(Part 2) Best specific demographic studies according to redditors
We found 670 Reddit comments discussing the best specific demographic studies. We ranked the 278 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.
Read Thomas Sowell's book: Black Rednecks and White Liberals
"The notion that the ghetto black was the authentic black not only spread among both
white and black intellectuals, it had social repercussions far beyond the intellectual community.
Rooting black identity in a counterproductive culture not only reduced incentives to move
beyond that culture, it cut off those within that culture from other blacks who had advanced
beyond it, who might otherwise have been sources of examples, knowledge, and experience
that could have been useful to those less fortunate. But more successful blacks were
increasingly depicted as either irrelevant non-members of the black community or even as
traitors to it.
In turn, this meant that many blacks who had a wider cultural exposure and
greater socioeconomic success felt a need to conform, to some degree or another, to a more
narrow ghetto view of the world, perhaps using ghetto language, in order to prove their
“identity” with their own race. "
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 ?
If you want advice from an actual black person and not someone who thinks that culturally black people are just so different and being "uncivilized" is a part of it, I'll give it to you.
I'll address the last part of your post first. Whether or not black people want to be seen the way you see them is irrelevant to most black people unless you specifically hinder or slander them in any way so we can throw that out of the window. We simply don't care as we have lives to lead. Stamping out this mindset in the minds of people who have power is a part of that life for many of us.
But as we are people we have other things to take care of as well. That's the first thing. Black people are people first and foremost. We do have shared experiences that only a black person, in America, could have. Sometimes those experiences transcend borders, too. But again, we are people. All with different aspirations, outlooks on life, upbringing, attitudes and a whole host of other traits assigned to humans.
Next time you see a black fight that you're apparently used to seeing now think that if they weren't black would you be assigning anything to them or their culture at all. Odds are you'd just see them as people in a fight that started for reasons you shouldn't really care about. Have you ever seen black kids getting beat up by black kids? White kids beat up by other white kids? Latinos beating up Asians? A good deal of crime happens in areas in proximity to the person doing the crime and America is incredibly segregated.
Now, your second paragraph. That's what we call the "good ones" rationalization. It's the way people can use the word nigger or other epithets and claim they have black friends but one of the good ones. It's flawed thinking and quite a few people in this sub, judging by this thread, would probably have the same mindset.
My advice to you is simple. Interact with people as people. There are people who will hurt you. There are people who will want to love you. Most people don't care about your life enough because they have their own to worry about. Some of these people may be black. Hell, all of them might be the ones that try to hurt you but they're people with their own motivations for doing so and attributing it to a whole group would be as silly as any of the other examples of things you fight. Hell, even those people might want to love you at some point as well.
I would recommend reading, though. Learn the history of black people in this country. Learn the state of black people as a whole today. Learn about why these thoughts aren't anything new or unique to you. Learn about why they have persisted.
A couple books I recommend are Black Power: The Politics of LiberationWhy Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria
I'd also say watch more things made by black creators. Dear White People is getting buzz on Netflix. Read articles from black writers. I'd recommend everything on verysmartbrothas.com
Here's one to start: “BLACK PEOPLE WOULD BE WEALTHY IF WE STOPPED BUYING JORDANS AND WEAVE” HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE BULLSHIT
I highly suggest reading some Thomas Sowell, I think you might enjoy him.
http://i.imgur.com/CGFrk9k.jpg
This would be a good place to start in light of the Ferguson stuff. Black Rednecks & White Liberals by Thomas Sowell - Here is the audio version available on Youtube for free.
Intellectuals and Race -
Thomas Sowell
The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy - Thomas Sowell
Since this was front-paged I'm gonna hijack the top post and link to the work of Karen Straughan. She posts here occasionally and will hopefully chime in on this thread.
Me a feminist? No way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8
Is Feminism hate? [skip to the 20 min. mark]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYAVROaIcs
How Feminism conned society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RozEFVPDxeg
Benevolent sexism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VupEC0cAWo
The Tyranny of Female Hypoagency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE
Feminism and the Disposable Male.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
-----
A few good videos by Lindy Beige on female power in history:
Women power in the past
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg
Sex Power: when women were different and men were disposable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSX7iT0n65Q
---------
Nice summary of Issues here: Why we need a men's rights movement
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2xmm3p/i_cant_believe_people_think_we_dont_need_a_mens/
------
Good reading:
The Myth of Male Power
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B00IDHV5EM
The Privileged Sex
http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Sex-Martin-van-Creveld-ebook/dp/B00EX5PJC2/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403378&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=privilged+sex
No More Sex War
http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-War-Neil-Lyndon/dp/1856191915/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403395&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=no+more+sex+war
The Second Sexism
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403501&sr=1-1&keywords=second+sexism
The War Against Boys
http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403440&sr=1-1&keywords=war+against+boys
A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.
[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.
Videos:
The Red Pill (NYA)
Everything by Karen Straughan
Everything by Janice Fiamengo
Books:
[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister
The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell
The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld
The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar
The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax
Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers
The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon
A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.
Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm
War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al
Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers
Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey
The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault
Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright
Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin
The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar
Unknown Misandry (website)
Real Sexism (website)
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.
https://www.amazon.com/You-Want-Talk-About-Race/dp/1580056776
https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07D6XQQRY
It all depends what specifically you are interested in and how far your current knowledge goes. There are some great books that provide gneral overviews in question form, "Everything you want to know about Indians but were too afraid to ask" by Anton Treuer provides a super basic starting place on a variety of topics. His brother, David Treuer, wrote a great book called "Rez Life" that puts a very intense and personal touch on the issues to sovereignty and land management that many tribes have to deal with.
Some interesting stuff I've read lately:
"Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma"
"Conquest; Sexual Violence and American Genocide."
"Holding Our World Together: Ojibwe Women & The Survival of Community"
Economics:
Reservation "Capitalism"
Buffalo, Inc.
Political/Policy Issue Books:
A Whale Hunt discusses Makah Whaling.
High Stakes Discusses gaming & the Seminole in Flordia.
I could probably go on forever. I spend too much money on books.
I hope this thread will get more support behind making our FAQ HERE.
/r/atheism has an FAQ that features recommended book titles
In the context of /r/BlackAtheism there are a few titles:
****
Norm R. Allen
***
I haven't read all of those but its just what I saw from a short search.
>edit: my wish is for a nation of workers, a nation of socialists. Not a nation based upon racial identity.
African Nationalism and black Nationalism are results of a need to achieve self determination in the face of colonial powers.
The African American ethnic group is already a nation bound by their treatment in America and history of slavery. You will be very hard pressed to find black socialists who outright reject nationalism and Pan-Africanism, because the black liberation struggle is the liberation of black Americans from a state designed to oppress them specifically.
While everybody would want to see harmony, black socialist movements and white socialist movements faced different obstacles and circumstances and goals. The struggle for black liberation is directly tied to the struggle of the third world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_nationalism
I would suggest you read Black Power : The Politics of Liberation by Stockely Carmichael to get a better understanding. He was a black revolutionary and a leader of the All African People's Revolutionary Party.
I can't speak for what's going on here, but in the 1970's it was pretty common for First Nations women to be forcibly sterilized. It was a practice supported by the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare that was inspired by the population control movement. There are stories of women going in for tonsillectomies or to have an appendix removed and leaving with a lubal litigation. Doctors would also lead women to believe that the surgeries were reversible. Losing a license would only occur if the woman had access to means of filing a grievance. Oftentimes information and resources are hard to come by, and even if they are available undocumented women would likely avoid "causing trouble" for fear of deportation. *Also, just remembered that this article is about prisoners. Women in prisons have even less agency.
There are lots of books written on the subject, but anyone interested should check out Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide
From UK Perspective:
Peter Lloyd (7 July 2016).
Stand By Your Manhood: An Essential Guide for Modern Men.
Biteback Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84954-852-6. - Kindle
Dan Bell; Glen Poole (28 September 2015).
insideMAN: Pioneering stories about Men And Boys
Troubador Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78462-533-7. 9Electronic Purchase(http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=3553)
Neil Lyndon (1992).
No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism .
Sinclair-Stevenson. ISBN 978-1-85619-191-3. (Buy Second hand)
Neil Lyndon (2015)
Sexual Impolitics: Heresies on sex, gender and feminism,
See Kindle Unlimited
Glen Poole (2013),
[Equality For Men],
On a More Global Perspective
Paul Nathanson; Katherine K. Young (16 October 2001).
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture.
McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-6969-0.
Paul Nathanson; Katherine K. Young (21 March 2006).
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men.
MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-7789-3.
Katherine K. Young; Paul Nathanson (2010).
Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man.
McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-3615-9.
Paul Nathanson; Katherine K. Young (1 June 2015).
Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men.
MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-8380-1.
Wendy McElroy (2015),
Rape Culture Hysteria: Fixing the Damage Done to Men and Women,
CreateSpace Independent Publishing, ISBN 978-1533629401
John Davis BA JD LLM,
Rape Hysteria: Lying with Rape Statistics (Foundations of Modern Feminism),
CreateSpace Independent Publishing
> The way privilege is defined in the "white privilege" context is that white people get unconscious advantages because the system identifies them a certain way because of their skin color.
I think this is a poor definition and more people should refer to the way privilege is described in "Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race".
Link to book as PDF here although I think you should support authors of this kind of information financially.
From the book:
> How can I define white privilege? It’s so difficult to describe an absence. And white privilege is an absence of the consequences of racism. An absence of structural discrimination, an absence of your race being viewed as a problem first and foremost, an absence of ‘less likely to succeed because of my race’. It is an absence of funny looks directed at you because you’re believed to be in the wrong place, an absence of cultural expectations, an absence of violence enacted on your ancestors because of the colour of their skin, an absence of a lifetime of subtle marginalisation and othering – exclusion from the narrative of being human. Describing and defining this absence means to some extent upsetting the centring of whiteness, and reminding white people that their experience is not the norm for the rest of us. It is, of course, much easier to identify when you don’t have it, and I watch as an outsider to the insularity of whiteness. I coveted whiteness once, but I knew in the back of my mind that conning myself into assimilation would only ever make me a poor imitation of what I would never be
> Asian America is made up of over 45 distinct ethnic groups speaking over 100 language dialects. Among these groups, some, such as Hmong Americans [and Filipino Americans], are among the poorest in the U.S. by ethnicity.
> Moreover, statistics concerning our success exaggerate. The reality is that larger Asian American family incomes result in part from a larger number of earners per household. Asian Americans actually trail whites in per capita income. And the most successful Asian American ethnic groups – the Taiwanese, Indian, Malaysian, and Sri Lankan American minorities – include a large share of members who were drawn to the U.S. as business investors or highly skilled workers.
There is lots of good, in depth literature on this subject.
And some books too.(http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Model-Minority-Americans/dp/1594515875)
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, and racism, are all different things. Oppressions take many different forms.
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
Mingus
Cecil Taylor's The World Of..., Air, Cell Walk For Celeste, Jumpin' Punkins, and New York R&B
and many others...
Every single "person with similar views as nolimitsoldier" I have encountered has always fallen into 1 of the following groups.
To learn more about feminism you can read or watch the following websites,books, or videos:
Youtube Videos or Channels:
Websites/Blogs:
Books:
“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.
https://youtu.be/UiprVX4os2Y
https://wallbuilders.com/racists-switch-political-parties/
https://youtu.be/g_a7dQXilCo
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/democratic-party-racist-history-mona-charen/amp/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/before-charlottesville-democrats-voted-for-racist-policies-for-more-than-100-years
https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Race-Democratic-Partys-Buried/dp/0230610994
The amazon reviews don't seem THAT bad...
Here's my vote for the most amusing book: https://www.amazon.com/Nigger-Strange-Career-Troublesome-Word-dp-B00K56UL2G/dp/B00K56UL2G/
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: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/11/professor-at-augsburg-university-minneso
Let me address your last point first, because I feel it's the one I'm most confident about. I agree the ideas you mention are common, but they exist in a form that (although common) are still strawmen (strawmans?) of the sort of arguments that trickle down from the academia I originally heard these arguments from. In other words, should you really judge a movement by its most vocal radicals? Again, just because you hear them the most often doesn't mean they're the most common: consider the silent majority. Reddit has a huge problem with so-called feminists; why? Because they hate all the double-standard touting misandrists that they mistake for average more moderate feminists. The ones Redditors hate are caricatures of actual feminist thinkers and it's everyone's job to make sure that we don't mistake the volume of their voice for the accuracy of their arguments, and I'm sure that even now someone will read these words and insist that the people I'm mocking are representative of actual feminists. That's how bad I think most people are at separating the vocal minority from the quieter majority in their minds.
As for your Lena Dunham example, I'm not too familiar with this but now that I've read up on it I think this is the most fascinating event that's ever transpired in the contemporary theories and I completely disagree with the idea that there is such a thing as overanalysis. Read any deconstructionist today and they'll grind down every little detail to come up with the most grandiose conclusions; the best part is that if you don't immediately reject it as "reading too much into stuff" (these are intelligent academics after all, not simple eggheads), they seem quite right in their arguments! I mean if you can argue it well enough, how can someone else set an arbitrary limit on what constitutes too much thinking? When you think about, that's not the problem of the analyst, that's just the reader not being able to keep up with him/her (I'm thinking of Deleuze here especially). But as to why I love this event you brought up (and seriously, thanks so much for bringing this up) I see this event as two status groups who been historically ostracized by a greater authority competing for who has the claim to be "rightfully upset": black males (against white folk) or women (against the patriarchy)? When I frame the event in that light, do you see why an academic might say there is likely no shortage of arguments to be made concerning the conflict? You seemed interested in reading material so I can see you're intellectually curious (I applaud you!) so if you want to see the sort of "overanalytical" arguments that I mean, read someone like Adorno or Althusser (both are fascinating because their arguments have huge stakes when they discuss "culture," particularly Adorno). As for the black power movements, I think I recall one book specifically that I read for a contemporary American history class; this is the link: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Power-Liberation-Kwame-Ture/dp/0679743138 (I couldn't find a pdf on short notice). The author, Ture, is someone you might recognize by the name of Stokely Carmichael.
I really enjoy sharing the stuff I learn so feel free to ignore the rest of this paragraph cause I'll just be giving a short version of what the movements you were interested in were like. The black power movements, to really dumb it down unfortunately, could be considered an offshoot from the sort of activism you had with MLK. When Malcolm X criticized MLK's methods for being soft, some people decided to be somewhat more radical (again, being super blunt). One of the most famous groups that resulted from this division was the Black Panthers, who were notorious for their use of violence. These groups are excellent case studies as to why saying that all discrimination is equally bad is completely incorrect (I know you agreed with that), but also questioning whether some subversive reverse-discrimination might be necessary. These groups believed in playing with fire and they're not alone; the Dalit Panthers in India were modeled off them. Black Power movements ranged from being super socialist (realize that civil rights-era America was also ardently anti-socialist/communist America, so being black and being socialist was pretty much like being the antichrist) to nationalistic (you might have heard of the Back to Africa movement; it's exactly what it sounds like). One important group whose mannifestos you might be able to find was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, who was one of the principal agents that broke off from mainstream MLK nonviolence and argued that blacks shouldn't seek help from the system but find it of their own accord. Some groups were super Marxist; some were infiltrated by intelligence agencies, all of them represent why racial tensions in America really is a shit show.
Edit: here changed to hear; I also double-checked the book I recommended (I love you that much :3 ) and it's the one I remember reading. Then again, even if it wasn't Carmichael is pretty central to the topic and worth reading anyways.
Sources:
Michael Warner, gender theorist, against gay marriage for sexual liberation reasons, calls it “Trouble with Normal”http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674004412
The original “conservative” case for gay marriage on gay marriages being “virtually normal”http://www.amazon.com/Virtually-Normal-Andrew-Sullivan/dp/0679746145/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345952112&sr=1-1&keywords=virtually+normal+sullivan
A gay organization dedicated to social justicehttp://q4ej.org/
Organization that fights for “alternatives to marriage”http://www.unmarried.org/
Feminist perspective that argues against marriage, but for equalityhttp://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/08/27/equality-without-marriage/
Transgender activist Kate Bornstein on bullying, rather than gay marriage, should be a goal:http://katebornstein.typepad.com/kate_bornsteins_blog/2009/12/open-letter-to-lgbt-leaders-who-are-pushing-marriage-equality.html
Is Gay Marriage racist http://www.makezine.enoughenough.org/Is%20Gay%20Marriage%20Racist.pdf
Critics who are against gay marriage, but for social justice:http://www.amazon.com/Against-Equality-Queer-Critiques-Marriage/dp/0615392687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345951108&sr=8-1&keywords=Against+Equality%3A+Queer+Critiques+of+Gay+Marriage
One cultural commentator who see gay marriage as a desire to conform:http://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-Faggots-Afraid-Objectification/dp/1849350884/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
One article against gay marriage: Is the LGBT movement walking down the aisle to nowhere?http://inthesetimes.com/article/13466/beyond_gay_marriage/
Another gay activist against gay marriage:http://hivster.com/?p=6315
I received this book from my schools AAPI group. It was an interesting read. Theres a second edition out right now
It was made by British artist Gordon de la Mothe and was first published in London in this book 25 years ago: https://www.amazon.com/Reconstructing-Black-Image-Gordon-Mothe/dp/0948080612
When I initially came out, I was religious (Lutheran), and I actually came out with the help of my campus pastor in our Lutheran Student Community. I continued active participation in my religious community, and most of my pastors after that time were aware of my identity, so don't ever feel as if there's no place for you in religious communities. In the US, at least, mainline protestant denominations (Lutheran, Anglican/Episocopal, Presbyterian, UCC) often tend to be much more accepting than so-called "nondenominational" or Evangelical churches, but there aren't hard and fast guarantees.
(Just as full disclosure, I'm no longer religious, but it has nothing to do with my coming out, and much more to do with other philosophical changes and ideas.)
There has been a lot of good advice in this thread, so I really don't feel the need to repeat it. I do, however, want to share few resources that might be helpful:
In your situation, I understand it may be hard to get these books or read them, but if you can do so privately and safely, I'd highly recommend them as avenues for exploring your identity and giving you a theological and philosophical frame to think about your identity from. I'm not sure if you're worried about disapproval or punishment from divine or human sources when you say, "I'm afraid my own religion will punish me for something that I can't control," but in either case, you may find these helpful.
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.
The book appears real, with a listing on Amazon showing a publishing date of 1989. However, its importance seems highly exaggerated. The book only has 25 reviews on the website, and the majority of those are from just within the last few years, by conservatives complaining about it, and the book doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia. Again, not a definitive indication, but a pretty good one.
Here is one: https://www.mqup.ca/blog/secwepemc-people-land-laws/
Here is another one: https://www.amazon.ca/Unsettling-Canada-National-Wake-Up-Call-ebook/dp/B012XYFJHO
And another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1632460688/?coliid=I9PKGROBS5P88&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
More: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1632460688/?coliid=I9PKGROBS5P88&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Additional: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1626566747/?coliid=I1BAWUWU32N6NC&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1442614714/?coliid=I3P3FGFUIK7RFG&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
One more: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0888646402/?coliid=I2843W2GF6U9NS&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
More: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0814798535/?coliid=I30HZQ9D3V5O2W&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Here: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1138585866/?coliid=I2UL77UTJ47BF0&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1496201558/?coliid=I3BTQMC9LYCLHJ&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
One: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0822330210/?coliid=I1SEHQBGT2K6CT&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Another: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0803282869/?coliid=IHTY3OT3VU8CZ&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Last one: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0773547436/?coliid=ITIW0V5V1H7TR&colid=3VO89QG4XNLG3&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Books:
How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken by Alex Marshall
A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Livable Cities by Donald L. Elliott
Anything by Leon Krier (Architecture: Choice or Fate being my favorite) or William H. Whyte (The Social Life Of Small Urban Spaces being my favorite)
Essays:
Jane Jacobs and the The Death and Life of American Planning by Thomas J. Campanella
Toward and Urban Design Manifesto by Allen Jacobs and Donald Appleyard.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the narration starts with a handful of assumptions that they later find to be untrue. "Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation" kind of stuff. While I'm not in love with the architecture, I think the study makes perfect sense. Some of the conclusions made in the related book had some influence in the NYC Dept. of City Planning.
Well, if you're ever bored, you should check this out. Really fucking fantastic read.
Want to see something scarier? This is something that has been happening for awhile, but most aren't even aware of it, and it's literal propaganda more or less.
https://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0385239068/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=After+the+Ball&qid=1551050012&s=gateway&sr=8-6
Here's a slightly different article on gender, too.
>do you have any book recommendations
To be honest, I'm not much of a book person. I have far more online resources than print ones, though I'm still pretty bad at remembering to bookmark things after I read them.
Tim Wise generally does a good job describing racial privilege, and he's got a couple speeches available on youtube (for example) and a book out (which I admittedly haven't read, but I'd expect it to be fairly okay based on his speeches that I've seen), but he doesn't specifically tackle intersectionality as far as I know.
This question would probably make a very good selfpost, since it's unlikely that many people will follow this conversation the whole way, and other subscribers will likely have better book lists handy.
ETA: I imagine you couldn't go wrong with something like this, too.
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...
A book for Janey. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Longer-Talking-White-People-About-ebook/dp/B06WWPX2YF/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1526034899&sr=8-3&keywords=Racism
Well not specifically, it's a good, thought provoking read. I have it.
I am not comparing apples to oranges by comparing the people who support the killing of police officers in New York, who "burn this bitch down" or "tear it down" with the murderers of matt Shepard, for both are the groups creating the tension in the situation. The reason the government can use force and you cannot is that we have given the government that discretion as part of the social contract. If you would rather live a life that is brutish, nasty, and short, you are free to leave the contract, you just can't stay here after. But you will
Just keep pretending you are being oppressed by the system. Assume everyone who disagrees with you is a white cis middle class male who pays his taxes and you're in the clear. Surprisingly enough the country works; you've just seen all these great movies and hear about the few instances where something goes wrong that make national news because of their rarity and you want to rebel against something. What do you think is going to happen when you've pissed enough people off? When a majority of the public hates your movement?
As for your "systemic racism" here's a Dr. Thomas Sowell book that may interest you. There is also a free audio copy on YouTube the last few essays deal with the lingering effects of slavery, of education in minority communities, and the civil rights movement. (don't worry Dr. Sowell is black).
You don't like the government, or even the concept of government do you then? But you want the government to change for you and your small group, well at least your belief in the death of democracy is consistent.
You're trying to light a fire and blame the fire department when the house burns down, you are living in the republic Gracchis, and you want to provoke a Caesar.
Delicates in the sky
I can ride twice as high
Take a look
It's in this a book
https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Race-Democratic-Partys-Buried/dp/0230610994
> So why do you feel that if you can't have kids you shouldn't get marriage
What is the purpose of marriage if not to have a couple capable of procreation joined for life?
> Based on your use of the words sanctimony I would guess it's due to religious beliefs, which is fine it's your right to believe whatever you like, but does that give you the right to stop others from getting married?
No. I am but one vote and one opinion. The decision about who should be married and who should not is a government decision that is swayed by a majority vote.
> What negative impacts on society will there be if gay marriage is legalised?
Think back to the 1950s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbours. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence, increased modern poverty (that is, those within modern societies living below the poverty line), and a vast expansion of government welfare expenses.
Another effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. That's not just my opinion. Andrew Sullivan, who is (according to his website) a Gay Rights Advocate, wrote a book called Virtually Normal and in it he wrote "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds...There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.".
I read that to say "Even if we gay men do marry, it won't mean anything, because we always have a desire to look and play outside the martial bounds". But you'll probably say I'm taking that out of context....
So let's go medical. Let's look at how the Society of the Protection for Unborn Children say that Same-sex 'marriage' has negative effects and cites a lot of International research.
I hope you don't mind me simply copy pasting my previous answer.
It's a cultural theory which, for many people (myself not included) , is closely tied to the concepts of post-scructuralism. I guess the Wikipedia article would be a good start? I personally got into the topic through Nikki Sullivan's book.
I've always liked Nat Hentoff
These are a must-read for all PoCs
https://www.amazon.com/Longer-Talking-White-People-About/dp/140887055X
https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07D6XQQRY/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1540937009&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=white+fragility
It's actually something of a myth that Asian-Americans are favored in US society or don't face racism. Obviously every group has their own experience and I'm not aware that law enforcement racial profiling is as much of an issue (though it could be), but while the supposed preferred status of Asians in US society is often invoked it's not always there culturally speaking.
only read the first few comments of this thread bc its late as fuck, but
this book - http://www.amazon.com/Possessive-Investment-Whiteness-George-Lipsitz/dp/1566396352
is food for thought on this matter.
>Bible-believing
Demonstrate it.
> At that point it's a much more nuanced debate that requires a careful look at the whole of scripture,
It's so obvious just reading Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. that homosexuality is a wicked sin in of itself. Cultural peer pressure to accept homosexuality is purely the result of what can be accurately called a psyop. Almost none of what the LGBT crowd proposes is based on logical propositions derived from fundamental principles of truth. Rather, it's based on emotional manipulation (think how the word bigot is used), collective shame (think what happened with Chick-Fil-A and the author, Orson Scott Card), and repetitive propaganda dissemination techniques (homosexual characters in sitcoms, now children cartoons, to the point where "it's not a huge deal).
Think, a few decades ago, homosexuals weren't as ostracized as previously, but it wasn't culturally condemned to hate or revile them. At this time, people who can be described as propagandists and agitators wrote about using effective propaganda techniques in order to switch the moral paradigm. Why is it that you can look back on the past today, and think of how "backwards" people of the past were? It has nothing to do with us being "better," it's because the paradigm of morality and tradition was different. Because moral paradigms are never intrinsically true or universal, even if they're hypothetically based on true and universal morals.
Enlightening read! Thanks. FYI this author has a good book if y'all are interested. Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars. :D
> Taking a step back, institutional racism arises due to some property of the institution. It could be an overt formal policy, but it doesn't have to be.
Again, you're citing Wikipedia: part of the definition cited in the Wikipedia article comes from the book: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Power-Liberation-Kwame-Ture/dp/0679743138
The author of that book is Kwame Ture, formerly known as Stokely Carmichael, who was among the most fiery and visible leaders of Black militancy in the United States in the 1960s. So the source of that definition is not some widely recognized academic work, but the product of some Black militancy leader from the 60's! FFS, could this get anymore biased and unacademic?!?! The standards for sources in Wikipedia are abysmally bad! I'd much rather stick with the academic definitions.
> I'm asking if it's an injustice that Adam got hired instead of Bob, when the reason Adam was hired was because he was more qualified.
First and foremost, sorry for confusing Adam and Bob. Anyway, I don't see any sign of injustice on part of the institution in the example you provided. Adam is more educated than Bob, as you've specifically said- "Adam is more educated and Bob is not", and his credentials match those necessary for the job. No apparent discrimination was demonstrated in that example.
> These market effects have been in place for hundreds of years.
In the context of race, that the markets have not been left without intervention from government (e.g. slavery and Jim Crow laws). However, even in the Jim Crow times, the market did everything it could to compensate. There were businesses which illegally served black patrons, because the free market cares way more about the color of the person's money than they cared about the color of their skin. So the market clearly defied the institutional racism which was actually in place.
> You're focusing on what society is doing against the employer and I'm attempting to understand whether you think society should do something for the discriminated-against person.
What can you do, aside from imposing a cost on the employer? You want to impose a legal cost, such as having laws which prohibit discrimination, and I want to impose a financial cost. I happen to find that a financial cost is much more swift than the legal cost, it occurs at the moment of discrimination and it never fails.
> or making half or less what equally-qualified white people are making.
In that case the employer is paying a 50% penalty for being discriminatory. The employer which realizes that advantage will have a 50% advantage against the discriminating employer, which will drive that employer out of business and it will leave those white people jobless (i.e. out on the market, having to compete with black employees with lower salaries).
> Over what time frame will income disparity go away, when it's the result of racism?
Almost immediately! The penalty occurs at the moment the employer discriminates by offering another person a higher salary based on their race. From that moment on, the clock starts ticking for them and they have to compete with a business that doesn't. 50% of the companies fail within 2 years, 96% fail within 10 years. That is a very fast response to the inefficiency, much faster than it takes for government to implement a law, detect a violation, investigate the violation, bring forth a lawsuit and issue a judgment.
> 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...
Books:
https://smile.amazon.com/End-Southern-Exceptionalism-Partisan-Postwar/dp/0674032497
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0230116469
https://smile.amazon.com/Wrong-Race-Democratic-Partys-Buried/dp/0230610994?sa-no-redirect=1
https://smile.amazon.com/Mugged-Racial-Demagoguery-Seventies-Obama/dp/1591846560
Articles:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/10/AR2010091002679.html
https://bilanreport.com/2017/03/13/debunking-the-party-switch-myth/
http://tennesseestar.com/2018/06/14/carol-swain-commentary-facts-myths-and-rewritten-history-of-the-left-as-tweeted-by-princetons-kevin-kruse/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/8/picket-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/the-southern-strategy-debunked-again.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/08/myth-republican-racism-mona-charen/
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2787426/posts
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-02-13.html
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9506
https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2014/07/03/nixons-southern-strategy-and-a-liberal-big-lie-n1858667
https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2013/3/29/history-lesson/
https://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/?pg=1
https://hillarysamericathemovie.com/evidence/
https://www.waynedupree.com/the-democrats-big-lie-dixiecrats-switched-to-republican-party-with-racist-agenda/
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2012/01/25/the-truth-about-the-southern-strategy-the-msm-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
https://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/07/landrieu-and-the-myth-of-the-southern-realignment/
https://www.wnd.com/2014/07/nixons-southern-strategy-and-a-liberal-big-lie/
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/
http://www.aviewfromgenz.com/leftism-debunked-the-southern-strategy/
https://m.theepochtimes.com/dsouzas-death-of-a-nation-shows-democrat-plantation-still-in-business_2609079.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthernStrategy/
Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAQRVYBEoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol7OMGBDMao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHgOLKrscCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxhymucVdKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl9bFseo6fI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgLckzSibxs
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8564902/
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.
I just went to the book page in Amazon and read through it a bit. Doesn't seem especially problematic to me - I might disagree with some of the opinions of the kids interviewed there, but so what.
I'm an Israeli, and this US reaction is totally wierding me out. I don't see what banning this book will achieve - will it suddenly make all young Arab-Americans in NYC vanish? Will it make them more complacent and "american-like"?
In Israel our schools try to teach as much as possible about the "other" in our civilization (Arabs, gays, immigrants, etc). I should think that if young Arabs choose to tie their fates to the fate of the USA they at least deserve to be understood.
Hear Me Talkin to Ya is a great way to get into the history of Jazz. You feel like you are there.
Synopsis:
"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.
I am a white, feminist, woman artist/academic who does activist art in solidarity with social movements, including Black Lives Matter and immigration activists in my city. For me the key is solidarity. Solidarity is based on mutuality and accountability across difference, on disrupting the idea that you (as a white person) know best, challenging power dynamics that influence knowledge (and art) production and reception, and so on. As a primer, I'd recommend reading a little bit about how feminists of color think about solidarity. This body of writing has really important insights about the do's and don't's of white feminists when representing, or working with communities of color, and it'd likely be very relevant to your concerns about doing art that is meaningful and not appropriative (or worse, violent). One recommendation is Chandra Mohanty's writings on solidarity (e.g. her book "Feminism Beyond Borders"). \
Anyway, if I am doing art that is not speaking to political issues, or that isn't about racism/colonialism or that isn't borrowing stylistically from other cultural groups, I generally feel fairly free to do/make/sell what I want. However, if I am doing art that is about race, state violence, colonialism, etc, I feel there is a very different ethical imperative to avoid the harms you're concerned about. Here are a few key things I'd recommend thinking about when doing that work:
I know that was a long answer. The point is, there are ways to do this, but do your homework, be thoughtful, be careful, and do the work in solidarity with communities of color whose stories are implicated in your work. Feel free to PM me if you want to know more about the specific way I've navigated this--it's something I've written about, but I don't want to share the full article here.
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Now with more commenting! ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Again, you're not understanding the word.
Try this. It's useful here.
http://www.amazon.com/Possessive-Investment-Whiteness-George-Lipsitz/dp/1566396352
There you go, you're welcome!
Here are the books listed as being part of the course. Maybe you should read them instead of pulling umptions out of your ass?
Or are you scared of being brainwashed?
Maybe those books, and any discussion about them should be banned or ridiculed to the margins (without even having read them-- to keep "our" thoughts pure, you know) to prevent toxic ideas from spreading?