(Part 2) Best discrimination & racism books according to redditors
We found 100 Reddit comments discussing the best discrimination & racism books. We ranked the 37 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
28. Dismantling the Big Lie: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
1 mention
Used Book in Good Condition
This is 100% false he says we are choosing to be slaves. His wording is absolutely terrible and insanely ambiguous, so it's easy to misinterpret what he's saying. But if you really think the "we" in this context was in reference to white people/slave owners then you're absolutely wrong.
Please please please stay the fuck away from shitty youtube sekptics, they're all contrarians and hacks. "He wasn't saying saying slavery was a choice for actual slaves when slavery was a thing in america. He was saying that it sounds like a choice for people that he's encountered who suggest they've been victimized in some way by 400 years of slavery."
Here are some studies/books if you don't already believe this:
An Intergenerational Perspective
are still disadvantaged by racial inequality
I don't know if it's an actual recognised diagnosis, but there is a book on it.
> consumers of pop culture don't care about black people. They want to be entertained by the idea of black people.
I was just reading a book and a part of it was talking about that exact premise in relation to Hip Hop. He was saying that of the current iteration of mainstream Hip Hop (n*ggas, cash, booty, thuglife) - 80% of it is purchased by young white people. The premise of the author's argument is just that - this Hip Hop fed to us on the radio waves is made for the entertainment of white people who are enthusiastic at the idea that that's what Black culture actually is.
I think it’s important to remember that even within diversity movements, hierarchies of racism and sexism will replicate themselves if unchecked. I’m originally from the Southeastern region of the United States, and this has shaped my perspective.
In our country, we have made strides to recognize the fundamental human rights of LGBTQA individuals. Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015. Yet we would be mistaken to believe that this action alone is sufficient to improve the lives of all LGBTQ A people.
Last year (2017) was the deadliest year on record for black trans women (source https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2017). Furthermore, the right to marry is still not legal in all Native American territories. The rate of HIV/AIDS remains and continues to grow at epidemic levels for black LGBTQ men.
My point is that the recognition of human rights and dignity the LGBTQA community and allies have fought for doesn’t extend equally to all. Some (LGBTQA) lives still matter more than others. And this is true when it comes to prioritization of public health issues, interactions with the police and quality of life.
When a person of color tells you something makes them feel unwelcome or uncomfortable, instead of dismissing it- I encourage you to listen and seek understanding first.
Canada is not the US, but I nevertheless think my perspective adds something to this conversation. The book Uprooting Racism by Paul Kivel changed my life, if you are interested in learning more about how to be a white ally. https://www.amazon.com/Uprooting-Racism-People-Racial-Justice/dp/0865716889
Edit: this Wikipedia entry is a thorough illustration of how racism, sexism, anti-semitism, xenophobia etc. occur within the community and why we need to listen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_LGBT_community
> Feminism, at least on here, seems to completely ignore those factors and jump straight for 'social construct' with no evidence, no reasoning, and no discussion.
This is a false assertion on your part. There is a lot of very powerful evidence that gender is in fact the product of social forces and has very little to do with biology. This evidence emerges from decades of intensive research by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even biologists - who will often point out that while humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the extent of that dimorphism is fairly small.
One of the reasons you might not be seeing this evidence in discussions of gender online is because, frankly, having to stop a discussion to provide links to this exhaustive mountain of evidence every time someone with little knowledge of the material demands to see it is frustrating and tiresome. There are hundreds - thousands - of introductory textbooks from sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and psychology that talk about the social construction of gender; if you want to see the evidence, then look there. Most feminists accept the academic consensus that gender is primarily the product of culture, and because that consensus is grounded in the best possible empirical research, you should accept it too.
Or don't. I'm not your boss. But if you don't accept it, then you should accept that in rejecting the social construction of gender, you're also rejecting the preponderance of evidence, which might not be the best place to plant your flag.
>I think saying it's 100% socially constructed is probably wrong too...
Good thing that's not what most people are saying. Bodies exist. They are the things onto which we inscribe our cultural values. But they are also incredibly malleable and so they are shaped and reshaped by the dictates of culture.
Why do children raised in poverty have poorer health outcomes than those raised in middle class or rich environments? Because poverty correlates with poorer diets, fewer calories consumed per day, and a lack of regular access to gyms or after-school fitness programs. Poor bodies are shaped in different ways than rich bodies because of culture. I mean, hell, the foundation of epidemiology is the recognition that cultural forces have enormous impact on bodies.
Why are men bigger and stronger than women? Biology? Perhaps, but we also cannot overlook the fact that in our society - and in many others - men are expected to consume an average of 300-400 additional calories per day than women. Is this because men are "naturally" bigger and stronger than women, or are men bigger and stronger than women because they've historically had access to higher calorie diets (which we know result in bigger, stronger people)? Do men have more muscle mass because testosterone, or do they have more muscle mass because they are incentivized to be more muscled than women - who are treated worse if their own muscle mass begins to impact their perceived femininity? Men are supposed to be big and strong; women are supposed to be petite and "trim" or "fit but not overly muscled". Men know this and women know this, and our recognition of these normative standards will pressure us to sculpt our bodies in different ways.
What I'm saying is that the cliches of "men are strong because biology, men like blue because culture" is reductionist to the point of being useless. The reality is far, far more complicated than this, but in the end, in light of decades of research into the question of nature v. nurture, the broad consensus is "a little bit of biology, and a whole boatload of culture".
You're right to not trust Ferguson. He's the media face of popular perceptions of the British Empire. Big publishers like Routledge have their own guides to the British Empire/the fall of the British Empire that are good. There's tons of historians who have been writing critically about Empire, race, and Britain since the 1980s. Have a look for things written by Peter Fryer, Colin Holmes, Shompa Lahiri, Rozina Visram, Mary Chamberlain, Panikos Panayi, Bill Schwarz, Avtah Brah, Barbara Bush, Diane Frost, Kathleen Paul, Wendy Webster. David Olusoga's writes great public history books on the topic that are backed up by solid research and the views of people mentioned above; his documentaries on Forgotten Black British History and Britain's Forgotten Slave Owners are also fantastic and available on iplayer and youtube. I've recently picked this up and it's about the similar points that I discuss in my comment above https://www.amazon.co.uk/Education-Empire-Brexit-Sally-Tomlinson/dp/1447345843
>What is wrong with my application?
Nothing, probably. Competition is extremely high and you have to catch potential PI advisors in the right portion of their budget cycle to find a space in their group. There are more worthy candidates than there are positions to hire them into. And then there's bias, inconsistency, and straight-up prejudice in the admissions process.
>I applied to Caltech, MIT, Berkely, Princeton, Yale, and Harvard
These are incredibly difficult programs to get into, I'm sure there are a lot of people with great applications who get turned away every year.
>Everywhere I look if you don't get into a prestigious grad school, you have a massive uphill battle to continuing in academia.
There are prestigious grad schools outside of Caltech, MIT, Berkely, Princeton, Yale, and Harvard.
Not a real textbook but a good read ain't no makin' it
I have used this one before berko
inequality reader
very big and probably more for a grad course but nonetheless a good resource grusky
Kauai has had issues with police corruption in the past as well
http://www.amazon.com/KPD-Blue-Political-Corruption-Department/dp/1439203466
Right. Whether the Germans tattooed the Jews is of little/no consequence. Accordingly, I think it's odd that CWP has decided to argue so zealously that they did not. Moreover, if Jews really did tattoo each other, it seems odd that they would conceal that fact. Surely, if the German's issued no tattoos at Auschwitz, someone would let it slip that he received his tattoo from a fellow inmate.
Jewish prohibition on tattooes certainly doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. It's just one factor to consider, and I think it makes it less likely so many Jews would have voluntarily tattooed themselves.
Non-Jews at Auschwitz were tattooed too. Why would they play along with the ruse. Here is Pierre Berg, a French gentile:
>At the first table, a son of a Warsaw haberdasher sewed the number, 172649, onto my jacket and pants. I sat down at the next table where a German prisoner wrote my name and serial number on a card. From the corner of my eye, I watched alarmed as the man next to me got tattooed. The bleeding numbers were taking up his whole forearm. The German processing me grabbed my left arm, dipped his pen into his white, porcelain inkstand and attacked my forearm with fast, little jabs. I clenched my teeth, but the physical pain was less than the stinging realization that the numbers 172649 meant I was now officially property of the Third Reich.
>“Will this ever come off?”
>He shook his head. “It’s permanent.”
Sounds believable to me. Can Carlos Porter give even one example of an Auschwitz inmate who corroborates his theory?
*Jews use Torah prohibitions on consuming blood to deflect blood libels (using Chrisitian blood for Matzo, etc.), and I have a book "debunking" the Protocols of Zion by showing point by point how the protocols contradict Jewish law. (Terrible book btw.) I think the Protocols are a hoax but that hardly proves it. As to the blood libels, Ariel Toaff has shown "strong documentary evidence in medieval medical handbooks that dried human blood, traded by both Jewish and Christian merchants, was thought to be medicinally efficacious." And I agree with Toaff that it's possible* there existed small heretical sects of Ashkenazi Jews that used blood at Passover or Purim.
Yeah, me too.
I just got the sample for Kindle.
Here's a link if you're interested:
https://www.amazon.com/Shortchanged-Height-Discrimination-Strategies-Social/dp/1512601438
All they need is the uniform and they're good to go. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Controversy-Black-Nazis-Powerwolf-Publications/dp/1483954072
Jackson here, I am an aspiring author, with poor grammar and I'm an awful speller. Without spell check and proofreaders I would be helpless. Working on my second book on homeless cures and myths. https://www.amazon.com/Domino-Effect-Narrow-Retrain-Americans/dp/0985560215 I was headed up to Portland because my eldest son had passed through there and felt it was required for my second book to have information from there. I ended up in Eugene and staying because I saw a different thing; a housing issue and a homeless issue, separate and combined
I communicate the message well; homeless people are not null and void. I've been working with the city for 7 plus months on creating a better place for all.
Maybe you should leave...
The homeless residents here are just like you, stuck in the world they envision as survivable! Most all on the streets living would rather be inside, but for the restrictions imposed by the ever exclusive market of housing and 700 plus on a TRW/TU/EF report. Now needed to get a good job, loans, rental unit, and more. Nobody ever educated the masses on these impacts on one's life. And many out here are on disability income, preventing them from being housed in their community with a 700+ and clean criminal history.
I have grown boys, both college grads struggling getting jobs in their fields of study. I owned a business for 20 years in NJ. I could go that direction again if not for being married to the cause of giving a voice to those I see are nullified without investigation, based only on status.
The Shape of the River by William G. Bowen, Derek Bok, Princeton University Press,
1998.
http://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-Consequences-Considering-University/dp/0691002746/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1393788490
Again, I don't believe this post is saying here look this is the evidence of institutional racism. Its saying these are some of the results.
It does matter. Because as you well know asking a picture to explain to you the causes and "prove" racism is impossible. So I have to assume your point is to say that these disparities are not caused by racism, otherwise the comment is of little to no value.
If you want to read up on the causes, I suggest you start here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Meritocracy-Myth-Stephen-McNamee/dp/0742561682
http://www.amazon.com/Institutional-Racism-America-Louis-Knowles/dp/0134677382
I've had this recommended to me on this subreddit (haven't read it yet). Covers across times/geographies but not quite so huge as the Cambridge World History! Of course it's also one writer rather than a range - this has advantages (single coherent account) and disadvantages (you may want to check our scholarly reviews etc. to understand where others disagree)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0674986903/?coliid=I17DMH4TQ8QNSE&colid=19N8F8NJGSOMV&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
This is not an article; it is an excerpt from a book by Heather Mac Donald out today called The Division Delusion. There are a number of reviews of her book by other authors, scholars, and professors on that amazon page. Her work seems to focus on things that make protesters of her work call her mean things with little substance, like racist.
So with that knowledge out of the way: no, facts are not racist.
>If you do a little bit of research, you'll find that black and Hispanic families often can't afford to send their children to good schools,
It varies state to state, but in California you go to the school based on your home address, that is how you are assigned by the school system in your city. This can vary, and sometimes you get lucky and there is a charter school nearby, but at the end of the day most parents send their kid to public or charter schools, which they do not pay for. You may pay for books, and lunch, and some other classroom things required, but no parents largely aren't paying to send their children to school. Everyone can afford public school, and the largest ethnicity taking advantage of this system in California is, GASP IT'S THE FUCKING LATINOS!
>and many teachers give those children less attention.
That is just an absolute lie. Teachers in America are, largely, liberal and actively participate and teach social justice. I have done work and a number of schools in LA and I can tell you right now Latino and Black students are given every opportunity to succeed. The simple fact of the matter in regards to Black students is that they come from largely single parent homes where they often do not have a male role model and so they act out far more often then their peers of any other race. Statewide, Black students are over-represented in suspensions. As said, Black children are acting out because, in America, Black children are largely (66%) growing up in single parent homes. Hey, look, Hispanics are at 42%! How weird! I wonder if this effects them mentally and limits their success in school?! HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
>Oh, but the article doesn't mention that at all. It only says that black and Hispanic people score lower, which seems to imply that they're just dumb.
This excerpt from the book does not mention this because it isn't relevant to this section of the book. Who gives a fuck why these ethnicities are failing to reach the same levels of the other ethnicities when the point of the book is to show that there is clear discrimination against Asians and Whites at the college level. Why some students are failing and others should not be a factor in their admission, only their merit should matter. Did Martin Luther King really die so that Black kids with lower grades could be given a pat on the head and a "there was an attempt" sticker, let into these bastions of higher education, and then fail to graduate because they can't keep up?
You know what, here's a fucking controversial statement: if a Black, Hispanic, White, Asian, or whatever the fuck race student doesn't meet the standard a college sets out, they should not be accepted. Case closed. If Whites and Asians become over-represented, we'd safety be able to say they met the standard the college laid out. We could then try and figure out why Blacks and Hispanics are having so much trouble in school and try to find ways to fix it.
>The article makes the vague claim of "racial disparities", without explaining what those are. Again, the article seems to be pointing to race, rather than education, being the reason for low test scores.
This excerpt from the book refers to his:
>In 2003, for example, John Moores Sr., who was the one remaining regent committed to color-blind meritocracy, disclosed that Berkeley had admitted 374 applicants in 2002 with SATs under 1000 — almost all of them “students of color” — while rejecting 3,218 applicants with scores above 1400. UCLA had similar admissions disparities. In a Forbes column, Moores, who had fought tooth and nail to get the data, accused Berkeley of continuing to discriminate against Asians and of admitting students who were unprepared for Berkeley’s rigors.
Which is pretty much what I already explained: the bar was lowered for "students of color", meaning non-White and non-Asian. It was lowered because people wanted to feel good about themselves when they jack off to those Black student admission rates. Such virtue, wow. Much justice.
To respond directly to your comment: yes it's about race. Hispanics and Blacks don't do well in school. It can be linked back to gangs, single parent households, and more. Clearly it is about race because clearly these races have problems in their communities that no one seems to want to fix and instead we'll just lower the bar for them and dilute universities down till they're meaningless.
>The two bolded groups really stand out to me. There's really no reason to be opposed to civil rights groups, unless you're opposed to civil rights.
First of all: this excerpt of the book is stating a fact regarding the groups that came together to oppose the professor that was against the discrimination taking place at his university. It is NOT an attack on these groups, but the author does object to their decision to back up these racist actions by the universities. Second of all: stares off into the distance while distant shouting is heard sorry was I writing something I just had a brain aneurysm. Yes you are completely right I can't think of any time anyone has used the guise of civil rights to actively harm anyone else. Civil rights groups stand up for civil rights. Couldn't agree mo- stares off into distance while explosions go off in distance lets just... move on...
>In conclusion: this article abuses vague language and subtle word choices to make the reader subconsciously accept racist ideas, while still being able to deflect criticism by claiming it's about how collages should be meritocracies. To people who can decode the language of the article, the true message becomes distressingly clear: "Brown people are stupid, white people are smart. Brown people shouldn't be given the chance to receive higher education, because they're not worthy". This article was written purely to push a white supremacist viewpoint onto impressionable people.
This claim is disproven very early on in this except of this book:
>Only in 1998 did the university’s admissions processes operate without either explicit racial preferences or stealthy surrogates for race. The results were telling: At Berkeley, the median SAT gap shrunk nearly in half, to 120 points; black and Hispanic admits logged an impressive 1280 on their combined SATs. The six-year graduation rates of this class would increase 6.5 percent for blacks and 4.9 percent for Hispanics, compared with the class admitted two years earlier.
This book is not racist; it is just the truth you do not want to hear.
American Blacks and Hispanics have as much freedom and choice as every other American. They use that freedom, largely, to make bad life decisions. These bad life decisions, largely, effect their children negatively. These children, largely, act out in class and gain less from the education system then their peers. In California, we have an increasing Hispanic population that continues to have these problems, and a shrinking White population that was having very few problems with the system. Public schools have a bad reputation, but you can't put them blame only on teachers or the system when there is clearly a third factor in play. Something interesting you'll note about both those links: Black people aren't doing so hot. It's almost as if the social programs and groups that had historically benefited them are shifting to Hispanic people, who are an ever growing Democrat voting block. But that's OK because we'll let them into universities when they don't earn it. That'll fix it.
They've been doing this since 1999 and these problems aren't going away. Affirmative action is not only racist, it's pointless.