Best books on immigrants according to redditors
We found 218 Reddit comments discussing the best books on immigrants. We ranked the 46 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
17. How Race Survived US History: From Settlement and Slavery to the Obama Phenomenon
2 mentions
Verso
Didn't want to spam the queue, but if anyone else wants to post parts 2 and 3 of this amazing, comprehensive piece of journalism, here are the other two parts to this story:
Part 2: Internal Divisions President Trump’s election made the Murdoch family more powerful than ever. But the bitter struggle between James and Lachlan threatened to tear the company apart.
Part 3: The New Fox Weapon The Disney deal left the Murdochs with a media empire stripped to its essence: a hardcore right-wing news machine — with Lachlan in charge.
It's a very long read, but worth it.
I also recommend Jane Mayer's seminal book from 2017 entitled Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right to get a full picture of how the oligarchy has slimed in and committed violence against our democracy for over a generation.
Mercers and The Kochs. Read or listen to Dark Money. It's scary.
Read Dark Money
This is a great question that I have thought about a million times. I have actually spent a lot of time trying to find a book on it, but I have not come across one that is specifically about Sociology or Psychology.
I first started to think about this when I was getting my masters degree (in Sociology). Often times I was super excited to share the things I would learn with my family and friends, and how the things I was (and still am) learning are often in contradiction to the things I was told/learned growing up. For context, I'm a white girl who grew up in an upper-middle class politically conservative suburb in a large city with successful parents, and I was always given everything I wanted/needed. I considered myself a Christian and I told people that I was a republican (although I knew nothing about politics and was just identifying with my parents).
Then I started studying Soci and my entire perspective on the world changed. It opened my eyes and forced me to look beyond my tunnel vision of society. It was really hard at times to come to terms with things that I thought I already understood, especially social issues that I had never thought about before or issues that had always been presented to me in a one-sided, biased manner.
A good example of this is the trope of the Welfare Queen. I was told that poor people, esp. poor black people, were moochers and only wanted handouts because they were lazy and didn't want to get a job. Of course, I learned that the Welfare Queen (and welfare "fraud") is a myth that was promulgated by Ronald Regan in order to stigmatize people in poverty so that he could convince Americans that rolling back the social safety net was justified because it was only being used by poor black (read: undeserving) citizens. The truth is that most people on welfare do have jobs (i.e. the 'working poor'). Also, the welfare reforms of 1996 created a 5-year maximum lifetime cap on benefits so that welfare "cheaters" (which did not exist anywhere near the level that we're often told) were literally unable to collect benefits for life (also, contrary to popular opinion, women do not have more babies to get more benefits. In fact, if a woman has a child while receiving benefits, she and her family will be removed from the rolls). Welfare is probably one of the least understood/mischaracterized social issue in American society.
Science in general is often met with the sting of anti-intellectualism, which is part of the answer to your question. However, I think social science in particular gets it worse than the 'natural' sciences like Biology and Chemistry. I used to say that it was because people were generally more suspect of social sciences, but I think it's more than that. People like to dismiss facts about social issues that they don't agree with or have a different view on because it's much easier to disagree that we live in a post-racial society (we don't) than it is to disagree on the functions of bodily organs. People also tend to conflate their individual life experiences with overall reality (i.e. "well, i've never experienced [blank] so it must not be true or its exaggerated" or "well, I know someone who is [blank] but [blank] doesn't happen to them"). You get what I am saying here? Most people don't question or critically think about social norms or commonsense 'truths' because these 'truths' are so embedded in our milieu that its hard to imagine otherwise. So instead of thinking critically, people dismiss sociological knowledge as either "elitist" or "not real science" so that they can remain undisturbed in their own little worlds.
Once I saw a question on r/askreddit that asked what the slogan of your college major or job would be. I would say, "Sociology: reminding people of uncomfortable truths since 1838" or "Sociology: everything you were taught about society was a big lie" lol.
I'm sorry I can't find any literature for you, but I can recommend these instead:
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.
Most excellent book too!
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
Great read for those interested in a more historical look at the subject. Very well argued and interesting book, very eye opening in terms of the many different aspects of American society and how they developed over the last few hundred years.
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
If you want to hear more about this I recommend "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right". Unfortunately - seminars like this are only the tip of the ice-berg. There are huge ideological enterprises set up with goal of establishing "beach-heads" at prestigious universities by setting up private organizations that are attached to the university but paid to publish certain results. Their role is usually to promote free markets and encourage the inclusion of economic costs in law (not just public good). The Mercatus Institute is another example of one of these privately-funded-but-publicly-housed organizations. They're the guys who made news a few months ago when they published a study on Bernie Sander's medicare-for-all plan that showed that even though it was expensive - it was still cheaper than what we're spending now.
No, it isn't necessarily reliant upon color of skin. Although Irish Catholics, Poles, and Italians weren't "white" until surprisingly recently. There are actually a couple of good books on the subject if you're interested in reading. A place to start might be Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race
The same Eisenhower who extremely critical of wealthy industrialist taking control of the national and attempting to exploit the poor to their benefit? I'm not saying everything he did was good, but he was aware that a certain, powerful segment of the population was more interested in ranking up a high score in their bank accounts than helping people.
> Neoliberalism, love it or hate it, saved the economy in the 80s and 90s.
That's a massive over-simplification, and mostly inaccurate. While several important metrics from measuring the economy did improve during that period, "real wages" (wages adjusted for inflation) didn't grow significantly between 1981 and 2011. A lot of the economy growth came from women entering the work force in larger numbers & obtaining wages comparable to men, from computers & automation massive boosting the productive per worker, and a massive increase in the access to credit (debt). Of the three, Neoliberalism/Laissez-Faire economy only really affected the third, with probably overall negative consequences. At the heart of the Great Recession was the house market collapse: Because of the lack of real wage growth, people couldn't afford to buy houses except through increasing ridiculous mortgages, which they were able to obtain since the investment class demands growth. This debt bubble was leveraged to create even more (imaginary) wealth, which showed up in most of the economy metrics (especially the stock market). It just disappeared when reality set in and real wages couldn't support incurred debt, crashing the economy.
> Nixon brought in the Environmental protection agency.
I put Nixon on the list for breaking the law to maintain political power. Without Watergate, he would not have made the list.
> Political parties respond to the
needs andwants of the electorate.The reason I mentioned think tanks is that they are one of the tools used by conservative to re-frame and shape the wants of the electorate. Most traditional think tanks collect facts and do analysis to build policy recommendations, but many conservative ones (especially ones funded by the Kochs) begin with the ideology and cherry-pick the data to support the policies they have already written. It's both intellectual dishonest and much easier to build a convincing narrative with. I suggest reading Dark Money and Democracy in Chains if you want to examine the interplay between conservative think tanks, public opinion and money.
> People are the ones who vote after all.
Which is why voter suppression and gerrymandering play such an important role is US elections. Given the ugly history of disenfranchisement in that country, it's much easier to build support for preventing "the wrong people" from voting that it is to actually convince other people to support your policies. It's disguising and disgraceful. Thankfully, the Supreme Court up here has been consistent on supporting everyone's right to vote.
Speaking of the Koch Brothers, eeryone should read Jane Mayer's Dark Money.
It is absolutely essential reading for understanding what has happened to the Republican party and our greater political zeitgeist.
Everyone should read New Yorker writer Jane Mayer's book about the Kochs and (to a lesser extent) other far-right billionaires, Dark Money.
Edit: I found the original article that this map comes from, and it explains everything I was trying to say below much better than I ever could. It's well worth a read!
> But the closer to the equator you get, the more religious people are and that consequently probably affects politics.
What? My 'oversimplification' meter just broke.
The Puritans and their like in New England were far more religious than the wild Scots-Irish and English aristocracy in the South. That situation has kinda reversed in modern times, but what in the heck does that have to do with the equator??(Edit: I retract this statement. I accused u/3ii3 of oversimplifying and then I oversimplified in the next sentence. Doh. See u/Ruire's far more informed view on the matter below.) You can't really divide America (or the world) into cultural regions based on temperature.I think you are correct that geography has a greater influence on modern American regionalism than do the British roots of Americans. I mean, how many Americans can actually name a specific region in Britain that they can trace their ancestry back to? However, it's not entirely accurate to say that 'most Americans are of German descent.' British-Americans still represent the largest group of white Americans, they've just been here so long that they no longer identify as British. From Wikipedia:
> In the 2000 census, self-identified German Americans made up 17.1% of the U.S. population, followed by Irish Americans at 12%, as reported in the 2000 U.S. Census. This makes German and Irish the largest and second-largest self-reported ancestry groups in the United States. Both groups had high rates of immigration to the U.S. beginning in the mid-19th century, triggered by the Great Famine in Ireland and the failed 1848 Revolution in Germany. However, English-Americans and British-Americans are still considered the largest ethnic group due to a serious under count following the 2000 census whereby many English and British Americans self-identified under the new category entry 'American' considering themselves 'indigenous' because their families had resided in the US for so long or, if of mixed European ancestry, identified with a more recent and differentiated ethnic group.
Going back to the relevance of British roots in early America, I'm currently reading Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America by Jim Webb, and it's really fascinating how a lot of animosity toward the English carried over to America when the Scots-Irish were banished to the mountains and to poverty by the English planter aristocracy. He makes a really fascinating-to-think-about point that the American Revolution and Civil War were kind of an echo of the Wars of Scottish Independence and the English Civil War, with wild, Celtic mountain-men going to war against a more settled Anglo-Saxon civilization trying to drag them kicking and screaming into the global order.
So next time you see a Southerner (who is likely of Scots-Irish descent) waving a rebel flag (which is not coincidentally based on the Scottish St. Andrew's Cross flag) and cursing damn Yankees (of English and continental European descent), even though they are probably not aware of it, they are resurrecting old animosities that date back to the medieval British Isles.
"Surprising Op-ed"??
"Singing a new tune"?!?!
Charles and David Koch are the unrivaled kings of gaslighting and manipulation.
They have spent literally hundreds millions of dollars, over decades, on a concentrated effort to influence academia, the media, and public policy towards their pro-corporate (profits) and anti-goverment (public accountability) ends.
"Dark Money" should be required reading for everyone.
Buy it, trust me: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307947904
Or listen to the audiobook free here:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/3uoaTlB5oPA
Part 2: https://youtu.be/gcQQKalLbZs
PBS just had a great documentary on the Panthers called Black Panthers, Vanguard of the Revolution which does a good job of giving a broad and balanced overview of the Panthers. If you want more specific information you can read stuff like [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Taste-Power-Black-Womans-Story/dp/0385471076) or [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Hillbilly-Nationalists-Urban-Rebels-Black/dp/1935554662).
Jane Mayer, Dark Money
Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains
This is well-documented and reported. Please do some reading, specifically on John Olin and the Koch Brothers and James Buchanan and the neoliberal Mont Pelerin Society hostile takeover of higher education and public discourse in general. Even the Tea Party was astroturfed.
Someone wrote a book in the 60s about it, so it's basically tradition at this point.
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america
This is a consequence of many strands of American life dating back to the 1960s, but it has recently been embraced and furthered by the conservative backlash against public schools, environmentalism, 'liberal elites,' etc. It's so frustrating because in every other facet of life, you want someone who knows more than you to help you learn what they know; but somehow in politics those who know more than you are wrong and can't tell you want to do. It's insane-making
> Mainstream liberals and Democrats have largely been unable to...understand the behavior of the Republican Party over the last few decades
Just finished Jane Mayer's Dark Money. It's very enlightening in this regard. It's a hard read in the sense that is perpetually depressing, terrifying, and enraging, but it clearly explicates the unseen forces at work, including how the Koch network pours money into cut outs that are made to look and sound non-partisan and legitimate (which also aids in their mission to cheat campaign financing and tax laws) and pairs the cut outs' "research" with the worst elements of society (e.g., racism, poverty) to frame their messaging in an eerily similar way as Russian propaganda. That's in addition to all the shell non profits they use to skirt campaign finance laws and funnel ungodly amounts of money to politicians.
Even if I had at some point in the past said "both sides are the same" with respect to donors, I will never fucking say it again after reading this book.
If anyone hasn't read/listened to Dark Money by Jane Mayer you definitely should!
It traces the history of influence by conservative billionaire donors, and it's disgusting and infuriating -- but also incredibly informative.
In simplest terms, the Koch Foundation has put a poop ton of money into George Mason University and other colleges across the US. I highly recommend you read the book but GMU has been in the news this year because of the connections to the Kochs.
The book also goes into the Bush family and a lot of the Republican guard, shit I had no idea about. The Kochs made a shit load of money selling to the Nazis and USSR.
As long as we are suggesting things, People should read Dark Money by Jane Meyer
Exactly. You should revisit this classic:
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadtler
Written in 1964, around the rise of McCarthyism confronting New Era Progressives and FDR. It's extremely relevant today.
FYI the Mercer Famiky was/is a major player in the Koch network that brought us the radical right and who now own the Republican Party.
Read Dark Money, buy a copy for a friend.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
. . . . says the author of Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America.
>Their cultural identity reflected acute individualism, dislike of aristocracy and a military tradition, and, over time, the Scots-Irish defined the attitudes and values of the military, of working class America, and even of the peculiarly populist form of American democracy itself.
In conclusion, eat shit Jim.
http://www.kulturemedia.org/
I want to give you this example and you can see the parallels today.
 
 
So, yes, propaganda is real and it is effective. It's not conspiracy. When I say whites cannot be trusted people think I'm nuts too, but I just gave you three examples of things that happened to just one nation.
 
It is pervasive. They do control a lot of the media and they fill it with lies
 
Also, whites are even more full of shit than most ever imagined. Look at all that fair trade in the "rules based order".
http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/
http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409/
https://i.imgur.com/OMawpLS.jpg
https://www.amazon.com/Settlers-Mythology-Proletariat-Mayflower-Kersplebedeb/dp/1629630373/
https://www.amazon.com/Half-Has-Never-Been-Told/dp/046500296X
All of this is well documented.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
Of course I might be going out on a limb thinking you'd ever even try to read a fucking book for once.
Anti-intellectualism has been a part of American culture from its foundation. Our culture has always prided itself on its practicality and industry, and derided intellect, basic research, and arts as irrelevant. Smart people are viewed as untrustworthy and arrogant, their expertise fundamentally anti-democratic. Or, as Asimov put it, in American culture "democracy means 'my ignorance is as good as your knowledge.'"
> For example the Irish weren't exactly looked upon fondly when masses of them came over to seek a better life, but over generations they mixed in and form part of today's American culture.
They became "white." It's a fascinating historical transition.
They epitomize libertarianism. They're largely (almost solely) responsible for the rise of right wing and libertarian think tanks and ideals in the United states over the last several decades. If you ever want to be disgusted by the efforts and successes of the Koch brothers and their oligarch friends, I suggest this book: https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550262479&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+money. It outlines how they've infiltrated the government, academic institutions, and general society with evil intentions and great success.
How did we get here? Worth checking out if your library has a copy:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0394703170
Here is another source:
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer
Fuck it. Finally ordering it now.
Really stoked to get fucking depressed about the CU decision again.
Edit: can I post a link to Amazon? I'm gonna post the link to Amazon. And here's the Smile.Amazon link.
Edit: Also, if you don't like reading and want a primer on this stuff... good documentary from HBO here.
Here are a couple of books that will get you on the right track:
The Reactionary Mind and Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.
Great questions. I don't think there's an easy or foolproof answer to them.
>should lay people who have zero expertise in a field trust such general academic consensuses as being broadly correct?
Broadly correct? I would think that's a solid way to look at things. I'm in agreement with you.
>Are there good reasons for non-experts to be skeptical about the scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change or evolution?
"Good" reasons? Eh........I'll give a few scattered thoughts here:
This is frustrating. I agree with Maher on his point, but he really should have prepared himself to explain it. He just made a statement and didn't really bother to discuss it further... and in my opinion, that's probably part of the problem of American stupidity. Nobody has the patience to listen to further explanations or intellectual discussions.
I suggest to anyone interested in this topic to read Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It was written in 1964, and won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction that year... but it is still extremely relevant today.
For anyone interested in a historical study of this, frankly, uniquely American problem I highly recommend Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter. It pretty dated now (1968 I believe) but he does a remarkable job going through American history and examining the relationship between the experts (not merely academics) and the "common people."
Jim Webb's Born Fighting is a great read on this
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916891
Well, white people haven't had to fight for our rights in America. Nobody's racially profiling us, or saying that we aren't "really American." White people (well, guys, anyway) have always had the right to vote and to live anywhere we want, or join any club we'd like to. As straight people (I'm assuming you are) we haven't had to fight for marriage rights. Roe vs. Wade was decided in the 70s but Republicans still keep trying to roll that back and restrict women's legal right (wasting time and money on this, I have to add.) Minorities get some additional focus because they're still working on being treated legally as equals. That doesn't mean that someone who has these legal rights already is being left out. One of the things the Obama administration introduced is the time and a half overtime law for workers making under $47k. That affects plenty of white men too, and the GOP is about to roll that back. As well as looking at Social Security cuts that will affect all of us who aren't making over $200k a year. And Medicare. These are "all people" issues, not minority ones or white people issues, unless you want your grandparents to move in with you or to pay for their hip replacements yourself.
From what I've seen, the Trump machine used refugees and illegal immigrants to boost fear (we are more likely to be shot by a toddler or die falling out of bed than to be killed by a terrorist in the US) and distract from the fact that their overall policies pretty much benefit big business and CEOs and not the other 99% of us.
Though there have been, historically, times when various groups of white immigrants have been discriminated against because of national origin, like the Irish in particular, Italians, Poles. Now everyone in these groups are considered white people...but it wasn't always like this. (You might find this one a good read.)
This comment is also available in convenient book form.
http://amzn.com/0394703170
this is a good book on what you describe
While I rarely shill, I recommend to all the people of /r/EnoughTrumpSpam to read Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by renowned historian Richard Hofstadter. It reminds you that this is not a new line of thought in America, but rather one that predates the establishment of the country.
I'm seriously in love with her now.
Black or white, the distain for education, learning, and "professionalism" is deep seated in our country. This.
Please, read the book Dark Money.
Because American culture rewards confidence.
Slightly off topic: If anyone is interested in learning about some of the history of the American psyche, I highly highly recommend the book "Born Fightin'" by Jim Webb. He traces the immigration and influence of the Ulster-Scots (known here as Scots-Irish) in the US, and the ways that they have influenced, and continue to influence America, from militarism to suspicion of outsiders and government to country-western music to feuds in Appalacia.
I honestly don't think college is necessary. You could actually learn about this history on your own. This sub is a good place to start. There are also books like Ronald Takaki's Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans.
>On a percentage basis, the undisputed kings of game-day emergencies are certainly the Cincinnati Bengals. When the Who Dey play, emergency calls in the normally-quiet downtown districts of the Queen City spike an astounding 50-100 percent while the rest of the city is unperturbed. That includes dozens of drug stops, plenty of disorderly conduct, and even 32 cases of assault.
>As is the case with the Cubs, drilling down on where the additional calls are coming from reveals that the biggest spike by far comes from the neighborhood where the Bengals’ stadium is located.
>The Reds cause no such mayhem, so this has less to do with Cincinnati generally and more with the Bengals specifically. Maybe they’re taking the pain of rooting for a perpetually losing but never-changing outfit out on each other. Maybe they’re inspired by a roster that regularly hosts criminals. Maybe they’re mad that Marvin Lewis was the head coach for so long. Whatever the reasoning, Bengals home games increase the number of 911 calls in Cincinnati by 10 percent across the entire city.
Carloads of hillbillies attend and get drunk at Bengals games. Many hillbillies seem to be spoiling for a fight even when sober (Jim Webb helps to explain this phenomenon--https://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America-ebook/dp/B000FCKGTS). When they get fired up on booze and packed together in a stadium, voila, you have a recipe for 911 calls!
The best book on this subject is by Richard Hofstadter. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006LSVB1M
Haha - my girlfriend keeps telling me to start a YouTube channel. Personally, I think she just wants me to rant around the house less lol. But I've been thinking about putting something together - the lovely response from Redditors when I post comments like this make me think it might have a chance to be a successful way of getting the message out.
But if you're interested in reading about this stuff here are a few books by the people with real talent who did all the investigative legwork that I'm just repeating:
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307947904/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_V2.xDbT0G7T9Q
Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America https://www.amazon.com/dp/1101980966/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_23.xDbQ9EHJR5
Love it!
Elementary:
Pepper Zhang - Artist Extraordinaire - https://www.amazon.com/Pepper-Zhang-Artist-Extraordinaire-Jerry/dp/0999087703
​
Elementary / Middle:
American Born Chinese: https://www.amazon.com/American-Born-Chinese-Gene-Luen/dp/0312384483
Boxers and Saints: https://www.amazon.com/Boxers-Saints-Boxed-Gene-Luen/dp/1596439246/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=BXV52AHCYEFMJJCD3800
​
High School:
Making of Asian America: History - https://www.amazon.com/Making-Asian-America-History/dp/1476739412
Unlikely liberators: - https://www.amazon.com/Unlikely-Liberators-100th-English-Japanese/dp/0824810813/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Thread of Silkworm - https://www.amazon.com/Thread-Silkworm-Iris-Chang/dp/0465006787/ref=pd_sim_14_2/144-0076638-4640964?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0465006787&pd_rd_r=ad8c5d33-7907-11e9-a48a-7140e5d87a3d&pd_rd_w=ktZAa&pd_rd_wg=RsV9k&pf_rd_p=90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=TZ2GX9JPAXD830B3XHN9&psc=1&refRID=TZ2GX9JPAXD830B3XHN9
The Chinese American: Narrative History - https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-America-Narrative-History/dp/0142004170/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S6BSS5PB3VBNZZ38R2YY
Yellow Peril!" An Archive of Anti-Asian Fear - https://www.amazon.com/Yellow-Peril-Archive-Anti-Asian-Fear/dp/1781681236
New York before Chinatown: Orientalism and the Shaping of American Culture, 1776-1882 - https://www.amazon.com/New-York-before-Chinatown-Orientalism/dp/0801867940/ref=pd_bxgy_14_3/144-0076638-4640964?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0801867940&pd_rd_r=ebece189-7908-11e9-9511-65a57d25cf2b&pd_rd_w=IAkAV&pd_rd_wg=A0Twr&pf_rd_p=a2006322-0bc0-4db9-a08e-d168c18ce6f0&pf_rd_r=GXCC4HV5GNP5A9XX9ZM4&psc=1&refRID=GXCC4HV5GNP5A9XX9ZM4
​
​
On the distorted view on American Perception of China:
The Chan's Great Continent: China in Western Minds - https://www.amazon.com/Chans-Great-Continent-China-Western/dp/039331989X
The China Mirage - https://www.amazon.com/China-Mirage-History-American-Disaster/dp/0316196681/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=China+mirage&qid=1558141355&s=books&sr=1-1
The Problem of China - https://www.amazon.com/Problem-China-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0851245536
​
​
Of course, Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang's Books:
Smart People Should Build Things: https://www.amazon.com/Smart-People-Should-Build-Things/dp/0062292048/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=andrew+yang&qid=1558141081&s=books&sr=1-2
War on Normal People: https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414212/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=andrew+yang&qid=1558141121&s=books&sr=1-1
Upvote, upvote, upvote.
What you are talking about is people asserting an Anglo cultural norm as the Norm and then faulting black people or whomever for "falling short".
"This is part of their culture."
Interestingly this is a feature of the specific cultures in West Africa that are ancestral to African Americans, specifically in the Yoruba language area. Hausa and other northerners remark on this and it is something of a stereotype. As it happens it's also a stereotype of Germans in Europe, one that Germans are aware of and are a little sensitive about.
Class and ethnicity are linked in America - obviously WRT to African Americans but it also true for Scotch Irish and others. James Webb has a really good discussion of how Scotch Irish culture has become emblematic of blue collar people in general: http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916891
Here's a more recent one:
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Asian-America-History/dp/1476739412
>> Charter schools yes, creationism no. The GOP have the means, through the Common Core, to completely dismantle the public K12 system and likely will. Pushing creationism means another Scopes Trial which Republicans don't want, as it would force the SCOTUS to decide on the science and the GOP aren't gamblers.
Lol, you realize this is already happening, right?
Look at Texas.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html
>> States openly suggesting armed secession and moving to arm their own militaries to fight the Federal government. Y'know, like last time.
That's not all it requires, threating to disband NATO, not honor NATO, default on our debt stuff like that can easily make us unstable.
>> But neither are "anti-intellectual", as intellectualism is not inherently tied to schools as they are libraries or the Internet. Books matter more than tenured professors, and books the GOP cannot regulate per the First Amendment.
By anti-intellectualism I mean the disdain rural people have for anyone with an education, they run attack ads on people for going to college out there.
This country has a long history of this, good book on it: https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
There's another parallel with Mar-a-Lago having had a previous connection to a horribly shitty Russian leader, and the tenant that lived there supporting said leader. Marjorie Post's ex-husband was a diplomat to Russia during Stalin's purges, and heavily defended him while Stalin was purging not only Russians and other Soviet citizens, but Americans who emigrated to Russia to find work during the Depression. Even after Stalin's actions started coming out, this guy was still defending him. Can't remember the name off the top of my head, but the author of the book I read about it, The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia, Tim Tzouliadis, goes into it in pretty great detail. It's a great book, though depressing as hell, because these poor people tried to make a better life for themselves and their families during a terrible time, and not only suffered horribly for it, but the whole thing has been glossed over by America for decades.
It's another really shitty parallel.
Edit: Got a chance to look it up, it was Joseph Davies.
No
It's How the Scots Invented the Modern World. Similar titles include How the Irish Saved Civilization, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. None of them are by the same author, but they're all interesting historical books with similar titles (How some great culture did great things that built what we have now), none the less.
I would love to find similar titles about other countries, cultures, and civilizations. They're always so interesting!
Strangers From a Different Shore by Ronald Takaki
Asian American Dreams by Helen Zia
The correct answer is that race is a social construction. Blackness has no value beyond what our culture has given it. Which, ideally, shouldn't be very much. But the comments you've gotten in this thread already show you that your skin color matters a lot.
So what is blackness?
Whatever white people say it is.
No, I'm serious.
If race is a social construction we should look at who makes up the rules for a society (i.e. who does the constructing). And this society (in my context American society) was made by white people. And for a long time, those white people tried to keep non-whites down and out. The rules of this society reflected a white supremacist racial preference for a really long time and we're still living with its effects.
This racial agenda was carried out in lots of subtle and non-subtle ways. Non-subtle ways include out and out discrimination. Subtle ways include appropriating aspects of "black culture" and repackaging/whitewashing them in order to claim that discrimination doesn't happen or isn't as bad we think it is. The cliche appropriation example is rock music, but the best example is Booker T. Washington. Or really pretty much any successful black person who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps." Their hard work and determination shows that discrimination doesn't affect us anymore! If they can do it, so can you!
Blackness is often defined as thug life, gangsta rap, fed by nihilism, poverty, drug addiction, and crime. And the ghetto. Though you rarely hear anyone discuss why inner city ghettos exist (because whites didn't want blacks living in the whites-only suburbs) and why poverty is a problem (because it's one of the latent effects of segregation and discrimination).
What is acting black?
I don't know. Blackness is an identity largely created specifically to keep you oppressed. This is done by dehumanizing people with dark skin and denying that you, or anyone with dark skin, is fully human. Superficial example - when black people are compared unfavorably to monkeys. Or really every negative stereotype you've heard of black people being lazy - which is ironic in the American context because blacks were imported as slaves because they knew how to do important things very well. Like grow rice (which is very intensive work).
Now Black Consciousness philosophies (advocated by people like Stephen Biko) argue that a real black identity would build up a sense of humanity within black people, BUT without reference to the white man, his history, his accomplishments, his religion, or any aspect of his way of life.
Some people think this is just black sepratism - but given that whites kept blacks out of white society for centuries, the counterargument is "so what if it is?" White society was premised on separation of races - when the apartheid government criticized people like Biko (in America it was Marcus Garvey) for advocating racial separation (when at least Biko actually wasn't doing so but that's another story) was a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
There's one comment in this thread I should respond directly to:
>Or you can be a human being and just do whatever you want to do.
When people tell you that they don't see race, they're saying a few things by implication.
This just tells you that when someone decides you're acting a certain way, they've already decided you're not they're equal. What I would do is call them out on their ignorance. "I don't see race" is just willful ignorance. They're ignoring that race has consequences even today, and those consequences have nothing to do with how they see you. Call them on it.
TL;DR: Blackness is culturally constructed to oppress, and I'm not sure a positive black identity can ever be created successfully.
And before the white people jump in saying "well, my people were oppressed/characterized as imperialists/rapists/oppressors," I would like to point out that:
By the way, did you know that for a long time only Anglo-Saxons were considered white? Everyone else only became white over a process of acceptance. True story. So yeah, "acting white" doesn't mean anything other than "you have now been accepted into the socially dominant group in this society."
That won't happen for black people, I don't think.
-----
SOURCES:
I write ad nauseum about this stuff so here's a comment post with sources on the history of housing discrimination in the 1940s and how it created lots of the problems we have today - specifically within education, thug culture, and crime.
Here's a book about how immigrant groups earned whiteness.
Slaves taught slave owners how to grow rice.
How the Irish became white.
A dramatization of Stephen Biko's beliefs.
thanks for the honest engagement. and i would say that my original understanding of PP was probably slightly skewed towards more of Proud Boys stuff (they both try hard to fall into radical ring wing "non-racist" groups with similar motives), while PP does seem more like fanatical right wing religious types. That said, I can recall when they showed up at evergreen college and their portland march immediately following the white nationalist murder of those women, and i think it would be hard to argue that "culture war" they are engaging in is in direct opposition to groups looking for racial equality. That is not to say that there are people of whom's ideas of idpol go bizarrely far (like when people claim a movie trailer doesn't show enough women/minorities, when in reality a 30 second clip of an action movie isn't what most minorities care about when they think of representation). I say this to show that i think there is fair criticism of people in movements to promote equality. But providing criticism of a movement and actively trying to oppose the movement as a whole and goals for equality are very different.
By your comments, it sounds like maybe your views of racial inequality is that it is insignificant in america today to validate a cultural movement towards seeking equality, but correct me if i'm wrong there. I would still argue that the evidence showing racial discrimination is still very important in understanding how and why there there are racial disparities in employment, school punishment, and other various economic mobility factors. as far as studies on incarceration rates "ignoring criminal history", that doesn't discount the POC are more likely to be pulled over, more likely to be arrested, etc. than whites. And you have to wonder that if a system which in the past has done so much to curtail the opportunities of POC, if the communities and populations really have a fair shot to make it out of poverty.
One reason i think that many people minimize the impact of racial discrimination is because white people also feel the weight of economic oppression, it's not just a problem that minorities feel. Working class people of all colors are continuing to see stagnant wages while the price for life and opportunity (cost of living, education, raising children) is becoming less attainable. Why should we care about about whether there is minority representation in movies when the real problems that effect me skyrocketing rents, lack of decent jobs, etc.? The wealth and power in America continues to consolidate into fewer and fewer hands. The best case scenario for the executives making $5000/hr is that the person making $25/hr blames their economic troubles on the person making $10/hr for wanting higher pay. Racism is a construct, and a useful tool for dividing the working class. There are some great books on the topic, and some having an interesting take on how current identity politics actually get in the way forming solidarity in the working class struggle.
The point that i am trying to make in all of this is that the "culture war" is a reaction to the very real economic oppression in our society, and one of the tools of the oppressors has long been racism as a means to divide the working class and create hierarchy which ultimately benefits the 1% above all else. The struggle that people of color face is a struggle that disadvantage whites face as well, and should be a rallying cry for solidarity. the fact of the matter is that POC are generally more oppressed, so in an effort to fight overall oppression, we must address the concerns of those who have it worst. If we want to live in a society which provides us equal opportunity, we have to address all of the systematic forms of oppression simultaneously to see lasting progress.
Sorry for the long winded response, it's just difficult for me to not tie in what i feel like is needed context haha.
This is a good question.
I would like to echo that sentiment.
While the Koch brothers have had an aggressive political agenda for some time, applying their billions of dollars to influence a radical agenda onto US politics Dark Money, by Jane Mayer ...
The bigger issue here is:
Be skeptical.
Some of us are misanthropes, some of us are a bit kooky, some of us might actually be reasonable normal human beings; but some among us are bad actors which have commercial, corporate or political agendas. some of us are bots, trolls, manipulators.
Again, this is a good question.
This book is an excellent take on the subject:
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
by Richard Hofstadter
I'll attempt to tackle this question:
First, most historians would disagree with Chomsky in regards to the 20th century being the only time that African Americans had a chance of "entering" American society (despite the fact that they already inhabit American society, though we will give Chomsky a pass and assume he meant equitable access to meritocracy and large scale integration). For instance, many scholars, such as David Roediger, have written about the period of Reconstruction as one in which a multi-racial and inclusive society was possible, and the failure of this possibility is reflective of the prevailing influence of race, class, and the importance of the "wages of whiteness" in perpetuating racism and racial divide. If you are interested in this topic, I would recommend two of Roediger's influential works; The Wages of Whiteness and How Race Survived U.S History
In regards to Chomsky's statements on the Drug War, largely, I would agree. However, I would push them and state that the Drug War is part of a longer history dating back to Reconstruction in which the criminalization and institutionalization of African Americans was a means to control and subvert their population. Some historians have gone as far as to say that mass incarceration of African Americans has come to replace slave labor in the United States, as these prisoners (then and now) were forced to work for little to no wages for certain industries (picking cotton in the South for example). There are many scholarly articles and monographs on the subject, however, if you are interested in the post Civil Rights era I would recommend The New Jim Crowe as an a starting point.
In regards to the last fact, I suppose the claim is subjective to what one defines as "freedom". However, many historians have demonstrated that whatever "freedom" blacks have gained throughout their history, it has always been subjected and juxtaposed with the unequal access to particular rights, liberties, and resources available to whites. George Lipsitz has written that public policy and private prejudice has been intertwined throughout American history, leading to tangible benefits for whites in terms of education and employment and an "investment" in whiteness against Blackness. Moreover, Du Bois wrote in Black Reconstruction that whiteness provided particular "psychological and public wages" that promoted racial prejudice and racial stratification. It is through this paradigm in which Chomsky's statements must be viewed. Largely I agree with his statements, though I wish he would preface them with the scholarly and theoretical underpinnings in which I have attempted to provide you. If you are interested in the subject, I would highly recommend reading Lipsitz's work that I have linked and Roediger's How Race Survived U.S history as an entry point.
it's not 'taking over'
anti-intellectualism has been a 'thing' in mrrka for many years
hell, this pulitzer-prize winning book dealt with this very issue in the 1960s
I've actually been really disappointed to read into the history and current usage of most modern non-profits (charities) and realized that they are basically a tax dodge for the super-rich. For instance, think of the tax breaks for donating to various non-profits. They don't disappear if you own the charity, allowing you to create charities, place your own money in them to reduce your tax burden, and spend it how you like.
And almost none has to be directed towards your stated goal, similar to how non-profits like The Wounded Warriors Project use less than 10% of the donated money to actually help veterans.
Even worse, depending on the type of 501 non-profit it is, you can usually use that money politically. Recent-ish court cases have determined that, even ones that were originally designed to not permit political spending, the word "primarily" allows for up to 49% of money to be spend on political issues directly. And obfuscation can allow for plenty more to indirectly support political issues.
A final piece of the puzzle is how you can set up tax-free trusts for your kids to avoid estate taxes. They sound good: the rich get no taxes to transfer money to their kids because the interest that accrues on the trust for a decade or two goes to charities. But when own the charity you are giving the interest to, it's just a tax dodge.
If you are interested in reading more, the book Dark Money is a fascinating read. It is a bit left of center, though. Provides a lot of background on non-profits and their inception though... they used to be illegal and thought of as thoroughly un-American. And now, they are used to take billions of dollars from the wealthy, while reducing their tax burden, to fund their political causes with no limits, thanks to cases like Citizen's United.
Sorry if this was all a little off topic.
I don't think this is exclusively an American phenomenon. However you may be onto something given how anti-intellectual American discourse can be and how averse Americans seem to be towards disciplines that they don't see as practical. A whole conversation on American anti-intellectualism seems to be what you're looking for. http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
If you watch Jersey shore then it's probably still for fags. It's been around far longer then mass media though. Check out
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
Keep digging:
Look up Jane Mayer and Nancy MacLean.
Look into the Koch, Scaife, Olin, De Vos, Bradley, and Coors families, as well as Sheldon Adelson.
Look into the economics departments at the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and George Mason University since the 1950s.
Follow the money.
And look at the use of neurolinguistic programming in the higher levels of the fundraising, voter registration and get-out-the-vote schemes in both of our major political parties.
And once you've done all that, go volunteer to work for your county or state party political organization to see how the pyramid works and whether or not I'm talking out the side of my neck.
cc: u/Lamont-Cranston, u/troublesomefaux
For $17 bucks yep. Or free on Kindle.
https://www.amazon.com/Settlers-Mythology-Proletariat-Mayflower-Kersplebedeb/dp/1629630373
Race is a social construct. Biologically and genetically all humans belong to the Human Race, but race in the black/white sense is a product of culture and society.
In the US, race has often been defined along the lines of 'ability to be a good citizen'. There were a select few (i.e. whites) who were deemed smart and good enough to grasp the reigns of citizenship. There were others (i.e. different over time... Blacks, Irish, Germans, Mexicans, etc. etc...) who were deemed unfit for citizenship. Its not necessarily that these types of people were sorted by skin color and country of origin; moreover it was that these types of people were deemed unfit, and sorted into the appropriate category (i.e. throughout much of the south 1890's-1920's, Italian immigrants were considered black).
This book is one of the best on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Whiteness-Different-Color-European-Immigrants/dp/0674951913
The Chinese in America: A Narrative History
ETA: Also important stuff - http://www.vincentwhofilm.com/research/
> the alarming rise of Anti-Intellectualism
We've been dealing with it for a while in the US
the root cause is billonaire dirty energy magnates spreading their anti-science agenda through their donation networks. check out dark money, chapter eight. i'm not sure how basic science literacy will help a sprawling, well-funded anti-science propaganda campaign.
the kochs, scaifes, and their ilk are enemies of mankind and should be treated as such.
I'm going to modify your goals if you don't mind:
Goals:
0) Get this before all Occupy location General Assemblies and [hopefully] agree this is the demand we put before government.
___
Here's link to the book in case anyone is interested:
Howard Zinn: A Power Government Cannot Suppress
Vaclav Havel: The Power of the Powerless
Jonathan Schell: Unconquerable World
here
​
also if you got the time
Sinclair's The Jungle and Riis's How the Other Half Lives. Matthew Frye Jacobson's Whiteness of a Different Color is a good book on how "whiteness" was understood and redefined, namely in relation to the various waves of European immigration.
Maybe this?
From: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought
>If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.
>
>Leonard, who has written for Bloomberg Businessweek and the Wall Street Journal, devotes most of the book to an even-handed telling of how the two brothers from Wichita, Kansas, built up Koch Industries, a privately owned business so profitable that together they have amassed some hundred and twenty billion dollars, a fortune larger than that of Amazon’s C.E.O., Jeff Bezos, or the Microsoft founder Bill Gates. The project took Leonard more than six years to finish and it draws on hundreds of hours of interviews, including with Charles Koch, the C.E.O. and force without equal atop the sprawling corporate enterprise. (David Koch retired from the firm last year.)
>
>While “Kochland” is more focused on business than on politics, in line with Leonard’s “The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America’s Food Business,” from 2014, it nonetheless adds new details about the ways in which the brothers have leveraged their fortune to capture American politics. Leonard shows that the Kochs’ political motives are both ideological, as hardcore free-market libertarians, and self-interested, serving their fossil-fuel-enriched bottom line. The Kochs’ secret sauce, as Leonard describes it, has been a penchant for long-term planning, patience, and flexibility; a relentless pursuit of profit; and the control that comes from owning some eighty per cent of their business empire themselves, without interference from stockholders or virtually anyone else.
>
>Saying anything new about the Kochs isn’t easy. The two brothers have been extensively covered: they are the subject of Daniel Schulman’s excellent biography “Sons of Wichita,” from 2014, and the focus of much in-depth investigative reporting, including a piece I wrote for The New Yorker, from 2010, and my book “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” from 2016.
>
>Leonard, nonetheless, manages to dig up valuable new material, including evidence of the Kochs’ role in perhaps the earliest known organized conference of climate-change deniers, which gathered just as the scientific consensus on the issue was beginning to gel. The meeting, in 1991, was sponsored by the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank, which the Kochs founded and heavily funded for years. As Leonard describes it, Charles Koch and other fossil-fuel magnates sprang into action that year, after President George H. W. Bush announced that he would support a treaty limiting carbon emissions, a move that posed a potentially devastating threat to the profits of Koch Industries. At the time, Bush was not an outlier in the Republican Party. Like the Democrats, the Republicans largely accepted the scientific consensus on climate change, reflected in the findings of expert groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which had formed in 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations.
Here's a big list.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-researcher-dupont-helped-nazi-germany-out-of-ideology-1.7186636
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691
https://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/0914153277
https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/0914153293/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=PD3S20TYT0CRAFMCV31W
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books/review/the-brothers-by-stephen-kinzer.html
https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Allen-Secret/dp/0805094970
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/the_kochs_the_nazis_book_reveals
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904/ref=asc_df_0307947904/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312669563714&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5810486821632951259&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021356&hvtargid=pla-432540147973&psc=1
https://www.thenation.com/article/hitlers-willing-executioners/
https://www.thenation.com/article/kodaks-nazi-connections/
https://www.academia.edu/21745112/The_Myth_of_the_Good_War_America_in_the_Second_World_War
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Good-War-USA-World/dp/1550287710
https://libcom.org/files/How%20the%20Allied%20multinationals%20supplied%20Nazi%20Germany%20throughout%20World%20War%20II.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaWz42tmxug
https://www.amazon.com/Trading-Enemy-Charles-Higham/dp/044019055X
It wasn't me. If you didn't know that about the Irish, I don't know what to tell you.
Here's a book I can recommend you if you're interested in the subject: Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White: The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs
I've heard that The Making of Asian America: A History is a good book primer on the Asian American perspective (or history, at least).
For perspective, I'd recommend news publications like NBC Asian America and blogs like Reappropriate and Angry Asian Man.
There are definitely a few good ones that I'm forgetting (and other blogs that I'm ignoring because of their lower quality), but chances are, once you delve into the community, you'll find more and more resources, especially those that focus on specific Asian American communities. However, I do have to mention that these blogs are from a more liberal/left perspective.
Hopefully that helps as a starting point! Thank you for your patience and sincerity! :)
Here's a good place to start. Dark Money goes into the history of these shadowy megadonors and surprise! They're racist!
[Here's a link]
(https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904)
The solution which might satisfy you depends on what exactly you believe the problem is.
I believe that Australia's treatment of, lets call them "unauthorized migrants" is a national shame, and a bigger problem than anything that might happen if you accept these migrants and try and integrate them into the society. In fact, I would like Australia to welcome migrants, and be seen as a symbol of hope by people who got a real bad deal in the birth lottery.
I know a lot of people think that allowing migrants into Australia is bad for this reason and that. Every wave of migrants have faced this to a certain degree. I came to Australia about 40 years ago - in high school one of the texts we studied was about the struggles of Italian migrants ("The Knife" by Judah Waten). Since then I have seen waves of Vietnamese, Yugoslav, Indian, Middle Eastern and most recently African migrants go through various stages that start with distrust (and hopefully end with full integration, though this might take a generation or so). Do you think letting Italians migrate here was a good idea?
Eh, I doubt I can convince anybody to change their mind. Better people than me have tried. Here is what John F.Kennedy had to say on the subject, maybe this will sway someone:
https://www.amazon.com/Nation-Immigrants-John-F-Kennedy/dp/0061447544/ref=sr_1_1?
Read Dark Money, strongly recommend reading that along with Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.
Well, look what the Scots-Irish have done to Christianity then. Drone killing innocent whole families, sin eaters, the Hatfield-McCoys. Everyone from Charles Manson to Dylann Roof and many more are part of that tribe.
But some are pacifists. I am part Scots-Irish, and I believe in peace and the greatest of all, love.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/februaryweb-only/lastsineater.html
https://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916891
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield–McCoy_feud
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/trump-and-the-borderers/477084/
Edit: Forgot one! The origin of the "burning cross." http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z3xhhv4
✌
Read Dark Money. Billionaire “donations” are powerful tools.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
Maybe, but it's not only outsiders who say these things. I've read a number of books written by Scotch-Irish authors from Appalachia said the same thing. This was one of them, written by Jim Webb, the former Senator who ran against Hillary last year. https://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916891
Appropriately titled: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
If you have an interest in the topic there's no reason you shouldn't I guess... The books are often read together since the first one tries to describe the way people viewed race in America and how whites tried to differentiate themselves from blacks. The second talks about competition and struggle of groups we today consider Caucasian into entering the public perception of whiteness- and in turn the resistance they faced from the already established white category.
The Wages of Whiteness "in broadest strokes argues that whiteness was a way in which white workers responded to fear of dependency on wage labor and to the necessities of capitalist work discipline."
Whiteness of a Different Color really goes into detail describing each nationalities' assent into whiteness. The way race was spoken of, and how it changed meanings over time both in a scientific terms as well as public perception.
Unfortunately, I don't think it can be said with full context. But I'll try. You can get what the book is about here:
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506716249&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+money
Basically, the trust fund kids (koch brothers and other billionaires) are creating/funding think tanks that focuses on whatever means to add to their bottom line. They are willing to skewer education in the way that teaches limited government is good for business. However, when the bailout idea came, they gladly took it. So they're not really taking on any ideological side, but whatever is easy for them to gain more money.
The reason for this is because the Koch brothers were brought up in a very militaristic style parenting by their father.. who teaches you must do whatever means to win. They were pitted against each other in fights, games, etc. so they carry that determination in business as well, and it's causing harm in our political system and society because they have so much control of wealth and thus influence.
There's a lot more to this obviously, the book is really a must read.
WOW. You've either been living under a rock, drank the cool-aid, or are just straight up lying since you are claiming not to know that white nationalist and white supremacist doesn't have a venm diagram that is almost just a circle.
No one in this conversation ever said being white was a crime or unequal. In fact I explicitly said there was nothing wrong with it at all so please cool your jumping to conclusions and stop putting the results of your lack of paying attention to what I wrote in my mouth.
Patriotism is a good thing. Nationalism is not. Here's a good comic to help remember the difference between them. https://smbc-comics.com/comic/an-important-distinction
White is a category historically defined by people in that category in order to justify mistreatment of those outside that category. That is why it is a bit weird to be proud to be part of that club. Irish people only became white (and therefore stopped being segregated and spat upon by white people) when people looking to maintain slavery needed their votes. That's just history. Chinese people would have probably become white if they were present in America as a substantial voting block at the same moment in history.
https://www.amazon.com/Invention-White-Race-Theodore-Allen/dp/1844677710/ref=pd_aw_sbs_14_1/138-9638101-7860931?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1844677710&pd_rd_r=33b3afd0-4ca2-4f09-aec7-d5c89cdba1e3&pd_rd_w=7uYAR&pd_rd_wg=d08gN&pf_rd_p=1c5a26b5-ed76-40f7-b20c-b5d5bd4bc6be&pf_rd_r=31NH8JEN3HH63Q8CZWQX&psc=1&refRID=31NH8JEN3HH63Q8CZWQX
Now on to American history even though that's beside most of the actual points we were talking about since I want to address your last and odd point:
No one said settling North America was bad. I personally think the methods used for the invasion and genocide that came after were underhanded and despicable though typical of the time in a lot of places. One of the reasons for the revolutionary war was Britain wanted to actually respect the land treities made with the nations already on the continent which many American's hated for many reasons including the fact that they tied land ownership to freedom (and freedom is their God given right), and thought natives were lesser people or agents of the devil. This is all very well documented and an unfortunate but unarguable fact of history. If you are interested in learning a bit more about it check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Two-Faces-American-Freedom/dp/067428433X
The abhorrent methods used by a nation of course doesn't make every member of that nation at the time guilty nor evil. It could mean that they did the wrong thing. There is a difference between being horribly wrong and doing evil things and being evil. Nor does it somehow make the descendants of that nation wrong or evil. What makes someone a responsible adult is acknowledging the past as it actually was good and bad, understanding the impact of that past, and working to do the right thing, to not repeat past mistakes, and to make the world a better place. We can't do anything about the past, but we can do something about the present and the future using our knowledge of how things came to be.
Though, regardless of what you think of American history, I do think your bar for what justifies a take over is super low dude. By that measure, China completely taking over and whiping out most of the Native population of Europe during the middle ages or early Rennaisance would have been completely A-OK since Europe at the time couldn't stop warring with itself and would eat parts of dead human bodies that they looted and drank the fresh blood of the condemned as medicine.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-gruesome-history-of-eating-corpses-as-medicine-82360284/
Happy Halloween with that link above; it is certainly gross and spooky. 😱🤮
Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America
I've become a fan of Webb since I moved to Virginia, so I decided to read his book. Really enjoyed it too.
Also liked Just a Geek by wil, even though I'm not a Trek fan at all.
That's not really new.
Richard Holfstradter has a good collection of the Lincoln Douglas debates.
Another great work published in 1963 that still applies today.
It should also be mentioned that the Soviets stole passports from many immigrants and told their consulates that the had given up their citizenship. They were essentially held hostage in Russia.
edit: Source - The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia
>You stand out as a conspiracy nut when you say something like this. There is a sea of libertarians, they don't need to astroturf, it's nonsense.
They have been slowly cultivated. Feminists think they are part of a grass roots thing too.
Here is how it was slowly cultivated.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
>Yeah there is no way that Rothbard started the altright
-------------------------
>Paleolibertarianism is a variety of libertarianism developed by anarcho-capitalist theorists Murray Rothbard and Llewellyn Rockwell that combines conservative cultural values and social philosophy with a libertarian opposition to government intervention.[1]
>In the essay "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement", Rothbard reflected on the ability of paleolibertarians to engage in an "outreach to rednecks" founded on social conservatism and radical libertarianism. He cited former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and former U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy as models for the new movement.[4]
>In the 1990s, a "paleoconservative-paleolibertarian alliance was forged", centred on the John Randolph Club founded by Traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming.[5] Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard supported paleoconservative Republican candidate Pat Buchanan in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, and described Buchanan as the political leader of the "paleo" movement.[6] In 1992, Murray Rothbard declared that "with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy".[7]
>Three years later, he said Buchanan developed too much faith in economic planning and centralized state power, which eventually led paleolibertarians to withdraw their support for Buchanan.[8] In addition to Buchanan's "economic nationalism", Paul Gottfried later complained of a lack of funding, infighting, media hostility or blackout, and vilification as "racists" and "anti-Semites".[9]
>Rothbard died in 1995, while in 2007 Rockwell stated he no longer considered himself a "paleolibertarian" and was "happy with the term libertarian".[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism
>Yes ((("They"))) right?
No, for example the British and french ruthlessly crushed revolutionary efforts.
In France they would have peasants rioting for food massacured by the military.
In venezuela they are funding violence and making food shortages.
In Chile they backed a violent dictatorship.
You assume you already have the truth and reject the idea I know things you dont.
Uh. No. There really isn’t. It has been ingrained in us for a really long time that there is, but there isn’t. I’d suggest reading Racecraft for an in-depth look at how the language surrounding race makes us think it’s scientific when it isn’t.
https://www.amazon.com/Racecraft-Soul-Inequality-American-Life/dp/1781683131
> I would argue that the most successful cultures that we have currently are powered by a blend of capitalism and socialism,
OK, you're welcome to have such an opinion.
>and they consistently provide high quality of life, education and freedom to their citizens.
You are right that their citizens enjoy many benefits and privileges. But those benefits and privileges are created at the expense of people elsewhere, specifically what's referred to as the "Global South". That's how imperialism works.
It's not equitable for everybody because capitalism requires inequality to function. The very essence of capitalism, profit, is dependent on inequality between the workers (who are dispossessed) and the capitalists (who possess the means of production). With imperialism, you see this balance shifting more from the intranational scale to the international scale -- there are countries where vast swaths of people are exploited for the benefit of other countries.
Look at countries like Liberia, Zimbabwe, Cote d'Ivoire, Thailand, Bangladesh, Honduras, etc. The exploitation is blindingly obvious, especially when you consider the colonial history of these places.
>Bad mouthing capitalism because corporate controlled US capitalism is doing horrible things currently does not make any sense.
It's not just the USA. It's all capitalism, everywhere.
Check out "Divided World Divided Class" by Zak Cope and Sakai's "Settlers".
Classical liberalism isn't the only ism concerned with evidence and reasoning, but since it's apparently one of the reference points you happen to be familiar with you're just assuming that must be what I mean. Instead, I'm talking about the kind of modern liberalism described books such as Fear Itself by Ira Katznelson. You seem to be talking about the caricature of modern liberalism typically advanced by the likes of Jonah Goldberg which tends to be laughed out of the room by serious historians.
Modern liberalism is what we got with Roosevelt's reimagining of the role and purpose of government in managing civil society as he dealt with the after effects of the Great Depression and a World War, and the post Roosevelt task of establishing the post-world War II order. In Roosevelt's time liberal democracies were in competition with ascendant autocratic and authoritarian regimes around the world, and there was very much a sentiment among public intellectuals that democracy might not be able to compete with these other forms of governance. This liberalism uses institutions to effectively deal with large-scale demographic and economic trends, effectively support integrate technology into the modern world, and carefully manage international norms.
All of which requires careful, nuanced engagement with empirical realities and academic research, and requires fostering an environment respectful of the rule of law. And you can see expressions of this liberalism in the post-world War II order we helped establish in democracies in Western Europe, often cited as ideals by liberals that we should move toward. In short, it's a bit more nuanced than regulation loving terrorist sympathizers.
Meanwhile, during the same time conservative Democrats in the South were happy to make common cause with Roosevelt because New Deal programs meant the transfer of resources from wealthy Northeastern states to the South, which is fine with them so long as it could be executed in a way that didn't interfere with the prevailing racial order, which is why states rights was such a point of emphasis. Any federal administration of programs brought with it the possibility of sharing economic opportunities not just with poor white people but also poor black people. Once it became clear that the Democratic party was aligning itself with the civil rights movement, conservatives rebelled and embraced the Republican Party and gradually rolled back the New Deal and crushed the labor movement, allowing a constantly evolving structure of business and industry groups to become the animating forces of politics, especially on the Republican side.
The various forces of racial identity politics and business interests consolidated over a gradual process that spanned decades and culminated in the election of Reagan and the emergence of anti-intellectualism. The business-friendly nature of the party has made conservatives disdainful of research showing the hazards of smoking, and later dismissive of empirical research about the dangers of climate change or the truth of evolution.
And conservative leaders whipped up the passions of their base by stirring up animosity toward immigrants, foreigners, poor people who aren't white (eg welfare queens), and playing up fears for political advantage during the Cold War and War on Terror. The obsession with security, fear of some sort of apocalypse or world war or terrorist attack always on the verge of happening has indicated a desire for strong leaders, a strong sense of tribal patriotism, and a worship of strength and especially military leaders. Or authoritarian tough guy leaders in general such as Trump.
In a superficial sense it's true that anyone of any ideology could hypothetically be sympathetic toward authoritarianism. But it also ignores the facts on the ground about the dominant political passions that animate the two ideologies in the United States at the moment, which clearly indicate a strong desire for authoritarianism on the side of conservatives which simply isn't matched even remotely on the liberal side.
Further reading:
While researching for my novel this morning I came across a book that seems spot-on relevant to the conversation we had yesterday. It's about why America's politics are so far to the right. Here's the link and description in case you're curious:
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
> Why is America living in an age of profound economic inequality? Why, despite the desperate need to address climate change, have even modest environmental efforts been defeated again and again? Why have protections for employees been decimated? Why do hedge-fund billionaires pay a far lower tax rate than middle-class workers?
The conventional answer is that a popular uprising against “big government” led to the ascendancy of a broad-based conservative movement. But as Jane Mayer shows in this powerful, meticulously reported history, a network of exceedingly wealthy people with extreme libertarian views bankrolled a systematic, step-by-step plan to fundamentally alter the American political system.
The network has brought together some of the richest people on the planet. Their core beliefs—that taxes are a form of tyranny; that government oversight of business is an assault on freedom—are sincerely held. But these beliefs also advance their personal and corporate interests: Many of their companies have run afoul of federal pollution, worker safety, securities, and tax laws.
The chief figures in the network are Charles and David Koch, whose father made his fortune in part by building oil refineries in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany. The patriarch later was a founding member of the John Birch Society, whose politics were so radical it believed Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. The brothers were schooled in a political philosophy that asserted the only role of government is to provide security and to enforce property rights.
When libertarian ideas proved decidedly unpopular with voters, the Koch brothers and their allies chose another path. If they pooled their vast resources, they could fund an interlocking array of organizations that could work in tandem to influence and ultimately control academic institutions, think tanks, the courts, statehouses, Congress, and, they hoped, the presidency. Richard Mellon Scaife, the mercurial heir to banking and oil fortunes, had the brilliant insight that most of their political activities could be written off as tax-deductible “philanthropy.”
These organizations were given innocuous names such as Americans for Prosperity. Funding sources were hidden whenever possible. This process reached its apotheosis with the allegedly populist Tea Party movement, abetted mightily by the Citizens United decision—a case conceived of by legal advocates funded by the network.
The political operatives the network employs are disciplined, smart, and at times ruthless. Mayer documents instances in which people affiliated with these groups hired private detectives to impugn whistle-blowers, journalists, and even government investigators. And their efforts have been remarkably successful. Libertarian views on taxes and regulation, once far outside the mainstream and still rejected by most Americans, are ascendant in the majority of state governments, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Meaningful environmental, labor, finance, and tax reforms have been stymied.
Jane Mayer spent five years conducting hundreds of interviews-including with several sources within the network-and scoured public records, private papers, and court proceedings in reporting this book. In a taut and utterly convincing narrative, she traces the byzantine trail of the billions of dollars spent by the network and provides vivid portraits of the colorful figures behind the new American oligarchy.
Dark Money is a book that must be read by anyone who cares about the future of American democracy.
Its been mentioned before, but strangers from a different shore by Ronald Takaki does a good job in his book for what you're looking for.
http://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Different-Shore-History-Americans/dp/0316831301
WastedWhales: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
Well, you are kinda right.
Large portions of the South, the Appalachians and the Midwest were populated heavily by Scots-Irish settlers... And this heavily overlaps with those working class rural white populations in the US that are typically called Rednecks.
Former Senator Jim Webb wrote a great book about it.
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916891
I don't think he/she's speaking in social terms (or I hope not).
The classic treatment of this issue is Hofstadter, but it badly needs an update.
Check out some of Howard Zinn's writings http://www.amazon.com/A-Power-Governments-Cannot-Suppress/dp/0872864758
also www.icivics.org teaches about what the branches of government are and how they work.
Anti-intellectualism in American Life
I feel like there's two ways I can interpret your question, so I'll answer both just to be safe.
If your question is "Why did I pick so many Scotsmen as examples?" then the answer is simply that most of my historical knowledge focuses on North America and Europe (although I've gotten really interested in African history recently), so that was the area of study I readily had examples for (although I did include a Korean example). I'm almost positive you'd be able to find similar examples in any other culture.
If your question is "Was there a cultural reason so many Scotsmen were willing to risk themselves in battle?" then the answer would be "probably". Scotland has a notoriously warlike culture. When they weren't busy fighting the British, they were busy fighting each other. As one Scottish proverb puts it, "twelve highlanders and a bagpipe make a rebellion." It's been theorized that the reason the Scots were so notoriously ready to thrown down was because they had a culture of honor, a phenomenon that often pops up in societies that are economically dependent upon herd animals for their livelihood, as well as an absence of effective law enforcement (Scotland fits the bill for both of those things). In short, if most of my wealth was in the form of herd animals, and there was no law enforcement around, then I would be a very attractive target for anyone looking to gain instant wealth, at the expense of my livelihood. Therefore in order to survive, I would have to make it clear to the world that I was not a shepherd to be fucked with. I could accomplish that by delivering swift and disproportionate vengeance upon anyone that attempted to take advantage of me. If I didn't do that, it would show the world that I was an easy target. When fighting and violence is that central to your life, you probably aren't extremely adverse to war, either.
Interestingly enough, the concept of a culture of honor also applies to inner-city drug dealers. When you're carrying all your wealth (whether it be money or drugs) on your person, and you have no option of reporting a theft due to the illegal nature of your wealth, you pretty much have no choice but to deliver justice yourself.
The Scotch-Irish are an especially noteworthy subculture, with a well-deserved reputation for being fiercely independent and not afraid of violence. These are people who left Scotland and settled in Northern Ireland. Many of them took the leap of immigrating to America, and were a key group in settling/conquering the American frontier (which back then was much further east than what most people think of), as well as the Appalachians, an area not too dissimilar from their native Scotland (Here is a relevant map. Spotting the Appalachians should be pretty darn easy).
Many of the greatest fighters in American history were Scotch-Irish. No less than 12 American Presidents were Scotch-Irish (and that's not including President Obama, who believe it or not has some Scotch-Irish from his mother's ancestry), including Andrew Jackson and U.S. Grant, both famous for their skill in war. Other notable Scotch-Irish warriors include Chesty Puller, George Patton, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Stonewall Jackson and James Webb. That's just a quick sampling, barely scratching the surface.
Anyways, I'm finished talking your ear off. If you'd like to know more, I highly recommend either James Webb's history (appropriately titled Born Fighting), or Fischer's Albion's Seed.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that both the Hatfields AND the McCoy's were Scotch-Irish, two groups notorious for their propensity for violence.
sure!
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City
Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right
Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America
The Working Poor: Invisible in America
Another Day in the Death of America: A Chronicle of Ten Short Lives
Clothing Poverty: The Hidden World of Fast Fashion and Second-hand Clothes
here's your answer:
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
https://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916891
For the US case, at least, this is hardly a new phenomenon: see
He just described America in general. Intellectualism is frowned upon in every facet of life save for other intellectuals.
https://smile.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170?sa-no-redirect=1
All y'all Scots Irish ain't neither. You're probably border English that Cromwell sent over to displace the true Irish.
This might be me though, we'll see what my 23 and Me says
Edit: But if you are, embrace your heritage. Jim Webb wrote a tremendous book on the Scots Irish
> u kike.
So, that's a yes on your name having been changed to pass as white.
> you dont have a single incident of a pole being not considered white.
Hello, McFly? Ben Franklin explicitly said you weren't white. Look, none of this is a secret, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. Its well established, uncontroversial history. if you weren't a WASP, you weren't white. You weren't black, but you weren't white either. You were considered inferior to real whites. There are literally thousands of books and papers discussing it and it was all simply common knowledge at the time because that's just how people saw it, some examples:
Italian/American Literature
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
https://www.darkmoneyfilm.com/
A rumored "deep state" boogeyman isn't the problem, it's the dark money network that actually exists that we need to worry about.
Relevant.
A few thoughts.
Added this to my Amazon reading list.
Its ok if the Koch Bros do it though!
Dark Money
Dark Money
Dark Money
Regardless of leanings, these are things to consider while willingly accepting status quo and ignoring agendas of cold corporate America. Is that “box store” vase Really necessary?? Shoppers’ therapy is the cure for the apathetical comfortably numb American populace that seemingly believe Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell are on opposing sides while the Prez garners too much press. The local politicians are wussies, and if they weren’t, there’d money for education and Veterans, tax reform, and campaign overhauls. Jus keep voting incumbents in because nothing changes if nothing changes.
And FahQ Heartland Bank too!!
This.
Here's an excellent read on anti-intellectualism in America.
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
There's an awful lot at that link, and I don't have time to go through all of it. But I hope a few suggestions for sources will be helpful to you anyway.
David Roediger's How Race Survived US History is readable and (like the article you linked) aims at a sweeping history of race and whiteness in the US.
Cheryl Harris' article "Whiteness as Property" is also a broadly-focused piece, and one that's inspired a lot of conversation. You'd need to have access to the Harvard Law Review and a willingness to push through some technical language, but it's worth it.
Harris, Cheryl I. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (1993).
I hope that helps.
That's not entirely true. The Italians didn't liked the Irish, the Poles were stereotyped as being associated with organised crime, anti-semitism and heavy drinking, as were the Russians, Eastern Europeans were somehow less "white" than anglo-saxons and so on. Being white alone cannot be a binding factor when the immigrants have vastly different cultural backgrounds and religions (in this case catholic, protestant and orthodox). For more on the subject, I'd recommend this book by Matthew Jacobson.
https://www.amazon.com/Working-Toward-Whiteness-Americas-Immigrants/dp/0465070744
It's interesting how exposure influences perception of language. I found that word as a young child because I read books for teenagers, I think it was in a British novel from a few decades ago. Maybe CS Lewis, Narnia and such. It would've been from that generation and it had to be fiction.
On the one hand you've got someone that thinks it sounds derogatory and the other hand I think that sounds a bit silly. But it's down to experience and familiarity. Relative stuff. It doesn't make them dumb, it merely displays their thought process.
Yesterday I found someone that thought something was being falsely wordy and just throwing a thesaurus at a paragraph. It was actually a very specific and efficient description of a programming library and the environment/data it was designed for. It made sense to me apart from some terms relating to neural networks, it didn't even use many complex words, but he just thought it was someone being disingenuous.
That perception issue is a large driving force behind anti-intellectualism. Perceiving intelligent or complicated things as negative, bad, or of ill intent/purpose. Through the right light even this comment could find issue with someone due to the verbosity in the midst of the thread. But it's just late and I blab when I'm tired!
If you find perception at all interesting in this context I highly recommend the classic 'Anti-intellectualism in American Life' (wikipedia, Amazon) for an observation of political and social thought up to the 1950s. A really novel bit of nonfiction. Today the idea is still alive and well, but you may know of it now from mainstream media as a "Cult of Ignorance".
I'd like to also CYA because /u/CAPS_IS_LOCKED is definitely not related to that. It was just tangentially related to the initial view of something. I don't want people thinking I think this is actually about them!
This has been written about, even as far back as 1966. I imagine it has only gotten worse.
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life https://www.amazon.com/dp/0394703170/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ohxSAbKCQ8Q1J
I'm afraid it's nothing new, though I'd agree it's getting worse over time. I recently read this book, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life", which won a Pulitzer in 1964. Worth a read if you're interested in the subject.
If you haven't read them, you may also be interested in some of this author's previous work... specifically, The Wages of Whiteness and Working Toward Whiteness.
Also, Noel Ignatiev's How the Irish Became White.
PS The promotional flyer for the new book includes a code for 20% off preorders from the Oxford University Press website.
See Jane Meyers "Dark Money"
Here's a review.
Edit: Here, let me grab your attention with some "bunk psychology" from le rebel media
Many of the links I'm posting are business-centric, which is supposedly cold and callous to common social issues. That's my point; even the beloved profit motive wants diversity. What you want to say is that it's all propaganda.
>Read Freud, Jung, Lacan, maybe even Zizek since you're a commie.
Yes, and what exactly, from their works, indicates an inclusive and skin-colour neutral approach to who you meet in society is regressive? Carl Jung? The guy who proposed that similar thoughts, images, mythologems, ideas and feelings are arisen from archetypes regardless of class, race, time period or location?
but yeah the psychology I mentioned sure is bunk
and yup, the openness to other cultures sure isn't a part of western success at all
Skeptics like you probably say diversity is only an artifact of success rather than a contributor, arguing that diverse populations flock to these places because they are rich or are becoming rich, but yea, nah. Not the case.
Look, it's perfectly fine to feel a sense of unity with those who share a similar background with you. But you're not for something, you're against something, and that is all non-white immigrants, and you play down the role they have had in Western society, the larger world, and in any individual's life, because of your trust in in-group bias.
You also hate integrated immigrants, that is, second-generation non-white, simply because they probably hail from a different culture. Lmao at "Whiteness/white purity/nationalism is responsible for the current western 'stable' society". The conservative backlash against immigration is nothing new. Before the 1920s in the US, it was Eastern and Southern Europe.
https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Land-Patterns-American-1860-1925/dp/0813531233
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856769/
People who believe fundamentally in social divisions like you lose track of what is actually real, and people like you who pretend non-white people aren't as valid as white people in the functioning of our current society, its past, its improvement, and in any person's social, cultural lives are wrong.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/collaborating-across-cultures
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/21/292225798/does-diversity-on-research-team-improve-quality-of-science
obviously there can be conflict
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/cultural-disharmony-undermines-workplace-creativity
Honestly, so many of these ideas about "inter-cultural communication" is just common courtesy, openness, respect, and common ground.
>The best subjective understandings you'll ever have in life are not "facts", or even concepts that should be put into words.
Yes, and when my subjective understanding cannot be put into words, what can I do? How would I convey any of that to you? The facts and results give you a sense of how that understanding is applying through the broader public, as those are not subjective. What else can I show you? I've already talked about in general accessible terms what inclusivity and diversity is about, so I don't know what else you want from my comments.
You're asking for some "novel" wisdom from me, as if I need to build up on top of the inclusivity hegemony, its motivations and past analysis. You call yourself an intellectual yet you want me to explicate all of this to its bone? No thanks. To any layman, their "subjective understanding" is indeed good enough to understand what I've posted so far, so that is good enough for me. I'm not going to start going into post-structuralist theory just for you.
>I'm obviously not reading any of your articles
yea.
>I'm done with you now, it's sad to watch someone clutch onto Google as an argument.
The point isn't to teach you the philosophy behind this through these articles. I want to see how'd you debunk this general consensus people have come to regarding inclusion and diversity. Which so far is just "all of it is modern-age psychology, which is a joke". Our 1000s of year of wisdom have indeed lead us up to one of the most peaceful, advanced and productive times in history.
> I'm not going to bother addressing with a 10-foot pole
ahhhhh, of course, now I recognize who I'm talking to, lmao
>I am le post human, you are so primitive
I assure you what I've been saying is, distinctly, human.
The Chinese in America: A Narrative History
Great book on the matter (focused on Republicans)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307947904/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_ia.PCbKZE976G
It made me appreciate how fucked we are
For those too lazy to check themselves, here are some of the best books on the subject that this thread deals with:
This guy saw it starting long ago...
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life - Richard Hofstadter:
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170/ref=pd_sim_b_27
another (old) book by the same guy, equally prophetic:
The Paranoid Style in American Politics:
http://www.amazon.com/Paranoid-Style-American-Politics-Vintage/dp/0307388441/ref=pd_sim_b_40
The Age of American Unreason - Susan Jacoby:
http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreason-Vintage/dp/1400096383/ref=pd_sim_b_30
Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and The Triumph of Ignorance - Alexander Zaitchik:
http://www.amazon.com/Common-Nonsense-Glenn-Triumph-Ignorance/dp/0470557397/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278099576&sr=1-8
Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free - Charles P. Pierce:
http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153/ref=pd_sim_b_3
Yes I agree. People interested in this topic might want to read this book. It was written in 1966, but many of the things it says are still true today.
Check out the following book written in 1962: http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170#_
With "anti-intellectualism" I'm referring specifically to the work of R. Hofstadter. See ("Anti-Intellectualism in American Life)[Anti-Intellectualism in American Life https://www.amazon.com/dp/0394703170/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_11pfvb1X6T0V3
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0394703170/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_11pfvb1X6T0V3]. He argues this is a widespread, particularly American approach to knowledge. In that sense, he'd probably agree wth your assessment of leadership but suggest that you've over-read the power of leaders to convince their followers of their beliefs. That's why charismatic cult leaders are notable, right? Not just anyone can pull it off, and not just anyone is susceptible. But the mindset of Americans has been, for a long time, not really been seriously on the issue of thinking for thinking's sake. If Hofstadter is to be believed, it's downright discouraged. The question as an American is not "what do you think" but "what do you believe?" Different stuff right?
You can't separate "right to work" from racist ideology. As Karen and Barbara Fields document in Racecraft, the concept of race was first invented in the United States to divide workers and set them against each other to divert anger away from slaveholders and bosses.
http://www.amazon.com/Racecraft-Soul-Inequality-American-Life/dp/1781683131
I recommend this book. I read it a couple of years ago, it is a great account of just what you describe that happened in the 60's. It is a real eye opener.
“This is not because they misapprehend the facts, but because they are taking their cues from conservative elites, many of whom have close ties to the fossil fuel industry.”
I would legitimately like to know the funding connection between the fossil fuel industry and conservative elites.
And I can find it here:
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
The other works suggested here are very good, but the only real answer to this question is Settlers. It completely changed the way I viewed the world.
Your question is very complex and has filled the contents of numerous books.
The distinguished founder of the subreddit, /u/Artrw, has expertise in this topic and wrote about the Act and the Open Door Policy and the Act's religious justification, as well as How did the first Chinese immigrants get to North America? broadly
These answers have further reading if you're interested. See also, for example, Strangers in The Land: Patterns of American Nativism by John Higham, which is on the subredddit's booklist.
​
/u/keylian previously answered Why were the majority of immigrants to the new world in the late 1800s and the early 1900s primarily from Europe, and not places like China...?
​
/u/Verbenablu discussed the legal justification for the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I'm not pulling this out of my ass, this has been a researched topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904
Your arguments are so rampant with slippery slopes its effectively pointless to talk to you. Read the book above, how fucking naive do you have to be to consider things like Super PACs, Citizens United, lobbyists, etc. to consider it a "theory". You are clearly beside yourself, and I'm sorry you can't have a level headed discussion without hitting every emotional branch on the way down.
The best part is is that I've never advocated for not voting, an implication you are desperately clinging to.
Just a little taste of the huge amount of literature about this subject.
"As time went on, the labor needs of the land holders continued to grow, and desperate to cultivate the land, they were loathe to let go of their bond servants and the bondsmen and bondswomen’s children (whom they kept in bondage for a legally defined time as well). In the mean time, a growing American peasantry was proving as difficult to govern as the European peasantry back home, periodically rising up in riot and rebellion, light skinned and dark skinned together. The political leaders of the Virginia colony struck upon an answer to all these problems, an answer which plagues us to this day.
The Virginians legislated a new class of people into existence: the whites. They gave the whites certain rights, and took other rights from blacks. White, as a language of race, appears in Virginia around the 1680s, and seems to first appear in Virginia law in 1691. And thus whiteness, and to a degree as well blackness, was born in the mind of America.
As of the 18th century whites could not be permanently enslaved as they sometimes had been before, and black slaves could never work their way to freedom.
This has resulted in a system where centuries later race is still how class is lived in America."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/5/6/1382872/-Matters-of-Race-and-Class-How-Whiteness-is-One-of-the-Greatest-Scams-in-Modern-History
https://www.amazon.com/Invention-White-Race-Oppression-Control/dp/1844677699
https://www.amazon.com/Working-Toward-Whiteness-Americas-Immigrants/dp/0465070744
https://www.amazon.com/At-Dark-End-Street-Resistance/dp/0307389243
https://www.amazon.com/Name-War-Philips-American-Identity/dp/0375702628/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483269332&sr=1-3&keywords=king+phillip%27s+war
https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Gates-Immigration-Exclusion-1882-1943/dp/0807854484/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483269354&sr=1-1&keywords=At+america%27s+gates
https://www.amazon.com/We-Sell-Drugs-American-Crossroads/dp/0520280784/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483269378&sr=1-1&keywords=We+sell+drugs
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483269450&sr=8-1&keywords=new+jim+crow
https://www.amazon.com/Lavender-Scare-Persecution-Lesbians-Government/dp/0226401901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483269475&sr=8-1&keywords=lavender+scare
https://www.amazon.com/Refried-Elvis-Rise-Mexican-Counterculture/dp/0520215141
https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Their-Own-Battles-Americans/dp/1469618958
https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Sisters-Second-Wave-Liberation-Washington/dp/0252077547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483269640&sr=1-1&keywords=radical+sisters
That'll get you started
America's been importing our talent for the past few hundred years. There's a reason one of our presidents literally wrote a book describing us as A Nation of Immigrants
Hiring only Americans on purpose, is the least American thing you can do ;)
Gun, Germs and Steel. That is what Jared Diamond says, that is why they won.
But then there is also the James Webb thesis: Born Fighting. While Webb is writing about the Scots-Irish in America I think some of his conclusions can be extended to all of Europe. North Europe held one of the last people to have a warrior culture, one of the last places to be civilized. Perhaps they (and we) carry the seeds of that in their genes, making them more willing to fight than most other cultures that have a longer history of civilization.
it's been going on for a while now:
http://www.amazon.ca/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
https://www.amazon.com/Working-Toward-Whiteness-Americas-Immigrants/dp/0465070744
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=d000000186 Just last year.
And that doesn't count all the Super-PACs that they operated to hide their donations.
David and Charles Koch are the poster-children of crony-capitalism...
...which also makes them the perfect personification of American/Right Libertarianism in practice.
^(Edit: Link formatting not working)
https://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284461
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514
https://www.amazon.com/Insane-Clown-President-Dispatches-Circus/dp/0399592466
https://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-Secession/dp/145161666X/
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fight-Conservative-Daniel-Kurtzman/dp/140226576X
It took me less than 2 minutes to find all of these
>Seeing as how a bunch of people are putting forth the effort to COMMENT on the (ir)relevance of your links,
You mean like 3?
>I kinda think they're willing to make the effort to also downvote you.
Alright, 3 downvotes explained. Would you like to conjecture on the remainder?
I mean, it's not complex. Reddit is basically just a small sampling of America at this point, and America has a long, proud tradition of being staunchly anti-intellectual (fun book on the subject, if you're curious). Combine that with a thread title that is likely to invite viewing by the precise people I am disparaging, and bingo-dingo we have an explanation. It's nothing to sweat over.
It's painfully apparent that the OP and a lot of people in this thread don't know history. I highly suggest reading
This is simply the same history, different group.