Comments on Books White People Need to Read - page 7
Comments Showing 301-350 of 362 (362 new)
Youp wrote: The worst thing is your self-righteousness mixed looking at all people of color as victims.I don't want to speak for people of color, so I'll speak for myself as a woman in a world where male privilege exists:
Being in a world where privilege works against me is like living in the world of Harrison Bergeron: those who have always had power put weights on me and masks on my face so they don't ever have to feel bad about anything I can do. But the joke's on them, because the size of the weights and the appearance of the mask betray what I'm actually capable of. You could call me a victim, if you wanted, because of all the weights and masks. Or you could call me strong, because that's the truth. I get handicapped for the exact reason that I'm NOT helpless, and they'd prefer that I were.
You, Youp, kind of remind me of the wife in that story: "Who knows better than I do what normal is?"
Glad to hear the UK has solved racism. You must com..." Emma if you think that racism and white privilege is a simple argument. Then you don't know what it's like being a victim of racism. You're probably white middle-class butter wouldn't melt...
Emma wrote: "Youp wrote: The worst thing is your self-righteousness mixed looking at all people of color as victims.I don't want to speak for people of color, so I'll speak for myself as a woman in a world wh..."
And yet here you are, only talking about how unfairly the world is treating you. That doesn't come across as strong, but like a child complaining about how the rules are not fair when they lose a game.
Furthermore, you offer no original thought or idea whatsoever. I could be talking to any random person in your social justice ideology, and you'll all be splurting out the same nonsense. Power this, privilege that. It's honestly sad.
Youp wrote: "Emma wrote: "Youp wrote: The worst thing is your self-righteousness mixed looking at all people of color as victims.I don't want to speak for people of color, so I'll speak for myself as a woman ..."
I’m not the one following a comment thread on a Goodreads list just to complain about how offensive the title is. I found this list because I was looking for new stuff to read on social justice and critical race theory. But if you object to this list, my guess is you found it while seeking out reasons to be offended. 👍
My social justice ideology is supported by empirical data that I’ve read a lot about, studied in school and considered carefully, using my expertise in psychology and social work to inform my considerations. You’ve offered no substantive objection to it. To be clear, straw man and ad hominem arguments are not substantive.
Who’s stronger, someone who makes something of their life by calling people on their BS and refusing to be kept down, or someone who never makes waves but never achieves anything else either? Our country was founded by people who spoke up when life was unfair—or were they just sore losers too?
David wrote: "Glad to hear the UK has solved racism. You must com..." Emma if you think that racism and white privilege is a simple argument. Then you don't know what it's like being a victim of racism. You're p..."Your response is fairly incoherent, but to clarify what I said...
Racism is when one racial group is viewed as inferior to another group. Privilege is what members of that second group have in relation to the first group. So when you say privilege doesn’t exist, you’re implying racism doesn’t exist.
No one’s saying social dynamics are simple. Nor am I claiming to understand what it’s like to be a person of color. But understanding privilege as a sociological concept (instead of individual circumstances) makes it easier for me to understand how inequality is perpetuated even though we’ve made genuine progress in civil rights.
And you’re right, being white and being middle class have both given me a leg up in life. It also means I’ll never understand what it’s like to be a POC or working class. It was important to you that I understand that, which tells me that we share some common ground in our views. I can’t help what I was born into, so I won’t apologize for it (no matter how many times you use it as an insult!), but I can be aware enough to feel lucky that I have, and try as much as I can to keep an open mind about people who don’t have what I do. That’s the point of this list—admitting what we don’t know.
Emma wrote: " But understanding privilege as a sociological concept (instead of individual circumstances) makes it easier for me to understand how inequality is perpetuated even though we’ve made genuine progress in civil rights."This is the core of why your ideology is backwards. You apply basic statistics to find differences between groups, then act as if members of said groups are defined by their group membership. For example: black people are more likely to die in a firearm-related death than white people. Now it must be true for every black person that he is more likely to die than any white person.
The next step is to imply causation, with the usual recycled Marxism, and to blame the majority group of oppression. 'Black people get shot, and white people are to blame'. And the logical conclusion then is always that the so-called 'oppressor' is guilty of oppressing, and should be held accountable. Hence terms like 'white guilt'.
As you said, this theory fails to take into account individual circumstances, because it doesn't view people as individuals. It categorizes them as into groups such as race, sex or class, where they are either oppressor or oppressed. The more checkboxes of being oppressed victim you can tick off, the more right you have to be angry. And vice versa, the more guilty you should feel when you fall into multiple 'oppressor-categories'. The far Left doesn't seek actual social justice; they just want to reverse the oppression pyramid so it pays off to be as much of a victim possible. Look at what happened at Evergreen State College for example, where white students weren't allowed to sit down or eat food, but had to serve black students to pay for their white guilt. Or cancelling a Women's March, because too many white women were participating. Or refusing Asian and Jewish students at Harvard, because there are too many of them. That's the logical result of this nonsensical groupthink, and there's plenty of other examples. Look up this video on Youtube: 'Bret Weinstein, How the Magic Trick is Done'.
The hilarious irony is that if you list all the possible ways someone could be privileged, you end up with an near-infinite list. Everyone ends up being a unique case of individual circumstances, and you'll have to view people as individuals. But your ideology chooses to only see some arbitrarily chosen characteristics such as race, sex, etcetera, because it's convenient for their game of oppression olympics.
The name of this list doesn't imply that it has good books to learn about social dynamics or different races. It implies that people of only a certain race have to be educated on these topics. There are plenty of white people who are extremely knowledgeable on this, and there are plenty of non-white people who have no idea what it's like to grow up working class, poor, or who simply never interact with people of other races. That's why it's wrong.
Lastly, life is unfair. Some people are smarter, more handsome, quicker, richer, more athletic, whatever. There is no way to compensate for all the possible factors on an individual level. You play the hand you're dealt, make the best of it, and don't cry and whine about how unfair everything is. Life is not fair. Grow up, accept it, and move on.
Youp wrote: "Emma wrote: " But understanding privilege as a sociological concept (instead of individual circumstances) makes it easier for me to understand how inequality is perpetuated even though we’ve made g..."Far left? Dude, this is barely left of center. (I happen to agree with you about the far left. Their level of intolerance s similar to yours.)
What’s kind of hilarious is you rail against people who ask you to understand intersectionality, but then you go and describe exactly why understanding only one aspect of a human being is extremely limiting.
I did a search yesterday for empirical research on the effects of privilege or lack thereof, and just skimming the results I found scholarly papers on special ed referrals, services at domestic violence shelters, accessing health care, and little league. These people used statistical methods that controlled for factors other than race and found with a high level of probability (the scientific standard for statistical significance is usually 90-99%) that across the board, in all these areas, people of color received worse services. The most probable explanation is racial discrimination—most of which is not on purpose. That’s why privilege matters—because if you’re treating some people worse, the flip side of that coin is you’re treating some people better.
Some of this stuff is critically serious all on its own—women die when they can’t get the assistance they need in escaping abusers, for example. A kid in little league could conceivably get over not having his skills recognized by his coach. But it’s across the board. The same kid runs the risk of being put in special ed classes for a learning disorder he doesn’t have. No matter how hard he works, he’s getting a lower quality education than he could otherwise have had. This puts him at risk for truancy and drop out, which further puts him at risk for gang involvement; or it simply means he stands to make less money and advance less in his career than he would have, which makes it hard to own a home or even raise his kids in a safe neighborhood. Maybe this kid has to watch his dad beat up his mom because when she tried to leave she couldn’t get help, and maybe he’ll grow up to abuse his partners.
It’s interesting you should bring up black men being shot. They’re not just a little more likely; they’re a LOT more likely, and the group “men” includes kids as young as nine. Black people know this, not because they read it in a book, but because it’s a real part of their daily lives. Poor black people often use authoritarian parenting methods (shouting and physical punishment for example), which is less common in poor white communities, or middle class communities of any race. That’s in part because the stakes are higher for these families if a kid disobeys. If a kid decides to go get a candy bar at the bodega even though mom said no, he could actually get shot.
Lacking privilege isn’t a minor inconvenience. It touches every part of their lives, because even something that seems minor, like people mispronouncing your name, is part of a reality that literally kills people.
So Youp, what is it that really offends you? Wanting to end needless suffering and loss of life? Or the idea that maybe the white race isn’t actually superior?
No one is asking white people to pay homage, apologize, or even feel guilty for the fact we have certain privileges that others don’t. The fact that you seem to think so is wrong. Recognizing we have privelage doesn’t mean we say we don’t earn anything and doesn’t mean we have to feel guilty either. Your adamance that admitting we have advantage and therefore that means that white people should feel guilty reeks of you perpetuating that some how YOU are the victim as a white person.... and that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I think people that experience discrimination and violence due to the color of their skin are, by definition, victims. Trayvon Martin was a victim. The kids in cages at the border are victims. Does the idea that these people have a right to scream out in anger and frustration at how they are treated frighten you? Does it make you want to close your eyes and ears and pretend that their suffering is just “life isn’t fair... boo boo get over it?” Are you that self-centered?
Is it wrong that there are people out there that WANT the world to be more fair? Why should it be so tilted against a demographic? Why can’t we change this? Why is this not worth fighting for? The truth is, POC are often victims of our system, and it’s AMAZING how many of them still claw their way out, fight their way out, and still have to deal with crap like “you’re just heal to fill the minority ‘quota’” crap that you seem to think is real.
There are real victims out there that become survivors, but here you are pretending a name of a list of social media somehow makes you a victim of something.
Crystal wrote: "No one is asking white people to pay homage, apologize, or even feel guilty for the fact we have certain privileges that others don’t. The fact that you seem to think so is wrong."That is actually happening more and more frequently. Look up 'white guilt' or the Bret Weinstein video I referred to in my last post. I'll reply to Emma's comment when I find the time, but it's hard to take your opinion seriously at all.
Youp wrote: "Crystal wrote: "No one is asking white people to pay homage, apologize, or even feel guilty for the fact we have certain privileges that others don’t. The fact that you seem to think so is wrong."..."
Bret Weinstein is not a figure to invoke if you're trying to make an objective point. What happened to him says way more about the dangers of mob mentality than it does about the merits of progressive ideology. He's an extremely biased figure and just because he says a thing doesn't make it true.
If someone criticizes the status quo, and it makes you feel negative feelings, that's not evidence that they intended to make you feel bad. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a very human cognitive bias, but not the basis for an objective argument.
Emma wrote: "Youp wrote: "Crystal wrote: "No one is asking white people to pay homage, apologize, or even feel guilty for the fact we have certain privileges that others don’t. The fact that you seem to think s..."How is Bret Weinstein extremely biased? There's plenty of video evidence on Evergreen.
It seems you love attacking strawmen and identifying logical fallacies nobody made, but offer no constructive replies to anything.
Youp wrote: "Emma wrote: "Youp wrote: "Crystal wrote: "No one is asking white people to pay homage, apologize, or even feel guilty for the fact we have certain privileges that others don’t. The fact that you se..."The Evergreen protests themselves are not proof his views are correct any more than they are proof that he was wrong. He was not fired from Evergreen, he left on his own, and yet refers to himself still as “professor in exile.” He’s clearly bitter and wants vindication. And a sense of personal investment in bringing down a certain ideology doesn’t lead to an objective evaluation of that ideology. It’s why people are supposed to recuse themselves from certain roles if they are somehow connected to the matter at hand. (To be clear, I get he no longer felt welcome there, and I am quite critical of the kind of mob mentality that can arise in any group with common beliefs, progressive or conservative, but mob rule tells us nothing about the objective basis of a point of view.)
Weinstein’s vehemence on this topic is like how Juanita Broderick campaigned hard for Trump. I don’t blame her for her anger toward Hillary, but that doesn’t mean she gave anyone any good reasons to vote for Trump. That’s her (justifiable!) desire for revenge talking. In other words, she’s biased.
Emma wrote:"He's clearly bitter and wants vindication."Why don't you look up which logical fallacy you are making here in that list of yours? I'll give you a hint: assuming that a possible explanation for something is automatically true because it fits your narrative. What has Bret Weinstein said that makes his view questionable? If someone else, not related to Evergreen, stated the same statements, would they be reliable? I can think of plenty of selfish reasons for anyone to strive for social justice, do charity work, or for you to comment on Goodreads. That doesn't make it truth.
So again I'm asking: what has Bret Weinstein said in this video that is not true? Is it not true that white students weren't allowed to sit or eat, and were told to serve students of color? How teachers weren't allowed to use hand gestures because they are micro-aggressions?
Here are some more, serious questions:
- The students at Evergreen talked about social justice, white privilege, white guilt, microaggressions; pretty much the same talking points as people like Ijeoma Oluo for example. Do you think the students' behavior was acceptable? If not, where do you draw the line?
- What is someone supposed to do, in terms of actions, with their privilege? I'm talking day-to-day actions, not thoughts.
- A white male who is offered a job, while the other candidate was a black woman. The department consists mainly of other white men. Should the male accept the job?
- Is it okay for Harvard to reject Asian students in order to achieve more diversity, even though those students are better qualified?
- If intersectionality is real, which characteristics of a person are relevant to determine their privilege? Why those?
Youp wrote: what has Bret Weinstein said in this video that is not true?A lot of things. I found it ironic, given his insistence on empirical data, that many of the statements he made were not falsifiable. The statements he made that were falsifiable were not supported; he stated opinion as fact. He introduced a great number of straw men--that said, I'm not sure he even knew he was misrepresenting social justice ideology, which actually makes his misrepresentations that much more dangerous. He's clearly ignorant of the piles of empirical studies (both experiments and demographic studies) in economics, political science, sociology and psychology that support the existence of entrenched systemic unconscious bias against certain groups of people. Unconscious is really key, here. Some of the things people have done to try and counter unconscious bias have ranged from goofy to counterproductive, but that doesn't make the goal itself unworthy. In college, I took two different seminars with one of the most famously liberal professors at the university, and he had a noticeable tendency to call on male students more than female students and engage with their ideas for more time. (I kept track.) I still respect him as a professor, and I don't consider him a misogynist, nor do I feel that I personally suffered as a result, but it's also something I hope he has since become aware of, so that he can ensure female students in his classes have equal opportunities as male students. If you want to explore unconscious bias further, I urge you to check out the implicit association tests through Harvard's Project Implicit.
There is too much in that talk I disagreed with to address it all here, but I think the greatest weakness is that he did not discuss this central concern of social justice efforts. Hiring efforts that look exclusively at applicants of color aren't just to make sure minority students have mentors; it's also to ensure that candidates of color aren't being overlooked due to unconscious bias. We don't have to agree on all the different efforts people have made to try and address these biases, but acknowledging them would bring us a lot closer to being able to work together in a productive way.
Is it not true that white students weren't allowed to sit or eat, and were told to serve students of color? How teachers weren't allowed to use hand gestures because they are micro-aggressions?
I am not familiar with these events so I cannot comment.
The students at Evergreen talked about social justice, white privilege, white guilt, microaggressions; pretty much the same talking points as people like Ijeoma Oluo for example. Do you think the students' behavior was acceptable? If not, where do you draw the line?
I have mentioned more than once now that I don't think the student response at Evergreen was constructive. Mob rule never is. However, I think it's important to separate the principles from the actions taken. If I told you the only reason I was pro-choice was because pro-lifers have bombed abortion clinics, would you find that acceptable reasoning?
I've been criticized for not falling in line with certain progressive views before. I've been called a fascist, which is deeply laughable. I turned off Facebook for a couple months once because the backlash to an op-ed I published got to me. People can be real jerks. But that's not a reason for me to throw our common ideology under the bus. I'm not doing it for the street cred.
What is someone supposed to do, in terms of actions, with their privilege? I'm talking day-to-day actions, not thoughts.
I feel like this is a catch 22, given thought precedes action. I can't give you general guidance on action that doesn't involve asking you to adjust your attitude.
Apart from that, the biggest suggestion I have is to educate yourself. And that might involve giving lists with titles like this one a chance.
A white male who is offered a job, while the other candidate was a black woman. The department consists mainly of other white men. Should the male accept the job?
Hypotheticals are tricky.
One time, I was looking for a new apartment. I was also living on SSDI, and most people won't rent to you when that's the case, so it was a pretty stressful time for me. I went to see one apartment on a group showing, and by the end of the tour both I and a black couple expressed interest in the place. They mentioned being both employed full time, and I mentioned my situation. The landlord gave us both applications, and they went off to look at closets or something, and she turned to me and said, "If you can get that application filled out now and pay the fee, the apartment's yours." I took the apartment--I couldn't afford not to.
Is it okay for Harvard to reject Asian students in order to achieve more diversity, even though those students are better qualified?
When I was applying to colleges, I was the only one from my high school to get into Yale. I didn't get into Brown, but a handful of classmates who had worse GPAs and SATs than me did. They were still highly qualified candidates who would go on to do well at Brown. Given the volume of applications Ivy League schools receive, and all the various domains in which a person can be qualified, knowing who is or is not better qualified isn't quantifiable. They do their best to make it objective, but there's always some subjectivity that goes into it. Thousands of extraordinary students get rejected by these schools each year. Since I graduated, Yale actually built facilities to accommodate an undergraduate population of 2000, up from 1500. They get ~45,000 applications a year from all over the world. It's a daunting task.
That said, if these schools are rejecting Asian students to achieve "more diversity," they're not doing it to ensure more opportunities for other communities of color; one only has to look at admission statistics to know that if they are rejecting Asian students based on their race, it's in favor of white students, and I am not comfortable with that.
If intersectionality is real, which characteristics of a person are relevant to determine their privilege? Why those?
I know Bret Weinstein says that intersectionality is used to determine some sort of net privilege ranking, but I have literally never encountered this. The term was coined, as far as I know, in discussions of how the feminist movement was doing a lot for white women and ignoring challenges faced by specifically women of color. It's just a way of saying that it's never as simple as saying "These people are privileged and these people aren't." Whether you want to call it that or not, intersectionality just means that no one's life is determined by race alone, or gender alone, or any one thing, and no one's life is all perfect or all terrible, and having privilege isn't necessarily protective--Matthew Shepard was a white male, for example, but he was brutally murdered for being gay. If you're genuinely interested, I can find you something to read that might explain it a little better than that. But in my training as a social worker, thinking in terms of intersectionality was just one more tool to help us understand the unique set of circumstances a client experiences that might have led them to seek therapy.
Thanks for the extensive reply. From multiple statements in your comment, especially not being familiar with the events at Evergreen and the Harvard applications, I'm concluding that it's not worth my time to take you seriously. Wish you all the best in life though.
Youp wrote: "Thanks for the extensive reply. From multiple statements in your comment, especially not being familiar with the events at Evergreen and the Harvard applications, I'm concluding that it's not worth..."Because who knows better than you what normal is, amiright?
Crystal wrote: "David wrote: "Frank wrote: "Yeah, I get the point of this book list. I'm part of the target audience, and I've read many of the titles without the benefit of race education, or reeducation, hectori..."Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree with any part of it, except that I needed you to explain it to me. If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that my objection goes to the expression "privilege." It does not question the hardships often imposed by bigotry or conditions based on or in race or class. In fact, it tacitly acknowledges those hardships. Where we differ is that some people would regard my having grown up without racial animus being directed at me and without dire poverty as "a privilege." It is not a privilege. It is a condition every person in America has a right to expect, but which has not yet been realized. The expression is its own epithet thrown at people who have not had that type of misfortune, on the mistaken understanding that they do not or cannot understand the underlying issues. I disagree. Set higher expectations for us all, rather than diminish those who have not been mistreated for that mere fact. In short, check the condescension.
Frank wrote: "Crystal wrote: "David wrote: "Frank wrote: "Yeah, I get the point of this book list. I'm part of the target audience, and I've read many of the titles without the benefit of race education, or reed..."So, it’s really important to know that the term “privilege” is not intended to diminish anyone. It’s meant to describe what certain groups have in relation to groups who face discrimination. I don’t know if you bothered to follow my exchanges with Youp, but I wrote about an experience where a landlord offered me an apartment even though I had no income to avoid renting to an employed black couple. She placed a greater value in whiteness than on ensuring her tenant could make rent every month. Anytime discrimination takes place, two things happen: blackness is devalued, and whiteness is overvalued. The term privilege is used to describe the latter.
I also want to say that I completely agree that what we’re calling privilege here should be the standard. But that is not the world we live in. “Privilege” being used in this way arose out of the social sciences, which seek to describe the status quo as it is, not as it should be. When equality is achieved, privilege won’t exist, so the term won’t be needed. But right now we needed to describe a thing that happens, because it gives us a way to talk about these extensively difficult issues.
There is no white person out there who has not felt defensive when confronted by these issues. It’s a complicated mess of feelings that comes up. We take it personally. We feel like we’re being asked to singlehandedly take responsibility for all racism ever, when many of us have spent our lives being aware of racism and knowing it’s wrong. In the end, this is the thing that has helped me most coping with the confusion: it’s not about you or anything you did or didn’t do in the past. It’s about learning what you can do to help others.
One of my biggest criticisms of the social justice community is the propensity to adopt and use academic jargon that the general public isn’t familiar with. It’s like the Ivory Tower of Babel—when we’re not all speaking the same language, the language itself becomes, to paraphrase Calvin and Hobbes, a complete impediment to understanding. And yeah, it can get extremely condescending.
That said, I would like more people to properly understand what people mean when they talk about privilege. It’s something we need to think about. Until recently, the gold standard for diversity has been tolerance. But to move into acceptance, everyone needs to be aware of their own place in the system—up until now, POC have borne that burden alone. We’ll never remove barriers we can’t see.
What in God's name makes you think that I do not understand "my place in the system." I understand all of what you said, and understood it before you said it. I need no teacher on this subject. I've been watching it unfold for over 60 years. It is you who is not understanding me. It doesn't matter how many times I say it, it will not be understood by some people. My quarrel with this use of the word is semantic. The word "privilege" is being used in a way that is completely at odds with its commonly used and understood meaning. If a distinct minority of persons bear the burden of invidious racial discrimination, the majority of people who do not are not privileged. They are the norm. The people who are the object of invidious racial discrimination have legitimate grievances, but one of them is not that the majority is privileged. In addition, neither I, nor people like me, nor all of us taken together have to feel, or be understood to be, gifted, or specially endowed, or grateful in any way by not being the object of invidious racial discrimination. With that said, those in that group who are of fair mind and disposition can understand how unfair and oppressive it is to be treated otherwise, and work to change it. I have. Now, I've had it with this conversation, and all the moral one-upsmanship. Go teach somebody else about the special, cosseted use of the word "privilege." I've lost my incentive to add the three or four books that I might have contributed to this list. Too bad the advertising for the list isn't less offensive. Its object is valuable.
Frank wrote: "What in God's name makes you think that I do not understand "my place in the system." I understand all of what you said, and understood it before you said it. I need no teacher on this subject. I'v..."No one is attacking you. I think Emma was exceptionally respectful in her answer. I don't know where your animosity is coming from.
Why are you so against the word "privilege" being used to explain the differences in a white person's reality and a black persons? I keep reading your posts and you seem hung up on the idea that poor people can't have any privilege, regardless of skin? I guess I don't understand your anger, at all. I don't think anyone has been condescending to you regarding their explanations of how the word "privilege" is used to describe the differences in racial experiences in comparison to simple class.
Youp wrote: "Thanks for the extensive reply. From multiple statements in your comment, especially not being familiar with the events at Evergreen and the Harvard applications, I'm concluding that it's not worth..."This is fascinating to me. Emma has listed many great facts and statistics as well as valid points and examples, and because she doesn't have the exact information on the only example you can come up with that supports your entire argument, everything else she says is invalid?
Frank wrote: "What in God's name makes you think that I do not understand "my place in the system." I understand all of what you said, and understood it before you said it. I need no teacher on this subject. I'v..."Frank, I genuinely appreciate hearing from someone with your life experience and the thoughtful intelligence you display in your writing, and I agree with the vast majority of what you've written, which is why it's so sad to me that our exchanges are fraught with hostility.
I'm sorry you sense condescension coming from me. I understand why it feels like people don't respect your ideas when we try to talk about new ways of looking at such a sensitive topic. If I knew how to be more respectful and less condescending about all this, I would. Or do you think I enjoy making other people feel angry and offended? Do you think I find it rewarding to make a vulnerable and good-faith effort to talk about something I care about only for people like Youp to tell me I'm worthless or stupid (the internet is full of jerks)? Do you think it doesn't get to me, a little?
So why do I do it? 1) I have a lot of time on my hands (if I were working I wouldn't have the time) and 2) I genuinely believe it is deeply important to help other people understand these things. I do it as respectfully as I know how. (Ok, maybe every now and then I'm a little snarky, but that's mostly with people who've been rude to me.)
If you are willing, I would like to continue this conversation, and share our ideas with one another as reasonable people who may or may not agree. I hope you will consider it.
Crystal wrote: "Youp wrote: "Thanks for the extensive reply. From multiple statements in your comment, especially not being familiar with the events at Evergreen and the Harvard applications, I'm concluding that i..."Crystal, thank you for your supportive comments! I've enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this topic. They are well reasoned and have good examples, and you've introduced some ideas and ways of looking at things that have been helpful to me in understanding aspects of privilege better. So thank you!
I was posting a review of a book I finished just recently. A few months ago, I had engaged in a discussion for a few days about this book list, and I thought I would look back to see if this discussion had gone anywhere. My general impression is it has not. I made a point that the title of the list was not calculated in such a way as to entice its target audience. A few people agreed, but the statement mostly fell on deaf ears or engendered vituperation and bitterness for reasons I will never understand. Along the way, I suggested that there had to be a better way of expressing the idea of "white privilege" because "privilege," at least according to its predominant and popular dictionary definition, conveys the status of a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a person beyond the advantages of most people (in other words, it is a benefit that is not common). The type of advantages experienced by most white people (and I use that term guardedly), not shared in by most non-white people (and I use that term guardedly), are very common indeed. The great majority of people in the United States have not experienced the ill effects of redlining, for example, but to say that makes them privileged turns the idea of privilege on its head because "not to be redlined" is a status shared by most people in the United States (i.e. it is very common indeed). This is not to say that redlining (and the US Government's adoption of it) did not put black (and I use that term guardedly) communities at a sharp disadvantage to others, with harsh and cascading effects -- it is simply to say that avoiding the ill effects of redlining is not a privilege in the commonly accepted sense of the term. This was a very limited point that went to the use of language rather than the underlying idea of how discrimination in the United States works. Well, that little bit of semantic reasoning was not very well received. In fact, the reaction would have been more somber if I had cut the word "God" out of every bible.
My hope is that we can come to see and speak about the grave injustices done, and continuing to done, against invidiously discriminated against groups, without pigeon-holing those who have not been discriminated against (for that very fact). I would say they are being pigeon-holed as deserving of subtle scorn or of having a special privileged status they somehow do not deserve or came by illicitly. Put another way, the question is not who among us lived a better life for being free of invidious discrimination, but who among us lived a disadvantaged life because of invidious discrimination, and how to end it.
I am old, and I do not expect to see invidious discrimination resolved in my lifetime. My two cents is that I have seen lots of liberation language over the years, and the kind I am seeing today could be better calibrated to win friends for the cause. I am sometimes told that "friends for the cause" are no longer needed. To that I would merely reply with the book list title, which is a lame attempt at enlistment. QED
Frank wrote: "My two cents is that I have seen lots of liberation language over the years, and the kind I am seeing today could be better calibrated to win friends for the cause."It’s not designed to win friends, it’s designed to promote a view of society that doesn’t hold whiteness as the norm. What you’re asking is for a movement to compromise its values to make people like you feel more comfortable. That feeling of comfort you feel entitled to? That’s white privilege.
I hope you will consider reading this book:
White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Emma wrote: "Frank wrote: "My two cents is that I have seen lots of liberation language over the years, and the kind I am seeing today could be better calibrated to win friends for the cause."It’s not designe..."
Obviously, the point of the post is to get the target audience to read books on the list. I don't think the approach taken does so effectively. I'm not asking anybody to make me comfortable. I'm asking them to use the language with greater regard to standard usage. You don't know anything about me, and so you are not in a position to express to what I feel, or do not feel, entitled. It is probably a well-worn line in your playbook . Have a good life, Emma.
Obviously, the point of the post is to get the target audience to read books on the list.That's not obvious at all. Your post reads like you're trying to summarize the comment thread from your perspective. If you're trying to get people to read books on this list, you spent way too much time enumerating your grievances against the social justice movement to be effective.
I'm not asking anybody to make me comfortable.
Yes, you are. You have one particular definition of privilege that you personally feel comfortable with and you want everyone else to conform to what the word means. You also want a massive movement of people to abandon an ideology that you personally disagree with. I tried to engage with you on your objection to the semantic use of the word privilege, and you insulted me. If that's not all about personal comfort, I don't know what is.
You're not able to even consider the idea that apart from discrimination faced by people of color, white people are offered additional advantages in society. There are plenty of people out there who will admit that discrimination against someone is morally wrong (it is 2019 after all), but many of those same people, like you, are not able to admit that in addition to punishing non-whiteness, our society rewards whiteness, and that is because those people either implicitly or explicitly want to preserve those advantages. That is what racism looks like in 2019. Since you're unwilling or unable to have a productive conversation with anyone who has ideas that contradict your own, I had to ask my friend Dr. Freud why you're acting the way you do, and he told me that you're either unwilling to let go of white privilege, or you're an egomaniacal jerk. I think it's probably a combination of both.
I'm asking them to use the language with greater regard to standard usage.
What is standard usage? There's a book I love, the Oxford English Dictionary, that contains the various definitions and the usage history of words in the English language. The compact edition is two massive volumes and comes with a magnifying glass because they made the print microscopic in order to include more content. Any given word can have a list of one or two or twelve definitions, along with a history that tracks the usage trends. Language is a protean thing, and words don't have fixed meanings. The word "cleave" can mean both "cling to" or "divide in two", but both definitions are considered "standard."
In the history of the English language, the social justice term "privilege" is fairly new--the first recorded use is from 1988, which is the year I, now a mere 31 years, was born. The concept is older than that, however, and was first discussed in print by WEB DuBois in The Souls of Black Folk. You may be old, but I happen to know that the oldest living person is Japanese, so I feel comfortable saying that the concept of privilege is way older than you, even if using that particular word to describe it is not.
And I have to tell you, Frank, that I put way more stock in the thinking of WEB DuBois than I put in yours. I hope we can both agree that's valid. To be clear, that means I will not be validating your denialism of white privilege today.
You don't know anything about me, and so you are not in a position to express to what I feel, or do not feel, entitled. It is probably a well-worn line in your playbook .
That is some delicious hypocrisy, right there.
Have a good life, Emma.
As much as I love being condescended to, I suspect that if I accuse you of being insincere you'll scold me for assuming, and then tell me to get off your lawn. So I'll assume you are genuinely wishing me a good life.
My response, then, is to offer you the words of the great Audra Lorde: "I am not free while any woman is unfree, even if her shackles are very different from my own."
If you want me to have a good life, Frank, I need people like you to have a change of heart. I need you to open up to the idea that maybe WEB DuBois and bell hooks and Robin DiAngelo know what they're talking about, and that maybe you don't know better than them. Because my sisters of color are struggling, and as long as that is true, my own life cannot truly be good.
It is clear that, despite your long response, you still have no idea of the point that I am making. I have never taken the position that white people do not have advantages generally less available to persons who are not white. In fact, I have illustrated that exact point many times in these now seeming pointless volleys. The fact that you are not grasping the nuance of my position, or you are willing to roll over it without any pointed and meaningful rejoinder, suggests to me you are looping an endless script. If you were willing to say to me, simply, that there are many definitions of "privilege," and one or more of them do not rely on the idea that the advantage conveyed needs to be special or confined to a small group (and therefore the use of "white privilege" makes sense), that would be a good faith response. I would agree that those definitions exist (but I would tell you they are less favored). You might have even said that it is an old expression with a particular, stipulated meaning (apart from common usage) that has obtained widespread acceptance in the social sciences over the past couple of decades. I would have said: Oh (and then wondered why they couldn't come up with something better, but perhaps then resign myself to it). Instead, you engage in vituperation; supposition of my background, knowledge, and motives; and personal insult. I will let the general readership determine who is engaging in condescension and in personal insults. I've been mau-maued by the best of them, and they were Africans. You don't hold a candle, but I'm sure you mean well. FYI, I've read DuBois and Watkins. Maybe that will do it for you, but I doubt it. Perhaps we'll bump into one another when you are 62 and I am 93. At that point you can impress me further with your deep knowledge of race relations and those who see white. Don't have a good life?
Frank wrote: "You might have even said that it is an old expression with a particular, stipulated meaning (apart from common usage) that has obtained widespread acceptance in the social sciences over the past couple of decades."I said more or less this several comments ago, and you said, “Go teach someone else about this special, cosseted use of the word ‘privilege.’” No matter what I’ve said, you’ve been nothing but judgmental and standoffish. I’ll also note that the only person to have commented about our exchange defended my efforts to be respectful towards you—though I suppose that’s reason enough, in your mind, to question her judgment.
Also, I find it fascinating that you’ve spent so much time invoking revered elder status, only to reveal that you’re only 62. Here I was thinking I was talking to an actual old person, but you’re too young even to have served in Vietnam or protested in the civil rights movement. My father is older than you, and he was around for those things, and he used stories of those experiences when I was growing up to teach me the social justice values that are part of the core of who I am.
I think it’s too bad that you don’t share those same values, Frank. I suspect that you have some interesting ideas and insights that I would have liked to hear, but you’ve been so singlemindedly convinced of my inferiority that our exchange ended in a whimper. And I will never know.
Be well.
Oh. My. God.These comments...
It's not a "wokeness" contest! The fact that you're even reading the books on the list is commendable, since so many of us unfortunately choose the path of ignorance, not wanting to understand the histories and experiences of different cultures/people.
Save your energy from arguing about whether or not the title of the list is racist (spoiler alert: it's not) etc. and channel that energy in a more constructive manner by either reading more books on the list, or by telling other people about the books to get them interested, engaged, and involved!
Read on, you beautiful people!
Kevin wrote: "This is perhaps one of the dumbest lists ever created in the history of the human race! Congratulations..."Thanks for your insight, Kevin. Is there a specific reason you don't find this list useful? Is there a way it could be made more useful for you?
Is there Books Black People Need To Read list somewhere?
After May 25, 2020 For your consideration
https://hplct.libguides.com/blm/state...
https://hplct.libguides.com/blm/books
Super curious why and how Anne of Green Gables ended up on this list.
We're going to need more wine by Gabriel Unionand for Canadians
Empire of the Wild by Cherie Dimaline
Great list. Stupid name. I should think most anyone could benefit from many of the books on this list. Why pontificate? Makes me doubt that you've read any of these books.
I'm not sure who added the books by the Thomas Sowell. Despite the fact that I doubt that the person adding them did so with honest intent, I do think they should be kept in the list. Even if they're garbage, they provide the usefulness of knowing the other side's point of view.P.S. Just my opinion, if others disagree, great, more power to you.
Lianne (The Towering Pile) wrote: "There is no assumption being made here that all white people are racist. There's a difference between having white privilege (which all white people have, regardless of anything else), and being ra..."No not all white people have white privilege, in Belize for example majority of people in power are black white people are looked down on. You don't know crap outside your tiny bubble. How many countries have you lived in? My guess is 1. I've lived in four, privilege is a case of circumstances not color.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, Tym, your experiences living in other countries take the place of reading this list of books about systemic racism and the lived experiences of people of color?
Athens wrote: "It is a real disappointment that Goodreads does allow racist statements to be made, in this case against people who are "white"."Athens is that kind of POC that white racists and ignorants means when they say "I have non-white friends!". also: it's at the same time great example of first of all that POC can be as well ignorant as white people ; secondly - of self-hated POC
good for you hun that you're mixed. I bet you pass as white.
Athens: Candice Owens of Internet.
Lianne (The Towering Pile) wrote: "Yeah, that quote has nothing to do with this...Here's my point: Racism exists. White people are the ones in power and therefore the ones responsible for ending racism. The only way to end racism ..."
You look exactly like the type of person I expected to write such a pathetic thing...
This comment section is evidence that the title is true - people really do need to be doing their research and reading more POC voices.
Without wading too deep into the mires of this discussion. As a history teacher i would just like to say one thing,of which i am sure of. Any race can both contribute to and be on the receiving end of racism,yes even white people. Especially considering white people include large swathes of eastern Europe and Russia,Jewish and all those in between who have struggled with fitting in. Not to mention my own ancestors,the Irish,who in my families case had to change their last name to avoid problems. Now,am i saying all racism is as bad as each other? No,anyone who is well read will know that sadly,colonialism,institutionalized racism,persecution and exclusion has occurred against people with skin other than white far more often in recent history. Everyone should read the books on this list,but not because of some in built guilt or privilege that we may or may not have. But to improve themselves and the world and be a positive force.Edit: I have lived in Asia and been the victim of some pretty hardcore racism at times. It is real,so pretending it can't happen diminishes other humans. Hell there have even been a few racially motivated killings against white people in Asia and Africa. They are rare enough of course,but they do happen. India is another place i experienced some pretty bad racism,but i still found it to be worth it by far.
Athens wrote: "Does the name of this list strike anybody as racist?To be more direct, the name of this list is racist.
How can this list exist without a presupposed and prejudiced stereotype of what white peop..."
Of course it is. All of these "anti-racist" theories such as CRT, all they ever do is separate even more people just because of color. That's why some people call CRT as Race Marxism.
Malik wrote: "Lol at all these salty crackers in the comments. Can't wait for the Great Replacement to come and erase you all."Malik wrote: "Lol at all these salty crackers in the comments. Can't wait for the Great Replacement to come and erase you all."
Malik wrote: "Lol at all these salty crackers in the comments. Can't wait for the Great Replacement to come and erase you all."
Malik wrote: "Lol at all these salty crackers in the comments. Can't wait for the Great Replacement to come and erase you all."
Malik wrote: "Lol at all these salty crackers in the comments. Can't wait for the Great Replacement to come and erase you all."
That's a pretty racist statement to make. You can't...oh never mind you're Black that's OK my bad.
From the description: This list is for non-fiction & memoir written from a progressive, anti-racist point of view. [The word memoir is a redundancy as memoirs are non-fiction.]The below books are within the spirit of the list but all of them are fiction. Should the parameters of the list be changed or should all of these be removed from the list?
Things Fall Apart
Americanah
Invisible Man
Native Son
Homegoing
The Bluest Eye
Lakota Woman
Uncle Tom's Cabin
I looked at only the top 100. There may be others.
Crystal wrote: "I don't think you understand white privilege."
When people disagree with you, just claim ..."
Actually just read 'So You Want To Talk About Race'. It's the worst book I've ever read, absolute garbage. But let me guess,
I just don't get it or don't want to see it due to my privilege? Your hivemind has developed a foolproof line of arguing where you can always disregard someone's opinion because they happen to fit into at least category of 'privilege' or 'oppressor'. That exact rhetoric did not work for the Soviets, and it still doesn't work.
The worst thing is your self-righteousness mixed looking at all people of color as victims. "Look at me, I am white and I'm so privileged. These poor black people are all the same, all oppressed and helpless. I understand how they all feel, let me explain it to everyone as the spokesperson of people of color. Why can't other white people be more like me, and care more about these poor souls?"