faire racism”. And, of course, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow is popular as well on the topic. If you don’t want to read a book or article, Ava DuVernay’s Netflix film 13th is insightful too. Examples abound. Take a look at the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. They’re essentially the same drug, but the former is more likely to be found in Black communities and the latter is more likely to be found in white ones, but the former has much harsher penalties. Or look at sentencing for marijuana. Surveys show that white and Black people use and sell it at the same rate, but Black people are put in jail for marijuana offenses at a rate of 20 to 50 times more than white people. So I’d point to the example of the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and broken-windows policing as ways that racism has evolved.

u/WallContractor · 5 pointsr/The_Donald

The study itself:

Thomas Sowell's book where he talks about this study and much, much more:

Sowell also talks a lot about the subject in his autobiography-- and he has a really good perspective on this as a black man who grew up in Harlem, became a Marxist, studied economics, and then later became fiscally conservative after working at the labor department and realizing that they actually didn't want him to prove the truth about the minimum wage due to the political implications:

If you don't want to read the books, here's a fairly quick youtube interview on the Intellectuals and Race book:

u/pulled · 4 pointsr/politics

See david a. Harris' ” profiles in injustice: why racial profiling cannot work” for hard numbers. There ARE some traffic cops in nyc who never in an entire year pull over a non black person. Since all races break traffic laws right and left, that's racism.

edit: adding link now that I'm not on a phone.

The book does a great job of pointing out why it's ineffective policing to pull over people based on skin color when a much better indication of a criminal is BEHAVIOR / ACTIONS.

u/TrapWolf · 4 pointsr/entj

I can't really help your internal qualms but I can suggest books that might help.

Sociology undergrad here. Went through a huge anti-racist-militant phase and now I'm still that but covert. The most crucial problem a lot of PoC have with racism is that they have no words or dictation to find out what exactly is bothering them. Racism is carefully crafted that way to be. It's pedantic, however, to argue whether or not that is purposefully done or not. We can acknowledge that it's a product of racism (the inability to have a dialogue about it).


Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America

  • This will probably resonate the most with you because it's the more frequent amount of racism we experience. It's a different critique because instead of addressing the right's racism, it addresses the left's supposedly openness and diversity.

    The New Jim Crow

  • This book was written by a lawyer who first completely dismissed the idea that there was still a racial caste system in the U.S. However, her research told her otherwise as she investigated the ways that the 5th amendment was violated on a federal level, how prison populations are used for manual labor at low pay that equates to a modern day-covert form of slavery, and how prison populations count as 2/3rds or 3/5ths a person for a state's population.

    Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class

  • This approaches racism in how it's affected and formed our modern day political institutions. It talks about how politicians use racism to convince white voters to vote against their own best interests.

    Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood, 3rd Edition

  • This book was written by a Catholic priest who followed two groups of poor income boys; one group was majority white and one group was majority black. It's both a academic and personal account of his observations on how these boys grew up over three decades. An incredible longitudinal study that is both objective and genuine.

    If you're serious about understanding race and ethnic relations, you'll read tese books. If you need any advice on starter chapters I have a few.
u/Suds_Lightyear · 4 pointsr/hockey
  • Only defining characteristic is Black skin color (skinny Black guy looks nothing like the deeply muscular athlete)
  • Caption's central idea is a status argument
  • Black guy is serving white people

    If your comment was genuine, you have a civic responsibility to read this 5-star, easy to understand book so you can learn how to not be an accidental racism apologist.
u/HiMyNameIsWolf · 4 pointsr/KotakuInAction

“A difficult transition to progressivism
In the country’s second critical election, in 1896, the Democrats split disastrously over the free-silver and Populist program of their presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan lost by a wide margin to Republican William McKinley, a conservative who supported high tariffs and money based only on gold. From 1896 to 1932 the Democrats held the presidency only during the two terms of Woodrow Wilson (1913–21), and even Wilson’s presidency was considered somewhat of a fluke. Wilson won in 1912 because the Republican vote was divided between President William Howard Taft (the official party nominee) and former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, the candidate of the new Bull Moose Party. Wilson championed various progressive economic reforms, including the breaking up of business monopolies and broader federal regulation of banking and industry. Although he led the United States into World War I to make the world “safe for democracy,” Wilson’s brand of idealism and internationalism proved less attractive to voters during the spectacular prosperity of the 1920s than the Republicans’ frank embrace of big business. The Democrats lost decisively the presidential elections of 1920, 1924, and 1928.”

Doesn’t talk about the parties switching, and in fact doesn’t even talk about democrats switching their social beliefs with regards to race.

u/ps94 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Let me give you some free advice.

Know who has it harder than white males when it comes to fighting quotas and taking a hit on admissions or employment because of their race? It’s Asian males. They get all the shit of being a minority, but none of the benefits.

The government considers them a minority (which they are), but not an under-represented minority, so they don’t get into the quotas. Asian females don’t get the race quota either, but they get the gender quota, so they are better off.

Lots of people have done studies and found this to be the case. For example, these folks did a study and published a book about it. Here’s a chart from their book. Compared to white males as the baseline, blacks get an equivalent of 130 free SAT points when it comes to admission to elite schools. That is, a white student would need 130 more SAT points than the black student to have the same chance of admission. But guess where Asians place? They suffer a penalty of 140 points relative to whites, and 270 points relative to blacks. To have the same chance for admission as a white student, an Asian needs to have a SAT score 140 points higher than whites. Talk about race-based discrimination, these guys get the short end of the stick.

This is why when someone says “OMG! Everyone is sexist and racist to white males!” but forgets to mention Asian males, it comes across as racist/sexist whining. If you were really concerned about fairness, why the fuck would you omit the class that has it even worse than you? They never even had “white privilege” in the country, so what past sins of their forefathers are they paying for?

I don’t mean to offend, I am offering some genuine, well-intentioned advice. When you say something like “poor persecuted white males, we’re the new lowest rung on the discrimination ladder”, people realize that this isn’t true, so you’re not seen as championing fairness or equality, you’re seen as fighting for the white male privilege you once enjoyed and lost. You come across as a racist and sexist.

I don’t ask you to take the “white” out of the picture. By all means say “white”, but if you were to modify your statement to “Asian and white males face the heaviest discrimination from society these days”, not only would you be more truthful, people would also have a harder time calling you racist. Because hey, you’re not just fighting for your own sex and race, you’re fighting against the system of treating people unfairly.

I highly recommend this even if you are a racist/sexist fuckwad who hates everyone else. It’s just good politics. It makes your case stronger.

u/whosdamike · 3 pointsr/personalfinance

Koggit is being downvoted, but his statement is backed up by research. There was an article in the Boston Globe not too long ago about this and an entire book about admission practices called No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal.

There's a great deal of evidence that suggests if the admission system were entirely merit-based, Asian Americans would be present in even greater proportion in the country's ivy league schools. And there's strong evidence that schools are selecting against this outcome.

u/iamafraidicantdothat · 3 pointsr/Israel

Ah the famous tale of sterilizing Ethiopians: as Wikipedia can show you, "there was no plan to deliberately reduce the birth rates of Ethiopian Jews, and there was no evidence of coercion". More about it here:

Furthermore if you really think Ethiopians are more discriminated in Israel than blacks in the US for example, I suggest you look at the following links:

Those Ethiopians look so much oppressed, don't they? I really like your statement about if America did this people would go crazy, I suggest you read this book :

"From slave masters’ economic stake in bonded women’s fertility to government programs that coerced thousands of poor Black women into being sterilized as late as the 1970s, these abuses pointed to the degradation of Black motherhood—and the exclusion of Black women’s reproductive needs in mainstream feminist and civil rights agendas"

Finally, you don't get to decide to reinvent the definition of ethnic cleaning or massacre, which is not even close to what the Palestinian people have been through.

If you want to have different opinions if there really was an ethnic cleansing in 1948 or not, I suggest you take a look here where the answers are the most balance, and you will maybe learn that there was indeed a tentative of ethnic cleaning but not the one you think:

u/itsnotmyfault · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Here's my vote for the most amusing book:

Dat audiobook sample. I'm legitimately tempted to buy it.

Someone should start an outrage campaign to ban this next, even though it's written and read by a black legal scholar and apparently touches on the Huck Finn bannings.

I am curious on how Jared Taylor's book sales were going. I assume "fucking terribly", but maybe Amazon is reacting to a popularity surge? Curious on why now.

If anyone's curious on how I know this book exists, blame the our legal savior Eugene Volokh:

u/TangoFoxtr0t · 3 pointsr/Conservative

To be fair, there are many books on this subject. Sometimes a pithy tweet works even better.

u/HamzaAzamUK · 3 pointsr/hiphopheads
u/HyperLaxative · 3 pointsr/intj

I prefer: Non-fiction (Wide range)

Currently reading:

Intellectuals and Race, by Thomas Sowell.

u/Snow_Mandalorian · 2 pointsr/pcgaming

Well, here's a good resource on the science behind implicit biases:Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Notice that this isn't even critical theory, this is simply social science research demonstrating how otherwise good and moral people can inherit biases, racist/sexist/or what have you, without knowing they possess these biases.

Feminist critiques of video game culture take this kind of research for granted. It's something we've known about for a long time. We can then build off of that and point out what the gender biases in video game culture are. When a feminist criticises video game culture, she is not implying that video gamers by and large are all sexist pigs who think women should go back to the kitchen. Feminists are criticising the implicit biases that we don't even realize we have that portray women in sexist ways, sexist imagery we don't even recognize as sexist.
When the majority of PC gamers react to feminists, they react to the idea that feminists are calling them all sexist pigs. And this reaction stems from an ignorance of what feminists are actually saying. And when this kind of ignorance gets passed around in a circle jerk fashion like on this subreddit, you can probably start to understand why those of us who do read this stuff get so damn angered and venomous in our tone.

Another great resource is racism without racists. Same general idea. How many of us have inherited racist attitudes and values without ever even realizing it. And we can test for these racist attitudes with some rather sophisticated techniques available in the social sciences.

That's where I'm coming from. I apologize for my tone.

u/nightshadequeen · 2 pointsr/fatlogic

You might find this book interesting; it's about homeless people making a living by selling books or magazines on the street.

u/sammayylmao · 2 pointsr/unpopularopinion

I agree with you to a degree. There is a paper called "color blind racism" that explains in America how society is systemically keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor. It is racism that doesn't target minorities (sounds weird right?). It does historically affect non Caucasians to a greater degree. Being poor in this country sucks because the rich keep you there. But being a minority and poor is still measureably worse.

Here's a link to the book:

If anyone is seriously interested, because the book is pricey, I could link a paper I wrote on this for a college sociology course.

u/gbacardi · 2 pointsr/sociology

This was required reading for one of my classes in undergrad and I think it does a good job.

u/nonsignifier · 2 pointsr/news
u/animalcrackers · 2 pointsr/politics

although you're making a good and important point, you should probably check the misogyny in your post too.

men also play a role in creating a child. therefore they should also play a role in raising the child. their intelligence, capability, and stability should be questioned, as well. it takes two people. women don't get pregnant all by themselves.

moreover, when talking about addictions that women may have you ignore the fact that there is a small time frame in which the women would have to achieve sobriety. in many cases, inadequate prenatal health care availability and drug treatment facilities that even accept pregnant women are few (and likely expensive). i highly doubt most women want to continue to use drugs while they are pregnant. yet, certain systemic oppression (like race and class) make it extremely difficult for most drug-addicted women to end their addictions during their pregnancy. this of course doesn't excuse drug use, but i think it's more complicated than women simply not caring that their addiction may harm their child.

read this.

u/the_well_hung_jury · 2 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

I just finished The New Jim Crow.

I was really expecting it to be much more slanted than it was. A few parts blew my mind -- especially that bit about the "war on drugs" having been thrust onto the public prior to the point that drug abuse was actually becoming a problem. Overall though, it really provides a vastly wider perspective whitewashed from most high school history classes and I cannot recommend it enough to understanding race relations in America.

I read this in conjunction with Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America . There was some overlap but both informed the other. I'd recommend if interested in the topic of race relations specifically; though I'd recommend Michelle Alexander's book to everyone -- regardless of interest level.

u/pr01etar1at · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

This looks like an interesting read. I'll have to pick this up, but my Kindle backlog is already building as it is.

Interestingly, I saw this by him as well.

>The impact of intellectuals' ideas and crusades on the larger society, both past and present, is the ultimate concern. These ideas and crusades have ranged widely from racial theories of intelligence to eugenics to "social justice" and multiculturalism.

>In addition to in-depth examinations of these and other issues, Intellectuals and Race explores the incentives, the visions and the rationales that drive intellectuals at the highest levels to conclusions that have often turned out to be counterproductive and even disastrous, not only for particular racial or ethnic groups, but for societies as a whole.

Probably a good read given the Hernandez/Cross tweets regarding NYS some people [like myself] find to be offensively condescending.

u/M4sterDis4ster · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Heads up : Author is black guy. World known intellectual. He owns multiple books about race, discrimination and economics. There is huge amount of numbers there gathered from last 60 years.


> It’s like we have to do this once a week now. Y’all need to work on your memory recall.

You need to work on your attitude. Virtue signaling doesnt make your arguments more valid. In the end, if you really wanted to see larger picture, you could google numerous literature outside of feminist narrative.

When you are ready, please enlighten me and show me statistics for :

-income compared to whites

-family wealth compared to whites

-middle class status


-life expectancy

Compared to black people in 2019 from your knowledge and perspective. I wait.

u/discontinuity · 2 pointsr/Cleveland

Bullet three is exactly backward. Shaker Heights high school used to be ranked in the 90th percentile, but as the mix changed to the one you quote, the Percentage of Students Passing All Four Parts of the Ohio Graduation Test dropped to 67.4%, the high school stopped being one of the most desirable, and white flight has and is occurring.

I agree with you that Clevelanders do NOT fear integrated education, but people value education and will chase these rankings. So if an influx of black students changes a highschool's pass rate, you will see white flight based on the change in status of the highschool. It's also worth noting that the high desirability of these schools is a draw which creates demand for real-estate and as the rankings decline, people will abandon the community as it is a precursor to declining home values, which is where most of the middle-class has the majority of their wealth, exasperating the "white flight" scenario.

There was a Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement written about the phenomenon.

The author John U. Ogbu was ostricized by the black community because of it.

u/BlackSuperSonic · 2 pointsr/pics

Thanks for the response.

Then let me be clear, I think the country has made great strides in the last 50 years. But, we still do have state racism within our justice system. If you are interested in learning more about the role of institutionalize racism, I encourage you to read

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: (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/Kinda_Pagan · 2 pointsr/pics

Doesn't have much to do with graffiti/street art, but your comment on the broken window theory reminded me of this. That theory was not a very grounded one in either economics or any of the social sciences, and is considered by more than a few anthropologists as more damaging then helpful.

u/Ai795 · 2 pointsr/europe

It was made by British artist Gordon de la Mothe and was first published in London in this book 25 years ago:

u/palagoon · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

I understand what you're saying completely, but I hope one day you can see that the reason this stuff happens is not because "black people are bad people" but rather "white people made black people bad people."

That's a pretty big claim to make, so let me explain myself.

From the moment we (I say we because I'm white) brought blacks over to be used as slaves, we stripped them of everything that they could be proud of. We took their tribal names, their tribal religions and customs, and put them at the absolute bottom of society with no way out.

When slavery ended, discrimination didn't. Jim Crow laws are something everyone knows about, but throughout the country, if you were black you were likely illiterate and poor because the education system for blacks just was not up to par. Additionally black workers (even skilled ones) had trouble finding work all over the country because no one wanted to risk hiring a "Negro" and having all the white workers get their panties in a bunch.

So in the 150 years since slavery ended we've slowly eroded away at the massive systems of inequality that placed and kept blacks at the bottom of society, but it hasn't been enough. Segregation might be over, but inner city schools are predominantly black and underfunded (because all the whites left and property values tanked leading to robber baron landlords buying up all the property to make a quick buck). The system is still heavily rigged against blacks.

And so what does it mean to be black in America? Especially if you're not one of the lucky few who can call themselves "Middle Class"? You grow up surrounded by other poor black folks, you learn very quickly that [White] society doesn't give a fuck about your or your family and you have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of being on welfare while the country calls you lazy and unmotivated and accuses you of stealing from the hardworking [White] citizens of the country.

It's hard. No one ever offers you a break, no one ever lets you cut a corner. Instead, society continually puts up barriers to your success (some mentioned above, some not), and so you grow to distrust the rest of [White] society, and you don't care about the system, and you're just going to take what you want because that's what the system has been doing to you for 300 years.

Does that excuse the behavior of people like the woman you talk about in your story? No, it absolutely doesn't. But these people aren't out to get you, per se, it's just something they've been trained to do by their peers and their families and implicitly by a society that repeatedly says "We don't care about you, you are scum and worthless."

I worked for the better part of a year in a low-pay part-time job where I was the only white person and the only person with a college degree; most people I worked with had several felonies and most didn't finish high school. It was rough and it was a big adjustment period for me (I transferred when I moved, the division that I worked for in my old place of residence was staffed by college students and retirees looking for a distraction).

But you know what? Over time, I became friends with a lot of these gang-banger types. I watched them do drugs on the clock, I had to cover a shift more than once because someone just didn't come to work (because they were still out partying from the night before, they couldn't get a ride to work, or just didn't want to go), and to this day I have nothing in common with any of them.

But I didn't judge them for the color of their skin. I listened when they talked. I heard a story from a co-worker (now a small-time molly pusher at the local clubs) about how he slept on the floor his whole childhood because he was the oldest of five kids, and the one bed they had only had room for the four youngest kids. He has screwed up and been in jail more than once in his life, but he's an okay guy overall.

But you know what? I also worked with his younger brother (one of the lucky four to have a bed), and he has a high school diploma, he's got some college classes under his belt, and he's got a good music career going such that he opens for all the big Hip Hop acts that come through our town. Maybe he hasn't quite made it yet, either, but I like to think that for all the shit his brother went through, he has more of a chance to make it because of it.

It's not easy being black in America. In fact, it downright sucks. There are a lot of shitty poor black people in America because society has pushed them into ghettos for the better part of the last 150 years.

Geez, I don't have the source completely handy, but I know it is referenced in Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's "Racism Without Racists" Amazon Link ...anyway, some Social Scientist determined that if all the institutional barriers that hold blacks down were instantly removed, it would take something like another 80 years to fully achieve equality between races.

TLDR - I don't blame your for your attitudes towards blacks at all, and it's not even wrong to say that your views of poor black people are correct, BUT there are a whole lot of reasons as to WHY this is the case, and acknowledging these reasons may actually get us to a point where something positive happens.

u/mossimo654 · 2 pointsr/changemyview

>My statement about the field studies was in response to you when you said that people don't know from anecdotal evidence that we're all the same. According to you, this can only be learned from "studying the field". So, you're claiming that Ethnic Studies is useless by your own standards because it doesn't study the field?

When you said "we're all the same" I was assuming you were referring to genetics (which isn't entirely, but mostly true). With regards to culture, history, and levels of discrimination, we're very different, but the white perspective is what gets expressed broadly in culture. In addition, it's inculcated by the idea of "colorblindness" which is in itself a form of racism. Here's an article that says as much although the book's much better.

> What does this matter to the kids who are studying? If we want more minorities with great educations, have them spend less time working on PC perfection and more time studying the subjects at hand.

That is what we currently do. No one's saying don't teach kids math, US history, English etc. That's what our culture and educational system demands, and so it would be a disservice not to educate kids. However, does it seem to be working that well? Our schools are the most segregated they've been since Jim Crow ended. As I stated in my post, I'm not arguing we replace anything, and as the districts that now have ethnic studies have shown, you don't have to.

> Combine that with the fact that minority communities tend to be uneducated and poor for some reason, this leads to yet another decrease in the chances of minorities leading the field in a certain subject.

Are you ok with this? If so, then I don't know why we're having this discussion because I'm guessing there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. Education is literally the main conduit out of poverty in this country. Your level of education does more to predict your income, your chances of staying out of prison, and your lifespan than any other factor for people of color.

> You seem to speak from a position of a "white privilege apologetic". It's true that I'm lucky to be where I am, but that doesn't change the validity of what I claim

No, I speak from a platform of white privilege. Unequivocally. And I don't apologize for anything. I just try and stand up for what's right.

u/JoJoFoFoFo · 1 pointr/samharris

Evidence shows the differences in academic aptitudes among races are so small as to be negligible. The same is true about gender where females tend to be very slightly better at some tasks on average ... but who cares. It's negligible on average and says nothing about any individual.

The problems with inner city schools that you mention are primarily socio-economic and also cultural (see Shaker Heights: ), not genetic.

I think you are arguing that teachers should be evaluated based on growth rather than proficiency.

u/Hailanathema · 1 pointr/TheMotte

Racist prejudice can exist in the absence of intention to be racist. This is the whole point of books like Racism without Racists. Systems can be set up to be systematically biased for/against particular races without individuals in those systems intending the result. The reason I mention intent specifically is that your comment was that people portraying interracial relationships had "intent to weaken or destroy" white people.

u/realitista · 1 pointr/Jazz

Hear Me Talkin to Ya is a great way to get into the history of Jazz. You feel like you are there.


"A work of considerable substance." — The New Yorker. In this marvelous oral history, the words of such legends as Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, and Billy Holiday trace the birth, growth, and changes in jazz over the years. Includes excerpts from hundreds of personal interviews, letters, tapes, and articles.

u/NiggerJew944 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Seriously you ask for my opinion and that's the reply I get? And I thought we were friends. I also find you attitudes on the achievement gap to be quaint. Here is a study by a black sociologist on the reasons black students perform poorly in a rich middle class school district. His conclussion...It isn't the teachers.

Here is another perspective from a white teacher who chose to teach in a primarily black school district. I am sure the blame for the achievement gap rest on his shoulders as well.

u/scallon · 1 pointr/TrueReddit

I didn't realize I had to do your homework for you. This was the top result of a google search for "shaker heights sociology study schools". When I saw this study last it was in article format but I am not surprised the author wrote a book about it.

Anyways, you are remembering the study incorrectly. It was a study of middle class black families in comparison to middle class whites within the same community. He found that the white parents were significantly more likely to preach the value of education and homework and hold their children responsible when they performed poorly academically, whereas the reverse was true with the black parents. They did little to reinforce the importance of school or homework and blamed the teachers/schools when their children did poorly. So yes, actually, it addresses this point directly.

Look, I do not care to "convert" you. I couldn't care less if you believe what I am saying. The link to the book is of zero help to you as you are not going to order it and read it and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to search for any evidence that is contrary to your claim (unless it is spoon fed to you), so what do you want? Shall I xerox the relevant pages of the article (assuming I ever find my copy) and mail them to you? Why is that my responsibility? I have told you that there is evidence to support my claim, I gave you a really good jumping off point, and you do not want to do any work. Fine. Again, I don't care. But do not make the mistake of assuming that your laziness or my apathy is reason enough to continue believing you are right about this.

u/Koskap · 1 pointr/news

You really, honestly should. Especially if you take your interest in sociology seriously. It would be like not reading The Bell Curve (which a bunch of people disagree with)

u/13374L · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

Read this one in grad school, might have some relevant topics.

Not sure how modern you're looking for, but "How the Other Half Lives" is a well known book about the slums of the late 1800s.

u/IndependentRoad5 · 1 pointr/CPTSDmemes

a fascinating book on this if you're interested

u/kezrin · 1 pointr/unpopularopinion

Of course you don’t see or feel the privilege. And this is absolutely no fault of your own. You’ve had it your whole life. To you it’s perfectly normal, expected, it’s the status quo and it is invisible to you.

I had this very discussion with my uncle-in-law a little while back. He couldn’t understand how people of color and people in poverty can’t live “the American Dream” simply by working hard (ie “pull yourself up by your bootstraps). He kept pointing out the challenges in his own upbringing and how he had overcome them “all on his own.” He just could not see how his upper middle class upbringing which included a working father and stay at home mom both of whom were college educated, four bedroom house in a good neighborhood, and private schooling with after school tutoring had afforded him a level of privilege not available to people in poverty.

So here is my challenge to you. Go and find a black man any black man and ask them about how they have experienced racism and discrimination in their own lives; ask him how he responds to being pulled over by a cop. Find a poor family of color using government assistance and ask them about how they are talked to by everyday people while they work two full time jobs and go without food to make sure their kids have dinner. Go and find a person who speaks with a Spanish accent and ask them how often they are told to “go back where they came from.” Go and find a woman working in the same position as you do and ask her what her salary is. Go and ask a woman what she does to protect herself when she has to go out alone at night.

Then ask yourself why YOU have never experienced those things. The answer is because you are a white male. Still don’t believe me. Then pull out a book and read. Here are some great books that will educate you to the condition of people of color:

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:

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.

u/stumpaluffagus · 1 pointr/redacted

> The key is primary sources

That's hilarious given the left's tendency to lean on anonymous sources.

Anyway, I feel like you're not even trying...




There's really a lot of info out there about it if you would just choose not to be close-minded.

> The Southern Strategy myth is a way liberals get to white wash the Democrat party's racist roots. They get to pretend that progessives and liberals were always on the side of the angels and that Republicans now are as racist as Democrats used to be before civil rights.
> 21 Dixiecrats voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964 in the Senate. One later became a Republican and the rest stayed Democrats until they retired or were defeated. In fact the last Democrat to try to filibuster the act, Robert Byrd personally spoke for 14 hours straight against the bill. He then served in Senate Leadership from 1967-to 1989. He then served on the most powerful committee until his death.
> The south had already started moving Republican with the election of John Tower in 1960 and didn't really turn all the way Republican until the 1990s.

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction

Archives for links in comments:

u/UWCG · 1 pointr/politics

Wow, his book sounds fascinating, I can't wait for the updated version to be released. Looks like online the cheapest copy online at the moment is like ~$80 ~$56 on ebay, looks like.

u/nosax · 1 pointr/LosAngeles
u/SD_TMI · 1 pointr/sandiego

You're just spamming the sub now with this.
Repeating the same things and not advancing your position.

Nor are you responding to my questions so that we can have a rational discussion by establishing what is "racism and privilege" exactly and how it pertains to the city.

Because right now it's all this fuzzy notion that makes excuses far too easy. Talking to you really does remind me of a good will hunting secene. I even brought up Howard Zin for cryin out loud.

Anyway, Perhaps something like John Ogbu's study "Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement" would be of benefit here.

Otherwise this is isn't going anywhere and it's clear that no amount of reasoning is going to change whatever some militant BLM mantra crept into your mind.

u/tallyrand · 1 pointr/Jazz

I've always liked Nat Hentoff

u/tammyfromthelibrary · 1 pointr/news

Here's a book that more or less sums it up:

I agree with you on two points:

  1. The condition blacks are in today is due in large part to being enslaved for ~100 years, then being subject to institutional racism for another ~100 years.
  2. There are still people who hold positions of power that who knowingly or unknowingly hold black people back.

    After that our agreement ends. The position and opportunity of black people in society today is better than it has ever been. If they had the culture of Asians or Jews they could easily outpace white people in every metric. Further, whining and blaming everything on "white racism" will hold black people in the ghetto forever. Your viewpoints are actively oppressing African Americans.
u/Im_Screaming · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

Everyone cares subconsciously about what someone’s skin color is. My argument (and what the data shows) is that everyone has prejudice and you are most likely to fall victim to prejudice when you think you have none. It’s not racist to admit you have prejudice and attempt to overcome it and analyze each situation to understand when that bias was unwittingly applied to your decision making.

To use an analogy: Alcoholics are most at risk of relapse when they think they are can easily resist the temptation of alcohol. It lets them put their guard down which in turn makes them more likely to fall victim to temptation.

To be color blind is to be ignorant of our own biases and culturally laden judgements.

This form of color blind racism is considered to be racism without racists. It is when people are good-intentioned but blind to their biases.

I suggest you read the 3rd book since when I’m proposing is a major shift in world view for most people, which it often takes an entire book to truly convey the extreme degree to which color blindness is harmful.

u/HrunknerUnnerby · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Spoiler: it's black people.

I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

u/1pct · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I figured that was what you were thinking but didn't expect you to admit it openly.

> Spoiler: it's black people.
> I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

u/xeromem · 1 pointr/science

It has been noted that voluntary immigrants (whites, asians) do far better than most involuntry immigrants (most african americans, native americans).

u/DrDm · 1 pointr/science

Amazon link to the printed studies and other of his works.

Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement (Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education)

Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective (A Carnegie Council on Children Monograph)

Next Generation: Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neighbourhood (Studies in anthropology)

u/Sonnington · 1 pointr/changemyview

>I'm saying Thai particular time racial prejudice in NYC was a major factor.

And I'm saying you need to have more of a reason than, "Because black murders weren't on the front page of the news paper there's racial injustice."

Would you please quit the personal attacks? The only thing you have to defend yourself are personal attacks at this point. I'm telling you that saying, "Because something happened to a white person and not a black person. Or because something happened to a black person and not a white person, that's racism." Isn't enough of a reason to call someone a racist. It's ridiculous. But it's really the only way liberals can keep up the facade of a racist culture and create an image of being a protector of minorities.

>First of all that's not the name of the book. It's "society" not "race."

Actually I'm talking about the book Intellectuals and Race.

Some people agree and disagree with his work. Is it any wonder intellectuals take issue with him when he criticizes their culture and methods so heavily?

u/Thufir_Hawat_ · 1 pointr/antifa

Delicates in the sky

I can ride twice as high

Take a look

It's in this a book

u/puredemo · 1 pointr/WTF

Yeah really. Like it or not, he is pretty much correct.

For instance, check out this 30-year sociology study on academic habits.

u/_superleo · 1 pointr/europe

Yeah, apparently it's used in this book.

You can buy it for 1 cent at Amazon.

Wouldn't recommend it, though.

I've heard there are shitty pics in it...

u/crasstoise · 1 pointr/OkCupid

Yes, it does. I practice the hide + 1-star Quickmatch treatment.

It's an absolute dealbreaker, no matter what race the person is. I don't care if there's racial animus behind it or if it's a mere "preference"; as many cool, open-minded people as there are in my area who don't strongly prefer to date intra-racially, I can't be bothered to parse out what lies in the hearts who do prefer it. I realize that people of color have reasons for selecting "yes" that aren't rooted in white supremacy, but I still don't have time for it, especially since I'm the kind of person who, not fitting neatly into any particular cultural box, tends to focus more on individuals rather than groups. A lot of the pushback against the notion that selecting "yes" is racist (which it is, even under the narrow Merriam-Webster definition of "racism") is a byproduct of a modern Western society shot through with racism without racists.

For the record, I'm not white.

u/gbd_628 · 1 pointr/SlaughteredByScience

Haven't you ever wondered why the scientific consensus is the opposite of your claims?

For starters, IQ isn't a great all-around measure of intelligence. It does accurately predict social outcomes and is highly correlated with many intellectual and academic accomplishments, but it has severe flaws. Take for example the Flynn Effect: previous generations had much lower IQ scores than today, when normalized to be on the same scale. The rapid increase of IQ globally (Great Britain saw an increase of 15 points in 70 years) cannot be explained by any plausible genetic explanation—the increase has simply been too fast. Genetic effects couldn't have spread throughout the entire population. There is also no plausible argument that general intelligence has improved by that much. If it had, 40% of the British population a century ago would be mentally damaged by today's standards.

The reasons for the Flynn Effect are unclear. A rise in standardized testing and formal schooling appears to be at least part of it. What is clear is that when comparing people from wildly different environments, IQ is a poor measure of general intelligence. (When comparing people from similar environments, it does remarkably well. The reasons for this are still being studied.)


Even if IQ were a good measure of intelligence (which it isn't), that doesn't mean IQ score differences are genetic. Indeed, we know for a fact that they aren't.

Take the Burakumin of Japan. They are an ostracized class and have been for centuries; due to complex religious/spiritual/social reasons, if you have an ancestor who engaged in an "unclean" profession (e.g., a prostitute, a butcher, an actor, etc.), you too are unclean and are socially inferior. The important thing is that the class is genetically identical to the rest of the Japanese population. You can't tell the difference by looking, which is why the Burakumin were forced to get tattoos, and why corporations started keeping lists of who was Burakumin so they knew who not to hire. Today, while those lists are banned, they are still socially stigmatized, and the group forms the ranks of the Japanese mafia, with the tattoos becoming a source of pride.

Anyway, the average have an IQ of the Burakumin is 10-15 points lower than the average Japanese person. See here. This is the same as the gap between white Americans and black Americans. Importantly, both gaps have been shrinking. Most interestingly, the Japanese gap completely disappears among immigrants to the United States—the people here don't know that they're supposed to discriminate against one of the groups.

Similar stories of vanishing IQ gaps appear all over the field. Adopting someone at three years old from Sub-Saharan Africa into a European family cuts the IQ gap by 15 points., cutting the IQ gap in half. The remaining gap, to reiterate, is the same sized that is known to be caused by discrimination. And note further that this is without any improved pre-natal care, which is known to be extremely important to a child's health.


Finally, this is all assuming that "race" is a thing, scientifically speaking, which it isn't. To draw an analogy, it's like constellations. Yes, some stars are closer to others. But the physical differences have little connection with how they appear in the sky, any anyways are not clustered into distinct groups. The stars and the distances between them exist; the pictures only exist in your head. I mean, the idea of "whiteness" isn't even self-consistent and varies across time. Are Poles white? Are Russians? Are Italians? Are Southern-Europeans? Are North-Africans and Middle-Easterners? Are Indians? Are Jews? Are Spaniards? Are Mexicans? Are Chileans? (The last few are the most hilarious currently—the jumps required to assert that South Americans are genetically inferior to "us", but "us" includes the Spanish and Portuguese, are hilarious.)


Race doesn't exist the way you think it does. Intelligence might, based on the g-factor (scores in completely different aptitude tests are correlated, suggesting a legitimate "general intelligence"), but IQ is not a good measure of it cross-populations. Intelligence is not a metric of moral standing; the Jews aren't naturally the superiors of everyone else just because they have higher IQ. And IQ differences are entirely explainable by environmental factors.

u/ldav232 · 1 pointr/conspiracy

Hanging around /r/conspiracy does not imply that I should take theories at face value. I think that there are power structures designed to keep people in power, but I disagree that they're based on race, race division is nothing but another diversion tactic from those that are truly in power, to divide and conquer.

You've pointed me towards no proof or any reasonable indicator that black people are truly oppressed. Black people that have decided to transcend the culture that would bring them down have been successful, those that decide to blame others for their problems probably have not. It's really that simple. You can't argue inequality and oppression when black people have the same rights and can even rise to be president or attorney general, this is something that you have not addressed.

I recommend this book:

Sowell explains why cultural differences and not genetic or racial discrimination determine how certain minorities excel and others not so much.

I also recommend taking a look at the crime statistics coming from the USA census bureau and the FBI. They show that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crimes in proportion to their % of the overall population, this is something that many people don't get into their heads, the concept of representation.

u/Domhnal · 0 pointsr/funny

Ferguson's still pretty fresh for a book to be out. But maybe this can elucidate attitudes that blacks are keenly aware of. I think this is where it begins.

u/Paramus98 · 0 pointsr/neoliberal

Another lib proving my point. How about you read some of her research and educate yourself! Oh wait, I forgot libs can't handle FACTS 😂😂😂

u/nubbinator · -1 pointsr/funny

I'm sorry, I must disagree. He continually glossed over their depravity, making them seem like they were great people, almost to the point of veneration, up until they beat him up at the end. He went in with a notion of what he wanted to find, found it, and wrote about it. Not only that, but he was drunk/high almost the entire time he was writing it, so I highly doubt the validity of anything he says. I've read a lot of great literature and bad literature in my day, and that falls under bad lit.

If you want a good, properly done, unbiased, and well written ethnographic work that draws you into the lives of people in a shitty place in life, read Brothel or Sidewalk. If you want to read a piece of yellow gonzo journalism, pick up Hell's Angels.

My major critique is not so much that that he was biased (which he was), but that he wrote in a very fragmented style that wasn't lucid. You can write in such a style and be a great author (e.g. Kurt Vonnegut), however, he constantly sturggled to draw his fragments together. He hopped about sequentially without rhyme or reason, leaving stories half told and interjecting quotes between fragments that had nothing to do with the story. While some of his works might be great, I do not by any means consider Hell's Angels to be a great piece or journalism, literature, fiction, fantasy, or writing.

u/Vorpalstar · -2 pointsr/politics

Many Black people have woken up to the fact that what you are saying here is completely false.

Black LIES Matter

u/FactualPedanticReply · -3 pointsr/Seattle

So you aren't open-minded about the idea that racial discrimination against people of color isn't comparable to racial discrimination against white people. Got it. Glad I didn't waste my time arguing. If you ever want to educate yourself, this is a good place to start.