Top products from r/socialjustice101

One thing I'd recommend is checking out this (free) workbook that walks you through confronting your relationship with white supremacy https://www.meandwhitesupremacybook.com/

Also, go to the library (or Amazon?) and check out: How to Be Less Stupid About Race and White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son

The first is a really, really great book that will help you understand the basics of the system of racism and how individuals play their part in upholding it. It's an easy read too. The second book is more like a memoir but still worthwhile. Here's a little excerpt from the summary:

>"Using stories from his own life, Tim Wise demonstrates the ways in which racism not only burdens people of color, but also benefits, in relative terms, those who are “white like him.” He discusses how racial privilege can harm whites in the long run and make progressive social change less likely. He explores the ways in which whites can challenge their unjust privileges, and explains in clear and convincing language why it is in the best interest of whites themselves to do so."

​

> Does the fact that Black people once were slaved make it alright to be simply put, proud of their heritage?

Yes? Because the fact is that many black people do not know their heritage. It was, as I said, systematically erased. Most white folks do. There's a difference between being forced into a race (as many black folks are) and being allowed to "choose" a racial signifier. Ergo, how many white people are able to claim whiteness as well as their respective ethnic heritage, in comparison to many black folks who are nearly always read as just "black", even if they're, say, second-generation immigrants.

This has a lot to do with how race is constructed, etc. There's a lot of resources about this, including entire books. Mary Waters's "Optional Ethnicities?" is a fairly good primer, though, if you're really curious about this.

> How? excuse me I don't feel more powerful than my fellow black man.

I'm referring to systemic power, not individual.

Obama was one black President amongst 44 (including Trump). Congress doesn't fare much better. As of 2015, 13.5% of the U.S. population is black, not counting mixed race folks. We are not in any way close to reaching parity.

This isn't counting other institutional issues, such as systemic housing discrimination, job discrimination, the racial wage gap, and (of course!) police brutality.

> What criteria is that that only a few have and that allows them to enter the structure you mentionned?

Again, this is a racial formation question. You might want to read up on how immigrants such as the Irish and the Italians became white. And "conditional whiteness" in terms of how Ashkenazi Jewish folks are sometimes read as "white" and sometimes read as "Jewish".

The criteria, as most things of this nature, are often arbitrary. Both Indian and Japanese folks have lobbied for citizenship on the basis of their close identification with "whiteness". Both of these claims were rejected.

Wikipedia actually has an article on the whole idea of whiteness in the United States.

> Why are all these peoples treated differently?

Because society treats these people differently. (Refer to above.)

Again, "white" is not a heritage. It is perfectly all right to be proud of being French or German or Italian.

Not really. Police brutality is a great example of systemic issues rather than personal animus, actually. Here is a good article on it: https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias


Same with systems like red-lining. Most bankers would say they aren't racist. Yet there are still heavily segregated cities and parts of cities in the US. How do we explain that? Personal animus doesn't seem to. But systems of power do.

If you are interested in this issue, I would recommend [Institutionalized Racism: A Primer] as a clearly explained and well-researched intro to these ideas. (https://www.amazon.com/Institutional-Racism-Primer-Theory-Strategies/dp/0742560163)

Transethnicity is a very real issue. You're just using the term wrong.

>Transethnicity occurs in cases of adoption where the child is of another ethnicity than their adopted parents — an extremely commonplace scenario. Studies such as Transethnic Adoption and Personality Traits: a lesson of Japanese orphans returned from China to Japan and Effect of Transracial/Transethnic adoption on Children’s Racial and Ethnic Identity and Self-Esteem, and books like The Hybrid Family: Understanding Trans-Ethnic Adoptive Parenting are prime examples of how the term is used correctly.

Trans-ethnicity the way you refer to it though? Not so much. And tumblr isn't a real backup here. Most of the notable "transethnics" on tumblr have been outed as trolls.

But fundamentally, you don't seem to understand the difference between ethnicity, race and culture. Let's tackle those one at a time:

>People of the same race share genetically transmitted physical characteristics. People of the same ethnicity share cultural, linguistic, religious, and often racial characteristics.

>Ethnicity is broader and more useful. Racial classifications have often been imposed by outsiders, and many of the traditional classifications are now regarded as questionable from a scientific standpoint. As a result, race is more vague and less intellectually sound than ethnicity. Of course, in real-world usage, race is usually just a polite term for skin color.

>Both words require caution. When used imprecisely, they tend to betray cultural biases.

There are a lot of different components that make up an ethnic identity. One is race. How to other people perceive you? How do they treat you? Do you face oppression? But this is only one aspect. I should point out that this can be complicated, particularly in the US, when speaking about racial identity. African-American culture has grown around and in response to racial oppression, and so this culture is unusually tied to race and racial oppression.

But on the whole, race is often just one component of an ethnic identity. And the other components are subject to change and varied. And that's widely accepted. People learn new languages and forget the ones they were raised with. They changed their religion. They move across the globe and pick up an entirely new lifestyle. That doesn't make them "transethnic". It makes them a human being with probably an interesting story or two to tell.

But what you're referring to? Mostly trolls and perhaps a few genuinely confused people who have trouble grappling with the complexities of culture, race and identity.

Also, the idea of being policed because of a culture you don't identify with is fairly common. In a way that people who are policed because of a gender they don't identify with. The former is common and openly understand and accepted. There's a difference between talking about a cultural identity you were raised with, a culture you have grown to love, and an ethnic identity largely policed by how people see and treat you. Ethnicity is only partially an issue of culture. And a lot of what people discuss when they talk about an ethnic identity is how they are perceived and treated by other people.

As to your point about how trans issues are hugely culturally influenced...try thinking of it this way. We're more progressive and understanding with regards to ethnicity and culture then we are gender. We get people raised in one culture who leave it. Or people raised with multiple cultural identities. And we are accepting of this in a way we are not with gender. We are not accepting of people who don't fit assigned gender roles or who transition.

Actual transethnicity is a serious thing. Don't let trolls and people confused about a fairly complex topic derail legitimate discussions about oppression and identity. It's nice that you're so trusting. But not everything someone says on the internet is true or correct. I find it a little disturbing that after hearing a few stories, you assumed they were correct and didn't bother to do any academic research at all.

A quick google search got me nowhere, but I did come across this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Prejudice-Politics-Diplomacy-Discrimination/dp/0813321433

Looks like a good start. Some blogs mentioned the power + prejudice definition comes from ethnic studies departments in the 1960s, but again, not sourced, so I would take that with a grain of salt.

These days however, the power + prejudice definition is less accepted than "-ism" = system of group privilege. What this specifies is that something like racism doesn't have to have intent (prejudice) behind it to contribute to a system of white privilege. Hope this helps.

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University. He's written several books about Japanese sexuality and its historical development.

The publications page lists some of his more prominent works, such as:

Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan
Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900

Hasn't been mentioned yet but extremely important book:

Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow

https://www.amazon.com/Joy-Gay-Revised-Expanded-Third/dp/0060012749

Not much on K-pop and J-pop, but a Fil Am males perspective on Asian American masculinity:

Big Little Man

Here is the mobile version of your link

Whiteness has changed and shifted throughout history. Eastern Europeans are not always a part of whiteness in Europe but generally are at this point in the US - 'whiteness' is not an ethnicity like German or French but a socially constructed hierarchy so it changes over time. Check out the history of white people](https://www.amazon.com/History-White-People-Irvin-Painter/dp/0393339742)

Looking at this pew study 52% of white people think racism is a "Big Problem" vs 81% of black participants. So there is a large disconnect between races here. I'm white, but I'm firmly in the camp of believing people of color who say they are still being discriminated against, especially with things that aren't really reportable to anyone like microaggressions or being followed in a store. And then of course there are some things are really easy to generate hard numbers on like "Black men who commit the same crimes as white men receive federal prison sentences that are almost 20 percent longer on average" and that the FBI reporting double the amount of anti-Black hate crimes than anti-White even though there are about 5x more white people than black people in the US.

​

Not sure about the gender break down of the hate crimes, violence is just generally an easy statistic to point to that almost everyone can agree is bad. For a more intersectional look at black womanhood specifically, I recently listened to Brittney Cooper's book Eloquent Rage, and thought it was really great, and I'm sure there are a ton of other resources with a quick google search.

​

All of this to say, racism is a "Big Problem" no matter what 48% of white people think. So imagine being in a system where too many white people hate you, too many white government leaders try to take away your vote, too many of their white constituents keep voting for racist politicians, and too many of your white bosses donate to their campaigns. I don't think it seems like huge leap to start thinking that maybe a lot of white people are against you and that they also clearly have the power to oppress you. It would be a pretty huge leap, in my opinion as a white person in this same system, to think black people want to oppress me or would have much power to do so, and that's where the difference comes from.

​

Because flipping the races removes the power dynamics in play, here's another analogy. Think early 1900s, before we had the 19th amendment, women obviously couldn't give themselves the right to vote. They could protest and march and advocate for themselves, but they had to have male allies to pass the laws. So imagine being a feminist woman at the time and you learn your new male friend supports women's suffrage, you might be excited that you have found an ally and claim they are "one of the good guys". It doesn't mean all men except that one guy is bad. It just means they run into too many men who don't support their rights. And it was probably the same with this woman, 48% of white people thinking racism isn't a problem is about 48% too many.

FBI & Memphis Police Have Admitted Their Role in the Assassination of Dr. King Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fbi-memphis-polices-admitted-involvement-assassination-mlk/#TjOr66ZkwV5kB165.99

This is a huge split here. Liberals and Leftists are divided. I'm going to say now I expect what follows from here in my post to be fully ignored or diminished. The reason why is simple: most people prefer to craft an image of history in their likeness than to observe it as it is. I'm going to be blunt about this. Liberals approach politics from an individual perspective that privileges personal thought and feeling over concrete material analysis preferred by the Left, especially Marxists.

This is the crucial thing to grasp here. Violence is necessary to the continuation and maintenance of white supremacy and patriarchy because these things are foundational to capitalism itself.

Dr King was killed for saying this.

This isn't debatable, it's historical fact. Any and all challenges to these things that would deal them any serious blow will be met with violence.

And that violence will win. You will be stopped. It happened to the civil rights movement. It happened to the women's movement. You can be as pacifist and liberal and dutiful to your state as you please and the state will unleash hell on you anyway.

The fact is history has been whitewashed. Violence has always played a pivotal role in social justice: in attacking it and defending it.

Shuttering a planned parenthood or factory or school is violence. It's genetic to class society.

America is not now nor has ever been a peaceful, just society. Its reliance on violence is evident throughout history, and this compels violence in response. The focus on nonviolent movements is dishonest and transparently self serving to both state interests and liberals' individualistic preference.

I came into politics as a pacifist libertarian, then a liberal. I couldn't in good conscience remain a pacifist anti gun liberal after honest historical investigation

But violence doesn't have to win.

Again, I fully expert everything i say to be rejected not because it's historically wrong, but because it won't console liberal pseudopacifism.

The only time the state and its defenders will relax violence on you is when you stop being a threat to them--when you feminism and equality movement no longer is capable of achieving its goals and is happy with token legislation with no power.

So what are we to do?

Organize in a new way. Understand that by taking the smallest reformist position you're putting a target on your back, so we may as well go whole hog and realize we need a new constitution for a society not inherently predicated on patriarchy and white supremacy.

Negroes with Guns by Robert F Williams.

First published in 1962, "Negroes with Guns" is the story of a southern black community's struggle to arm itself in self-defense against the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups. Frustrated and angered by violence condoned or abetted by the local authorities against blacks, the small community of Monroe, North Carolina, brought the issue of armed self-defense to the forefront of the civil rights movement. The single most important intellectual influence on Huey P. Newton, the founder of the Black Panther Party, "Negroes with Guns" is a classic story of a man who risked his life for democracy and freedom.

This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible

Cobb, a former field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, reviews the long tradition of self-protection among African Americans, who knew they could not rely on local law enforcement for protection. Martin Luther King Jr. himself, after the fire bombing of his home, kept weapons in his house to protect his family. Cobb offers a collection of memories of freedom fighters and a broad historical perspective, from slave resistance to the Deacons of Defense and Justice, as evidence of the human impulse to self-protection that counterbalanced the tactics of nonviolent resistance.

Drop a bomb on a residential area? I never in my life heard of that. It's like Vietnam.

On December 4, 1969, Chicago police raided Hampton’s apartment and shot and killed him in his bed. He was just 21 years old.

The Ludlow Massacre was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914. Some two dozen people, including miners' wives and children, were killed.

Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of gas and explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair.