I came across this quote by author Nalo Hopkinson and wondered how Languish fell in:
Quote"There are a lot of readers who pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers. Some of them think this means they're not prejudiced. I don't know anyone who isn't, myself included. But let's say for argument's sake that those particular readers in fact are not prejudiced.
"How many books by writers of color do you think you'll find on their bookshelves? I'd lay odds that if there are any at all, they will be far outnumbered by the books by white authors. Not necessarily because those readers are deliberately choosing mostly white/male authors. They don't have to. The status quo does it for them.
"So those readers' self-satisfied 'I don't know' is really an 'I don't care enough to look beyond my nose.' And that's cool. So many causes, so little time. But don't pretend that indifference and an unwillingness to make positive change constitute enlightenment."
For my part I'd estimate about 75% of my books are by white authors. A large percentage of my math and engineering books are by Asian authors, and I have a large collection of manga I acquired as a young man ( :Embarrass:). For African Americans I have some books by Harlem Renaissance authors and early civil rights leaders. I do have a growing collection of Hispanic authors; (it's funny to think of Castro's BFF Gabriel García Márquez, or first cousin once removed of the former President of Chile, Isabel Allende, as being "Minority" writers, but by America's wacky standards...) I don't think I own anything by a sub-saharan African author or a Native American writer.
Oh, come on.
I've no idea. I guess most but I haven't looked up most of their ethnicities.
Still haven't figured out how to properly index "Cracker, Creepy Ass" under Dewey or the Library of Congress catalog.
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2017, 02:43:08 PM
I've no idea. I guess most but I haven't looked up most of their ethnicities.
Same here for English language books. For books in German it's probably nearly all.
Reading is for suckers.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Drakken on August 18, 2017, 02:41:03 PM
Oh, come on.
?
I refuse to check whether I am a subconsciously a white supremacist by accounting for the skin color of the authors of the books I own. Sorry, but no.
What would positive change be in this context?
Suit yourself.
I would argue that the point is not to discover whether you are a "subconsciously white supremacist", but whether or not there are little to no "non-white / non-western" authors in what you read. I would suggest that asking yourself why is a good exercise quite independent from whether you want to self-flagellate about it, or pose as a champion of racial justice. I would use it to see if I am missing out on good stuff simply because of a variety of social dynamics I may not have been aware of. Perhaps you have read mostly classics within the "Western Canon"? Perhaps you are simply not aware of good writers, because they are not part of your national tradition, or not read in your social circle, and therefore, not recommended. Perhaps it just never was assigned in school (and then, why?).
There are myriads of reasons why one may have mostly books by white authors, and realizing that may lead you to perhaps, seek out something else, just in case you are missing out on a specific perspective. Or don't, out of some principled refusal for self-examination.
of the authors whose ethnicity i know, 100%, but I don't know all their ethnicities.
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
What would positive change be in this context?
Trying something new? Discovering new authors? New thinkers?
I have a handful of books from Asian authors, besides that... 90% I guess? I won't honestly waste time googling whether the authors of one of my 10000000000 trashy fantasy books might be black.
Interestingly, my movie collection is far more diverse. But that's because I'm more of a movie geek than a book geek, I guess, and I actively seek out non-Western films.
I only have one book.* The Bible.** I read it every day*** and it is all I need.****
The race of the author(s) is ???.
*This is not true.
**I don't own a Bible.
***This is not true.
****This is not true.
I have several works from non-white authors, some of whom (Octavia Butler, for instance) I deliberately sought out because they were black authors within a genre that doesn't have many prominent black writers.
Of my histories, however, I would be very surprised to find more than the occasional tome that wasn't by a white person, though many are from women (C.V. Wedgwood, Alison Weir, etc.).
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 03:04:24 PM
Suit yourself.
I would argue that the point is not to discover whether you are a "subconsciously white supremacist", but whether or not there are little to no "non-white / non-western" authors in what you read. I would suggest that asking yourself why is a good exercise quite independent from whether you want to self-flagellate about it, or pose as a champion of racial justice. I would use it to see if I am missing out on good stuff simply because of a variety of social dynamics I may not have been aware of. Perhaps you have read mostly classics within the "Western Canon"? Perhaps you are simply not aware of good writers, because they are not part of your national tradition, or not read in your social circle, and therefore, not recommended. Perhaps it just never was assigned in school (and then, why?).
There are myriads of reasons why one may have mostly books by white authors, and realizing that may lead you to perhaps, seek out something else, just in case you are missing out on a specific perspective. Or don't, out of some principled refusal for self-examination.
I have books like Genji Monotogari, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Roots, and Uncle Tom's Cabin in my library. I have read them. But given that my interests lie in (mostly Military) History, Strategic Studies, and Political Science, of course, most of my books will be written by crusty, old, cis-white males as a matter of author demographics. It is not 'unconsciously' choosing white authors, the vast majority of authors on this subject
are crusty, old, white dudes.
I would agree with you if it was proposed in a vacuum. But we are not in a vacuum; isn't it a bit convenient and suspect that such a quote comes out when we are entering a trend of moral panic and witch-hunting for anything that flags someone as an 'alt-right' and White Supremacy sympathizer, after the events in Charlottesville?
My point is, I do not care whether Glantz is Caucasian or African-American. How is it relevant whether he is a credible author on the Red Army on the Eastern Front? If Colin Powell were to write a damn fine book on studying the lives of the soldiers of the 54th Massassuchetts, I'd be the first to buy it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 03:05:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
What would positive change be in this context?
Trying something new? Discovering new authors? New thinkers?
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Drakken is an ass and for some reason wants to treat Sav like shit.
Quote from: Drakken on August 18, 2017, 03:46:27 PMBut given that my interests lie in (mostly Military) History, Strategic Studies, and Political Science, of course, most of my books will be written by crusty, old, cis-white males as a matter of author demographics. It is not 'unconsciously' choosing white authors, the vast majority of authors on this subject are crusty, old, white dudes.
Yep, many old crusty white dudes. But there are many non-white political scientists out there, should you be interested.
But perhaps you are not.
I reckon it's a pretty high percentage - probably in 90+% range. I do have a number of books by Indian authors - in particular V. S. Naipaul, but others as well - some Chinese and Japanese authors, James Baldwin, Alexandre Dumas et. al. - but I have a lot of books and most of them I expect were written by white folks. I'm not particular into high brow literature most of the time, and that's where it seems to me that most of the non-white authors that are easily accessible show up.
That said, that is based on some assumptions - there could very well be authors whom I assume to be white who are in fact not. F. ex. it was only recently I learned that Mike Pondsmith (author of rpgs like Cyberpunk 2020 and Castle Falkenstein).
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 04:00:12 PM
Quote from: Drakken on August 18, 2017, 03:46:27 PMBut given that my interests lie in (mostly Military) History, Strategic Studies, and Political Science, of course, most of my books will be written by crusty, old, cis-white males as a matter of author demographics. It is not 'unconsciously' choosing white authors, the vast majority of authors on this subject are crusty, old, white dudes.
Yep, many old crusty white dudes. But there are many non-white political scientists out there, should you be interested.
But perhaps you are not.
Selecting which science you read based on race feels fresh and modern, not like the 30s at all. :)
I only read Mein Kampf.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2017, 04:02:05 PM
I reckon it's a pretty high percentage - probably in 90+% range. I do have a number of books by Indian authors - in particular V. S. Naipaul, but others as well - some Chinese and Japanese authors, James Baldwin, Alexandre Dumas et. al. - but I have a lot of books and most of them I expect were written by white folks. I'm not particular into high brow literature most of the time, and that's where it seems to me that most of the non-white authors that are easily accessible show up.
So much "world literature" is culturally-specific; not all, but a lot--and how can you really appreciate, for example, a non-western author like Khushwant Singh without at least a basic working knowledge of Indian society and culture, let alone its politics? I would say, particularly when it comes to literature, you're doing yourself--and the author--a disservice in reading without context or competence. That's just Ciff Clavenism.
Quote from: Drakken on August 18, 2017, 03:46:27 PM
I have books like Genji Monotogari, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Roots, and Uncle Tom's Cabin in my library. I have read them. But given that my interests lie in (mostly Military) History, Strategic Studies, and Political Science, of course, most of my books will be written by crusty, old, cis-white males as a matter of author demographics. It is not 'unconsciously' choosing white authors, the vast majority of authors on this subject are crusty, old, white dudes.
You do know that Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a white woman, not a black person, right?
I don't pay attention to this. But a very high percentage of the books I own are written in Chinese, or translated from Japanese. I can't be bothered to care about the ethnicity of the authors of the English books I own.
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2017, 05:22:18 PM
You do know that Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a white woman, not a black person, right?
Of course, so is The Guns of August and Funeral Games on my bookshelves. So not only I have books by non-whites, but by women too. Gasp!
Identity politics has nothing with choosing book authors, unless your choice of authors is driven by identity politics. I choosey authors, like the vast majority of people, because what they write is enjoyable and thought-provoking.
Plus, philosophically I oppose the concept of "unconscious sinner".
Do Dumas and Pushkin count as white? :D
Btw, do mangas count as books too? At least, for Marie-Ségolènes à la Comte d'Argent. :P
I reckon Sun Tzu is likely to be in many Languish libraries. Arabian Nights not so sure.
As a matter of fact, I don't classify much less choose authors by race, unlike Identity Politics supporters.
As for Languish über-cyber-Nazis, Ibero-American, South European and Slavic authors don't count as white, do they? Maybe some exceptions for classic works, I don't know, their consistency is not their forte.
Not to mention the question of Black Egyptians or Black Greek and Romans for the Identity Politics crowd. :P
My books have white pages and black text, so can't exist without the two working harmoniously together. :cool:
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 04:17:56 PM
Selecting which science you read based on race feels fresh and modern, not like the 30s at all. :)
Whereas reductio ad hitlerum is the epitome of original thinking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 18, 2017, 05:13:28 PMSo much "world literature" is culturally-specific; not all, but a lot--and how can you really appreciate, for example, a non-western author like Khushwant Singh without at least a basic working knowledge of Indian society and culture, let alone its politics? I would say, particularly when it comes to literature, you're doing yourself--and the author--a disservice in reading without context or competence. That's just Ciff Clavenism.
True. Though there is an argument being made by some scholars (S. Brouillette) that the rise of global publishers have led to an increasing uniformity of a certain type of "English-language World Lit" with similar themes, speaking to similar globalized audiences. I don't read enough English language world lit to have a sense of the worth of that argument.
From derspiess' GoodReads profile--
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/LALCANA/md/md21877829750.jpg)
Quote from: Drakken on August 18, 2017, 05:38:02 PM
Identity politics has nothing with choosing book authors, unless your choice of authors is driven by identity politics. I choosey authors, like the vast majority of people, because what they write is enjoyable and thought-provoking.
Except it is not true, and there's enough research out there to establish it. We pick books out of a number of influences and forces which have nothing to do with one's sound independent mind. We pick books that are recommended by friends, by profs, in the classroom; books people we admire read, or have read; books we have heard about on TV, and books which we are told people like "us" should read - whether that "us" is based in class, race, ethnicity, national origin, what have you. We pick up books discussed on online wargaming forums; books from a certain editor we know and trust, and we therefore rely on that editor's own acquisition network; books which are reviewed in specialized press, and books which we think have something worthwhile to say -- and that a priori knowledge is pretty much the standard definition of prejudice - "prior judgment". It's not always a bad thing: we use it everyday to save time and classify and order things. But overcoming prejudice can only happen when one knows the process by which one arrives at judgment.
Most of my books still lie in storage, but a fair number there are from American Indian authors. The Medieval History is a lot of crusty white dudes, but they went into that area to get the chicks, so that's okay.
I don't know. I very rarely get a picture of the author. I have an interest in Latin American history so I have lots of books on that topic but knowing which Latino person is supposed to be white or not I will leave to the race experts out there I can never keep that stuff straight.
Quote from: Drakken on August 18, 2017, 05:38:02 PM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2017, 05:22:18 PM
You do know that Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a white woman, not a black person, right?
Of course, so is The Guns of August and Funeral Games on my bookshelves. So not only I have books by non-whites, but by women too. Gasp!
Identity politics has nothing with choosing book authors, unless your choice of authors is driven by identity politics. I choosey authors, like the vast majority of people, because what they write is enjoyable and thought-provoking.
Plus, philosophically I oppose the concept of "unconscious sinner".
I don't really disagree with you, but the way you worded your earlier post implied that you thought that Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a black person.
As for the thread question itself, I don't know and have little interest in the answer. Most of my books are either Fantasy/SF or history and I'd guess that the vast majority of them are written by white authors,
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 18, 2017, 07:33:26 PM
From derspiess' GoodReads profile--
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/LALCANA/md/md21877829750.jpg)
STOP READING MY WIFE'S LIBRARYTHING PAGE :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 03:48:43 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 03:05:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
What would positive change be in this context?
Trying something new? Discovering new authors? New thinkers?
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Unfortunately I'm already over my quota for white males. :(
I honestly don't know. I have a few books by authors I know are black such as Things Fall Apart, but I don't know about the rest.
In a quick glance around I have one book that I know was written by a non-white, The Autobiography of Malcom X (which is a really good story no matter how you feel about the real person). The vast majority of the rest were written by whites (and 95% male), and there is a small group that I am not 100% sure of but am pretty sure they are white, but I haven't had the interest in finding out.
It is interesting though. I saw something on Twitter recently about helping to donate books to black under-privileged kids. The Tweets had pictures of the covers of a bunch of books, geared towards black children, that I had never seen or heard of. Over the last 47 years I have been around a lot of kids who had parents that were interested in reading, but not only had I not seen any of these specific books but I don't remember any books that had even a minor African American character.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 07:27:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 04:17:56 PM
Selecting which science you read based on race feels fresh and modern, not like the 30s at all. :)
Whereas reductio ad hitlerum is the epitome of original thinking.
:hmm: Now that you mention it I think my physics books have an awful lot of Jewish science in them. I should probably let other voices be heard and open my mind a little.
Most of them I guess?
Unless translations count for the original.Which in case of comics I guess is fair since the picture is most of the work. So....less.
Incidentally I hate it how coloured is becoming the used term again.
Black people can write books? :huh:
Relax, Drakken, no one has accused you of being a racist.
It's interesting that you bring up "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as I think that's a good example of what Nalo Hopkinson was getting at. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is an account of slavery written by a white woman who lived in a free state. You own that rather than an actual account of a slave, such as "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave." Did you pick Harriet Beecher Stowe over Frederick Douglass because you're a white supremacist? Of course not. Did you choose her book because you subconsciously hate black people again? Again, no. Most likely you picked it because it's far and away the better known book. It's not better written (in my opinion) and it's certainly not a more accurate depiction of slavery; but our society has made that the best known anti-slavery book.
I own the Douglass autobiography and not Uncle Tom. Reason? It was required reading for a class I took.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 03:05:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
What would positive change be in this context?
Trying something new? Discovering new authors? New thinkers?
Why does a reader who seeks something new need to determine the particular shade of the skin of some author he or she wants to read? I reject the implicit assumption here that there are only two kinds of writer, "white" and non-"white" and that, if most of the authors on your bookshelf are one or the other, you are not discovering new authors or trying something new.
Racism is as ugly when it poses as social justice as it is when it poses as racial supremacy.
I have Douglass and WEB Dubois' souls of black folk. And yeah Uncle Tom's Cabin is better well known in our culture. Mohammad Ali didn't call Joe Frazier a 'Frederick Douglass'.
Of course, it is always possible to rigidify any thought experiment into ridicule, caricature, and nefarious intent, despite Sav, or sbr's points. It's The Languish Way.
The point is neither to posit a hard rule, quotas, or anything resembling that. The point is to suggest a proxy for self-awareness. So, if that simple question offends your sensibility, try one that doesn't rely on race. If the question had been framed as "What percentage of your bookshelf is made of non-American, non-British authors", and the result ended up being close to 0, would it, should it not prompt question as to why this should be? And the answer would not necessarily be that one is a close-minded American nationalist. In fact, that answer would probably be pretty low down the list of probable explanations.
But there could be other explanations: how many foreign authors are translated into English? Or, for fans of sci-fi, and fantasy, how many foreign authors are translated? Why so few? Why so many? What is their exposure in the media? How often are they recommended to me? Have I not been exposed to German fiction? To Russian fiction? To Japanese fiction? Etc. etc. If I suddenly realized that I have never read any Spanish-language author, I would at least ask myself why, especially if I knew for a fact I was not actively discriminating against Spanish-language authors.
We can, of course, pretend racism hasn't been an operative social force for, at least, the last 300 years, and similarly pretend that this has had no structural effect on the production of knowledge and fiction. One doesn't have to be a racist to recognize that, anymore than one doesn't need to be a nationalist to think that nations have structured the shape of knowledge and fiction.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 19, 2017, 11:36:16 AM
Relax, Drakken, no one has accused you of being a racist.
It's interesting that you bring up "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as I think that's a good example of what Nalo Hopkinson was getting at. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is an account of slavery written by a white woman who lived in a free state. You own that rather than an actual account of a slave, such as "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave." Did you pick Harriet Beecher Stowe over Frederick Douglass because you're a white supremacist? Of course not. Did you choose her book because you subconsciously hate black people again? Again, no. Most likely you picked it because it's far and away the better known book. It's not better written (in my opinion) and it's certainly not a more accurate depiction of slavery; but our society has made that the best known anti-slavery book.
Or, perhaps, he just prefers fiction to non-fiction. I don't necessarily think that's the case; I'm simply saying that owning Uncle Tom's Cabin instead might be due to many factors.
Also, serious question, how do I know if a particular author is white or not. For example, one of my favorites is Glen Cook. I had never cared about whether or not he's white, but for purposes of this thread, I looked him up on Wikipedia. Going by his picture there, he's white, but it's possible that he's a light-skinned African-American, plus I would assume that if he were an African-American, the article would mention that, but maybe not. Or, take a non-literary example--up until last fall, even though I had seen him on TV many times, I didn't know that Colin Kapernick was part black; I had thought that he was part-white and part Pacific Islander.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 19, 2017, 01:28:04 PM
Of course, it is always possible to rigidify any thought experiment into ridicule, caricature, and nefarious intent, despite Sav, or sbr's points. It's The Languish Way.
The point is neither to posit a hard rule, quotas, or anything resembling that. The point is to suggest a proxy for self-awareness. So, if that simple question offends your sensibility, try one that doesn't rely on race. If the question had been framed as "What percentage of your bookshelf is made of non-American, non-British authors", and the result ended up being close to 0, would it, should it not prompt question as to why this should be? And the answer would not necessarily be that one is a close-minded American nationalist. In fact, that answer would probably be pretty low down the list of probable explanations.
But there could be other explanations: how many foreign authors are translated into English? Or, for fans of sci-fi, and fantasy, how many foreign authors are translated? Why so few? Why so many? What is their exposure in the media? How often are they recommended to me? Have I not been exposed to German fiction? To Russian fiction? To Japanese fiction? Etc. etc. If I suddenly realized that I have never read any Spanish-language author, I would at least ask myself why, especially if I knew for a fact I was not actively discriminating against Spanish-language authors.
We can, of course, pretend racism hasn't been an operative social force for, at least, the last 300 years, and similarly pretend that this has had no structural effect on the production of knowledge and fiction. One doesn't have to be a racist to recognize that, anymore than one doesn't need to be a nationalist to think that nations have structured the shape of knowledge and fiction.
The original quoted argument was a thought experiment taken to ridicule, caricature, and nefarious intent. People don't know, and have a hard time finding out, what shade of skin a given author whose book they own is.
Now, language is easy, and it is important, I think. We think in words, so different languages tend to support slightly (or even not-so-slightly) different ways of thinking, and, even translated (if translated well) can expose a reader to a different worldview entirely. Readers should be encouraged to seek quality works written in other languages even over an equally-quality book written in the reader's native language.
One doesn't get as many clicks writing about language as when accusing the audience of being indifferent to their own racism, though, so I can see why Nalo Hopkinson focused on the logical fallacy of race.
How about nations? Do you think reading outside of a nation's boundary exposes readers to different worldviews? If you were to realize that you own no books by Australian authors? Or no books by Caribbean authors?
Open question: has any period of time in history placed as much importance on race as this one?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 19, 2017, 02:46:00 PM
How about nations? Do you think reading outside of a nation's boundary exposes readers to different worldviews? If you were to realize that you own no books by Australian authors? Or no books by Caribbean authors?
I am much less convinced that nationality makes writing alien as much as language does. Navajo legends produce more cognitive dissonance among my American students than English ones do.
Does Hemingway count as a Caribbean author?
Quote from: Delirium on August 19, 2017, 02:53:19 PM
Open question: has any period of time in history placed as much importance on race as this one?
Maybe that one time with the slaves.
Quote from: Delirium on August 19, 2017, 02:53:19 PM
Open question: has any period of time in history placed as much importance on race as this one?
Open question? Try stupid question.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 03:05:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
What would positive change be in this context?
Trying something new? Discovering new authors? New thinkers?
if you do it on purpose, it kinda voids the experiment. If there's a different line of thought than yours, you may reject it (or approve it) simply because it was a non white / non western author, even if you don't specifically think about it.
Quote from: dps on August 19, 2017, 01:50:33 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 19, 2017, 11:36:16 AM
Relax, Drakken, no one has accused you of being a racist.
It's interesting that you bring up "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as I think that's a good example of what Nalo Hopkinson was getting at. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is an account of slavery written by a white woman who lived in a free state. You own that rather than an actual account of a slave, such as "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave." Did you pick Harriet Beecher Stowe over Frederick Douglass because you're a white supremacist? Of course not. Did you choose her book because you subconsciously hate black people again? Again, no. Most likely you picked it because it's far and away the better known book. It's not better written (in my opinion) and it's certainly not a more accurate depiction of slavery; but our society has made that the best known anti-slavery book.
Or, perhaps, he just prefers fiction to non-fiction. I don't necessarily think that's the case; I'm simply saying that owning Uncle Tom's Cabin instead might be due to many factors.
Well I did throw in a couple weasel words. ;)
I really don't know the specifics in Drakken's case. In general "Uncle Tom's Cabin" remains the better known work for historic reasons. It was a staple in many touring company on the vaudeville circuit; so prior to the advent of sound films almost everyone in the United States (outside the south where the work was despised) would have been familiar with it. So it remains a key work in our culture; even if the last film version of it (to the best of my knowledge) was the ballet in "The King and I"; people know who Uncle Tom was or Simon Legree, or know about Eliza and the bloodhounds on the ice.
Quote from: Delirium on August 19, 2017, 02:53:19 PM
Open question: has any period of time in history placed as much importance on race as this one?
Well, yes, between the publication of "The Origin of Species" in 1859 and the end of the Second World War (somewhat longer in Argentina) racism was a science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism).
It wasn't your fault Darwin!
Besides before then it was a religion to. Curse of Ham and Cush and all that.
Have not people today come to think and care as much about race as before, only in other ways?
And to prove my ignorance even further, I do not see the point in knowing a single thing about an author: ethnicity, gender, sexuality, shoe size or party membership, simply because I trust my own intelligence to evaluate their writing in and of itself. Just the text and nothing but the text.
Quote from: Delirium on August 19, 2017, 06:33:47 PM
And to prove my ignorance even further, I do not see the point in knowing a single thing about an author: ethnicity, gender, sexuality, shoe size or party membership, simply because I trust my own intelligence to evaluate their writing in and of itself. Just the text and nothing but the text.
That's odd. I would think some context would be good to wrap around the text. Otherwise, might be easy to miss some things because your dazzling intellect couldn't glean from text about the intended audience and nuances a given audience would be expected to understand.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2017, 05:17:39 PM
It wasn't your fault Darwin!
Besides before then it was a religion to. Curse of Ham and Cush and all that.
It certainly wasn't Darwin's fault. I think scientific racism predates Darwin and some of the scientific racists after Darwin rejected him. Darwin himself is a bit of a anomaly in that he seems bereft of racism at a time when racism was the default.
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2017, 12:55:58 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 18, 2017, 03:05:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
What would positive change be in this context?
Trying something new? Discovering new authors? New thinkers?
Why does a reader who seeks something new need to determine the particular shade of the skin of some author he or she wants to read? I reject the implicit assumption here that there are only two kinds of writer, "white" and non-"white" and that, if most of the authors on your bookshelf are one or the other, you are not discovering new authors or trying something new.
Racism is as ugly when it poses as social justice as it is when it poses as racial supremacy.
I agree with grumbler.
Quote from: Delirium on August 19, 2017, 02:53:19 PM
Open question: has any period of time in history placed as much importance on race as this one?
I'd venture that periods where they had miscegenation laws in the books and enforced did. I reckon the age of empire, with "the white man's burden" and scientific racism placed more importance on race as well compared to the current period.
To the extent that race matters today, it seems to be in attempts to wind down the effects of explicitly institutionalizing racist hierarchies.
I have no idea how many of my books are written by non-whites, to be honest.
I googled "famous black writers". There were several "Top 10 Black Writers You Should Read" lists. Invariably, the large majority of writers on those lists are black writers who were or ar epolitically active and primarily write about the experience of being black in America, racism, social inequality etc. This is very important writing, of course. However, my initial impression is that if you want to be a famous black writer you have to write about race.
Quote from: The Brain on August 19, 2017, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2017, 12:55:58 PMWhy does a reader who seeks something new need to determine the particular shade of the skin of some author he or she wants to read? I reject the implicit assumption here that there are only two kinds of writer, "white" and non-"white" and that, if most of the authors on your bookshelf are one or the other, you are not discovering new authors or trying something new.
Racism is as ugly when it poses as social justice as it is when it poses as racial supremacy.
I agree with grumbler.
I, too, agree with grumbler.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 19, 2017, 11:36:16 AM
Relax, Drakken, no one has accused you of being a racist.
the implication -given the current events/context- is there though.
Quote from: Delirium on August 20, 2017, 04:23:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 19, 2017, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2017, 12:55:58 PMWhy does a reader who seeks something new need to determine the particular shade of the skin of some author he or she wants to read? I reject the implicit assumption here that there are only two kinds of writer, "white" and non-"white" and that, if most of the authors on your bookshelf are one or the other, you are not discovering new authors or trying something new.
Racism is as ugly when it poses as social justice as it is when it poses as racial supremacy.
I agree with grumbler.
I, too, agree with grumbler.
it's the one valid answer.
Though Monger's answer is pretty good too.
It's unusual for Grumbler to be so agreeable. :P
I'm glad that the white boys of Languish could agree about how to deal with race...
There you go, being divisive... :(
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2017, 06:20:18 AM
I'm glad that the white boys of Languish could agree about how to deal with race...
Racism is an important issue. Race is a fraud.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2017, 06:20:18 AM
I'm glad that the white boys of Languish could agree about how to deal with race...
It is quite telling that 'I don't give a fuck about race' today can be seen as a negative way to deal with race. I do not understand the young generation. Everything is black and white to them.
All Millennials to Gitmo.
Quote from: Delirium on August 20, 2017, 08:52:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2017, 06:20:18 AM
I'm glad that the white boys of Languish could agree about how to deal with race...
It is quite telling that 'I don't give a fuck about race' today can be seen as a negative way to deal with race. I do not understand the young generation. Everything is black and white to them.
No, actually you agreed with grumbler's post which is a step beyond that stance.
Besides, I can see how as a white person, it can be easy to say 'I don't give a fuck about race' because in truth, racism doesn't personally affect you.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 20, 2017, 06:36:12 AM
There you go, being divisive... :(
I do believe it was grumbler who started up cries of racism.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2017, 09:25:51 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 20, 2017, 06:36:12 AM
There you go, being divisive... :(
I do believe it was grumbler who started up cries of racism.
Only as it pertains to grammar.
Quote from: Delirium on August 20, 2017, 04:23:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 19, 2017, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2017, 12:55:58 PMWhy does a reader who seeks something new need to determine the particular shade of the skin of some author he or she wants to read? I reject the implicit assumption here that there are only two kinds of writer, "white" and non-"white" and that, if most of the authors on your bookshelf are one or the other, you are not discovering new authors or trying something new.
Racism is as ugly when it poses as social justice as it is when it poses as racial supremacy.
I agree with grumbler.
I, too, agree with grumbler.
Yeah, same here.
What was really annoying about the OP was not just the suggestion that you should be thinking about the race of your authors, but the smarmy acknowledgement that of course YOU probably don't...immediately followed by letting you know that not caring is in fact just as bad as actively caring and avoiding non-white authors.
Fuck that guy.
I don't need some d-bag shoving fucking racism into my leisure reading.
You want me to read something by some black guy? Some Indian woman? Some Chinese teen ager? No problem. Recommend something, and tell me why you think I will like it, or it will teach me something I don't know, or whatever possible reason I might have to enjoy reading that book.
The thing is, all of those criteria have nothing to do with the skin tone of the person who put pen to paper. They will be good, mediocre, or terrible on the merits of the writing, not on the faux race of the author.
This is *exactly* the kind of bullshit that the Left does to eat itself and make progressives look fucking ridiculous to normal human beings.
11B's still taking forever plowing through August Wilson's Kursk Cycle.
Quote from: Delirium on August 20, 2017, 08:52:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2017, 06:20:18 AM
I'm glad that the white boys of Languish could agree about how to deal with race...
It is quite telling that 'I don't give a fuck about race' today can be seen as a negative way to deal with race. I do not understand the young generation. Everything is black and white to them.
Their view is that an institutional or cultural bias still exists in our society and that by simply not caring about race we're perpetuating that bias. In the United States this will leave African-Americans at the bottom of the social order, in other societies it's probably someone else. The way to confront this bias is to adopt (what their critics would call) reverse racist policies or to give greater voice to the marginalized groups.
I realize this isn't a popular point of view on this forum; but where do you think that the error in this thinking lies? Is there no such cultural or institutional bias? If there is such a bias do you think that this bias will go away on its own if we adopt a color-blind point of view? Or do you have a different solution other than reverse racist policies and actively seeking out minority points of view? I'm genuinely curious.
What is reverse racism?
Quote from: The Brain on August 20, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
What is reverse racism?
Policies such as affirmative action, preferential hiring for minorities or preferential university admissions for minorities.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 20, 2017, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 20, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
What is reverse racism?
Policies such as affirmative action, preferential hiring for minorities or preferential university admissions for minorities.
In Sweden that is illegal. I tend to agree with the law on this matter.
Quote from: The Brain on August 20, 2017, 11:39:21 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 20, 2017, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 20, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
What is reverse racism?
Policies such as affirmative action, preferential hiring for minorities or preferential university admissions for minorities.
In Sweden that is illegal. I tend to agree with the law on this matter.
Fortunately, that's not the court's definition of reverse racism. Just Sav's.
This is the conversation on systemic racism redux.
Race is scientifically bunk, but it has been used to structure Western societies ever since large-scale Atlantic trades of the 18th century. It has structured the fields of knowledge and experience. One can very well assert that race is bunk, while witnessing its constant effects on, say, contemporary America. The same way that I can think sexism is bunk, while agreeing that it structures the experience of large swaths of America, or, in the case of India, that "caste" is bunk, but structures the experience of India pretty fundamentally (and ergo, my Indian colleague tells me, of Indian literature).
And if racism exists, it follows that those who experience it on a daily basis, have a reserve of experience not easily accessible to those who don't. Clearly, there are some whose powers of imagination are such that they may very well offer a striking account of it, or use it as a convincing device in their fiction. But, it seems to me, that if we allow that collective experiences such as "poverty", "womanhood", "wealth", "nationhood" can have a pretty important effect on fiction-writing, I would suggest that "race", however morally contemptible it is, has its impact too. And, I would suggest that, in some specific cases, the experience of "race" and the experience of "nationhood" intersect pretty strongly, in the case of sub-saharan authors or Caribbean authors. The counter to that suggesting that each book is unique, and solely defined by talent appears to me untenable, in the face of such things as genre, traditions, influences, etc.
It may very well be that in genre fiction that (I think) the forum favors, such differences may be minimal. But the thing with knowledge, is that you don't really know what you are missing until you encounter it. So, if you don't know that you haven't read black authors (or Japanese authors, or Mexican authors, or Canadian authors), I find protests that it doesn't change anything substantial unconvincing - especially in the face of a multitude of counter-examples from other structuring experiences.
So, that's one aspect of it.
The other is whether or not we, as people who purchase books and read them, are entirely free of a world in which prejudice has played a huge role in the production, commercialization, dissemination of knowledge itself. To think that it's only talent that brings an author to the publishing world seems to me pretty naive. To think that people pick book out of the island of their own self-righteous mind, seems to me also pretty dubious. As Sav mentioned (and no one bothered to address, it seems), people pick books that are recommended from their circles. I learned of the existence of the poet Milton super late in life, because it just wasn't part of my world when I grew up: it was a difference in linguistic tradition, and a working class household. Similarly, I learned of the poetry of Derek Walcott also very late. It was the direct consequence of my gaining a black brother-in-law, and discovering, in his bookshelf and his family's, a host of books and authors I had never heard of.
Syt's point is totally fair: not everyone who picks a book wants to read about race relation in 20th century America. One could use, as it was intended, I think, the suggestion simply to see whether or not race (or gender, or class, or nationality, or linguistic tradition) would have an impact on your favorite reading genres, should you realize that you have no book liable to speak from experience. But if you claim to be interested in Political Science, but never picks up a book that talks about race relations, I would argue it's a pretty self-selected blind spot, much like someone who would be interested in, say, WW2, would categorically refuse the suggestion to see whether or not he has books by German authors in his bookshelf.
The way to reduce racism is to de-emphasize the importance of race entirely. There is no "reverse" racism, only racism.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2017, 11:53:21 AM
This is the conversation on systemic racism redux.
Race is scientifically bunk, but it has been used to structure Western societies ever since large-scale Atlantic trades of the 18th century. It has structured the fields of knowledge and experience. One can very well assert that race is bunk, while witnessing its constant effects on, say, contemporary America. The same way that I can think sexism is bunk, while agreeing that it structures the experience of large swaths of America, or, in the case of India, that "caste" is bunk, but structures the experience of India pretty fundamentally (and ergo, my Indian colleague tells me, of Indian literature).
And if racism exists, it follows that those who experience it on a daily basis, have a reserve of experience not easily accessible to those who don't. Clearly, there are some whose powers of imagination are such that they may very well offer a striking account of it, or use it as a convincing device in their fiction. But, it seems to me, that if we allow that collective experiences such as "poverty", "womanhood", "wealth", "nationhood" can have a pretty important effect on fiction-writing, I would suggest that "race", however morally contemptible it is, has its impact too. And, I would suggest that, in some specific cases, the experience of "race" and the experience of "nationhood" intersect pretty strongly, in the case of sub-saharan authors or Caribbean authors. The counter to that suggesting that each book is unique, and solely defined by talent appears to me untenable, in the face of such things as genre, traditions, influences, etc.
It may very well be that in genre fiction that (I think) the forum favors, such differences may be minimal. But the thing with knowledge, is that you don't really know what you are missing until you encounter it. So, if you don't know that you haven't read black authors (or Japanese authors, or Mexican authors, or Canadian authors), I find protests that it doesn't change anything substantial unconvincing - especially in the face of a multitude of counter-examples from other structuring experiences.
So, that's one aspect of it.
The other is whether or not we, as people who purchase books and read them, are entirely free of a world in which prejudice has played a huge role in the production, commercialization, dissemination of knowledge itself. To think that it's only talent that brings an author to the publishing world seems to me pretty naive. To think that people pick book out of the island of their own self-righteous mind, seems to me also pretty dubious. As Sav mentioned (and no one bothered to address, it seems), people pick books that are recommended from their circles. I learned of the existence of the poet Milton super late in life, because it just wasn't part of my world when I grew up: it was a difference in linguistic tradition, and a working class household. Similarly, I learned of the poetry of Derek Walcott also very late. It was the direct consequence of my gaining a black brother-in-law, and discovering, in his bookshelf and his family's, a host of books and authors I had never heard of.
Syt's point is totally fair: not everyone who picks a book wants to read about race relation in 20th century America. One could use, as it was intended, I think, the suggestion simply to see whether or not race (or gender, or class, or nationality, or linguistic tradition) would have an impact on your favorite reading genres, should you realize that you have no book liable to speak from experience. But if you claim to be interested in Political Science, but never picks up a book that talks about race relations, I would argue it's a pretty self-selected blind spot, much like someone who would be interested in, say, WW2, would categorically refuse the suggestion to see whether or not he has books by German authors in his bookshelf.
Could you try again, without the strawmen?
What is the strawman?
Well for instance this bit
QuoteTo think that it's only talent that brings an author to the publishing world seems to me pretty naive. To think that people pick book out of the island of their own self-righteous mind, seems to me also pretty dubious.
It was an answer to "the text and only the text", which negated both the context of publishing (i.e., the forces which bring a book to material existence), and the context of reception (i.e., the forces which bring a book to the consciousness of a putative reader).
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2017, 12:24:49 PM
It was an answer to "the text and only the text", which negated both the context of publishing (i.e., the forces which bring a book to material existence), and the context of reception (i.e., the forces which bring a book to the consciousness of a putative reader).
The thing Del said? I don't see how his post leads to what you wrote, but I may certainly be wrong. I'll wait to hear what Del says on this.
I would like to go on the record and say Grumbler is wrong. I do not think in words, I think in rebuses. Sometimes, even I don't know what I'm going on about.
The thing is Oex, that what you are saying?
It isn't about writing books. It is about literally *everything*. Whether evidenced or not, you can make the same sorta kinda compelling argument about literally everything that we produce and consume. Books are not unique or different. The same societal and contextual obstacles to authorship could apply, at least in theory (and all I see here is theory, there seems to be precious little actual data about non-white authors), to everything produced.
What percentage of the people who produce your bagels are minorities? Do you know? Should you know? Are you missing out on amazing bagels that could be made with the product of a world context that includes racism? Is your lack of knowledge about the racial struggles of those who are NOT making your bagels a sign of the very problem? What about your furniture? How much of the computer components in your laptop are designed by black engineers? You don't know? That is cool. But don't pretend your indifference to the answer is enlightenment!
I am pretty progressive when it comes to racism. I think it is pervasive and possibly one of the largest continuing social ills in western society that needs to be addressed (or continue to be addressed). But this level of insistence that I must think about little else, and in every part of my life, just makes me want to tune it all out. Fuck it, if the only way to be a enlightened lefty is to agonize over the racial makeup of the authors of the books on my shelf, then screw it, I am more inclined to just not think about it at all.
This is a cancer in the left. This need to not just acknowledge social injustice, but to martyr ourselves on some self create pyre of guilt and concern that has to reach into every single part of our lives.
This drives those I would consider rational progressives to say fuck it, and probably drives borderline progressives right out of the camp entirely, and gives the Limbaughs of the world a gleeful opportunity to point out how silly it all is - ALL OF IT - this, IMO, is part and parcel with demands for reparations and is a symptom of the lefts obsession with identity politics.
If there is a problem with the accessibility of the marketplace to black authors, then the solutions is not guilting white people into buying books simple *because* the author is black.
I can't believe this actually has to be said out loud, but there is a bit of a difference between books and bagels. :lol:
Creative works, whether they are books/songs/movies/art whatever are trying to tell the consumer something. That something is going to be greatly influenced by who and what the creator is. I don't think it is all that controversial to say people that are going to consume creative works should push themselves out of their comfort zones to experience things they might not normally experience.
Sure it doesn't have to be race, it could be gender, nationality all sorts of difference people might have something to say that you might find interesting if you gave them the chance. How many books written by women would be an equally valid question. I would imagine that race is used here as first it is still a huge deal here in this country. Second as someone else said there are not language/translation barriers for white Americans to understand African American art/culture/books.
In the meantime an everything bagel is an everything bagel no matter who created it.
Either way please continue with the cancer comparisons, they are fun too!
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-11-2015/N_lxet.gif)
Quote from: sbr on August 20, 2017, 01:00:56 PM
I can't believe this actually has to be said out loud, but there is a bit of a difference between books and bagels. :lol:
Creative works, whether they are books/songs/movies/art whatever are trying to tell the consumer something. That something is going to be greatly influenced by who and what the creator is. I don't think it is all that controversial to say people that are going to consume creative works should push themselves out of their comfort zones to experience things they might not normally experience.
That is a completely different argument to the one the OP is making.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2017, 12:46:07 PMIt isn't about writing books. It is about literally *everything*. Whether evidenced or not, you can make the same sorta kinda compelling argument about literally everything that we produce and consume. Books are not unique or different. The same societal and contextual obstacles to authorship could apply, at least in theory (and all I see here is theory, there seems to be precious little actual data about non-white authors), to everything produced.
What kind of data are you looking for?
I hear your argument about it having far-reaching implications, from bagels to computers. I think it's important to at least be aware of it - so that if I know that all my (Montreal, ergo superior) bagels are produced by minorities, in ways that do not accord with, say, a proportional representation, I may begin to wonder why. I think we have become, thankfully, aware of the more blatant forms of outright racism; it's the more insidious ones, the ones without clear individual authors that are now being brought to attention.
So, I guess I see books as at least a little different from pieces of furniture, because they are willingly designed to shape our imagination and knowledge. But I am willing to consider that bringing black engineers into some projects can perhaps, in fact, make a difference on some things.
There is, for instance, the well-known story of how color film developed (ha) by Kodak took at its standard "white" skin, and therefore, had terrible results for people with darker skin. And there was a high profile case recently about how Google's facial recognition software labeled "Gorillas" for a black couple - and I am sure programmers were all appalled by the mistake, which happened not because they were all closeted racists, but because they designed the software according to points of facial recognition based on white or asian models.
QuoteThis is a cancer in the left. This need to not just acknowledge social injustice, but to martyr ourselves on some self create pyre of guilt and concern that has to reach into every single part of our lives.
Again, I understand that, and no one wants to be nagged. But I also tend to think there is value in growing a thicker skin about it. If you and I are convinced not to be individual racists, then we can more serenely investigate how, in fact, our behavior may strengthen structural racism.
I never quite understand the argument that being "guilted" through accusations of racism (or Nazism) pushes people in the arms of racists and Nazis. I mean, I understand it from a contrarian point of view, but it doesn't strike me as a good, moral guide for taking political stances.
QuoteIf there is a problem with the accessibility of the marketplace to black authors, then the solutions is not guilting white people into buying books simple *because* the author is black.
Well, I tend to think that the solution will go through increasing awareness, and demand for black authors, so I am unsure as to what solution you would propose.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2017, 12:46:07 PM
This is a cancer in the left. This need to not just acknowledge social injustice, but to martyr ourselves on some self create pyre of guilt and concern that has to reach into every single part of our lives.
maybe it's the christian need for guilt, to be sinners guilty of something, anything. But since the left (at least in Europe) had as part of its ideology to do away with religion (and in the west that is christianity) they ended up filling that hole with something else. It could be basically anything, as long as it means the western people can be made out to be the font of all evil in the world.
In any case: in many other cultures, where this need for flagellation doesn't seem to exist, they must be laughing their arses off. And I can imagine a few taking advantage of this in order to have us turn a blind eye or accept cultural practices that are abhorrent and/or barbaric. All because, as a society, we're more afraid of being called racist (or whatever) rather than standing up for what is actually right.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2017, 01:19:26 PM
Well, I tend to think that the solution will go through increasing awareness, and demand for black authors, so I am unsure as to what solution you would propose.
Just wait for it to spontaneously occur.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2017, 01:03:51 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 20, 2017, 01:00:56 PM
I can't believe this actually has to be said out loud, but there is a bit of a difference between books and bagels. :lol:
Creative works, whether they are books/songs/movies/art whatever are trying to tell the consumer something. That something is going to be greatly influenced by who and what the creator is. I don't think it is all that controversial to say people that are going to consume creative works should push themselves out of their comfort zones to experience things they might not normally experience.
That is a completely different argument to the one the OP is making.
And it has nothing to do with "race." "Race" is a fraud. The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can get to the real solutions for racism and its legacy.
Quote from: grumbler on August 20, 2017, 07:06:33 PM
And it has nothing to do with "race." "Race" is a fraud. The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can get to the real solutions for racism and its legacy.
Do you think there is such as thing as an African-American community in the United States?
Quote from: sbr on August 20, 2017, 01:00:56 PM
In the meantime an everything bagel is an everything bagel no matter who created it.
Jewish made bagels are better. You can really taste the context of millennia of oppression
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2017, 07:11:18 PM
Do you think there is such as thing as an African-American community in the United States?
No. I think that there are different African-American communities in the US, but not a unitary one.
If you believe that race is real, how many races are there? How does one tell which race one belongs to?
That's a bit like saying the United States doesn't exist because it only exists in our heads. It's true the US does not exist as a real tangible object, but it can take your property, put you in prison, and kill you.
I think we are arguing past each other.
You are arguing against scientific racism. Of course, I agree. The idea that there are clear, biologically rooted "races" is indeed a fraud. As an ideology, it needs to die.
But, for better or for worse (in fact, entirely for worse), the idea of race has been part of the western world for a long time. It has created and structured communities, whose boundaries were violently policed from without (one drop rule, lynching, law, etc.). In fact, it is precisely because scientific racism is bunk, and therefore race a human construct, that it needed to be policed so harshly, and that some people attempted, succesfully, to "pass".
And it is based on that fucked up idea, that communities have bounded over the shared experience, first, of abject debasement that otherwise destitute people were nevertheless not subjected to. i.e., in 18th century Louisiana, nothing should have brought together a Jamaican-born man, a Wolof, an Ibo, a Toucouleur -- other than the fact that masters thought them equally "black". Those identities - Wolof, Ibo, creole, etc - are gone. And then, segregation, and discrimination.
Race is as real as ethnicity or nationality or property. It is a human construct that has a history, produces effects, and enacts strong constraints. Much like ethnicity, or nationality, or property, it has had many definitions, often contradictory, over the years, and has been policed through force, law and community norms.
So, if you were looking for a "positive" definition of race from me, or a racist statement of classification, you will not have it, because I find it as distasteful as you do: this is not what I am arguing about. I am, quite simply, acknowledging that "race" has been an operative category in the United States for 300 years, that it has defined the country, its institutions, created communities, and therefore, created meaning. I think that the shared experience of "race-based" oppression, in the face of its continuing influence, has created commonality to this day.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 20, 2017, 11:28:36 AM
Is there no such cultural or institutional bias?
Clearly there are cultural biases at work. I'm not sure about institutional biases, because I'm not sure how you intend the term to be interpreted. If you mean, does racial discrimination against blacks have the force of law behind it, the answer is, no, not anymore.
QuoteIf there is such a bias do you think that this bias will go away on its own if we adopt a color-blind point of view?
Of course it would, if everyone adopted that view. How would it such a bias perpetuate itself if it's neither established by law nor a part of popular sentiment?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2017, 01:19:26 PM
I never quite understand the argument that being "guilted" through accusations of racism (or Nazism) pushes people in the arms of racists and Nazis. I mean, I understand it from a contrarian point of view, but it doesn't strike me as a good, moral guide for taking political stances.
People pick a camp to be in partly because of the perceived legitimacy of issues their camp advocates. If you find that your camp is losing its marbles, and that your reasonable views are making you an outcast in that camp, you may be more tempted to look for another camp.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2017, 07:53:25 PM
Race is as real as ethnicity or nationality or property. It is a human construct that has a history, produces effects, and enacts strong constraints. Much like ethnicity, or nationality, or property, it has had many definitions, often contradictory, over the years, and has been policed through force, law and community norms.
So, if you were looking for a "positive" definition of race from me, or a racist statement of classification, you will not have it, because I find it as distasteful as you do: this is not what I am arguing about. I am, quite simply, acknowledging that "race" has been an operative category in the United States for 300 years, that it has defined the country, its institutions, created communities, and therefore, created meaning. I think that the shared experience of "race-based" oppression, in the face of its continuing influence, has created commonality to this day.
I agree with you. I find the "race is a fraud" argument to be a typical liberal attempt to define away a problem without doing a single useful thing to address it.
Call it whatever you want, when you call someone "white" or "black", approximately 100% of Americans will know what you're talking about. That ultimately is what counts, not pointless semantics about "race". As long as everyone knows what you're talking about when you say "white" or "black", you will probably have problems when that distinction matters for whatever reason.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2017, 10:45:07 PM
Call it whatever you want, when you call someone "white" or "black", approximately 100% of Americans will know what you're talking about. That ultimately is what counts, not pointless semantics about "race". As long as everyone knows what you're talking about when you say "white" or "black", you will probably have problems when that distinction matters for whatever reason.
Sure. That generally works in America...except you know, thousands of "black" people passed for "white" people over the centuries so do people actually know? And of course it really breaks down outside of the US.
Oh and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_v._United_States
QuoteHolding
Court held that residents originating from Syria were considered racially "white", and therefore eligible to become naturalized US citizens
Hey Syrians are white! Did 100% of Americans know that?
It is just an arbitrary thing based on appearance. But just because something is fake and bullshit does not mean it is not incredibly important. It seems to be the most singularly important social issue in the US today and certainly was a giant self-inflicted cross our country has had to bear since birth.
I just want to point out I asked a simple question. I have lots of books from Latin America and on Latin American. Is Carlos Fuentes white? I honestly have no fucking idea. Nobody has tried to answer me (unless I missed it)
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 11:12:50 PM
I just want to point out I asked a simple question. I have lots of books from Latin America and on Latin American. Is Carlos Fuentes white? I honestly have no fucking idea. Nobody has tried to answer me.
Personally I think the utility of the question is less about a binary accounting and more of a point of view to examine to what degree you're exposing yourself to perspectives outside of your immediate social context.
Whether Fuentes (or other Latin American authors in your library) is white or not, it still indicates an area where you're exposing yourself to a different perspective. That's cool.
As I said upthread, my library is pretty white barring a few exceptions. Examining that, I'll perhaps make a bit more of an effort to look for some different perspectives next time I'm looking to buy books. I don't think I'm going to consider changing camps from this particular line of inquiry though.
I do agree that people can sometimes frame it in ways that are driven by anger and/ or the apparent desire to make the listener feel inadequate - and I find that annoying sure - but that's a pretty universal feature these days it seems, across a bunch of topics many of which are entirely unrelated to race or politics.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2017, 11:02:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2017, 10:45:07 PM
Call it whatever you want, when you call someone "white" or "black", approximately 100% of Americans will know what you're talking about. That ultimately is what counts, not pointless semantics about "race". As long as everyone knows what you're talking about when you say "white" or "black", you will probably have problems when that distinction matters for whatever reason.
Sure. That generally works in America...except you know, thousands of "black" people passed for "white" people over the centuries so do people actually know? And of course it really breaks down outside of the US.
Oh and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_v._United_States
QuoteHolding
Court held that residents originating from Syria were considered racially "white", and therefore eligible to become naturalized US citizens
Hey Syrians are white! Did 100% of Americans know that?
It is just an arbitrary thing based on appearance. But just because something is fake and bullshit does not mean it is not incredibly important. It seems to be the most singularly important social issue in the US today and certainly was a giant self-inflicted cross our country has had to bear since birth.
Quick thought experiement:
"M'am, think carefully, can you tell us anything about the suspect?"
"He's tall, about 6 feet."
"Okay, anything else?"
"He wore red sneakers and gray hoodie."
"Thank you, that's helpful, anything else?"
"He's white."
"What does that mean?"
"His race, he's a white guy."
"Race is a fake concept. That doesn't tell me anything. :rolleyes:"
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 20, 2017, 07:53:25 PM
Race is as real as ethnicity or nationality or property. It is a human construct that has a history, produces effects, and enacts strong constraints.
What impact has race (not racism, mind, but race itself) had? Every effect, constraint, etc that I can think of is a product of racism, not race.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2017, 11:29:46 PM
Quick thought experiement:
"M'am, think carefully, can you tell us anything about the suspect?"
"He's tall, about 6 feet."
"Okay, anything else?"
"He wore red sneakers and gray hoodie."
"Thank you, that's helpful, anything else?"
"He's white."
"What does that mean?"
"His race, he's a white guy."
"Race is a fake concept. That doesn't tell me anything. :rolleyes:"
It means he has light skin. But maybe his name is Carlos Fuentes so you don't arrest him because he is Latino.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2017, 11:19:43 PM
Whether Fuentes (or other Latin American authors in your library) is white or not, it still indicates an area where you're exposing yourself to a different perspective. That's cool.
Hey I love people of all varieties and learning about our weird goings on. I just wish I had to time to read anymore :weep:
Quote from: grumbler on August 20, 2017, 11:49:17 PM
What impact has race (not racism, mind, but race itself) had? Every effect, constraint, etc that I can think of is a product of racism, not race.
It seems to me that you want to posit racism as the root cause, and therefore its product, race (and everything race would produce), to be ultimately derived from racism. Why not? It's a legitimate stance, and I am not terribly invested in making them hermetically sealed from one another. Except that I do think that the removal of "root cause" from "product" allows to think things differently. I think, for instance, the inclusion of "race" in US surveys, for instance, allows people to name, quantify, analyze problems, in the US, the ways they can't, in France (where that mention is forbidden from surveys). I think it has allowed for the recognition of a "black culture" in the US, the establishment of collective solidarities between, say, West Africa and the Caribbean. I think it actually fosters collective action against inequalities. When people use, for example "reverse racism", they want to make a political point of delegitimizing a specific action or policy.
As an analog, I think we could certainly posit that "private property" is the product of "inequality", and so therefore, insist that all which property produces is simply the result of "inequality". A number of Marxist would insist, for instance, that removing the "root cause" from our thinking, has allowed us to make property do all sorts of things, including equating liberal democracy with private property. Someone insisting, every time we speak of property, to call it inequality would be seen as making a very specific political point.
Again, I think it is politically and ethically important to periodically remind ourselves of the direct lineage between race and racism, but I think context is key. If that reminder is aimed at, or has the effect of, undermining collective action against discrimination produced by racism, then it's not neutral. Perhaps, in time, "race" will undergo a stronger process of "ethnogenesis", where it will ceased to be tied with something like "phenotype", but we are not there. I think the controversies about Rachel Dolzeal (in the US) or Joseph Boyden (in Canada) have been illuminating about the difficulties to fold one (ethnicity) unto the other (race).
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
If it does exist then I suppose you can tell me what it is.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
If it does exist then I suppose you can tell me what it is.
Grouping of people based on their ancestry. That's all it is.
Yes, it may be arbitrary as to which ancestry goes to which group, and yes, it is a social construct like a lot of clustering schemes, and yes, it may be hard to determine in some cases because ancestry itself is not a precise concept, but all that is selective quibbling. You can quibble to death any social concept if you're motivated enough to take it down. For all matters impacted by races, these quibbles are completely beside the point.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2017, 11:19:43 PM
As I said upthread, my library is pretty white barring a few exceptions. Examining that, I'll perhaps make a bit more of an effort to look for some different perspectives next time I'm looking to buy books. I don't think I'm going to consider changing camps from this particular line of inquiry though.
Yeah, I realised a decade or so ago that I'd been reading books by men almost exclusively. I hadn't been doing it deliberately but must have got stuck in a rut somehow. I made a conscious effort to change that and I'm glad I did.
I quite often try and find fiction from a country I'm interested in or feel I haven't read much of. It's not hard to expand your range with a bit of research.
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2017, 07:49:43 AM
Grouping of people based on their ancestry. That's all it is.
Yes, it may be arbitrary as to which ancestry goes to which group, and yes, it is a social construct like a lot of clustering schemes, and yes, it may be hard to determine in some cases because ancestry itself is not a precise concept, but all that is selective quibbling. You can quibble to death any social concept if you're motivated enough to take it down. For all matters impacted by races, these quibbles are completely beside the point.
Well people from the same parents can be of different races depending upon how the genes mix together. Is it completely beside the point? Well...yes and no. Yes so far as it is a big deal in society the fact that it does not actually correspond to anything important is beside the point. But most people think it is real and I have a hard time seeing race disappear as a social force so long as people have this misconception.
The eclipse also affords us more opportunity to reflect upon our race consciousness:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/american-totality-eclipse-race/537318/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/american-totality-eclipse-race/537318/)
Quote
American Blackout
Alice Ristroph
Aug 18, 2017 Science
Totality is everything, say those who chase solar eclipses. When the moon fully obscures the sun and casts its shadow on Earth, the result is like nothing you've seen before—not even a partial eclipse. A merely partial eclipse does not flip day to night, because the sun is bright enough to light our fields of vision with only a tiny fraction of its power. But when the sun and moon align just so, a little piece of Earth goes dark in the middle of the day. In this path of totality, night comes suddenly and one can see the shape of the moon as a circle darker than black, marked by the faint backlight of the sun's corona. Astronomers and eclipse chasers chart carefully to be sure that they can watch from exactly the right place at the right time. They know that you cannot compromise with the sun. For a dark sky, the sun must be banished altogether.
On August 21, 2017, a total solar eclipse will arrive mid-morning on the coast of Oregon. The moon's shadow will be about 70 miles wide, and it will race across the country faster than the speed of sound, exiting the eastern seaboard shortly before 3 p.m. local time. It has been dubbed the Great American Eclipse, and along most of its path, there live almost no black people.
More From
Democracy
Mass Incarceration Is a Local Affair
The War on Drugs Has Made Policing More Violent
A Mistake That Lasts a Lifetime
Presumably, this is not explained by the implicit bias of the solar system. It is a matter of population density, and more specifically geographic variations in population density by race, for which the sun and the moon cannot be held responsible. Still, an eclipse chaser is always tempted to believe that the skies are relaying a message. At a moment of deep disagreement about the nation's best path forward, here comes a giant round shadow, drawing a line either to cut the country in two or to unite it as one. Ancient peoples watched total eclipses with awe and often dread, seeing in the darkness omens of doom. The Great American Eclipse may or may not tell us anything about our future, but its peculiar path could remind us of something about our past—what it was we meant to be doing, and what we actually did along the way. And if it seems we need no reminding, consider this: We tend to backlight our history, and so run the risk of trying to recover a glory that never existed. When the light in August changes, watch carefully.
* * *
As the eclipse approaches, the temperature will fall and birds will roost, and then, suddenly, the lights will go out. For each place within the path of totality, the darkness will last a minute, maybe two, and then daylight will return.
Oregon, where this begins, is almost entirely white. The 10 percent or so of state residents who do not identify as white are predominantly Latino, American Indian, Alaskan, or Asian. There are very few black Oregonians, and this is not an accident. The land that is now Oregon was not, of course, always inhabited by white people, but as a U.S. territory and then a state, Oregon sought to get and stay white. Among several formal efforts at racial exclusion was a provision in the original state constitution of 1857 that prohibited any "free Negro or Mulatto" from entering and residing in the state.
The astronomers tell us where lies the path of totality; the census tells us where live the people and what colors they are.
The American West was not the land of chattel slavery—with some brief exceptions, slavery was illegal in Oregon before and after statehood. But among the dreams of the pioneers there was, at least sometimes, a dream of escaping racial strife by escaping black people altogether. As put by Peter Burnett, the architect of one racially exclusionary law in Oregon, the aim was simply to avoid "that most troublesome class of population. We are in a new world, under most favorable circumstances, and we wish to avoid most of those evils that have so afflicted the United States and other countries."
Two Minutes of Darkness
On August 21, an eclipse will sweep across the United States, from the redwood forests of Oregon to the shores of South Carolina. Read The Atlantic's coverage here.
Read more
From Oregon, the Great American Eclipse will travel through Idaho and Wyoming. (It will catch a tiny unpopulated piece of Montana, too.) Percentage-wise, Idaho and Wyoming are even whiter than Oregon. And as in Oregon, but even more so, the few non-white residents of Idaho and Wyoming are not black—they are mostly Latino, American Indian, and Alaskan. The astronomers tell us where lies the path of totality; the census tells us where live the people and what colors they are. The census is detailed, and precise, but its very categories should bring unease. A census is not just a matter of counting; it involves assessing and classifying and evaluating. This is particularly true of the U.S. census, a window into this nation's dreams of totality and its always dangerous compromises.
The census is required by the U.S. Constitution, which envisions an accounting of the people every 10 years to determine the size of each state's delegation to the House of Representatives. Infamously, the Founders argued over whether slaves (who, of course, could not themselves vote or serve in office) should nonetheless be counted for purposes of allocating members of Congress, and infamously, the Founders settled the matter with the Three-Fifths Compromise. Each state's power would be based upon a population tally that included both free persons and "three fifths of all other persons" (with "Indians not taxed" excluded altogether). Thus the country was founded with the idea that the people had to be counted, and that each had to be classified before he was counted so that we could know exactly how much he counted.
"Black" was not an option on the first U.S. census, nor was "colored" or "Negro." The first census, in 1790, and the next two distinguished along the lines that mattered, along the lines expressly contemplated in the Constitution: free whites, other free persons, and slaves. The 1820 census introduced the term colored. In 1850, black and mulatto became options. In 1890, the census kept the terms black and mulatto but also added quadroon and octoroon. We needed such precision in the post-war era of Jim Crow, when even one drop of African blood rendered a person legally black. With whiteness, there was no compromise. Totality was everything.
To be clear, black and mulatto and octoroon were labels assigned by the census-takers. Not until 1960 did the people being counted get to check their own racial boxes. In 2000, they gained the ability to check more than one. The most recent census, in 2010, gave respondents the chance to identify themselves as white, "Black, African American, or Negro" (a single category), or any of 13 other options, including "some other race." The next census, in 2020, will abolish the term Negro. Race, like America, is a work in progress.
* * *
After Wyoming, the eclipse will go through Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. This is America's heartland, and also, literally, the land of compromise. When Missouri sought statehood in 1819, the United States consisted of 22 states, equally divided between those that permitted slavery and those that did not. Missouri's request to enter as a slave-holding state threatened to upset the balance, but a kind of unity was preserved with the Missouri Compromise. The deal allowed Missouri its slaves but drew a line across the nation, east-west to the Pacific Ocean, and mandated that slavery would be illegal in all other territories north of the line. Nebraska and Kansas, bordering Missouri to the west and lying just north of the compromise line, were thus to remain slavery-free. But the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed the (white) people of those territories to decide for themselves whether to have slavery. A few years later, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court would declare the Missouri Compromise to have been an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to intrude on states' rights. A few years after that, the Civil War would begin.
Most Americans learn this history as schoolchildren, but then forget it. There are too many damn facts. Even for those who like facts, some may be too painful to face or to remember. Some facts may just get obscured by more bad news. In America's heartland, a different kind of struggle, primarily economic, is now more easily called to mind than the details of the Missouri Compromise. Bruce Springsteen, after reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, wrote an album of songs too bleak for a studio, much less an arena. Instead, in the stretch of a single January day in 1982, Springsteen recorded these songs using a cassette recorder in his bedroom. Even after releasing the album, he would not tour to promote it. The songs tell of criminals and outsiders in despair, and of the lawmen who chase and kill and love and are these desperate men. The songs tell of ordinary people who toil for little reward, of people whose lives do not seem to count at all. The album sings of the meanness in this world, and of debts that no honest man can pay, and it pleads hey ho, rock n roll, deliver me from nowhere. The album went platinum, and it is called Nebraska.
The shadow of the moon doesn't care where it falls or who lives below.
The total eclipse will be visible from Lincoln, Nebraska, the state's capital, which reports a black population of 3.8 percent. The city of Omaha has a greater black population, about 14 percent. It is home to many of the refugees from Africa and elsewhere that Nebraska has welcomed in recent years, many of whom now work in slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants. But Omaha is about 50 miles northeast of the path of totality.
In Iowa, unpopulated land will get about 30 seconds of darkness. The path will clip the northeast corner of Kansas, passing most notably over Leavenworth. Census.gov tells us that Leavenworth has a much greater population density than the state average, and its black population is almost double the percentage of black residents statewide. Census.gov doesn't mention it, but Leavenworth is a prison town, hosting a few federal facilities as well as the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility. Until her release earlier this year, Chelsea Manning was held in the U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth.
It's not easy to find out who is left there. The Bureau of Prisons doesn't publish demographic statistics by individual facility. We do know that the percentage of blacks among all federal prisoners is close to 40 percent, approximately three times the percentage of blacks in the population at large. And remember, the census goes everywhere, and counts people where it finds them, without regard to whether they can vote. In a practice called "prison gerrymandering" by its critics, the census counts incarcerated persons as residents of the county where the prison lies, not of the place where they lived before going inside. Especially since census data are now used for allocating not only federal representatives but also state and local ones, this manner of counting gives localities an incentive to build a prison and fill it. Long after the Three-Fifths Clause was repealed, we are still counting black people who can't vote and using their numbers to increase the political power of the free people nearby.
From Kansas, the eclipse goes to Missouri, still mostly bypassing black people, though now much more improbably. About a third of Kansas City, Missouri, is black, but most of the city lies just south of the path of totality. To get the full show, eclipse chasers should go north to St. Joseph, almost 90 percent white and about 6 percent black, the place where Jesse James died and where Marshall Mathers, a.k.a. Eminem, was born. The real Slim Shady, that is, who left St. Joe and took his angry and wry lyricism—"Y'all act like you never seen a white person before"—to the world of hip-hop, where Rolling Stone would declare him king. He was the top-selling American artist of 2000–2010 and the first rapper to win an Academy Award.
Moving east, the eclipse will pass part of St. Louis, whose overall population is nearly half black. But the black residents are concentrated in the northern half of the metropolitan area, and the total eclipse crosses only the southern half. Eight miles north of the path of totality is Ferguson, where Officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown three summers ago. The majority of residents of Ferguson are black, policed by white officers who, like Wilson, live elsewhere. Brown's death brought pain and protests and efforts to show that Black Lives Matter. It has drawn needed attention to the distribution of state violence by race, but the sad irony is that black lives have always mattered in this country. Since the founding, white people have been arguing about, first, how much a black life matters, three-fifths as much as a white life or something more or less; and second, for whose political benefit those lives will be counted.
The farther you live from other people, the more electoral power you wield.
The shadow of the moon doesn't care where it falls or who lives below. And in certain respects, the federal government designed in our Constitution doesn't care where people live, either. We need the census tallies to determine how many representatives each state sends to the House, but the census is irrelevant to the Senate: Each state gets two senators, whatever its population. This arrangement is the result of another of the many compromises that made the Constitution possible. Of course, we probably don't need the eclipse to remind us of the Constitution's different forms of representation. After all, every four years an Electoral College and not the people directly selects the President. Every four years we are reminded that each state gets as many electors as it has members of Congress, a system that magnifies the relative power of voters in less populous states. California has two senators and 53 representatives, giving it 55 electors for 39.25 million people, or one elector for every 713,000 people. Wyoming has two senators and only one representative, three electors for just over half a million people, or one for every 195,000 people.
Sometimes it's hard to recall why we did it this way. There were reasons to think of equality in terms of states and not just in terms of individual people—surely there must have been. Equal states were to serve a particular vision of inclusive totality. One nation, it was thought, could accommodate and even thrive upon difference—if not racial difference in the beginning, then cultural and political difference. Separate states had and would keep different identities and ideologies, and yet still these states could be united. The states were supposed to look after the interests of individual citizens more effectively than could a national government. The states were supposed to bring everybody in without shutting anybody out.
But the equal power of states was enshrined at a time when states served white people, and never since have states' rights been a particularly effective mechanism for racial equality. Looking back, the bargains struck to protect the states appear as resolutions to disputes among white people, including disputes about what to do with people who are not white. And looking ahead, we can expect the equal power of the states to exacerbate further the political inequality of individual persons: The farther you live from other people, the more electoral power you wield.
There aren't many people in the southern coal-mining counties of Illinois, where totality will last the longest, up to two minutes and 40 seconds. Williamson County here is sometimes labeled "Bloody Williamson" thanks to several violent episodes in the region, including attacks by white union miners on black workers brought to Williamson to replace them. Not all of the violence was cross-racial, or union-based. After a 1922 massacre of 20 strikebreakers by union miners, the Ku Klux Klan established itself in the county, promising church leaders frustrated with bootlegging and hostile toward thirsty Italian immigrants that the KKK could help the churches protect "the highest ideals of the native-born white American Gentile citizenship." Several years of gang warfare followed as local sheriffs battled the Klan to control the region. Williamson is a reminder that white skin alone cannot satisfy some visions of American totality. The Klan's targets were not always black—there were few blacks in Williamson to target, then or now. At the last census the black population of Williamson County was about 3.8 percent, and that's with a U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, the county seat.
* * *
Former slave-holding states are still the home to most of America's black population. In Kentucky, Tennessee, and eventually South Carolina, the eclipse will finally pass over black Americans. Even here, though, the path of totality seems to mark the legacy of slavery and the persistence of segregation more than any form of inclusion. Kentucky permitted slavery but never seceded and instead tried to remain neutral during the Civil War. "I hope to have God on my side," Lincoln reportedly said, "but I must have Kentucky." Cautious, careful, incrementalist, the Emancipation Proclamation declared freedom only for slaves in rebel states and didn't apply to border states like Kentucky. Nonetheless, the state grew increasingly disenchanted with Lincoln, and it would not ratify the Thirteenth Amendment (which formally abolishes slavery) until 1976.
The basic premise of just war is this: Always say, and steadfastly believe, that the other guy started it.
About 100 miles away from the path of totality in Kentucky is Berea College, the first interracial college in the South and the alma mater of Carter Woodson, who would become famous for insisting that black people have history, too. In the 1920s, Woodson advocated for the celebration of a Negro History Week. Woodson hoped that, one day, black history would be as important as any other history, recognized and remembered year-round; a century later, we've increased the allotted time from one week to one month. "God has made of one blood all the peoples of the Earth" is the slogan of Berea College, which was founded with funds from a wealthy white planter and abolitionist named Cassius M. Clay. In tribute, a fellow Kentuckian who was himself a descendant of slaves would name his son after Clay, but that man's son and namesake would later change his name to Muhammad Ali, calling Cassius Clay his slave name. Ali was an outspoken advocate of civil rights, and of course, a fighter whose speed and grace became known around the world. "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," said Ali. "The hands can't hit what the eye can't see."
It may be speed, and not light, that is the most shocking thing about a total solar eclipse. The United States is about 2,680 miles wide. The total eclipse is not taking the shortest path across, but even so, it will take only about 90 minutes to cross the continent. The moon's shadow will be traveling over 2,000 miles per hour when it makes landfall in Oregon, and it will slow only slightly here and there on its path. In deference to what the locals call Tennessee time, perhaps, it is in that state the shadow will reach its slowest speed, just over 1,300 mph. Tennessee was practically the epicenter of the Civil War, the last southern state to secede and the site of more battles than any other state but Virginia. Much of Nashville is built on a battlefield where Confederate forces fought (and lost) for almost the last time. About 600,000 people live in the Nashville area, and about 30 percent of this population is black. Nashville is the largest U.S. city in the path of the eclipse, and they have already released an eclipse playlist, starting off with Bill Withers's "Ain't No Sunshine."
But after Tennessee, the shadow regains some speed and travels over white people only again for a while. It catches the northeast corner of Georgia and the western tip of North Carolina. Though both these states have substantial black populations, both also include overwhelmingly white rural areas, and it is those areas that lie in the path of totality. Rabun County, 1 percent black at the 2010 census, is the best place in Georgia to see the eclipse. Also in the path of totality are Habersham (3.4 percent black), Union (0.5 percent), and White (1.7 percent) counties.
Georgia will catch only a bit of the eclipse, but the state has already known well a different path of totality. Near the end of the Civil War, after Union forces captured the city of Atlanta, General William Tecumseh Sherman banished most of its citizens and burned its government buildings. Sherman (Cump, to his friends) was an advocate of what's now called total war. His stated aim was "to make Georgia howl"—to destroy not only the Confederacy's economic and technological capacities to fight, but also the people's will to resist. Sherman left Atlanta in the winter of 1864 and led 60,000 men on a March to the Sea. Using data from the 1860 census, which had counted livestock and crops in addition to people, Sherman charted a path for his men to forage for themselves even as they destroyed the state's infrastructure. The Union forces did not burn everything in their path, as is sometimes alleged, but they did burn homes and farms of those who resisted. They reached Savannah on December 21, 1864, and offered the city to the recently reelected Abraham Lincoln as a Christmas present. In the new year, Cump took his path of totality through South Carolina (which, incidentally, is where the eclipse ends up, too). In April 1865, the Confederacy surrendered and the war was over.
In the eyes of many residents of Georgia and other former Confederate states, Sherman was deeply evil, a perpetrator of crimes against humanity. His defenders acknowledge that he introduced new levels and forms of violence, but say it was his very humanity that led him to do it. He sought to avoid the huge body counts of the war's more traditional battles. His strategy seemed to have worked, and it may have made the difference between Union defeat and Union victory. But what, exactly, was won? Certainly not the hearts and minds of southern whites, many of whom still fly the Confederate flag more than a century later.
In the last 12 or 13 minutes of the eclipse, it will probably pass over more black Americans than it does throughout all of its earlier journey.
The basic premise of just war, learned by schoolchildren on playgrounds and remembered far better than anyone remembers American history, is this: Always say, and steadfastly believe, that the other guy started it. So in Georgia and elsewhere in the South, the Civil War is often called the War of Northern Aggression, and it is said that the war was about states' rights and cultural independence, not a war to defend slavery. Of course, the right to choose slavery was in fact one of the rights claimed by Confederate states, but the narrative of cultural independence is more than a cloak for racism. And indeed, the glib view of the war held by much of the rest of the country—our nation used to treat black people badly, but we fought a war to end slavery and thus all has been fixed—may hamper modern civil-rights efforts more than any southern man's recitation of the battles fought by his great-great-granddaddy. It is too easy to forget that many Union leaders, including Cump and Lincoln himself, did not seek racial equality, and of course the war did not come close to achieving it.
After Georgia, the eclipse will pass over a small piece of western North Carolina. The black population of these barely populated counties hovers around 1 percent, falling as low as 0.2 percent in Graham. The path of totality will narrowly miss Tryon, the birthplace of Nina Simone. In 1963, after learning of a bombing of a black church that killed four girls, Simone shut herself in a room and wrote "Mississippi Goddam" in less than an hour. (She later reported that she'd tried to assemble a gun, but her husband convinced her to write a song instead.) The song became a civil-rights anthem, notable for its poignant depictions of the failure of compromise, of going slow. Simone made clear that her demand was for political power, not friendship. You don't have to live next to me, she sang; just give me my equality. Southern states couldn't ban Simone herself, but several banned the song. Simone resented the music industry's reaction to "Mississippi Goddam," but she was not willing to go slow, not satisfied to rely on the hope that things would get better at all deliberate speed. She advocated, at times, for a violent revolution and for a separate black state. Disgusted and exhausted, Simone eventually exiled herself, spending more and more time out of the country, living in France for the last decade of her life.
And it's true, compromise doesn't have the best track record in this land. It's easy to see why persons of very different views would feel similarly the lure of totality, the appeal of going big, going fast, going all the way. This vision is one of exclusionary totality, not inclusiveness or compromise. It's a vision that demands that you fight for what you believe, making no concessions, admitting no errors. Let politics be the art of dominance, of getting a margin just big enough to seize control and obliterate those with whom we disagree. Even for those without a taste for dominance, we seem drawn more often toward avoidance and self-exile than to the thankless and seemingly cowardly effort to make ourselves understandable to one another. As the greatest fighter of all time taught, the hands can't hit what the eye can't see.
The arc of the eclipse is long, and it bends toward Charleston. In South Carolina in the last 12 or 13 minutes of the Great American Eclipse, it will probably pass over more black Americans than it does throughout all of its earlier journey. After Greenville and Columbia, the eclipse goes out where so many slaves once came in: Charleston was the busiest port for the slave trade, receiving about 40 percent of all the African slaves brought into the country. Today, the Old Slave Mart is a museum. Two years ago in Charleston, Dylann Roof chose the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church as his shooting ground, quietly joining a Bible study and then opening fire on the black congregants, killing nine.
And then the shadow goes to sea, still indifferent to the Earth below, indifferent to the little creatures here, indifferent to these people indifferent to their own histories. Or perhaps we are not indifferent, but just no more capable than butterflies and bees of seeing the long path and of deciding to change it. The Great American Eclipse illuminates, or darkens, a land still segregated, a land still in search of equality, a land of people still trying to dominate each other. When the lovely glow of a backlight fades, history is relentless, just one damn fact after another, one damning fact after another. America is a nation with debts that no honest man can pay. It is too much to ask that these debts simply be forgiven. But perhaps the strange path of the eclipse suggests a need for reorganization. We have figured out, more or less, how to count every person. We have not yet found a political system in which every person counts equally.
This post appears courtesy of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Related Video
Share Tweet Comments
About the Author
Alice Ristroph is a professor at Brooklyn Law School.
Glad you did a good copy and paste job, Timmy...
I'm on my cell while traveling. :sleep:
Quote"I hope to have God on my side," Lincoln reportedly said, "but I must have Kentucky."
Not only is that quote apocryphal but she did not even get the fake quote right.
QuoteCautious, careful, incrementalist, the Emancipation Proclamation declared freedom only for slaves in rebel states and didn't apply to border states like Kentucky.
Because, you know, he lacked the Constitutional ability to do that. Lincoln was ever the lawyer. And how was it incrementalist? It freed every single slave in the rebel states at the same time without compensation.
Wypipo :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
If it does exist then I suppose you can tell me what it is.
I don't know if it would be worth it. Do you think genres of music exist? Do you think different religions exist?
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
If it does exist then I suppose you can tell me what it is.
I don't know if it would be worth it. Do you think genres of music exist? Do you think different religions exist?
Sure.
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
If it does exist then I suppose you can tell me what it is.
I don't know if it would be worth it. Do you think genres of music exist? Do you think different religions exist?
Do you believe in love?
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
If it does exist then I suppose you can tell me what it is.
I don't know if it would be worth it. Do you think genres of music exist? Do you think different religions exist?
Sure.
OK great.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/race
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 21, 2017, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 07:31:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
If it does exist then I suppose you can tell me what it is.
I don't know if it would be worth it. Do you think genres of music exist? Do you think different religions exist?
Do you believe in love?
I have to.
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 02:00:28 AM
The "race doesn't exist" thing is just some weirdos being weird. They can be safely ignored.
Exactly. Next thing you know, they will be claiming that gods don't exist. They can be safely ignored.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 09:03:51 AM
Well people from the same parents can be of different races depending upon how the genes mix together. Is it completely beside the point? Well...yes and no. Yes so far as it is a big deal in society the fact that it does not actually correspond to anything important is beside the point. But most people think it is real and I have a hard time seeing race disappear as a social force so long as people have this misconception.
I agree. What DGuller describes is racism, not race. Racism is to race as religion is to gods. Gods and race don't actually exist and don't themselves have any effect. Belief in them exists and does have enormous impact.
Oh boy.
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 11:17:19 AM
Oh boy.
Not surprising though - he has been consistent on his stance. Of course, it does seem like an irrelevant aside.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 11:17:19 AM
Oh boy.
Not surprising though - he has been consistent on his stance. Of course, it does seem like an irrelevant aside.
Tell me about it. I've known his stance since 2003 I think.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 11:17:19 AM
Oh boy.
Not surprising though - he has been consistent on his stance. Of course, it does seem like an irrelevant aside.
I'm not convinced that it is irrelevant, though. If we behave as though race actually exists, and blame the problems of, say, the "blacks" in America on the fact that they are members of a black race (and construct solutions that depend on them being members of a black race), then, if that black race does not exist, our solutions cannot succeed.
If, on the other hand, we target racism as the problem rather than race, we are trying to counter a belief, not a "fact."
The "color-blind" point of view used to be considered progressive, but now many are considering it racist. Could the same be happening to the "race is a social construct" point of view?
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 11:38:27 AM
The "color-blind" point of view used to be considered progressive, but now many are considering it racist. Could the same be happening to the "race is a social construct" point of view?
You are basing this on the grumbler n=1?
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2017, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2017, 11:17:19 AM
Oh boy.
Not surprising though - he has been consistent on his stance. Of course, it does seem like an irrelevant aside.
I'm not convinced that it is irrelevant, though. If we behave as though race actually exists, and blame the problems of, say, the "blacks" in America on the fact that they are members of a black race (and construct solutions that depend on them being members of a black race), then, if that black race does not exist, our solutions cannot succeed.
If, on the other hand, we target racism as the problem rather than race, we are trying to counter a belief, not a "fact."
But I think people are doing that anyway. I don't think people are noting 'black race' as the problem. The problems are with regards to what happens to people who are seen as being 'black'. I also think if you try see 'black' as only race and ignore the cultural components that have become codified in that identity (from within as well as without), I think you are missing an important part of the picture.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 12:08:12 PM
But I think people are doing that anyway. I don't think people are noting 'black race' as the problem. The problems are with regards to what happens to people who are seen as being 'black'. I also think if you try see 'black' as only race and ignore the cultural components that have become codified in that identity (from within as well as without), I think you are missing an important part of the picture.
The cultural, personal identity, and ancestry components are covered by the concept of ethnicity. What, in your mind, is the difference between race and ethnicity?
Can an individual choose his or her race? Can an individual choose his or her ethnicity?
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2017, 12:10:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 12:08:12 PM
But I think people are doing that anyway. I don't think people are noting 'black race' as the problem. The problems are with regards to what happens to people who are seen as being 'black'. I also think if you try see 'black' as only race and ignore the cultural components that have become codified in that identity (from within as well as without), I think you are missing an important part of the picture.
The cultural, personal identity, and ancestry components are covered by the concept of ethnicity. What, in your mind, is the difference between race and ethnicity?
Can an individual choose his or her race? Can an individual choose his or her ethnicity?
Depends on one's school of thought. After all, I'm supposedly able to claim both my white and black heritage but I know that no matter what I may possibly think, I'm going to be put by others into a non-white category (though not likely black as most white people that I've surveyed don't guess black).
I'm not sure how much, in daily usage, people in the US make a big split between ethnicity and race beyond say things like Hispanic white or Italian both as subsets of the white racial category.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 12:14:36 PM
Depends on one's school of thought. After all, I'm supposedly able to claim both my white and black heritage but I know that no matter what I may possibly think, I'm going to be put by others into a non-white category (though not likely black as most white people that I've surveyed don't guess black).
I'm not sure how much, in daily usage, people in the US make a big split between ethnicity and race beyond say things like Hispanic white or Italian both as subsets of the white racial category.
So, Italians are an ethnicity, but Germans are a race? How does that work? Are the Japanese also a race, as they claim, or do others get to assign races (and, if so, who)?
Sorry, I thought you were actually interested in a discussion not a Socratic dialogue. My apologies. -_-
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 12:05:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 11:38:27 AM
The "color-blind" point of view used to be considered progressive, but now many are considering it racist. Could the same be happening to the "race is a social construct" point of view?
You are basing this on the grumbler n=1?
No.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 11:38:27 AM
The "color-blind" point of view used to be considered progressive, but now many are considering it racist. Could the same be happening to the "race is a social construct" point of view?
Possibly, but I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is a shift from "race is a social construct, so we should act like it means nothing" to "race is a social construct, and we should acknowledge and respond to the impact it has."
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2017, 09:29:40 AM
Because, you know, he lacked the Constitutional ability to do that. Lincoln was ever the lawyer. And how was it incrementalist? It freed every single slave in the rebel states at the same time without compensation.
well, it was one big increment?
I can understand some of the hostility to these questions. It can feel like people are trying to call you racist and nobody likes being called racist. Except Derspeiss. I doubt Grumbler was brought up racist, hell I doubt he even knew that people had different skin colors before the Akkadians showed up.
:huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2017, 01:51:30 PM
I doubt he even knew that people had different skin colors before the Akkadians showed up.
Damn frogs.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 01:37:58 PM
Possibly, but I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is a shift from "race is a social construct, so we should act like it means nothing" to "race is a social construct, and we should acknowledge and respond to the impact it has."
What impact does race have? Not racism, but race itself?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 11:38:27 AM
The "color-blind" point of view used to be considered progressive, but now many are considering it racist. Could the same be happening to the "race is a social construct" point of view?
Possibly, but I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is a shift from "race is a social construct, so we should act like it means nothing" to "race is a social construct, and we should acknowledge and respond to the impact it has."
I can see that.
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 01:37:58 PM
Possibly, but I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is a shift from "race is a social construct, so we should act like it means nothing" to "race is a social construct, and we should acknowledge and respond to the impact it has."
What impact does race have? Not racism, but race itself?
What do you mean?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 02:24:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 01:37:58 PM
Possibly, but I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is a shift from "race is a social construct, so we should act like it means nothing" to "race is a social construct, and we should acknowledge and respond to the impact it has."
What impact does race have? Not racism, but race itself?
What do you mean?
Just smile and back away
What is race without racism? If race is socially constructed, then the idea falls apart if there's no reason to distinguish between races. And if the 'races' are equal--both in nature and in society--then there's no reason to do so.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 01:58:46 PM
:huh:
He missed a crucial part. You enjoy being called racist
by CDM because that's how he shows he cares. :P
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 11:38:27 AM
The "color-blind" point of view used to be considered progressive, but now many are considering it racist. Could the same be happening to the "race is a social construct" point of view?
Possibly, but I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is a shift from "race is a social construct, so we should act like it means nothing" to "race is a social construct, and we should acknowledge and respond to the impact it has."
I think what we're seeing is Whitey just wishing these negroes would stop their crying already.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 21, 2017, 02:42:28 PM
What is race without racism? If race is socially constructed, then the idea falls apart if there's no reason to distinguish between races. And if the 'races' are equal--both in nature and in society--then there's no reason to do so.
That assumes that "socially constructed" = "meaningless" or "irrelevant" which is a bit of a jump.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 12:35:16 PM
Sorry, I thought you were actually interested in a discussion not a Socratic dialogue. My apologies. -_-
It's too bad, because it could have been an interesting discussion. But that's grumbler for you.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 02:24:58 PM
What do you mean?
What impact does race have? Not racism, but race itself?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 21, 2017, 02:42:28 PM
What is race without racism? If race is socially constructed, then the idea falls apart if there's no reason to distinguish between races. And if the 'races' are equal--both in nature and in society--then there's no reason to do so.
You cannot have MY point! :D
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 02:30:37 PM
Just smile and back away
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2017, 03:14:07 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 21, 2017, 02:42:28 PM
What is race without racism? If race is socially constructed, then the idea falls apart if there's no reason to distinguish between races. And if the 'races' are equal--both in nature and in society--then there's no reason to do so.
That assumes that "socially constructed" = "meaningless" or "irrelevant" which is a bit of a jump.
Who claims that racism is meaningless or irrelevant?
Quote from: dps on August 21, 2017, 04:48:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2017, 12:35:16 PM
Sorry, I thought you were actually interested in a discussion not a Socratic dialogue. My apologies. -_-
It's too bad, because it could have been an interesting discussion. But that's grumbler for you.
Indeed. Everyone flees the questions about race, because they have no answers. But that's grumbler for you, avoiding platitudes and going to the uncomfortable heart of the matter. :(
Feel free to have your "interesting discussion" in this thread. I promise not to lance your fantasies or post in this thread again.
Well that is just an entertainment let down.
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2017, 08:08:14 PM
Indeed. Everyone flees the questions about race, because they have no answers.
That's going to happen when every answer to "what is race" will be unilaterally deemed by you to be the answer to "what is racism". Pretty much any question in existence can wind up with not having an answer, if the sole arbiter of what constitutes an answer decides that there is no answer.
In grumbler's defense my impression is that he actually thinks that he's being profound and that he has some significant insight. :)
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 01:58:46 PM
:huh:
Akkadians were a Afro-Asiatic people who appear to have arrived in Sumeria a very long time ago.
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2017, 12:27:01 AM
In grumbler's defense my impression is that he actually thinks that he's being profound and that he has some significant insight. :)
I'm not sure that is much of a defense though.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 01:33:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2017, 12:27:01 AM
In grumbler's defense my impression is that he actually thinks that he's being profound and that he has some significant insight. :)
I'm not sure that is much of a defense though.
There's no need for a defence. The attack is simply a social construct and does not objectively exist.
Quote from: Gups on August 22, 2017, 03:46:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 01:33:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2017, 12:27:01 AM
In grumbler's defense my impression is that he actually thinks that he's being profound and that he has some significant insight. :)
I'm not sure that is much of a defense though.
There's no need for a defence. The attack is simply a social construct and does not objectively exist.
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2017, 01:29:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2017, 01:58:46 PM
:huh:
Akkadians were a Afro-Asiatic people who appear to have arrived in Sumeria a very long time ago.
They were awesome golfers.
I suppose your idea of "race" makes sense in an social system with only clearly identifiable whites and blacks, with all blacks perpetuated as victims.
But this is from the real world, where I spend my days.
I teach English (and history) mostly on high school level to adults. Around 90% of my students did not go to school in this country. A class I remember consisted of:
1 from Mexico
2 from Thailand
1 from Saudi Arabia
3 from Somalia
4 from Iran
2 from Iraq
2 from Poland
2 from Russia
1 from China
1 from Bulgaria/Turkey
2 Kurds
1 from Spain
1 from Chile
2 Swedes, one white and one from Ethiopia
I challenge you to apply your social construct of "race" in this context, identifying the whites and non-whites, what they have in common, and ESPECIALLY what I will learn by interviewing one "non-white" as opposed to a "white" person.
Delirium, are you under the impression that social constructs provide a clear, consistent, and rational set of rules to apply?
garbon you are a stereotype of exactly the reason the progressive left is a joke, and not a very funny one.
If someone doesn't agree with you, you accuse them of being racist, or at the very least being ignorant because of their race (which if anything, is YOU being a racist). It's the very reason why debate is not tolerated in places where it ought to be embraced. The accusation of racism is just too easy to make for the intellectually lazy.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Delirium on August 22, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
*white whine*
Quoted for posterity.
Maybe he just doesn't fucking agree with you, and that has nothing to do with his race?
Is that possible?
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:17:23 AM
garbon you are a stereotype of exactly the reason the progressive left is a joke, and not a very funny one.
If someone doesn't agree with you, you accuse them of being racist, or at the very least being ignorant because of their race (which if anything, is YOU being a racist). It's the very reason why debate is not tolerated in places where it ought to be embraced. The accusation of racism is just too easy to make for the intellectually lazy.
I haven't accused anyone of racism here. I do see a lot of white people alleging they were accused of racism though.
In fact, my first post in this thread is how most of my books are from white authors! :o
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:18:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Delirium on August 22, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
*white whine*
Quoted for posterity.
Maybe he just doesn't fucking agree with you, and that has nothing to do with his race?
Is that possible?
Yes, it is handy that a white person who doesn't have to deal with the ramifications of race - thinks it is unimportant factor and as he said 'doesn't give a fuck about'.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:18:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Delirium on August 22, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
*white whine*
Quoted for posterity.
Maybe he just doesn't fucking agree with you, and that has nothing to do with his race?
Is that possible?
Yes, it is handy that a white person who doesn't have to deal with the ramifications of race - thinks it is unimportant factor and as he said 'doesn't give a fuck about'.
Of course - his position must be because he is white.
Isn't there a word for assigning a position to someone based on their particular "race"? Isn't there something we call that?
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:18:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Delirium on August 22, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
*white whine*
Quoted for posterity.
Maybe he just doesn't fucking agree with you, and that has nothing to do with his race?
Is that possible?
Yes, it is handy that a white person who doesn't have to deal with the ramifications of race
Oh sure, white people never have to deal with any ramifications of race. It has no impact on us at all, gosh no! All white people have an identical experience with race, of course, we are all basically the same.
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess mostly White, with a comparatively large number of Asian (Chinese and Japanese history buff being the reason). Very few American Black authours, only a handful of sub-Saharan African authors (an old copy of Things Fall Apart is visible). More from India or from South America.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 11:00:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:18:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Delirium on August 22, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
*white whine*
Quoted for posterity.
Maybe he just doesn't fucking agree with you, and that has nothing to do with his race?
Is that possible?
Yes, it is handy that a white person who doesn't have to deal with the ramifications of race - thinks it is unimportant factor and as he said 'doesn't give a fuck about'.
Of course - his position must be because he is white.
Isn't there a word for assigning a position to someone based on their particular "race"? Isn't there something we call that?
Have you consulted a dictionary recently? :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:17:23 AM
garbon you are a stereotype of exactly the reason the progressive left is a joke, and not a very funny one.
I don't think garbon identifies as progressive left, which makes it kind of ironic.
QuoteIf someone doesn't agree with you, you accuse them of being racist, or at the very least being ignorant because of their race (which if anything, is YOU being a racist). It's the very reason why debate is not tolerated in places where it ought to be embraced. The accusation of racism is just too easy to make for the intellectually lazy.
Where was the accusation of racism?
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:17:23 AM
garbon you are a stereotype of exactly the reason the progressive left is a joke, and not a very funny one.
I don't think garbon identifies as progressive left, which makes it kind of ironic.
Yeah, I don't think the progressive left can stand being in a room with a Republican let alone having ever voted for one.
Quote from: Delirium on August 22, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
I suppose your idea of "race" makes sense in an social system with only clearly identifiable whites and blacks, with all blacks perpetuated as victims.
But this is from the real world, where I spend my days.
I'd like to think I teach, and spend my days, in the real world too.
If you think of race as the end-all, be all, of identity, clearly it will never fill the totality of an individual. But such limitation did not prevent you form using sometimes "nationality" (Swede), "ethnicity" (Kurd), and even "nationality from" (Swede from Ethiopia) for the same purpose, despite easy arguments that such may not capture all of the diversity one finds, say, among Kurds.
Jacob hinted at it: the context, and hence, the content, of race will vary according to place and society. There is indeed, at times, a tendency to treat race as if the definition it receives in the United States (itself the product of a specific history), can, and should be applied across the globe. The racism that produced it also had different forms.
That being said, it *has* been an operative category for most of the western world, and beyond. I can guarantee you that race, in Mexico, means something, and often quite a lot ("indio", "chino", "negro", "la raza", etc.), independent from ethnicity. Since the 19th century, the existence of a whole body of "knowledge" (standard disclaimer: yes, I know it's bunk, but it circulated then as knowledge did) created some convergence. Racists in the west read each other, and informed one another. And thus, authors in the west have responded by creating bodies of literature and political theory similarly global.
So, to your challenge, I don't know. I don't know, specifically, what you would gain by interviewing (?) a non-white Swede, or a non-white immigrant to Sweden. But I am guessing, at least, the potential experience of discrimination based on race, even if one was born in Sweden, (unless this never happens in Sweden?) may be absent from conversation coming from a white Swede.
Wouldn't you at least have second thoughts, if your classes, or your interviewees were systematically only men?
ou are wasting your time Oex, garbon already nailed it - Del can't consider any of that because he is white.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 11:39:56 AM
ou are wasting your time Oex, garbon already nailed it - Del can't consider any of that because he is white.
You may be putting words into garbon's mouth there. I mean, yeah - garbon's comment was dismissive as fuck but you're kinda jumping across a few more lanes of traffic to get to that exit.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:17:23 AM
garbon you are a stereotype of exactly the reason the progressive left is a joke, and not a very funny one.
I don't think garbon identifies as progressive left, which makes it kind of ironic.
Yeah, I don't think the progressive left can stand being in a room with a Republican let alone having ever voted for one.
It does seem like you have moved in the direction of the progressive left in the past couple years. And didn't your party affiliation change when you voted in the 2016 Dem primary?
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 11:39:56 AM
ou are wasting your time Oex, garbon already nailed it - Del can't consider any of that because he is white.
You may be putting words into garbon's mouth there. I mean, yeah - garbon's comment was dismissive as fuck but you're kinda jumping across a few more lanes of traffic to get to that exit.
And I was dismissive as his earlier comments and his most recent completely snarky one (which Oex did an admirable job at answering) didn't seem like someone who was entering this with any actual interest in the subject. As mentioned, he's already said he doesn't give a fuck about race.
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2017, 11:51:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 10:17:23 AM
garbon you are a stereotype of exactly the reason the progressive left is a joke, and not a very funny one.
I don't think garbon identifies as progressive left, which makes it kind of ironic.
Yeah, I don't think the progressive left can stand being in a room with a Republican let alone having ever voted for one.
It does seem like you have moved in the direction of the progressive left in the past couple years. And didn't your party affiliation change when you voted in the 2016 Dem primary?
I was a democrat back in '08 too before I became a Republican in '10. Until 2016, I had always voted for a Republican candidate for President and always picked a mix of Republicans and Democrats for local positions. My voting habits only changed in 2016 election when I saw how spineless the Republicans were.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 11:59:11 AM
And I was dismissive as his earlier comments and his most recent completely snarky one (which Oex did an admirable job at answering) didn't seem like someone who was entering this with any actual interest in the subject. As mentioned, he's already said he doesn't give a fuck about race.
Well in doing so, you apparently upset a few people who do give a fuck about race. Collateral damage, as it were.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 12:01:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 11:59:11 AM
And I was dismissive as his earlier comments and his most recent completely snarky one (which Oex did an admirable job at answering) didn't seem like someone who was entering this with any actual interest in the subject. As mentioned, he's already said he doesn't give a fuck about race.
Well in doing so, you apparently upset a few people who do give a fuck about race. Collateral damage, as it were.
Oh well.
On the shelf right now are one Annie Proulx book and one Francis Fukayama book. Everything else is white male.
Garbon has always been socially progressive. Seems the main thing that's changed is how much weight he gives those issues vs economic ones.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 22, 2017, 12:09:48 PM
Garbon has always been socially progressive. Seems the main thing that's changed is how much weight he gives those issues vs economic ones.
I have always been socially progressive. The latter sentence is a bit inaccurate though as it is clear the Republicans don't give two shits about economic concerns. So it isn't that economic concerns are less of a concern to me, there just isn't really a party that seems to pay any focus to that.
I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.
No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?
I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 12:45:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.
No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?
I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).
I get you. I'm sort of similar - small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 12:45:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.
No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?
I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).
I get you. I'm sort of similar - small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part.
Yeah, more like who can act, say and do the most evil things. Race to the bottom. -_-
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 12:45:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2017, 12:39:18 PM
I always got the impression Grab On was claiming Republican affiliation as a fashion statement.
No. I mean if it was simply a fashion statement it would be weird for me to have actually voted for Republicans, no?
I do like, in theory, the notion of not spending a lot of money on unproven social expenditure while at the same time being permissive about what behaviors individuals are allowed to take (so stances on transgender rights, civil rights and gay rights).
I get you. I'm sort of similar - small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part.
Yeah, more like who can act, say and do the most evil things. Race to the bottom. -_-
Does such a thing exist?
Racism to the bottom doesn't sound as good or as encompassing.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 11:39:56 AM
ou are wasting your time Oex, garbon already nailed it - Del can't consider any of that because he is white.
You may be putting words into garbon's mouth there. I mean, yeah - garbon's comment was dismissive as fuck but you're kinda jumping across a few more lanes of traffic to get to that exit.
No he didn't, garbon is a clown and Berkut called it correctly. At least Oexmelin read my post, I'll get back to you. :bowler:
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
small-c conservative on government paternalism and economic matters, small-l liberal on a host of social issues. The current Republican Party shit-show doesn't fit that profile at all, even in part.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/586198188496814080/MVUXzE4R.jpg)
Rand is pro-life though.
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2017, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 01:09:49 PM
Yeah, more like who can act, say and do the most evil things. Race to the bottom. -_-
Does such a thing exist?
:lol:
Forgive me for being late to the party: I was out camping with sporadic internet - I would have to take the boys to the play park to get a signal, and even if I wanted to post I was inundated with requests to push kids on swings.
I am somewhat surprised at the hostility to the mere asking of the question: Sav is hardly known as a "Social Justice Warrior" around here, and the question is just one of mere fact. There is no judgment inherent in the question (although it can be implied). But instead of saying "100% white, and so what?" a few people got there backs up at merely asking.
I knew my library would hew almost entirely white. It's largely history books (or historical fiction) and most of my interests are towards European history, so fully expected that I had a very white library.
But I will admit that when I got back home today and looked at my library, I was surprised that pretty much all of my non-European history books are also written by what appear to be "white" writers. For example, I had the book "The Arabs" by Eugene Rogan, sitting on my to read pile for years. So I took it with me and read it over the last six days. It is a history of the Arab people from the Ottoman conquest to present (well, to circa 2009 when it was written). It's a decidedly pro-Arab view of recent history, but what the name highly suspected a brief googling confirms - he's a very white professor of middle eastern history at Oxford.
Or, I had one book I was sure was written by a native fellow "A National Crime" by John S Milloy, detailing the Canadian Indian Residential School system. The author drew on his work with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from the mid 90s in writing the book. I was sure he was native, but while little information about Milloy is available online (he's a professor at Trent University) I no longer suspect he's native.
So all in all, my total tally of non-white books is two: the I Ching and The Bible. For an approximate ratio of 99%+ white.
Now what does that mean? You tell me. Is a white person incapable of telling the history of modern Arab history or modern Canadian Aboriginal history? I don't think so, though I suspect the perspective of non-white would be useful (though in both examples the authors relied heavily on non-white sources, and both books were heavily critical of the "white" figures (though neither book would use such language)). Am I a flawed person for reading "white" historical narratives so heavily? Again, I don't think so.
But am I open to reading some interesting history books written by non-white historians? Sure. Someone hook me up with some recommendations. :)
I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".
Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.
You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 08:59:52 PM
I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".
I didn't see much scanning through this thread on my phone, though it was sunny so I guess I could have overlooked some. :unsure:
Quote
You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?
I frequently disagree with garbon, and my whiteness (despite a good tan after a week in the woods) is pretty overwhelming, so I tend to think not.
Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2017, 08:47:59 PM
So all in all, my total tally of non-white books is two: the I Ching and The Bible.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F001%2F077%2F423%2Fa7e.gif&hash=10439e04764fd33f2e701d32cac51ad2c8e2a1fd)
Okay, that gif made my day.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 08:59:52 PM
I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".
Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.
You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?
Could you point me to the post(s) with the outright racism?
Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2017, 08:47:59 PM
But am I open to reading some interesting history books written by non-white historians? Sure. Someone hook me up with some recommendations. :)
What are you looking for? Which area? / time period and how "general public" do you want it to be? :)
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 08:59:52 PM
I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".
Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.
You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?
Could you point me to the post(s) with the outright racism?
I am curious about this too. I have read the OP at least 5 times and don't see it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2017, 08:47:59 PM
But am I open to reading some interesting history books written by non-white historians? Sure. Someone hook me up with some recommendations. :)
What are you looking for? Which area? / time period and how "general public" do you want it to be? :)
As "general public" as appropriate for a guy who has maybe 100 history books all of which could probably be described as "general public", if that makes any sense. :unsure:
Other than saying 'eh, I'm probably full up on WWII' I'm pretty open to time period or region.
Most of my books are from cruising the local Chapters store and picking up a book that "looks interesting", rather than seeking out any particular text online. It's the advantage of being a fully amateur historian. :) I tend to look for large areas of history I know nothing about, rather than to drill down to the minute detail of topics I am well familiar with (though topics of particular interest which I have gone deeper are the Yukon gold rush and 19th century arctic exploration).
Hey if we are asking for recommendations, I'd love some on the following topics:
- South East Asia, pre European conquest - both general overviews and works focusing on specific areas.
- Sub-Saharan Africa, especially the Eastern seaboard and its connections across and along the Indian Ocean, again pre-European contact.
- Good social histories of both Persia and the Caliphate.
- Anything on non-Han polities in what is now China.
Popular is probably the easiest, but academic is fine if the writing is still not too inaccessible.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 08:59:52 PM
I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".
Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.
You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?
#notallwhitemen
Okay, since people had momentarily stopped with the snide one-liners against anyone who, like Berkut says, has a different opinion than the predominant one, I will try a serious post, of course expecting little but accusations of ignorance in return.
1. On the idea that only the text matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism)
QuoteNew Critics believed the structure and meaning of the text were intimately connected and should not be analyzed separately. In order to bring the focus of literary studies back to analysis of the texts, they aimed to exclude the reader's response, the author's intention, historical and cultural contexts, and moralistic bias from their analysis. These goals were articulated in Ransom's "Criticism, Inc." and Allen Tate's "Miss Emily and the Bibliographers".
Back in university this was the part of literary studies class that I most enjoyed and it made sense to me. Like it or not, this is an established theory. You can argue that this theory has little value outside fiction but the original post did not make that distinction.
2. On being against identity politics (you have probably read it):
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?action=click&contentCollection=Book%20Review&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
Quote
But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and "celebrate" our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism's message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.
and the debate that follows: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/23/is-criticism-of-identity-politics-racist-or-long-overdue
3. Let us talk about what BB says:
QuoteIs a white person incapable of telling the history of modern Arab history or modern Canadian Aboriginal history? I don't think so, though I suspect the perspective of non-white would be useful (though in both examples the authors relied heavily on non-white sources, and both books were heavily critical of the "white" figures (though neither book would use such language)). Am I a flawed person for reading "white" historical narratives so heavily? Again, I don't think so.
I think this sums up a genuine problem, since quite a number of people would say that you indeed HAVE to be a member of those groups in order to tell their history. But there are more variables to it than that. Someone born in Japan but whose family moved to California 50 years ago certainly looks like he knows a lot about Japan to some people. But then we have a French teacher who has lived in Tokyo almost all her adult life. Common sense dictates that it is not the colour of their skin that determines how qualified they are to speak on contemporary Japanese culture, yet that is exactly what a lot of people would have you believe.
Individuals have to be measured, one by one, by the merits of their knowledge, skill, eloquence, degree of research and what they have accomplished, in short by what they actually SAY, and not which group they belong to.
4. Again, I'm white, so my opinions cannot possibly matter, I am always teh priviliged. Right?
Quote from: Delirium on August 23, 2017, 05:10:24 AM
4. Again, I'm white, so my opinions cannot possibly matter, I am always teh priviliged. Right?
Well I guess you said you were only going to try at a serious post.
I really can't get over though that we've posters who got butt hurt because there's a thread that suggests they should maybe expand their reading habits to include additional points of view. And then they turn around acting as though they are being victimized. WTF.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2017, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 08:59:52 PM
I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".
Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.
You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?
Could you point me to the post(s) with the outright racism?
Garbon claiming that Del's position on the matter was because he was white.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2017, 03:00:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2017, 08:59:52 PM
I think there is plenty of judgement in both the OP, and the overt hostility and outright racism expressed in response to anything other than a proper SJW response of "ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT!".
Of course, I am white, so my views can be readily dismissed.
You agree with him though, so I am sure your whiteness will be overlooked by garbon?
#notallwhitemen
Of course - you can just dismiss the views of white men who don't agree with you. They don't agree because they are white, not because they might just disagree for perfectly rational reasons other than their race.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2017, 05:22:23 AM
Quote from: Delirium on August 23, 2017, 05:10:24 AM
4. Again, I'm white, so my opinions cannot possibly matter, I am always teh priviliged. Right?
Well I guess you said you were only going to try at a serious post.
I really can't get over though that we've posters who got butt hurt because there's a thread that suggests they should maybe expand their reading habits to include additional points of view. And then they turn around acting as though they are being victimized. WTF.
This is about as dishonest and contemptible a post as there has been on Languish.
I think the only that is butt hurt is you - simply noting that choosing what books to read without even knowing the race of the author is NOT racism has resulted in you making overtly racist responses.
This is precisely the problem with identity politics and discourse today.
You are trying to deny those who disagree with you a fair voice in the discussion by *immediately* claiming that their position is the result of their race and intolerance, rather than even attempt to respond to their points.
*This* attitude, this intolerance for differing viewpoints, is vastly more problematic and repulsive than the fact that most people don't think seriously about the race of the authors on their bookshelf.
Quote
a thread that suggests they should maybe expand their reading habits to include additional points of view.
This is a straight out lie about what this thread is about, and what those who object to it are saying.Nobody, NOBODY, has said that additional points of view are not desirable (well, except for you - you said white points of view were safely dismissed).
You cannot find one single person in this thread who would agree with that characterization of their opinion.
I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2017, 06:54:34 AM
I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?
That is the stance that some people have adopted. I guess they derived that from the blurb in the OP.
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2017, 06:54:34 AM
I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?
No, the premise is that you should be aware of the race of the authors you choose to read, and if you don't, then you are probably a privileged white guy who might as well be a racist.
And more importantly, if you don't agree with that position, then you should STFU, again, because you feel that way because you are white. Your views on the matter can be, and ought to be, dismissed out of hand as being motivated by your race rather than reason. The irony of accusing someone of thinking in some particular way about racism based on their supposed race, is apparently of no note.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2017, 06:57:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2017, 06:54:34 AM
I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?
That is the stance that some people have adopted. I guess they derived that from the blurb in the OP.
That's just silly. If you are interested in a book but set it aside when learning the colour of the author's skin, that's when you are racist.
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2017, 07:04:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2017, 06:57:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2017, 06:54:34 AM
I have skipped from page 1 to right here, so did I understand it right that the premise is: if you do NOT assemble your library of books based on the skin colour of the authors, you are racist?
That is the stance that some people have adopted. I guess they derived that from the blurb in the OP.
That's just silly. If you are interested in a book but set it aside when learning the colour of the author's skin, that's when you are racist.
True. It is good that it is a position that no poster on Languish has actually come out in favor of.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2017, 06:58:32 AM
No, the premise is that you should be aware of the race of the authors you choose to read, and if you don't, then you are probably a privileged white guy who might as well be a racist.
And more importantly, if you don't agree with that position, then you should STFU, again, because you feel that way because you are white. Your views on the matter can be, and ought to be, dismissed out of hand as being motivated by your race rather than reason. The irony of accusing someone of thinking in some particular way about racism based on their supposed race, is apparently of no note.
Weird as I don't think any languish posters have said anything like what I've just quoted.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2017, 07:07:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2017, 06:58:32 AM
No, the premise is that you should be aware of the race of the authors you choose to read, and if you don't, then you are probably a privileged white guy who might as well be a racist.
And more importantly, if you don't agree with that position, then you should STFU, again, because you feel that way because you are white. Your views on the matter can be, and ought to be, dismissed out of hand as being motivated by your race rather than reason. The irony of accusing someone of thinking in some particular way about racism based on their supposed race, is apparently of no note.
Weird as I don't think any languish posters have said anything like what I've just quoted.
You absolutely did.
Quote from: garbon
*white whine*
It was. That doesn't mean I meant what you summarised.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2017, 09:29:01 AM
It was. That doesn't mean I meant what you summarised.
Oh?
What did it mean then?
How is calling out his race as a response to his argument somehow something OTHER THAN an attempt to dismiss his argument based on his race?
If this were reversed, and he said something like "black bitching" would you and Jake insist that there is nothing untoward or racist about such a response to your position?
I think your response means *precisely* what I am saying it means, and is exactly the problem with the left (and in this you are most certainly part of the progressive left) and their approach to identity politics. Any dissent is responded to with an accusation of privilege or lack of ability to understand based on race and the demand that the person views be dismissed, if not actively silenced. It is intolerance and bigotry nominally in the service of tolerance and inclusion.
The OP statement has a bunch of odd assumptions embedded in it.
QuoteThere are a lot of readers who pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers. Some of them think this means they're not prejudiced. I don't know anyone who isn't, myself included. But let's say for argument's sake that those particular readers in fact are not prejudiced.
"How many books by writers of color do you think you'll find on their bookshelves? I'd lay odds that if there are any at all, they will be far outnumbered by the books by white authors. Not necessarily because those readers are deliberately choosing mostly white/male authors. They don't have to. The status quo does it for them.
"So those readers' self-satisfied 'I don't know' is really an 'I don't care enough to look beyond my nose.' And that's cool. So many causes, so little time. But don't pretend that indifference and an unwillingness to make positive change constitute enlightenment."
Assumption #1: that a significant number of readers actively
pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers, and use this as a badge of non-prejudice. I'd say that the actual case is more like 'most people don't know the 'identities' of their authors (aside from guessing from their names) and have never thought about it much one way or another'.
Assumption #2: that not knowing or caring is "self-satisfied" statement that those who don't know or care about author's (racial) identities "don't care enough to look beyond [their] nose". In short, that one
ought to care about the racial identity of one's authors, and that failing to do so is a sign of shameful indifference.
Assumption #3: that caring about the racial identity of one's authors either is, or would lead to, making "positive change".
What the ultimate goal of this "positive change" would be isn't actually stated. There we have to enter the realm of speculation. Why, exactly, would knowing specifically the racial identity of one's authors lead to "positive change"?
Presumably, because knowing more from the perspective of Black authors would lead to some knowledge or perspective not otherwise obtainable.
This isn't stated anywhere, but it is a reasonable assumption, that the author of the blurb wishes to encourage folks to read more Black authors for that reason. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to wish to encourage.
Their method of going about it, though, is odd to say the least.
The method chosen is
shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to
reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2017, 09:49:00 AM
The method chosen is shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.
Even for those that believe in the rightness of the POV it's unlikely to work well. Reading for most of us is a leisure activity, one that we enjoy. If the intent is to shame us for what we read, chances are we'll stop reading because the enjoyment is gone rather than explore new authors we might have missed. Trying to make people miserable about something that they take pleasure in never ends well.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2017, 09:49:00 AM
The OP statement has a bunch of odd assumptions embedded in it.
QuoteThere are a lot of readers who pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers. Some of them think this means they're not prejudiced. I don't know anyone who isn't, myself included. But let's say for argument's sake that those particular readers in fact are not prejudiced.
"How many books by writers of color do you think you'll find on their bookshelves? I'd lay odds that if there are any at all, they will be far outnumbered by the books by white authors. Not necessarily because those readers are deliberately choosing mostly white/male authors. They don't have to. The status quo does it for them.
"So those readers' self-satisfied 'I don't know' is really an 'I don't care enough to look beyond my nose.' And that's cool. So many causes, so little time. But don't pretend that indifference and an unwillingness to make positive change constitute enlightenment."
Assumption #1: that a significant number of readers actively pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers, and use this as a badge of non-prejudice. I'd say that the actual case is more like 'most people don't know the 'identities' of their authors (aside from guessing from their names) and have never thought about it much one way or another'.
Assumption #2: that not knowing or caring is "self-satisfied" statement that those who don't know or care about author's (racial) identities "don't care enough to look beyond [their] nose". In short, that one ought to care about the racial identity of one's authors, and that failing to do so is a sign of shameful indifference.
Assumption #3: that caring about the racial identity of one's authors either is, or would lead to, making "positive change".
What the ultimate goal of this "positive change" would be isn't actually stated. There we have to enter the realm of speculation. Why, exactly, would knowing specifically the racial identity of one's authors lead to "positive change"?
Presumably, because knowing more from the perspective of Black authors would lead to some knowledge or perspective not otherwise obtainable.
This isn't stated anywhere, but it is a reasonable assumption, that the author of the blurb wishes to encourage folks to read more Black authors for that reason. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to wish to encourage.
Their method of going about it, though, is odd to say the least.
The method chosen is shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.
Only a white person would think that.
garbons microagressions are triggering me.
and since we're asking for book recommendations, Oex do you know a good one on the 100 years war from the French perspective? English language would help hah
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2017, 09:49:00 AM
The OP statement has a bunch of odd assumptions embedded in it.
QuoteThere are a lot of readers who pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers. Some of them think this means they're not prejudiced. I don't know anyone who isn't, myself included. But let's say for argument's sake that those particular readers in fact are not prejudiced.
"How many books by writers of color do you think you'll find on their bookshelves? I'd lay odds that if there are any at all, they will be far outnumbered by the books by white authors. Not necessarily because those readers are deliberately choosing mostly white/male authors. They don't have to. The status quo does it for them.
"So those readers' self-satisfied 'I don't know' is really an 'I don't care enough to look beyond my nose.' And that's cool. So many causes, so little time. But don't pretend that indifference and an unwillingness to make positive change constitute enlightenment."
Assumption #1: that a significant number of readers actively pride themselves on not paying attention to the identities of their favorite writers, and use this as a badge of non-prejudice. I'd say that the actual case is more like 'most people don't know the 'identities' of their authors (aside from guessing from their names) and have never thought about it much one way or another'.
Assumption #2: that not knowing or caring is "self-satisfied" statement that those who don't know or care about author's (racial) identities "don't care enough to look beyond [their] nose". In short, that one ought to care about the racial identity of one's authors, and that failing to do so is a sign of shameful indifference.
Assumption #3: that caring about the racial identity of one's authors either is, or would lead to, making "positive change".
What the ultimate goal of this "positive change" would be isn't actually stated. There we have to enter the realm of speculation. Why, exactly, would knowing specifically the racial identity of one's authors lead to "positive change"?
Presumably, because knowing more from the perspective of Black authors would lead to some knowledge or perspective not otherwise obtainable.
This isn't stated anywhere, but it is a reasonable assumption, that the author of the blurb wishes to encourage folks to read more Black authors for that reason. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to wish to encourage.
Their method of going about it, though, is odd to say the least.
The method chosen is shame (if you don't accept this viewpoint, you are "unwilling to make a positive change" and not "enlightened") as opposed to reward ('there is an interesting and important viewpoint you may be missing out on if you don't make this effort'). Needless to say, "shame" isn't a technique that works well on those who aren't already convinced of the essential rightness of the POV.
Yeah, it's a bit cack handed. Guilting people into looking at things your way is usually pretty tiresome. You could respond to it in a few ways - Sav's approach which is to look at the substance of the question - to what extent are your reading habits in a silo of different kinds, and is there value in pushing yourself out of those silos on occasion? Alternately, you could look at the form - including the smarmy implications of guilt - an whine about how offended you are. We're seeing both approaches in this thread, though personally I think the first one is more interesting.
Each to their own, of course :)
There is only one True Social Justice Warrior approved approach though, and Jake surely will tell us what it is - anything else is (white) "whining".
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2017, 11:59:37 AM
Yeah, it's a bit cack handed. Guilting people into looking at things your way is usually pretty tiresome. You could respond to it in a few ways - Sav's approach which is to look at the substance of the question - to what extent are your reading habits in a silo of different kinds, and is there value in pushing yourself out of those silos on occasion? Alternately, you could look at the form - including the smarmy implications of guilt - an whine about how offended you are. We're seeing both approaches in this thread, though personally I think the first one is more interesting.
Each to their own, of course :)
I answered the actual question asked above, a while ago. No-one cared though. It got not a single comment. :(
Experimentally, discussing (or even "whining about") the question is
in actual fact more interesting - unlike simply answering the question, it gets a response! Sometimes for many pages! :D
Actually, that probably explains the leftist tendency, on display in the OP's quote, to use hectoring and shaming as a rhetorical technique as well - it gets notice. Though it is not far off from justifying trolling over rational discourse though (presumably justified by the importance of the subject).
I see we have reached the exegesis moment of the thread...
Re: book recommendations, I'll see what I can do. I co-teach a class with my colleague who specializes in early-modern China, I'll ask him.
Actually, thinking about that, what the OP made me realize (apart from the blind spots of my own collection), is how few textbook-like / popular history are available from non-white, non-dudes. While I can think of numerous "non-Western", "non-white", "non-male" historians, I had a hard time identifying authors of publications for a more general public, or of a wider scope.
I am assuming that few of you are interested in reading in the history of race, but if you are, I would suggest at least for an orientation in a considerable literature, the "Charleston Syllabus" (University of Georgia Press), which emerged after the shooting, as an answer to investigate and understand collectively the event.
Otherwise, an excellent treatment of many of the issues, through the specific case of Sally Hemings, is the Pullitzer-prize winner book by Annette Gordon-Wood, "The Hemingses of Monticello". It's quite accessible. CLR James' the Black Jacobins is also a great read.
For near-east, military history, susceptible to be of interest to you, my Ottomanist colleague recommends Kahled Fahmy, All the Pasha's Men: Mehmed Ali, His Army, and the Making of Modern Egypt (Cambridge). I'll also ask her about Iran.
For Indigenous history, Michael Witgen's An Infinity of Nations is not the most lively read, but it is good history.
I'll see what I can add, once the craziness of the first weeks has subdued.
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2017, 06:46:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2017, 05:22:23 AM
a thread that suggests they should maybe expand their reading habits to include additional points of view.
This is a straight out lie about what this thread is about, and what those who object to it are saying.
[
Wouldn't do much good for me right now if it was. I don't have the time to expand my reading habits. Get back to me on that after I retire.
Berkut, you are 100% right about garbon, but I honestly do not see the point on spending energy on him. A lost cause.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2017, 11:59:37 AMAlternately, you could look at the form - including the smarmy implications of guilt - an whine about how offended you are. We're seeing both approaches in this thread, though personally I think the first one is more interesting.
Jacob, how far down the identity left quicksand have you fallen? Do you see my posts as simply whining as well? Or is there still hope for you?
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 10:54:26 AM
Berkut, you are 100% right about garbon, but I honestly do not see the point on spending energy on him. A lost cause.
Funny, I'd say the same about you.
Smell the love!
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2017, 11:59:37 AMAlternately, you could look at the form - including the smarmy implications of guilt - an whine about how offended you are. We're seeing both approaches in this thread, though personally I think the first one is more interesting.
Jacob, how far down the identity left quicksand have you fallen? Do you see my posts as simply whining as well? Or is there still hope for you?
I thought your initial post was fine. I thought garbon's dismissal of it was rude and snarky (and potentially undeserved) but no more than that. I thought the reaction to garbon's dismissal was over the top straight into ridiculous territory. I think the idea that I've been "defending garbon" is laughable and that this whole episode is a tempest in a tiny teacup.
That about sums up what I think on the topic. You can decide if that's too deep into the quicksand for your sensibilities.
Goofing on Berkut is not the same as defending garbon.
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2017, 11:27:39 AM
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2017, 11:59:37 AMAlternately, you could look at the form - including the smarmy implications of guilt - an whine about how offended you are. We're seeing both approaches in this thread, though personally I think the first one is more interesting.
Jacob, how far down the identity left quicksand have you fallen? Do you see my posts as simply whining as well? Or is there still hope for you?
I thought your initial post was fine. I thought garbon's dismissal of it was rude and snarky (and potentially undeserved) but no more than that. I thought the reaction to garbon's dismissal was over the top straight into ridiculous territory. I think the idea that I've been "defending garbon" is laughable and that this whole episode is a tempest in a tiny teacup.
That about sums up what I think on the topic. You can decide if that's too deep into the quicksand for your sensibilities.
I'm with Jacob all the way on this one.
Yes, reacting to overt racism is certainly ridiculous.
Ignoring it is best, as long as it is displayed by our allies (of course).
What does deserve a reaction is any attempt to notice it amongst our allies. At that point hysterical attacks are the only option.
Following them from thread to thread is necessary as well.
Quote from: Delirium on September 03, 2017, 10:54:26 AM
Berkut, you are 100% right about garbon, but I honestly do not see the point on spending energy on him. A lost cause.
I think calling out racism is always worth the effort. It will rarely mean anything to the person belittling someone because of their race, of course, but that generally isn't the point.
Like Jacob says, opposing nazis isn't really about convincing the nazis of anything. Funny how that is so selectively applied, but the basic idea is sound.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 01:51:29 PM
Yes, reacting to overt racism is certainly ridiculous.
Ignoring it is best, as long as it is displayed by our allies (of course).
What does deserve a reaction is any attempt to notice it amongst our allies. At that point hysterical attacks are the only option.
Following them from thread to thread is necessary as well.
I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that people on both sides of the argument are finding your meltdown silly and unwarranted. Look over my posts here and in other similar threads, ignoring the ones where I directly or indirectly address Berkut v. garbon, and tell me whose ally I am.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2017, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2017, 01:51:29 PM
Yes, reacting to overt racism is certainly ridiculous.
Ignoring it is best, as long as it is displayed by our allies (of course).
What does deserve a reaction is any attempt to notice it amongst our allies. At that point hysterical attacks are the only option.
Following them from thread to thread is necessary as well.
I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that people on both sides of the argument are finding your meltdown silly and unwarranted. Look over my posts here and in other similar threads, ignoring the ones where I directly or indirectly address Berkut v. garbon, and tell me whose ally I am.
It's a pity Hurricane Berkut can't be contained by mere teacups.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2017, 02:20:12 PM
I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that people on both sides of the argument are finding your meltdown silly and unwarranted. Look over my posts here and in other similar threads, ignoring the ones where I directly or indirectly address Berkut v. garbon, and tell me whose ally I am.
I think you need to start opening yourself up to the possibility that you actually cannot speak for the "people on both sides of the argument" and that your position is not, in fact, the only one that is reasonable.
Berkut thinks that pointing out racism as it rears its ugly head is important. Garbon thinks that he cannot possibly be racist even when he uses racist language. It is possible that one of them is wrong, but it is unlikely that both are.