|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0226735001
| 9780226735009
| 0226735001
| 4.04
| 505
| 1968
| Jan 01, 1986
|
really liked it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 03, 2024
|
Jul 24, 2024
|
Jul 03, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 4.34
| 107
| Sep 15, 2017
| Jun 26, 2018
|
liked it
|
a lot of beautiful libraries! but also a fair amount of ugly ones, mainly in Italy, which was surprising. whether beautiful or ugly, all of the librar
a lot of beautiful libraries! but also a fair amount of ugly ones, mainly in Italy, which was surprising. whether beautiful or ugly, all of the libraries in this massive, library-sized book (could easily kill a family of four with it) have been around for centuries - a few for over a thousand years. as far as "beautiful" goes, I think Spain, Portugal, Germany, and maaaaybe Brazil all tied for runner-up. second to the Vatican of course, which in a surprise twist is tied for first place with the relatively homey library at Eastnor Castle in England. besides the cozy castle library, all of the beautiful libraries look like hallucinogenic showrooms rather than anything usable. except for those that favor white pigskin bindings for books set in white shelves within white and pale blue walls; those libraries look like a sinister version of heaven (and also not usable). all of the ugly libraries look like wonderful settings for a creepy gothic adventure, but are certainly not places I'd like to visit because *dust*. if you read the copious notes, expect to see the words "Rococo" and "Baroque" so many times that you'll never want to see those words again. the writer Elisabeth Sladek also leans very heavily on the words "sumptuous" and "magnificent" - the latter at one point is used twice in the same sentence, which should be a crime. Klosterbibliothek Ottobeuren, Germany [image] Klosterbibliotek Wiblingen, Olm, Germany [image] Bibliothekssaal Kloster, Schussenried, Germany [image] Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana [image] Real Gabinete, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [image] Biblioteca Monasterio San Lorenzo, Madrid, Spain [image] Biblioteca Joanina, Coimbra, Portugal [image] Biblioteca do Convento, Mafra, Portugal [image] Eastnor Castle Library, Herefordshire, England [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 23, 2024
|
Jul 02, 2024
|
Jun 23, 2024
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| 3836571188
| 9783836571180
| 3836571188
| 4.02
| 40
| unknown
| 2022
|
liked it
|
elite architecture porn; expensive cotton candy, for the eyes. some aroused, most left me cold. the vast majority of these so-called homes look comple
elite architecture porn; expensive cotton candy, for the eyes. some aroused, most left me cold. the vast majority of these so-called homes look completely unliveable, although they may function well as an eccentric murder site during an Airbnb weekend away or as a meeting place for an East Asian-Scandinavian conference on the synergy between futurism, brutalism, and negative space. or perhaps as modernist prisons with an emphasis on the benefits of natural light for the incarcerated dwelling in their forever-homes? so much concrete and so many transparent walls and a whole lot of stark, eerie hallways; God forbid most of these conference center-homes include anything as plebeian as a rug, let alone hanging kitchenware racks or space for a tv. seriously the last home on display is literally called "Corrugated Sheet House" and it is as ugly as it sounds. I pity the poor neighbors dealing with that eyesore. still, despite the many challenges in finding houses within this book that I could actually imagine living in, I soldiered on and was eventually able to jerk off to this. 2.5 stars [image] spank bank: Riparian House, Mumbai [image] [image] Red House, New Zealand [image] [image] Newberg Residence, Oregon [image] [image] House in Chau Doc, Vietnam [image] [image] House of Three Streams, Lonavla [image] [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 08, 2024
|
Apr 29, 2024
|
Apr 08, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1858946131
| 9781858946139
| 1858946131
| 3.80
| 25
| Oct 15, 2013
| Oct 15, 2013
|
liked it
|
An oversized and lavish history of the changing dining styles of English royalty over time. The book is roughly organized in chapters portraying the d
An oversized and lavish history of the changing dining styles of English royalty over time. The book is roughly organized in chapters portraying the dining habits and personalities of various kings and queens through the ages: tragic Richard II, larger-than-life Henry VIII, womanizing Charles II (lost his virginity at 15 to his wet nurse!), abstemious George III, gluttonous George IV, surprisingly quirky Victoria, "cunning lazybones" Edward VII (easily my favorite - this is a guy who really loved life), and closing with a sketch of the rather dull modern royals and their favoring of dishes "seasonal, local, and organic" - sigh. This was enjoyably decadent. An overwhelming number of menus are included. I was agog at the multi-page menu program of the gargantuan state banquet given to the Russian Duke Nicholas by George IV. Almost guiltily, the author regularly reminds the reader that sumptuous overeating by the royalty often occurred despite famine across the land. Well, that's royalty for you. It was also mind-boggling to learn that there were galleries where commoners could come and watch the royalty and their guests eat. What a bore! The book also provides brief snapshots of various famous chefs who served the English royalty. I particularly enjoyed reading about the life of celebrated "king of cooks" Antonin Carême, who went from serving Napoleon to George IV to the Russian royals. The book includes a smattering of photographs and copious illustrations, including (too) many poorly-done paintings of the royal court looking positively porcine while stuffing their faces at the dining table. But there are some good ones too. Here are three of my favorites: The Gothic Dining Room at Carlton [image] The Royal Pavilion Banquet Hall at Brighton [image] Queen Victoria's Jubilee Banquet at Buckingham Palace [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 08, 2024
|
Mar 24, 2024
|
Mar 08, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 3836549778
| 9783836549776
| 3836549778
| 4.50
| 10
| unknown
| Jan 07, 2018
|
liked it
|
per my close friend Wikipedia, "The Grand Tour" was the 17th- to early 19th-century custom of a long trip through Europe, with Italy as a key destinat
per my close friend Wikipedia, "The Grand Tour" was the 17th- to early 19th-century custom of a long trip through Europe, with Italy as a key destination, undertaken by upper-class young European men of sufficient means and rank when they had come of age. this is a book of photographs, posters, postcards, other ephemera (and some brief introductions and commentaries) of various Grand Tours. it is organized into six itineraries - "classic tours" per the publisher - so the countries are not pleasingly grouped together but scattered throughout the book, which is certainly inconvenient and counter-intuitive. although I suppose if one is using this as a vehicle for fantasizing in a very organized way about being on a Grand Tour back in the day (which, yes I was), I suppose there is logic to how the book is arranged. amusingly, parts of North America, South America, and Africa are all crammed together in the last tour. that would certainly be some kind of itinerary, going to New York and then the Niagara Falls and then Canada and then down to Mexico and even further down to Brazil and then all the way across to South Africa! anyway, despite the confusing structure of the book, I had a lot of fun looking at the countless photos (often colorized) of various countries - clearly from the very last part of the era noted by Wikipedia, since photography didn't really exist in prior times. such a fascinating window onto European countries and various colonial destinations during that era. good Lord, swimsuits were completely terrible back then! and all of the posters and postcards and luggage tags were fabulous - some wonderful art to ogle at. my edition is one of Taschen's mega-sized volumes, literally too heavy and large for most coffee tables, which just adds to the decadence of it all. idly flipping through these huge pages over the course of several nights, with Poirot on Britbox in the background, was an enjoyably transporting experience. [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] I spent a lot of time poring over that last cross-section, imagining what a sea voyage on one of those plus-sized steamers would be like. the poster helpfully labels each of the areas as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class - would definitely not want to be traveling in 3rd class, yikes! ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 19, 2024
|
Mar 08, 2024
|
Feb 19, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0300218095
| 9780300218091
| 0300218095
| 3.59
| 472
| unknown
| Aug 30, 2016
|
really liked it
|
The literary and media journalist Clive James wrote this ode to binge-watching during his last years, confined to a home life that consisted of books
The literary and media journalist Clive James wrote this ode to binge-watching during his last years, confined to a home life that consisted of books by day and television by night, the latter often accompanied by his wife and daughters. He is matter of fact about his leukemia diagnosis, never mawkish, ever so slightly rueful, in that wonderfully unsentimental way that many British people have about life-changing, life-threatening, and life-ending occurrences (although James himself was an Australian expat). What a marvelous chap. His writing is wry, highly opinionated, often deadpan, always entertaining. Earlier chapters extol the many virtues of The Sopranos, Band of Brothers, West Wing (I really have to watch that one), and The Wire. Later chapters are more free-form, as he moves back & forth from praising shows like House of Cards, The Americans (eventually unwatchable for me), Weeds, and The Good Wife to burning shows he dislikes like Breaking Bad (a surprising opinion to read), Top of the Lake, and basically all of the many icy Scandinavian detective serials. His chapter of both critique and praise for Mad Men was surprising: he appreciates it overall, but faults the realism of its take on advertising executives from that era, whose intelligence he feels the show underrates. I could barely get through the first half of his chapter on Game of Thrones because he spends so much time being embarrassed about liking a show with swords and dragons, but eventually his clear love for such populist entertainment (LOL) forces him to actually talk about the good things. Throughout the book are usually generous appraisals of the work of the actors on display, as well as a rather old man-ish take on the pleasures of watching beautiful women combined with a passionate appreciation for the changes that feminism has created, and also a light sprinkling of praise for Western civilization in comparison with the often female-diminishing cultures of the Islamic world. Perhaps the wildest chapter was the wide-ranging "Breaking Understandably Bad" which moves rather incoherently but always entertainingly from critiquing Steve Buscemi's miscast face in Boardwalk Empire to praising Lena Dunham's ability to really put it all out there in Girls. I particularly loved this bit on the importance and meaning of the character Tyrion from Game of Thrones, and why his plot armor was so necessary: "...without Tyrion Lannister you would have to start the show again, because he is the epitome of the story's moral scope; and anyway he is us, bright enough to see the world's evil but not strong enough to change it. His big head is the symbol of his comprehension, and his little body the symbol of his incapacity to act upon it. For all his cleverness, there are times when only a quirk in the script can save him. Real life could kill the dwarf, but the show couldn't. So finally Game of Thrones stands revealed as a crowd pleaser. To despise that, you have to imagine you aren't part of the crowd. But you are: the lesson that the twentieth century should have taught all intellectuals. Now it is a different century, and they must go on being taught."Perhaps not the most sensitive way of making his point, but a point that is so real and true nonetheless. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 2024
|
Jan 20, 2024
|
Jan 01, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1913505502
| 9781913505509
| 1913505502
| 4.06
| 100
| 2022
| Sep 13, 2022
|
it was amazing
|
This is a lovely book and a wonderful way to close out my year in reading. I felt such an affinity with this author! An odd affinity, as I imagine we
This is a lovely book and a wonderful way to close out my year in reading. I felt such an affinity with this author! An odd affinity, as I imagine we are nothing alike, despite both of us being great readers since childhood. Perhaps the connection comes from so fully being able to imagine myself in his life. And that is all due to the author's talent when it comes to recollecting so many of the books he has collected and bookshops he has visited, places he's seen and people he's met, and most intensely, describing his long abiding love for the authors Sylvia Townsend Warner and (especially) Arthur Machen. Russell writes with such precision and nuance; there is a guarded yet palpable warmth and affection in this book, as well as some withering criticisms, but above all there is a clarity in his detailing of past events. Surely the man must be a intrepid diarist, careful to include the most microscopic of details if need be. Much as with Christopher Fowler's The Book of Forgotten Authors, one needs to read this from its start on through, rather than skipping about. This is in many ways a personal narrative: less of a guidebook, and despite its title, less of a series of recommendations, and more - in the author's own words - a "volume of reminisces." The book made me consider my own life in my 20s, and compare it to the author's life back then. When younger colleagues of that age talk about their lives, what they do for fun, their social circles, their interests, etc., I'll admit that I often experience a bit of condescending pity towards them (kept tightly to myself of course!). That decade for me, and perhaps the half-decade that followed, was such a dizzying and rich experience, full of momentous events, some terrible and many wonderful, and thick with too many people, places, activities, and interests to ever successfully recount. Alas, I have become one of those tiresome older people with an anecdote about everything. I certainly couldn't imagine trading my younger life for another person's - that is, until this book! There's just something about a life that is full of literariness, exploring bookshops and attending readers' conferences, being a part of literary societies and a social scene where discussing often long-dead authors is par for the course... I became surprisingly envious when reading this book. I wouldn't trade lives, but in another reality, I'd certainly like to experience his. Well at least I have his book! Not all of these books are forgotten, although the title is still a perfect one. The very well-received and widely-read The Loney is included, perhaps only because Russell published its first edition. The last chapter is on Richard Wright's classic of black fiction, The Outsider - a pleasing double to the first entry, Colin Wilson's equally classic The Outsider - which appears to be here to atone for the author mainly reading white writers, and as his rather ham-handed response to the dire racial reckoning of 2020. (That said, his analysis of the book is accomplished and thought-provoking.) Some favorite parts included his insightful chapter on Robert Aickman, his chapter on his wife Rosalie Parker, a visit to a bookshop-in-a-mansion The Lilies, and the comments he weaves throughout the book on his frenemy, the bookseller and publisher and all-around rapscallion George Locke. Overall, Russell made certain that I now have quite a few more titles to add to the neverending list - and it should be mentioned that the author notes far more than 50 books between its slim 255 pages. Despite my saying earlier that this is neither a true guidebook nor a list of recommendations but rather a book of memories, Russell still writes about books in such an enticing way that by the end of it, I had a handful of post-its filled with suggestions for further discoveries: Various Temptations by William Sansom Widdershins by Oliver Onions The Horse's Mouth by Joyce Cary A Scots Quair: Sunset Song, Cloud Howe, Grey Granite by Lewis Grassic Gibbons In Youth Is Pleasure by Denton Welch The Supernatural and English Fiction by Glen Cavaliero A Cage for the Nightingale by Phyllis Paul Dromenon: The Best Weird Stories of Gerald Heard Precious Bane by Mary Webb The Wanderer by Henri Alain-Fournier The Phantom Ship by Frederick Marryat Lady by Thomas Tryon Auriol; Or, the Elixir of Life by W. Harrison Ainsworth The Deadly Dowager by Edwin Greenwood "Xelucha" & "The House of Sounds" & "The Primate of the Rose" & Prince Zaleski & The Purple Cloud by M.P. Shiel The Quest for Corvo: An Experiment in Biography by A.J.A. Symons ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0374606714
| 9780374606718
| 0374606714
| 3.93
| 2,525
| May 10, 2022
| May 10, 2022
|
it was amazing
|
An excellent scholarly text that strives for fairness and objectivity but doesn't attempt to hide its pro-liberalism stance. This is an analysis with
An excellent scholarly text that strives for fairness and objectivity but doesn't attempt to hide its pro-liberalism stance. This is an analysis with a clear point of view, passionate in its calm and deliberate way. It aims to provide an overview of classical liberalism and its challenges, in particular the metastasis of liberalism into neoliberalism, which in turn encouraged various attacks on the original ideology from both left and right. It counters each form of attack cited, but does not hesitate to show liberalism's challenges, blind spots, and areas of necessary refinement. This book should be used as a learning tool for those interested in our modern political systems. It should be read by anyone who considers themselves to be a "liberal" (classical or otherwise). I prescribe one chapter nearly every day, spending perhaps a half-hour per chapter, and eventually voilà, genuine understanding of a complex and multi-leveled topic may be achieved in 10 days or less. An excellent and opinionated guidebook, written with clarity and precision, argued persuasively. Highly recommended. Chapter 1: What Is Classical Liberalism? It is a pragmatic model that allows diverse societies to function; it "protects human dignity by granting citizens an equal right to autonomy." It is individualist, egalitarian, universalist, and meliorist. Chapter 2: From Liberalism to Neoliberalism "...the neoliberal agenda was pushed to a counterproductive extreme. A valid insight into the superior efficiency of markets evolved into something of a religion, in which state intervention was opposed as a matter of principle... Even as it promoted two decades of rapid economic growth, neoliberalism succeeded in destabilizing the global economy and undermining its own success... This led to a prolonged period in which neoliberal reformers sought to cut back state sectors by ending or scaling back social programs, firing bureaucrats, or seeking to offload programs on to private sector contractors... The idea of 'personal responsibility' is a liberal concept that is built around a true insight, but one that been carried to extremes by neoliberals." Chapter 3: The Selfish Individual on the problem of extreme individualism within neoliberalism: "The doctrine's defect was to carry those premises to an extreme where property rights and consumer welfare were worshipped, and all aspects of state action and social solidarity denigrated." Chapter 4: The Sovereign Self on the problem of always centering autonomy and self-actualization within liberal societies: "...belief in the sovereignty of the individual deepens liberalism's tendency to weaken other forms of communal engagement, and in particular turns people away from virtues like public-spiritedness that are needed... [furthermore] Many people will never be content with the individual sovereignty they are told they are free to exercise. They will recognize that their inner selves are not sovereign... but heavily shaped by external forces like racism and patriarchy." Chapter 5: Liberalism Turns on Itself identity politics takes its swing against classical liberalism: "A great deal of critical theory thus goes well beyond accusing liberalism of hypocrisy and a failure to live up to its own principles to a condemnation of the doctrine in its essence... liberal regimes are in fact not liberal at all but reflect the interests of hidden power structures that dominate and benefit from the status quo. Liberalism's association with different dominant elites, whether capitalists, men, white, or straight people, is not a contingent fact of history; rather, domination is essential to the nature of liberalism and the reason why these different groups support liberalism as an ideology." FUKUYAMA BEGS TO DIFFER! "But individualism is hardly a 'white' or European characteristic. One of the enduring challenges of human societies is the need to move beyond kinship as a source of social organization." "The view that meritocracy is somehow associated with white identity or Eurocentrism reflects the parochialism of contemporary identity politics. Meritocracy and standardized examinations have clear roots in other non-Western cultures." "The charge that liberalism inevitably leads to neoliberalism and an exploitative form of capitalism ignores the history of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this period, working-class incomes rose over several generations... Virtually all advanced liberal societies put into place extensive social protections and labor rights... Liberalism by itself is not a sufficient governing doctrine on its own; it needs to be paired with democracy so that there can be political corrections made to the inequalities produced by market economics." Chapter 6: The Critique of Rationality against the postmodernism of Foucault and other connected thinkers as a tool or model for how to construct healthy societies and sustainable ways of living: "If there are no truly universal values other than power, why should one want to accept the empowerment of any marginalized group, which will simply replace one expression of power with another?" [Liberal societies] "...cannot survive if they are unable to establish a hierarchy of factual truths." Chapter 7: Technology, Privacy, and Freedom of Speech an interesting sidebar: "The attack on modern natural science and Enlightenment approaches to cognition began on the left, as critical theory exposed the hidden agendas of the elites who promoted them. This approach often denied the possibility of true objectivity, and valued instead subjective feelings and emotions as a source of authenticity. Skepticism has now drifted over to the populist right, who see elites using these same scientific cognitive modes not as techniques to marginalize minority communities, but rather to victimize the former mainstream. Progressives and white nationalists come together in valuing raw feeling and emotion over cold empirical analysis." Chapter 8: Are There Alternatives? answer: NO. unless you are looking for a model that does not center fairness, reason, diversity, and individual choice. "To paraphrase what Winston Churchill once said about democracy, liberalism is the worst form of government, except for all the others." ignore the disrespectfully brief summary of this chapter, which seriously addresses and critiques many suggested models presented by both the left and the right. Chapter 9: National Identity "...if national identity is based on fixed characteristics like race, ethnicity, or religious heritage, then it becomes a potentially exclusionary category that violates the liberal principle of equal dignity. So while there is no necessary contradiction between the need for national identity and for liberal universalism, there is nonetheless a powerful point of tension between the two principles... National identity is a social construct, and it can be shaped to support rather than undermine liberal values. Nations historically have been molded out of diverse populations, who can feel a strong sense of community based on political principles or ideals rather than ascriptive group categories... Liberals have tended to shy away from appeals to patriotism and cultural tradition, but they should not. National identity as a liberal and open society is something of which liberals can be justly proud." Chapter 10: Principles for a Liberal Society 1. Acknowledge the need for an impersonal government that relates to citizens on an equal and uniform basis. 2. Economic growth should not be seen as the most important measure of success. 3. Promote federalism; allow devolvement of power to the lowest appropriate levels of government e.g. States' rights. 4. Protect freedom of speech while understanding the limits and norms of speech. Respect a zone of privacy surrounding each individual. 5. Individual rights have primacy over the rights of cultural groups. "People are never fully defined by their group memberships and continue to exercise individual agency. It may be important to understand the ways they have been shaped by their group identities, but social respect should take account of the individual choices that they make as well. Group recognition threatens not to remediate but to harden group differences." 6. "Autonomy is a basic liberal value, [but] it is not the sole human good that automatically trumps all other visions of a good life. Some folks embrace a lack of autonomy and limiting of freedom within certain cultural and religious beliefs and practices. A liberal society will always have room for such individuals and groups. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 06, 2023
|
Aug 17, 2023
|
Aug 06, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1591455529
| 9781591455523
| 1591455529
| 4.33
| 6,921
| Jan 01, 2007
| Jan 01, 2007
|
really liked it
|
The author is one of the most renowned and respected of living Bible-study teachers and evangelists. I've witnessed her these past few years as she wr
The author is one of the most renowned and respected of living Bible-study teachers and evangelists. I've witnessed her these past few years as she wrestled with the sexism and Trump worship of the Southern Baptist Convention. (She eventually left that organization.) I think she's wonderful. Empathetic, generous, rigorous in her centering of Scripture, transparent about her own struggles. This book was written as if she were talking directly to her readers and so it is easy to hear her voice and to understand her goal: the down to earth and relatable Beth Moore is on a mission to support those believers who are struggling as she has struggled. In particular, she seeks to support women. I bought this book for my devout mom as a Christmas gift in 2020. In the early, especially scary days of the coronavirus pandemic, she was abandoned by my dad, who basically ran away in the pre-dawn hours of a September morning, before she had woken up for the day. (And we still don't know where he is.) Understandably, she fell into a pit of depression & anger & loneliness & fear. Fortunately, her faith in God helped her immensely. My sister and I have tried to support her as best as we can. I fly down to visit her every other month or so. I've read a chapter of this book out loud each time I've visited, and then we discuss the message that Beth is delivering in that chapter. It's hard to express how much the author's often challenging, always healing words have supported my mom, and given me food for thought. Tonight we finished the last chapter. This was a wonderful experience and inspired many deep, emotional, and uplifting conversations between the two of us. Some friends and colleagues have been taken aback after I've mentioned being a believer. (I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior way back in junior high.) I think it has sometimes been challenging for folks to reconcile the person that they know - progressive, bisexual, anti-authoritarian, sardonic, someone who certainly enjoys ungodly pleasures - with a person who loves God. Perhaps surprising to GR friends as well, given my appreciation of sex, violence, and horror in my reading. Shrug, people are complicated. But back to the book... well, actually not much more to say. Definitely feeling a lot of gratitude. Thank you, Beth Moore! You've really helped my mom out a lot. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 2020
|
Apr 03, 2022
|
Apr 03, 2022
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0593423062
| 9780593423066
| 0593423062
| 3.94
| 5,994
| Oct 26, 2021
| Oct 26, 2021
|
liked it
|
McWhorter is that guy who goes on & on about something that is of interest to you but maybe not to the same very heated, over the top degree. He's an
McWhorter is that guy who goes on & on about something that is of interest to you but maybe not to the same very heated, over the top degree. He's an excitable fellow and while I love that about him, it's also at the heart of my big challenge with this book. Namely, he's guilty of engaging in the same thing that those infernal Woke do: binary thinking! These True Believers are often obnoxious and many of their ideas are deeply offensive, but there are a lot of good points in there too (says the old progressive, generously). McWhorter is basically saying that woke viewpoints denote Lost, Sick Person. There is apparently nothing positive whatsoever about woke ideology to him and that's just too black & white for me. This is often a polemic, which is fun, but I wanted more fairness e.g. the BLM protests definitely spawned condemnable destruction, but that doesn't invalidate the actual peaceful protests that occurred. Don't throw that woke baby out with the bathwater, buddy. It's still a little human being, it just needs to grow. Okay all that said, this is still very enjoyable, super readable, and it makes a host of valid points. I won't go on & on about it because my progress notes already go on & on. The best section is Chapter 4, which is incisive, insightful, complex. A lot of that is due to how he dampens his own emotionalism - something he often rightfully accuses the woke of indulging in - and that makes this section all the more impactful. It made points that I strongly agreed with, points that troubled me, and it systematically takes down key parts of the woke platform. I go over that section in msg 30 below. Despite his attempt to sideline the usual critique of He's So Bougie, that highly intelligent yet vaguely entitled middle-class perspective does inform the entire book. But to me, that's fine. I'm not against that perspective, it's a valid, real one. I can say the same about certain woke perspectives too. LOL look at me, what a fucking centrist. ♜♞♝♚♛♝♞♜ RAMBLING READING RATIONALE (view spoiler)[ Just got this in the mail today from my boss (and friend, and a fellow POC). He's pretty concerned about the wave of wokeism that has inundated our social services agency; I'm... less concerned? I certainly don't consider myself woke, or any other faddish label, but my politics are often more old school progressive than his rather neo-liberal perspective. As a huge Obama fan, he was up in arms about the "existential threat" (another faddish term) that Trump posed during his presidency, while I saw 45 as the exemplar of a vaguely apolitical yet still identity-obsessed populism that is not particularly threatening to me and more inspiring of eyerolling disdain. Disdain in general is my usual reaction to most politicians, and certainly most popular political-social movements. Especially ones that are fueled by social media, news media, politicians, and populist reality tv stars who somehow became president. Woke kids and other faddists, please stay off my Gen X lawn, those anti-pc signs that I put up back in the 90s are for you too. Anyway, good job boss in slowly removing the MSNBC teat from mouth! Personally, I wouldn't have started with McWhorter if I were him, there's a Chua book I'd like to introduce him to. I guess we'll see if we have any commonalities when it comes to this book... (hide spoiler)] ♟♟♟♟♟♟♟♟ PROGRESS NOTES (view spoiler)[Prologue & Chapter 1: What Kind of People? McWhorter makes clear that he has written this book for two sometimes overlapping audiences: (1) bougie liberal people like himself and (2) black people. He is equally clear that he is not writing this for anyone who thinks of themselves as woke - to him, these folks are too far gone, a lost cause. Audience #1 was interesting/amusing to me, because this is the charlatan Robin DiAngelo's target audience as well. Anyway, after the prologue, the first chapter gives a few well-known and embarrassing examples of faux racial justice overreach, then dives in. First, to show the essentially Kafkatrap nature of woke discourse; namely, that anything anyone white does will always be considered racist. Second, to make clear that wokesters are everywhere, just everywhere, waiting to pounce. He provides a few examples of what he considers to be pernicious wokeism, including DEI trainings. And third, he introduces his term "The Elect" to describe those who espouse woke ideology. The chapter had its strengths and weaknesses. His first goal is nothing new to me, he's preaching to my choir. He terms this new initiative "Third Wave Antiracism" and I want nothing to do with any kind of ism that posits that all people of one race/color/culture are all doing the same bad thing, because *cough* that's racism. I'm also on board with his disdain of the overuse not to mention basic misuse of the phrase "white supremacist" - my God, the number of times I've heard that at work - to describe things that exist regardless of race/color/culture. I'm on board because, to use one small example, if someone is saying my need to create a outcomes-based timeline is a symptom of white supremacist culture, then they are (1) diminishing actual white supremacy, (2) ignoring how similar activities exist in both all-white and non-white cultures, and (3) exhibiting their own sort of racism by saying that POC are incapable of working with things like outcomes-based timelines. There are the weaknesses as well. Unlike McWhorter and many of his contrarian kin, I'm not opposed at all to DEI training at places of work or education. As long as they are delivered with both empathy and realism. I'm a big fan of Dr. Melanie Tervalon's concept of "Cultural Humility" and that appears to be at the (uncredited) heart of much of DEI. It rankles me to see trainings of this sort simply dismissed. My agency just received one, and the lessons learned were nearly all basic ones about respecting diversity and difference, engaging with rather than ignoring power dynamics, and overviews of things like redlining. (That said, I did have to ignore one lesson on that phrase "white supremacist work culture" that trotted out the ignorance of another charlatan, Tema Okun. But that was like 20 minutes out of 8 hours.) I also thought the author going on and on excitedly about his new moniker "The Elect" was a bit... embarrassing? My guy, that's not going to catch on. Chapter 2: The New Religion McWhorter goes in detail about why he thinks woke ideology is a religious movement. This was a frustrating chapter that often made my eyes roll. He must have written it in a white heat (because it often comes across as a poorly thought-out FB or NextDoor rant that is intent on scaring the bejesus out of its readers regarding some dire threat that is about to kill us all. Anyone who knows anything in depth about the author knows he is a committed atheist. And that certainly comes across here! Although the parallel to a cultish new religion is effective in that I literally did get the creeps when reading some of his examples; he succeeded in creating a kind of horror movie feel to wokeism. He also succeeded (without actually trying - he doesn't mention the following), in underlining that the fervent zeal that many of the woke have is akin to the similarly tunnel-visioned hysteria that many Trumpists & Qanon devotees exult in. I have to agree that there is a religious fervor in both sorts of extremism. I just wish McWhorter had expressed himself less emotionally, particularly since over the top displays of emotion disguised as logic is exactly what he's railing against. Because what he is railing against is actually toxic group-think. Equating it to a religion is ignoring all of the virtues of religion (connection to community, connection to something larger than oneself, altruism, etc.) while retaining only the many potential negatives. Yet I do see where he's coming from and maybe it's just the God-lover in me that is resentful of the parallel. I'm familiar with the idea of wokeism being a new religion, due to Katie Herzog & Jesse Singal's podcast. To an extent, I do see it when it comes to the hysterical fervor and especially in the idea of an Original White Sin of privilege for which white people must perpetually atone. And confess. And self-flagellate. A couple good quotes stuck with me: "Catastrophizing the current moment is a hallmark of ideology... the present, if the religion is to make any kind of sense, must always be a cesspool."And those interesting quotes aside, I did not care for how he characterized Black Lives Matters protests. His focus on group-think and some of the more cringey moments (e.g. white people washing black feet) while ignoring how vital and powerful many of these protests were for so many people felt like a regurgitation of certain Fox News talking points. And, you know, sometimes taking a knee is not only about submission... SWOOSH. Chapter 3: What Attracts People to This Religion? This chapter is all over the map at first, starting with a denunciation of Critical Race Theory, moving on to examples of unjust canceling, and then achieving more clarity in his rationales for why white & black people love Wokeness. His rationale for white people is familiar: McWhorter basically posits that it gives them a connection to something "higher" (similar to religious faith) without having to do anything tangible about either racism or inequity. I've seen this rationale many times from heterodox thinkers and although I think it lacks complexity, I also see the truth in it. It is certainly easier to change your avatar to a black square than it is to truly commit and enact tangible results. Because one would have to actually think about something tangible to enact! Much easier to signal virtue and to join a mob in getting someone fired, and then convince yourself that you are one of the righteous. Still, all that said, I think the rationale for why white people are so attracted to the woke cause is complicated, and can certainly come from a place of integrity and a desire to do justice and right wrongs. I've seen that positive energy and activist spirit up close, in colleagues and in friends. And I've also seen the virtue signaling *gag*. McWhorter's attack on Critical Race Theory is also rather black & white. (LOL) It should surprise no one that he is firmly against it. But he betrays a rather binary perspective in his utter rejection of all CRT tenets. To me, CRT is a theory like any other. Often eye-opening when using it as a tool to examine inequality and inequity; often obnoxious when it is the only tool being used. Its presentation of Racism as the sole reason for structural inequities is as binary as McWhorter's complete disavowal of its usefulness. My own take: it is only useful when used alongside any number of other theories. Life's issues are too complicated to be boiled down to race and race only; any structure worth building or fixing will always require more than one tool. The author's explanation of why black people are attracted to the woke cause is interesting: he thinks it is mainly due to black insecurity, the need to belong, and the need to embrace victimhood as a core component of identity. To McWhorter, it is a substitute for pride. This part gave me a lot of food for thought, but I'm actually not going to opinionate on this particular topic. The old school progressive in me is saying You're not black, Mark, so please don't try to theorize about how black people feel about their identity. My old school progressive side has rarely led me astray, so I'll just leave it at that. Chapter 4: What's Wrong with It Being a Religion? It Hurts Black People. This is the centerpiece of the book... Continued in Msg 30 below Chapter 5: Beyond "Dismantling Structures": Saving Black America for Real LOL at the shortest chapter being the only chapter that actually provides solutions. But hey at least that's better than White Fragility, which offered no solutions whatsoever, unless one considers the search for lint in one's belly button to be a solution. Hilarity aside, McWhorter addresses the brevity of this chapter, um, succinctly. The chapter is short because his solutions are real and basic. Stop the war on drugs. Teach reading to children via phonics. Get past the idea that everyone must go to college and instead realize that vocational schooling and a career in the trades is just as valid (and often just as lucrative as jobs requiring a degree). I have no reaction to these ideas because they all made sound sense to me. And done. The rest of the chapter includes a brief bit on why police reform is not one of the planks in his platform because, when addressing cops killing people, "The sad underground truth is that they do it to all kinds of people all the time... The key is that changing the cops will take eons; changing black lives should take less time than that." Not sure how to react to that, but I do agree that murder by police officer is certainly not relegated only to black communities. Chapter 6: How Do We Work Around them I really wish McWhorter had rethought this entire chapter as it is the weakest in the book. The man literally offers up the same chart he included in the first chapter for the reader to reflect upon after reading his various lessons - which is super condescending. He also gets James Lindsay-level ridiculous in offering up aspirational ways to talk back to creepy wokesters who are accusing you of this or that. How he posits working around the woke: (1) Don't bother with discussion when it comes to the Woke, they're too far gone, (2) Don't buy into this "impact matters more than intent" trend in woke discourse because it's specious (and I 100% agree), and (3) Value logic over so-called "authenticity", which is a hilarious yet very honest section because McWhorter talks about how his identity as a super bougie fellow who did not suffer from growing up in poverty should not disqualify him from talking about race. There's one big thing that this chapter did for me and it was to make me see the light on how woke folk can often come across as religious maniacs when they are really getting in their groove. It made me reflect upon certain things I've seen in the past year or so: one colleague forcing his teammates of white women to read aloud the chapter on "white women's tears" in White Fragility, and then bragging about it on FB... another gent reacting to things like a meeting of the agency's POC Equity Group (that I convened) occurring while he was on vacation, and later, the need to prioritize a separate meeting by scheduling it sooner rather than later as, wait for it, "white supremacist culture"... another co-worker who, when dismayed at the idea of creating a support group serving a highly suicidal population that may have been multiracial but was not specifically black or brown, composed an angry poem on the spot and forced everyone to listen to her read it, in-between her sobs... a white co-worker trying to force another colleague to take his unused BLM signs and when she refused, questioning her commitment to "the cause" (the colleague who disdained those signs is black)... another co-worker angrily scorning the idea of empathetic active listening (which is literally the reason our agency was founded) when it comes to hearing opinions that he rejects, totally unable to have a conversation on race-based topics without ranting... an apparently well-intentioned sort who insisted that she didn't mind that a black client stole a pile of government checks that were made out to other black clients - to pay for their rent for chrissakes - because apparently that's what a hard life forces a black person to do, and we shouldn't judge... an office manager who, upon learning about the high rates of black male incarceration during a small group breakout session, decides to apologize directly to the sole black co-worker in the group... a recently hired woman who attempted to convince me that I needed to have a scale of value when it comes to how well I treat and how much I listen to colleagues and clients, with that scale being black > indigenous > hispanic > middle eastern > asian > mixed-race > > > > white... I mean, I could go on and on. What possessed these people, both white and of color, to act in such a ludicrous fashion? Perhaps wokeness is indeed akin to religious fervor, despite my knee-jerk reaction against that parallel. All I know in my experience with such individuals is that many are incapable of having a reasonable discussion. Of having any kind of actual exchange of ideas, let alone respect for different perspectives. I guess the lesson here for me is that if a person demonstrates this mentality, I'm just going to have to treat them as if they were a deeply religious person whose tenets I will try to respect even if I don't understand, but whose tenets will certainly not be informing decision-making at my agency. (hide spoiler)] ♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙ TRIFE (view spoiler)[There's a super toxic review of this book where the reviewer, in both the review and its comment thread, heaps pity on McWhorter's biracial kids while pointing out that they are probably "light skin children" - um, that's a gross attitude to have. Also mentioned in that review is that the author "states its his 'duty' to be used as a weapon by white supremacists" and how Woke Racism is "written by the authors own admission for white supremacists to wield as a weapon against Black & other POC fighting racism"... both comments are straight-up lies. Just had to say it. (hide spoiler)] ♖♘♗♔♕♗♘♖ IDENTITY POLITICS RANKING, SO FAR 1. Political Tribes by Amy Chua - 5 stars. Precisely written with a powerfully resonant message 2. Caste by Isabel Wilkerson - 4 stars. Beautiful prose, some amazing stories of courage and of horror brought to light, and relatably petty at times 3. How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi - 4 stars. Fascinating personal journey, written before Kendi became an embarrassing parody of himself 4. Woke Racism by John McWhorter - 3 stars. Many excellent points and also many cringe moments due to overexcited, broad-stroke shoutiness 5. Taboo by Wilfred Reilly - 3 stars. Quite cheeky, impressive data, frustratingly tunnel-visioned 6. White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo - 1 star. White sludge ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 06, 2021
|
Nov 18, 2021
|
Nov 06, 2021
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0399562877
| 9780399562877
| 0399562877
| 4.20
| 3,835
| Feb 20, 2018
| Jun 25, 2019
|
it was amazing
|
This is a fantastic book. Clearly and cleanly written, well-sourced, full of both sense and sensibility. The thesis: lack of understanding of the trib
This is a fantastic book. Clearly and cleanly written, well-sourced, full of both sense and sensibility. The thesis: lack of understanding of the tribal instinct will inevitably lead to disaster both abroad and at home. I appreciated the logical construction of this book: it moves from external to internal. First, the author spends much time detailing how American interventions - portrayed in a number of examples (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela) - have started from a place of complete misunderstanding, an arrogant misreading of how American intercessions will impact the countries in question, a refusal to recognize let alone analyze the tribal demarcations within countries where we have forcibly placed ourselves. That lack of understanding and analysis has led to catastrophe; most frustrating of all, these are catastrophes that could have been avoided, if willful arrogance disguised as idealism was not such a foundational attribute of American foreign policy. After reviewing what went wrong abroad through the lens of how tribalism dictates the power structures within many (most? all?) countries, Prof. Chua turns her assessment inward, towards the U.S. itself. The last two chapters of the book are where extremists on both the right and the left may find horseshoe unity in disregarding or rejecting the author's illustration of how the U.S. itself is a tribalist nation - to its ongoing harm. Her vaccines against this virus are holistic ones, and fairly simple and straightforward: recognize the tribalism that exists across the political spectrum; deploy genuine empathy; and do not revert to binary thinking, no matter how tempting, no matter how good it feels to be a part of a wave of righteous group-think. Every tribe and every individual has their reasons, their rationales, their contexts. These should be understood, not demonized. Us versus Them solves nothing in the long run and is not sustainable; a body in constant opposition to itself is a body that will inevitably fray and then decay. Pure Pontification: (view spoiler)[ I often consider tribalism to be a kind of toxin: a harmful substance produced within a living organism. Specifically, a harmful outlook. One that damages the bodies that come in contact with that toxin and one that damages the body where the toxin itself is generated. The tribalistic perspective can be promoted by the individual, by the group, by the nation. The final and key chapters of Political Tribes portrays the harmful impact that tribalism continues to generate within the American body. And that said, despite the toxin & virus metaphors... I don't want to necessarily demonize tribalism either. Who am I to condescend to those whose tribalist way of thinking is their way of life - their community's way of life, for generations? I want to be able to recognize tribalism and to disengage myself from a tribalist mode of thinking when I see it coming from within. Not a joiner over here. But one of the great points of this book is that if change is to be promoted outside of the U.S., it must come from a place of understanding and respecting those whose ways of thinking and whose experiences are radically different from our own. Tribalism can't be ignored or dismissed. It is a natural part of the human condition. Chua's point is that tribalism - as dangerous and regressive as it may often be, and as much as it should be seen as something to be overcome - cannot simply be handwaved aside as a minor issue. But that is exactly what we have done in many a nation. This book is important to me on an intellectual and political level because not only did it coalate information both known and unknown (to me) about American misadventures abroad, it establishes a roadmap to avoiding those mistakes in the future. Well, we'll see if those lessons land at all with the powers that be. More importantly to me, on a personal level (and thus the 5th star), Political Tribes helped clarify my own thoughts about the toxicity that has been raging in this country of mine, and has helped me to stay on the track I've set for myself. I'm an old school progressive, and to me that means we must always progress, as individuals and as groups and as a nation. Binary, tribalist group-think is an inhibitor to actual progress in the United States and should be a relic of the past, despite how strongly we may cling to that and other relics. This country is a collection of cultural identities and each cultural identity is married to an overall American identity; neither identity needs to be subsumed by the other. The ability of each of us to hold multiple identities simultaneously, to recognize that we can be a person of many tribes and no single tribe, and to not be ashamed of any of those different identities, is exactly how we can check our own reductive, tribalist instincts. I do not equal one thing nor does the person whose perspective that is diametically opposed to my own way of thinking equal one thing. As the saying goes: we are large, we contain multitudes. (hide spoiler)] I've read two works of nonfiction this year that resonated deeply with me: Political Tribes and The Great Chain of Life (the latter a reread of a favorite from college). The lessons of both are central to my own guiding principles, my own personal logic model; namely, that the tenets of empathy and of individualism must be combined and centralized for humans to move forward, together. ❂ Today's purveyors of political tribalism, on both left and right, may think they are defending American values, but in fact they are playing with poison. America will cease to be America... if we define our nationality in terms of "whiteness," "Anglo-Protestant culture," "European Christianity," or any other terms not inclusive of all religions and ethnicities. But it will also cease to be America if enough of us come to believe that our country and its ideals are a fraud. There is a world of difference between saying that America has failed to live up to its own ideals, with egregious injustice persisting today, and saying that the principles supposedly uniting us are just smoke screens to disguise oppression. The peril we face as a nation today is not only that America might fail to live up to its promise, but that Americans might stop believing in that promise or the need to fight for it. The increasing belief on the left that this promise was always a lie, or on the right that it has always been true - and has already been achieved - are two sides of the same coin. What holds the United States together is the American Dream. But it must be a version of the dream that recognizes past failure instead of denying it. Failures are part and parcel of the story line of a country founded on hope, a country where there's always more to be done. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 07, 2021
|
Sep 24, 2021
|
Sep 07, 2021
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0345816021
| 9780345816023
| 0345816021
| 3.92
| 229,848
| Jan 16, 2018
| Jan 23, 2018
|
liked it
|
Voyage to the past with Doc Peterson: a time of lobsters and dominance hierarchy, a time of myths and legends and religious texts, a time of bootstrap
Voyage to the past with Doc Peterson: a time of lobsters and dominance hierarchy, a time of myths and legends and religious texts, a time of bootstrapping and individualism and Jung and curtailing your pretentious nihilism, just clean your damn room and don't be such a whiny loser. A time when men were men and women were women, when there was nothing to get hung about, strawberry fields were forever. Will you enjoy this journey through time & space? Mileage may vary, so here is a handy guide: 1. Are you a young man of an apolitical, libertarian, or conservative bent, one who feels rather adrift in life and the only option you can think of to get out of your rut is to join the military, otherwise you'll be stuck in whatever small town you live in? This is your book. I hope it helps! 2. Are you an ardently political progressive who rejects gender essentialism and binaries in general, and you are considering working in social services or in a field that will make use of your liberal arts degree? This isn't your book. It will infuriate and enrage you, and who has time for that? 3. Are you someone who loves following a person's stream of conscious, all of the digressions, their personality and quirks on full display, a book in which the author is transparent and almost completely unselfconscious about his obsessions? Consider this book. It is, as they say, an experience. 4. Are you very online, identify as leftist or as woke or as an attack helicopter, embrace identity politics and intersectionality, have watched the Peterson of today and are revolted, and you didn't much like him before today either? Avoid this book at all costs, comrade. My own reaction: there was a lot that I disagreed with, but even more that I appreciated. This was a fascinating and surprisingly enjoyable book, despite my many aggravations. CAUSA 6/5/22 Peterson is getting way over the top lately, so I thought I'd bump this one up the list and read it before I became more turned off and perhaps predisposed against his book. I want to come to this with a really open mind. I've enjoyed a lot of Doctor How's videos so I hope to see more of that guy, rather than the person I just unfollowed (lol). RULE 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world "Don't blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don't reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city?" Peterson starts this chapter by examining the stated motivations of the Columbine killers, ruminates on Goethe and Tolstoy's perspectives on human destructiveness, considers the serial killer Carl Panzram, and provides a couple examples from his practice of people who have withstood and then countered the evils that life has thrown at them. He also spends some time musing on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (and the reader gets a glimpse of Peterson's own fervent anti-communism). This was a short yet very dense chapter. By starting off his conversation with an examination of the mindset of mass murderers, things get heavy quickly. He positions their attitude, and the attitude of many others who seek to lash back at the world, as the ultimate response of people who want revenge on everyone and everything. People who have seen the evils of the world and/or been subjected personally to those evils, and who respond not simply with apathy, but with nihilistic vengeance: a defiance of God and law and decency, and a mission to prove to everyone that their personal perspective of a burning world is a universal truth. It is a perspective that removes the individual from the equation, the victims of course, but also the individual who is thinking those thoughts and who is killing all those people. Rather than focusing on what they can do to change themselves, their own part of the world and the people in it, they instead seek to give the world their ultimate criticism. They seek to become a symbol of their own rejection of the world, rather than an individual capable of change and capable of creating change. And so they become a judgment upon the world and against life itself, which they consider to be an innately unjust and evil state of being. There is always a temptation to blame fate, God, luck, how fucked up the world can be, rather than to look inward, at how we and our peers and our family and our community may be complicit. We especially resist examining ourselves and how we engage with the world. As the author says in the next chapter: "the world is revealed... through the template of your values." In this chapter, he provides an example: the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. One can blame fate or nature or even naivete; it is more comfortable than recognizing culpability. Katrina was a natural disaster, but New Orleans's leaders and government chose not to complete improvements to its levee system that were mandated in 1965. Who is to blame - Nature or the corrupt blindness that led to a disastrous lack of preparation? I think it is easy to (willfully) misunderstand Peterson's point in this chapter. I saw that misunderstanding when watching a video of the author being questioned while on a panel in Australia. The questioner tried to score a point by dismissing this chapter as Peterson telling folks not to be critical of the world unless they're personally perfect. It's like that audience member just read the chapter title and didn't bother reading the actual chapter. The message here is clear: humans should not give in to the evils that impact life, to the urges that lead a person to vengeance and destruction. We instead need to engage in self-examination, we need to ask ourselves how we may have contributed to these catastrophes that sadden or enrage us, and perhaps most importantly, we need to see the evils that we experience as... instructive. These evils represent modes of behavior that we must reject in our own lives. Otherwise, as the cliché goes, we have let those bad things and bad occurrences and bad people win. This chapter is not about not being critical, it is about not allowing hopelessness, resentment, and anger to take over our lives. Impossible for me to find fault with the message of this rule. RULE 11 Do not bother children when they are skateboarding "The spirit that interferes when boys are trying to become men is, therefore, no more friend to woman than it is to man... It negates consciousness. It's antihuman, desirous of failure, jealous, resentful and destructive. No one truly on the side of humanity would ally him or herself with such a thing... And if you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of." Peterson starts by, yes, talking about kids skateboarding. This was a nice intro with a nice message: let kids be kids, even if they are putting themselves into a little bit of danger, because that is how you allow things like bravery, grit, and resilience to develop. Unfortunately, as the chapter progresses, it became clear to me that this charming preface is solely concerned with skateboarding boys. Heaven forbid girls consider skateboarding! Anyway, from there Peterson continues on another wild series of what appear to be tangents but are all actually linked musings that together form the moral of Rule 11. (view spoiler)[He revisits his tragic friend Chris and is a bit more empathetic this time; the point of this section is that Chris was always angry at the injustices of the world, and that put him in a kind of personal development stasis as a self-annihilating rebel without a cause. He notes that women are the majority of college students and there are less male college students every year. He argues that patriarchy is less about the oppression of women and more about the attempt of men and women "to free each other from privation, disease, and drudgery"... his primary examples being the two men who created tampons. Words can't describe my mixed feelings in even writing that last sentence LOL. He talks about the Soviet massacre of two million kulaks ("their richest peasants") which was fascinating/horrific new history for me and also I didn't understand the point of including this history. He rakes postmodernist philosopher-king Jacques Derrida over the coals because of Derrida's insistence that there are exclusionary hierarchical structures, and here I thought that was the exact point that Peterson himself was making in prior chapters. He argues that it is actually not power but competence and ability and skill that are the prime determiners of status in well-functioning societies, to which I must ask him to list me examples of such societies. He attacks the idea of equality of outcomes (i.e. "equity") as hollow and unrealistic, and I actually agree with him there. He discusses how aggression is not an inherently negative trait and I also agree. He spends quite a lot of time discussing the archetypal Terrible Mother and her smothering ways and "compassion as a vice" and I got a little sick to my stomach because here he goes again about women and now he's using all the fables and even Disney cartoons as evidence. He talks about men and their aggressive ways of interacting and how that's not bad, and I agree again, but then he literally uses the ancient Charles Atlas ads as evidence that only alpha men genuinely interest women and then he talks about how Lisa on The Simpsons once had a crush on the bully Nelson and (hide spoiler)] I realized that his point across this entire chapter is that boys need to grow up to be manly men because that's basically what women want. Is he wrong? Let's ask my Inner Gender Essentialist and my Inner Gender Anarchist to both respond! GENDER ESSENTIALIST MARK: Peterson makes an interesting point early on about physical competition between girls & boys: it can be seen as admirable for a girl to even try to compete against a boy, whether or not she wins or loses; for a boy, it is suspect if he even competes with a girl in the first place, unless he is playing down to her as an adult would with a child, and if he loses to her, he will suffer a loss of status. This is an uncomfortable point but there is truth there too. As there is truth in his thoughts on the different interaction styles that men and women can have, and in disparities between men and women when it comes to some forms of physical labor. Well, at least the truth of my own memories of physical competitions that I've seen or been a part of from childhood through college. And the truth of the many straight male-female relationships I've seen over the years. And the truth of how all of my decent, women-supporting, not-misogynist male friends would never be less than a "gentleman" in their treatment of women, in particular their understanding that women should not be talked to in the same way that men talk to each other, nor expected to operate at the same physical level as men when it comes to certain tasks. And the truth that for many of my empowered female friends, when talking pre-marriage to their queer bachelor friend Mark about the guys they are attracted to, only talked about fit manly men who are rough around the edges as their ideal, and hey that's who they usually ended up marrying. They married my guy friends, who are gentlemen and who are mainly non-collegiate manly alpha types and who, ironically enough, would probably hate everything Jordan Peterson stands for, and yet who are, essentially, the very type of man that Peterson is extolling (and who are, again the irony, quite the opposite of over-educated, not-particularly-manly, ivory tower-dwelling Peterson himself LOL). So is this gender essentialism or is this simply reality for the vast majority of women and men? Do people hate JP because he is telling an uncomfortable truth? GENDER ANARCHIST MARK: Okay unlike fucking Gender Essentialist Mark, I'm not going to go on and fucking on. Instead I'm just going to point to one fucking phrase in this fucking fucked-up chapter: "Disney's more recent and deeply propagandistic Frozen." And then I'm going to point to an interview he gave with some magazine all about that phrase, where he says that he hated Frozen because it turns out the supposed hero is a conniving villain who doesn't rescue the heroine, she has to rescue herself and her sister too. So, prince doesn't rescue princess and a moral that girls sometimes gotta take care of each other and how poor naïve JP was surprised & horrified at the twist, and all of that was apparently enough to drive this fragile maniac out of his mind. And so he bestowed the label of Deeply Propagandistic to a benign cartoon about female empowerment because Peterson is basically cosplaying Cro-Magnon Man Who Take Care Of Woman and anything that takes him out of his fantasy world of prescribed gender roles is deeply triggering to this poor fucking snowflake and he's just got to let the whole damn world know all about it. RULE 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street "And maybe when you are going for a walk and your head is spinning a cat will show up and if you pay attention to it then you will get a reminder for just fifteen seconds that the wonder of Being might make up for the ineradicable suffering that accompanies it." Peterson talks about how we must alleviate our suffering by finding inspiration and joy where we can, whether it's in witnessing the strength displayed by someone facing terrible challenges or just appreciating a moment with a friendly cat. He speaks movingly on his daughter's struggles with severe juvenile idiopathic arthritis, on "recognizing that existence and limitation are inextricably linked," and on the awesomeness of cats and dogs. This chapter's message is timeless and this rule was an appealing way to end the book. (Especially after that prior chapter.) Probably biased here, because this rule is definitely one that governs my own life. THE OTHER RULES (view spoiler)[responses to these rules in messages 28-31 below Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back Rule 2: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. Rule 3: Make friends with people who want the best for you Rule 4: Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today Rule 5: Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Rule 7: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient) Rule 8: Tell the truth - or, at least, don't lie "First, a little lie; then, several little lies to prop it up. After that, distorted thinking to avoid the shame that those lies produce, then a few more lies to cover up the consequences of the distorted thinking. Then, most terribly, the transformation of those now necessary lies through practice into automatized, specialized, structural, neurologically instantiated "unconscious" belief and action." Rule 10: Be precise in your speech. (hide spoiler)] PLACEHOLDER 8/10/21 Jordan Peterson is a person who receives a lot of derision in my world (view spoiler)[ well at least in my online world, although just typing the phrase "my online world" sorta makes me cringe; okay to be precise, people I like or follow or whatever online don't seem to like him - the people in my actual world probably have never heard of him plus they are not big readers anyway, more into talking about music or local politics than talking about things like books let alone pop culture phenomena like Peterson and I've noticed some eyerolls if I mention something I saw on youtube, a place where Peterson pops up a lot, so does tom cardy who is this hilarious lo-fi australian musician that everyone should watch, and so do a lot of cute animal videos, and a lot of Maangchi's cooking videos, and a lot of Key & Peele, oh man my youtube algorithm really gets me - and damn those eyerolls literally happened yesterday and there I thought I was being helpful by mentioning this particular youtuber named ContraPoints, it seemed like a natural fit in the conversation - but the silence and certain eye movements suddenly made me decide to order another round for everyone because hopefully by the time I got back with drinks everyone would have forgotten my apparent social lapse and overall lack of EQ and would have moved on to something super fascinating to me *cough* like the ins & outs of running a cabinet-making business or will schools be opened or not because the kids are getting to be a lot but also it's scary because the kids don't need to be bringing home no corona, although when I did return they weren't talking about that at all because we had been joined by an old friend who we knew from back in the day, and I think her boyfriend, I wonder if they were actually out on a date, if so they certainly could have picked a better venue, and they were all talking about the homeless crisis and local politics and it all sounded very boring so time for a smoke - Graham joined me to bum one but fortunately for him it was my last one, I thought he quit and I do not want to be his enabler, and so he received a well-deserved chiding - but then when I returned a second time the conversation was back to delta variant and seriously that topic just makes me want to put a bullet in my brain so instead of doing that - as I mentioned to them earlier, it would really suck if I died in the near future because I still have a lot of books I just really, really need to read before I die, oh and places to visit, and various dvd boxsets that are still wrapped in plastic; my friends couldn't tell if I was being serious or not, but let me tell you, I was dead serious - so instead of raising gun to head I just made up some excuse about something I had to go do so gotta say goodbye, and the funny thing is that I cut Graham off just as he was about to say the same thing, I know him all too well, but since I got mine out first, and since he's such a courteous guy, I knew that he'd feel he'd have to stick around with that boring conversation for who knows how long; I smiled to myself but also felt sorta bad - Sorry, Graham! - oh now I just got a bite of fear because the last time I did something rude at this exact bar, it precipitated a cold war between the two of us that lasted like 3 years and was a drag for everyone - Jesus Christ, Graham, you cannot hold this one minor infraction against me, please! (hide spoiler)] and that sorta interests me. But what really interests me is how 12 Rules is apparently all about the digressions and tangents, despite the simplicity of the points being made. Totally into that. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 05, 2022
|
Aug 29, 2022
|
Aug 09, 2021
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 4.53
| 142,147
| Aug 04, 2020
| Aug 11, 2020
|
really liked it
|
The book is full of moments that annoyed or bothered me. The book was written by a highly regarded and well-paid mainstream author; a journalist with
The book is full of moments that annoyed or bothered me. The book was written by a highly regarded and well-paid mainstream author; a journalist with a decidedly bougie perspective. The book focuses excessively on the past; when the focus shifts to the present, the book can be... petty. The book has mixed messages, contradictions; it does not even try to be objective. The book often lacks empathy, kindness. The book is full of facts and anecdotes that should bother everyone. The book dreams of a country that rewards its people with the regard and pay that they deserve; a place where everyone has the chance of being just as bougie as they want to be. The book seeks to unbury the past so that the present can be better understood, a present full of petty slights and horrific injustices. The book has many messages that do not fit neatly together; its perspective is often a subjective one, a human perspective. The book ends with resonant examples of kindness and posits that "If each of us could truly see and connect with the humanity in front of us, search for that key that opens the door to whatever we may have in common... it could begin to affect how we see the world and others in it..." Sometimes a journey is not what you want or expect it to be, it goes a different direction and you get agitated, you become appalled at parts of the journey, the foolishness. But it still ends up being a memorable and important experience. I love a good journey for both its problems and its merits, for all the things I learned, for the people who I met or came to know better during that journey, including myself. And for the feeling that there are more journeys to come. This book was a journey, for real! PROGRESS NOTES Part 1: Toxins in the Permafrost Ah the relief at realizing I am reading a writer. A person who actually understands and enacts the power of prose. He said pretentiously. But after the often drab and basic writing styles of my other forays into modern identity politics (DiAngelo, Kendi, Reilly), it is such a pleasure to see on display actual talent at writing sentences that are nimble, ambiguous, poetic, metaphorical and laden with meaning. This section starts with Trump and ends with The Matrix. Nice way to keep it real and current, I appreciate that, but I appreciated even more the clear statement of this book's thesis: to better understand (and perhaps replace misuse of the word) "racism" via the lens of caste, as seen in American history with black people, the caste system in India, and the demonization of Jews in Nazi Germany. Part 2: The Arbitrary Construction of Human Divisions "No one was white before he/she came to America," James Baldwin once said. Wilkerson's point that "whiteness" was created in America is interesting and challenging. I don't love how she hand-waves aside the evil of slavery that has plagued the human race since forever, but I do love that she is making clear that "racism" is not really what this book is about. Caste: Origins of Our Discontents will apparently be about how and why artificial hierarchies are established. This is the shadow cast by the American experiment. An experiment that was perhaps the first of its kind in modern history - and one that can be praised, cherished, and remembered - but one that also established a very new way of perpetuating casteism: by enshrining racism. And that cast shadow should always be criticized, rejected, yet remembered. Wilkerson makes a fleeting point that is profound in its implications: yes, Italians & Irish & other European whites were taken captive, traded, bought & sold, enserfed, enslaved... and yet they could escape, they could blend, they could still hope to join a more free level of people in society, higher in the hierarchy, if only through subterfuge... such an opportunity was never possible for those whose caste was displayed on their very skins. And so, yes, many whites were also treated as subhuman by the glorious American experiment, and yet no, it was never the same kind of suffering as faced by black people, by the Africans enslaved. "We think we 'see' race when we encounter certain physical differences among people such as skin color, eye shape, and hair textrue," the Smedleys wrote. "What we actually 'see' ... are the learned social meanings, the stereotypes, that have been linked to those physical features by the ideology of race and the historical legacy it has left us." And yet, observed the historian Nell Irvin Painter, "Americans cling to race as the unschooled cling to superstition." Wilkerson's closing chapters in this section are a familiar but still powerful indictment. She describes how the Nazis initially studied American laws to enact their own anti-Semitic laws, although they stopped short of mirroring some of the more draconian anti-black laws in place. She also describes how not even the Nazis produced memorabilia from death camps to then excitedly trade among themselves... while Americans did just that with memorabilia from lynchings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchin... Part 3: The Eight Pillars of Caste 1. Divine Will and the Laws of Nature 2. Heritability 3. Endogamy and Control of Marriage & Mating 4. Purity versus Pollution 5. Occupational Hierarchy 6. Dehumanization and Stigma 7. Terror as Enforcement, Cruelty as Means of Control 8. Inherent Superiority versus Inherent Inferiority This section is basically a series of history lessons regarding the evils of American slavery - and to a lesser extent, the Indian caste system and the Nazi's Jewish Program - complete with many horrific examples. I thought this was useful as just that: a history lesson. Most of what is written here should also be taught in high school so that youth are familiarized with key aspects of American history. I had issues with the writing on the first pillar, which felt like a real reach in its misreading of the Bible (especially its sole focus on the Old Testament), but hey so many others have misread it too, including those who supported slavery. The section on the second pillar was little better, as its perplexing primary example is an incident involving Forest Whitaker. But the subsequent chapters were strong, mainly due to their stomach-churning recountings of various atrocities. The chapter on Dehumanization and Stigma was particularly effective. My main issue with this section is that it is, essentially, a moral treatise on the sins of the American past. I think I wanted more that was specifically relevant to current times. But it is hard to fault Wilkerson for that lack, as the book's subtitle is "Origins of Our Discontents" - this book is about the history of slavery in the US. History needs to not be whitewashed and it needs to be learned from; moral lessons become resonant when appalling examples are provided so that these lessons are not mere intellectual exercises. And that said, I am really hopeful that Wilkerson will be connecting these origins, these histories and examples of atrocities, to present-day systemic inequities and racist behavior patterns that continue to oppress black Americans. Part 4: The Tentacles of Caste This fourth part is a frequently frustrating but ultimately inspiring mix of missed opportunities, digressions of variable quality and purpose, and fortunately, many highly impactful points made through the profiles of a number of important historical figures. It starts off quite weakly, with a very questionable forward that seems to be praising a traumatizing elementary school experiment that no child should have to go through. Three subsequent chapters are little better. A review of alpha to omega roles in animals was fascinating and enjoyable for an animal lover like me, but utterly fails as an astute analogy for Wilkerson's thesis on caste. Another chapter seems to gloat in an embarrassing way at the suffering of impoverished whites as well as whites impacted by the opioid crisis - her presumption that all of the despair in this lower rung in a higher caste comes from the depression that blacks are succeeding is almost farcical in its lack of nuance or empathy. But worst of all is her chapter on scapegoating, which I thought really strains the definition of that word in seeking to use it as an example of the caste system at work. What bothered me the most though, was that scapegoating does come into play when looking at how America treats different castes differently when using essentially the same drug: namely, cocaine. In its rock form, crack is a symbol of lower caste degradation; in its powdered form, it is an enviable recreation tool for the upper caste. And the stark difference in punishment for use of either is a perfect illustration of how the judicial system keeps caste in place. I don't understand how the author could have overlooked using this as a primary example of how extremely unfair the caste system is for black drug users versus white. The prison system of the 90s was not full of white Wall Street types arrested for sniffing cocaine. Fortunately, from those weak chapters, Wilkerson moves from strength to strength. I appreciated her linking of embedded caste behavior patterns of the past with the modern phenomena of widely reported "living while black" incidents. I've been waiting for that linkage! Her examples are of course almost entirely familiar thanks to social media, so I was particularly appreciative of her portrait of her own very diminishing experience. It is important to be regularly reminded of what black people have to deal with throughout their lives, instances of microagression and outright aggression that I - even as a mixed-race person who has experienced racism - haven't had to experience, and will probably never experience. Her detailing of inequities in the American army during World War II was brief but powerful. Her centering of enslaved African Onesimus as the person who actually introduced innoculation into America is really important - this is the person who modern vaccines can be traced back to, and I should have learned about him growing up. The chapter on colorism and caste maintenance enacted by members of lower castes must have been painful for her to write on a personal level (just as it would be challenging for me to write about Filipino fascist Duterte and why Filipinos love him), and so I particularly appreciated that she really went there. Much as Kendi did in his own book. And the closing chapter on legendary baseball player Satchel Paige was very moving. Best of all, her fascinating and tense chapter on the caste-researching team led by brilliant black academic Allison Davis and that included his wife, a third black member, and two white teammates. His (and his team's) embedding themselves and disguising their research purposes within 1930s Natchez, Mississippi was an entirely gripping story. Why is this story not more widely known and shared? For example, the Wikipedia entry on Davis only glancingly mentions the result of this team's research (Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class) and doesn't even bother to discuss how it came about. Nor does it do more than mention his subsequent career at the University of Chicago as "the first black tenured professor at a major white American university." The resonant, depressing closing paragraph: Under the spell of caste, the [baseball] majors, like society itself, were willing to forgo their own advancement and glory, and resulting profits, if these came at the hands of someone seen as subordinate.My God, how the human race has cheated itself by its sustained deployment of the caste system. Part 5: The Consequences of Caste Similar to the preceding part, this is a mixed bag. The main feeling I'm left with: I wanted more. Not to diminish all of the good in this section, and there's plenty, but I assumed incorrectly that this would be the climax of sorts, the place where all of what came before - all of the explorations of what got us (the U.S.) here, in our centralizing of the caste system with blacks on the bottom rung - would now be illustrated by the undeniable inequities that currently exist in this country. Housing and redlining, mass incarceration and inequal sentencing, disparities in education and healthcare and within the workforce including demonstrable differences in pay rates and titles, police brutality, etc... I thought that these would be the literal examples of consequences. Instead, Wilkerson mainly discusses microagressions and Uncle Toms. To the former, I did appreciate the message: namely, that there is an actual physical toll on black bodies from the regular anxiety that comes with experiencing (or even worrying about the potential for experiencing) that misnomer "microagressions" - a term I dislike because why not just call it what it is, racism. Or bias, implicit or explicit. The author is clear that dealing with that bullshit on a daily basis literally shortens lives. And often the life spans shortened are those POC who have moved themselves up the economic/class ladder but who now have to deal with living in a world that often refuses to recognize the validity of their existence. I appreciated that nearly an entire chapter was devoted to Wilkerson's own experiences as a black woman who frequently flies first or business class. That chapter should have been cringey, with its focus on travel accommodations that few can afford, but instead, all of those situations really drove her point home. Well, for me at least. I'm a POC male who semi-frequently flies first or business class, and I've experienced none of the things she's described. Because I'm not black and I'm not a black woman. This section was genuinely enraging, perhaps because it was so real and personal for the author. It made the following chapter, where she outlines how such interactions cause hypertension and other physical issues, thus shortening lives, perfectly understandable and relatable. "Living while black" often means not living as long as living while white. To the latter, Uncle Toms... oof. The chapter intriguingly entitled "The Stockholm Syndrome and the Survival of the Subordinate Caste" is peculiarly tone-deaf. The focus on the victim's brother, the baliff, and the judge in the Amber Guyger trial (and their comforting of the defendant) is embarrassing - at one point, Wilkerson condescendingly compares the black female judge to a maid. The author's scorn of forgiveness is not a good look; completely overlooked is how forgiveness is a Christian value. It could have been argued that those black individuals who enact that value are far more succesful at practicing Christianity and living the words of Christ than those white individuals who do not. Instead, she devalues forgiveness altogether, as well as the power of empathy to connect disparate people. She also appears to underestimate the healing power of forgiveness. One does not have to forget to forgive; forgiveness does not go hand in hand with capitulation. Forgiveness is a way to not let a slight or a harm rule a person. To not let a person's life become further shortened due to living with rage on a daily basis. And all that said, I'm not judging Wilkerson's rage. I would prefer to live a different way, but that's me. I'm not black and so I'm not going to judge black rage. This section opens with an exploration of how narcissism is an inevitable characteristic of both the individual and the society that upholds the caste system. It is a powerful argument and I would have liked to have read more about that idea. But I should have realized that with that opening thesis, Wilkerson was defining this section's parameters: her focus will be on the psychological not the the sociological, the personal instead of the political, the individual injuries experienced and how they impact longevity, rather than on the structures and systems that have harmed and continue to harm the many. Part 6: Backlash Easily the best chapter of the book. Wilkerson evaluates the American reaction to Obama, Trump, and the removal of Confederate statues. She reminds us of how Obama was demeaned in ways that no other president has been, she attempts to smack away the notion that Trump won over Clinton due to class rather than race, she contrasts the German memorialization of Nazi victims with the American adulation of Confederate warriors. She links the ease that many Americans have in dismissing universal health care to the ease that Americans feel in ignoring the impact that slavery had, and continues to have, on this country. (That last point was a new one to me and I really appreciated its portrait of an American character that rejects empathy as a laudable characteristic.) Finally, she positions the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on people of color and on the lowest-paid workers as another symptom of how the caste system allows any number of indignities and inequities to be visited upon lower castes. Part 7: Awakening Beautiful! A Brahmin giving up his caste. A Jew who saw the flaw at the heart of his new country. A black female author and a white male plumber who recognized the humanity in each other. All quite moving. What is a meritocracy? A place where everyone can aspire to reach a higher level, a place where every group of people can have their merit recognized, regardless of how they look, what their lineage may be, where they were born. America has long considered itself such a place. When reflecting on our history, the truth is clear: this is only a recent development for many of us. This nation has come a long way, but still has a long way to go. I thought that Wilkerson's dismissal of "empathy" was pat and flat, tunnel-visioned and laughable. But I did appreciate her promotion of "radical empathy" despite her misunderstanding of the word empathy itself. The last chapter is both epiphany and plea. A plea to all to recognize the origins of black discontent, to not brush them aside, to understand how they created the tensions of today. An epiphany: change is still possible, change is necessary, change should and can be embraced. I love a hopeful ending. Notes & Bibliography Stetson wrote a reasonable, well-argued 1-star review of this book. I liked it. But what sorta chaps my hide is that he critiques the author for lacking specificity and data. My guy, did you not notice the 50+ pages where she lists all of the sources for her many anecdotes, data points, and statistics? I guess someone had their white blinders on, cough. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 04, 2021
|
Aug 25, 2021
|
Jul 04, 2021
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| 1925770141
| 9781925770148
| 1925770141
| 3.90
| 82
| Nov 02, 2018
| Nov 02, 2018
|
liked it
|
an enjoyable collection. there is a chatty, casual looseness to the writing in the majority of these pieces that make them feel like they were initial
an enjoyable collection. there is a chatty, casual looseness to the writing in the majority of these pieces that make them feel like they were initially written for various personal blogs. certainly a brightly accessible and mainly cheerful collection, rather than a dry study (although I would dig a dry study on this author). perhaps the most scholarly essay is by Kirsten Elliott, on the city of Bath and its place in a number of Heyer novels. there are a few awkward stumbles here and there in the collection: one writer tortures the word "mortar" when trying to use it as an analogy, another goes on a bit about her own published works in a rather unseemly way, and the essay on recommendations for other authors to read didn't give me a single specific recommendation within Heyer's primary genre. that said, this mainly felt like hanging out with a bunch of fun, lively people talking about an author we all love. just like with this group of authors (excepting one woke grouch), Heyer has brought pure joy to my life and so I can't help but connect with anyone else who loves her. I did skip the essays on The Great Roxhythe (the author literally told me to, if I didn't like spoilers - thanks, Rachel Hyland!), Bath Tangle (also spoilers throughout, but that social media sendup looked pretty amusing), and The Grand Sophy (plan on reading that one this year, so I'll wait). the most useful essay for me was Maura Tan's sharp piece on Heyer's contemporary novels, because those 4 books have held scant interest for me until now. but the whole book was actually useful to me - in addition to being a sweet treat - as it helped me add to and rearrange my to-buy list of Heyer novels. Beauvallet jumped up a few places, as did The Reluctant Widow. and now that I think about it, I'm going to walk up the street right now and buy some!
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 23, 2021
|
Jun 13, 2021
|
May 23, 2021
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 162157928X
| 9781621579281
| 162157928X
| 4.03
| 346
| Jan 28, 2020
| Jan 28, 2020
|
liked it
|
At the start: I thought I'd challenge my progressive sensibilities by reading a book from The Other Side, so to speak. I have a lot of admiration for t At the start: I thought I'd challenge my progressive sensibilities by reading a book from The Other Side, so to speak. I have a lot of admiration for the current group of Black contrarians who go against the liberal grain. Maybe not so much because I agree with their positions, but because I admire going against the grain in general, especially if you are going against the mainstream with integrity and intelligence. As a person who considered himself antiracist well before the current craze took hold of American discourse, the best way I've been able to keep true to my progressive belief system has been to challenge it, to have hard questions posed that make me think on the values I hold dear. Well, as long as the challenge is not coming from some dimwit who is all too easily dismissed. Professor Wilfred Reilly, an engaging writer with clear pride in his identity as a Black American and an impressive ease with incorporating data and research, is pretty much the opposite of a dimwit. PROGRESS NOTES (view spoiler)[Chapter 1: The Police Aren't Murdering Black People Oh man, Reilly from jump decides to go for it. This first chapter is his thesis on why Black Lives Matter is based on proveable lies and how its goal of reducing police actions in communities of color has led to an actual increase in Black deaths. This was a tough chapter, must admit. I do see where he is coming from, in a way. Specifically around the facts that (1) militarized cops kill all colors - the color white most of all, numerically although not relatively speaking, and (2) the lack of any mainstream media attention whatsoever when the color is not black. He backs it up with stats that I am familiar with, and facts about various Black cops who have proven to be just as brutal as White cops. I have felt that discomfort as well around this forcing of the idea of racism onto an issue that is more about over the top police violence in general, unnecessary deaths at the hands of police in general, all stemming from a backwards work culture that replaces being a guardian with being a warrior. I've witnessed this firsthand, multiple times, how little brutal cops care about the color of the person who is flouting their authority and therefore apparently must be brutalized. But in the end, I strongly support BLM because to bring attention to the deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police is a very resonant way to keep this important conversation regarding police brutality in American culture front & center. I also have a problem with how Reilly basically hand waves aside the issues that come with the pervasive feeling that if you are simply a Black person, you automatically can't trust the police because not only do they not trust you, they will assume that you are a probable threat due to where you live and how you look. I keep going back to the personal fact that I - a mixed-race person who passes as a White (or Latino) person - have literally no fear around cops. I have never been profiled due to amount of melanin. Why should I get to feel this way automatically, while Black parents have to warn their children that they should act in a certain way around police, unless they want to get harmed or killed? Reilly really underrates how this toxicity impacts individuals and entire communities in their relationships with not just the police force, but with anyone who holds authority granted by institutions. There's just something so bougie-clueless about Reilly's dismissal of how people literally live in fear of the cops. There are some solid points made in this chapter but they sit alongside the ignoring of context and the dismissal of the psychosocial issues that flourish due to this toxic cycle. He's got the quantitative down, but he's ignoring the qualitative. Good use of stats though? :/ Chapter 2: There Is No "War on POC"... and BBQ Becky Did Nothing Wrong This is a strange chapter. Its thesis barely makes sense. The author attempts to counter the proliferation of viral videos and news accounts of various Karens & Beckys being incredibly gross and high-handed to Black people by sharing - super graphically - various tales of Black on White violence. Um, these two kinds of Bad Things are not remotely the same kind of Bad Things! Yes, of course violent acts that include rape, torture, and murder are much more horrific than some ridiculous dumbass calling the police on a person for swimming in a pool that they are actually allowed to swim in. But Reilly appears to be saying that the existence of one cancels out the need to have any attention paid to the other. It's just such a stupid (non-)parallel, as with all such false equivalencies. In other news, we all realize that the Holocaust is way more horrific than the policing practice of racial profiling. But does that mean we shouldn't concern ourselves with racial profiling? Overall, I think I get what he's trying to say - that the media should be focusing on violent crimes rather than on shaming various Karens & Beckys - and how it ties into his theory that a "Continuing Oppression Narrative" is being embraced by the woke Left at the expense of truth and rationality. That's a theory that I'd like to read more about. There is certainly something in that idea that I can connect with, to an extent. But you don't make a successful point by pretending two completely different things are analogous when they aren't. I would have loved to have read an actual chapter on why there truly is no war being waged on POC - although this is partially due to the fact that I was curious as to who actually announced that there was a war on in the first place. Using "#LivingWhileBlack" does not equal the phrase "There is a war on POC!" but I guess that's how the author is taking such hashtags etc, and the constant trotting out of various viral videos of Microaggressions Gone Wild. All that said, I did enjoy the author's takedown of trash writer/faux activist Shaun King, a liar and charlatan who should really just throw in the towel and try to do something else with his life because he's kind of an embarrassment to both writers and activists. Kids, don't grow up to be Shaun King! But I enjoyed even more his recounting of the embarrassing shenanigans of various Karens & Beckys & an Adam and a Coupon Carl, and of course their subsequent punishments. Those examples made me smile at the sweet justice. I'm not sure that was Reilly's intention though. Chapter 3: Different Groups Perform Differently & Chapter 4: Performance - Not "Prejudice" - Mostly Predicts Success For the most part, I really enjoyed these linked chapters, in which Reilly uses the Power of Statistics to disprove reductive notions from both the woke left and the alt-right. He continues his attack on the radical left's explicit embrace of victimization while also bringing in a new line of fire with an attack on the reactionary right's implicit embrace of the notion of White genetic superiority. He brings sharp focus on the social pathologies that poor Whites (mainly males) have to face disproportionately: namely, the highest rates across all demographics for suicide, DUIs, and drug overdoses. Similarly, he portrays how poor Blacks have to disproportionately deal with occurrences of random urban gun violence and that demographic's overrepresentation within statistics for active shooters. He draws attention to data that shows that the IQs of both Whites and Blacks in the U.S. have increased over time, while making clear that it is in various repressive and/or impoverished communities where IQs are recorded as low - and that's worldwide, across all ethnicities, from apparently high-IQ places like Hong Kong & Italy to lower-IQ places like Saudi Arabia & Nepal & Benin. As a biracial person, I had an unseemly flash of pride when reading that multiracial students who are not living in poverty routinely outperform all other groups in testing - including the otherwise highest-performing group, Asians. Reilly also points out that the disproportionate rate of incarcerated Blacks actually reflects the disproportionate amount of "structural disadvantage" faced by Black Americans. His point being not to excuse or rationalize that disproportionate number of Black men and women behind bars, but to point at a specific problem that requires addressing. For the most part, he sees that problem as being entirely one of fatherlessness. I didn't love that at first, especially because that seems to ignore systemic racism as a key factor, i.e. the link from redlining to property tax rates to how well schools are funded to how lack of education often equals lack of job prospects to how lack of job prospects often leads to criminal behavior patterns that of course, finally, often lead to incarceration. He misses all of that, and those are some pretty big things to overlook. However, he does make a striking case for the idea that being illegitimate while living in poverty are together a root cause from which grow a number of societal issues: rates of occurrence for all of those issues (e.g. drug overdose, teen pregnancy, suicide, incarceration, etc.) are disproportionately high for both poor Blacks and poor Whites coming from single-parent homes. That's a pretty conservative perspective, and I am not one to hate on single mothers of course, but there is data that backs up his conclusion. I just don't think that's the whole picture, as Reilly seems to think. But it makes sense to me that it is an important part of the picture. PROGRESS NOTES CONTINUED IN MSG 15 (hide spoiler)] After the finish: Not bad! Of course, there is so much that I disagreed with and, more importantly to me, Reilly seems to miss key points because he's so focused on quantitative data while only giving creedence to qualitative information when it supports his own theses. And by "key points" I mean key points about not just race & racism, but the human condition itself. All that said, the quantitative research displayed here is incredibly impressive. This is a very, very well-sourced book. My feelings and reactions about his various points are contained in my progress notes, so no need to exhaustively go over them again. Too tiring. Did I learn anything new? To a limited extent, I did. Mainly within the first half of his chapter on immigration. Not so much with the rest of the book. IDLE PERSONAL MUSINGS (view spoiler)[But I don't hold that against Taboo - despite my hope that it would function as a learning tool to help me better understand the conservative perspective. The thing is, I'm already familiar with so many of his points and so much of his data, mainly due to my ongoing reading of articles put out by people like Coleman Hughes, David French, John McWhorter, etc. and sites like The Dispatch. I recommend all of those for folks interested in reasonable, humane discourse that often critiques liberal-progressive-woke ideology. I'm also a member of Braver Angels, which is all about sharing oppositional viewpoints in a respectful way. I don't seek out articles to confirm my own views, because that's basically mental masturbation, and so when it comes to sociopolitical topics, I make a point of including a large number of contrarians, centrists, and conservatives in the mix. Anyway, I don't know why I even imagined that this book would bring much that was new to my table, simply because it was a book rather than an article or a YouTube video. I don't read much nonfiction in book format. Not my thing; I prefer the bite-sized chunks of various posts, articles, videos, etc. Books to me are for immersion and entertainment. And so I've applied that rubric for my nonfiction reads as well - i.e. is the voice entertaining and enjoyable, was I able to immerse myself in their world/worldview successfully? Even in nonfiction, I always come back to focusing on the human who is writing the book and how human the book itself is, how well I connected to it on the level of feeling, how much it inspired contemplation. That rubric was applied to this book too. This is the 3rd modern sociopolitical book I've read in the past year. The first was Robin DiAngelo's embarrassing White Fragility and the second was Ibram X. Kendi's admirable How to Be an Antiracist. DiAngelo comes across as an obnoxiously uptight and judgmental scold, a kind of Woke Karen who is demanding to speak to the Manager of White People. In short, a person I'd avoid. Contrastingly, Kendi comes across as the sort of genuine person whose workshop I'd attend because he centers his own flawed-human experience in his teachings - he's both inspirational and aspirational. (I am less enthused by the Kendi I've seen on MSNBC and read in The Atlantic.) In short, a person I have learned from, and so to whom I'm grateful. My experience of this author is entirely different from DiAngelo & Kendi. (hide spoiler)] Wilfred Reilly's voice is at different points sarcastic & snarky, down-to-earth & self-effacing, pretentious & condescending, hyper-left-brained & intellectual to a fault, and wonderfully, hilariously bitchy in his eagerness to score both important points and also some exceedingly petty points. I love a petty bitch and it takes one to know one. Reilly is a massively entertaining person. In short, a person I'd love to get drunk with. We'd disagree on so much, but hey we'd have a good time. Despite the dead seriousness of its topics, this book was often, surprisingly, a lot of fun. Debate should be fun! And I debated a lot with this book. NEXT UP (view spoiler)[Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson. Probably should prepare myself for what will no doubt be a profoundly emotional and challenging experience. *NERVOUS* (hide spoiler)] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 09, 2021
|
May 02, 2021
|
Apr 09, 2021
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 4.64
| 22
| unknown
| 2016
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Dec 28, 2020
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||||
| 3.98
| 755
| 1890
| unknown
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
0
|
not set
|
not set
|
Dec 28, 2020
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||||
| 0525509283
| 9780525509288
| 0525509283
| 4.37
| 115,722
| Aug 13, 2019
| Aug 13, 2019
|
really liked it
|
I'll start off with a mea culpa: I came to this book with some cynicism. Some of that due to my very bad experience with the execrable White Fragility
I'll start off with a mea culpa: I came to this book with some cynicism. Some of that due to my very bad experience with the execrable White Fragility, a gross book that demeans Black people, generalizes about White people, and that sadly has a similar level of popularity. Some of my cynicism was also due to my admiration for Coleman Hughes, a Black contrarian who wrote a pretty negative review of it. Oh how wrong I was. I loved this book. I had issues with some of its stances, but by the time I finished this book, those issues were inconsequential. At least when it comes down to my overall positive regard for it as both a personal story and a call for change. I may disagree with my allies on some topics, but an ally is still an ally. Much more importantly, I may disagree with certain parts of this book, but other parts have literally changed how I will be looking at racism and activism from here on. You can disagree with a friend on certain things, but you can still respect where they're coming from. This book is my friend. I loved that How to Be an Antiracist is not specifically designed to educate only White people! This book is having a conversation with all races. Including White people in America, of course. Whites are in many ways a central focus. But it is a split focus because Kendi is also addressing his own race. He is all about uplifting Black American culture. But he is also not shy about critiquing Blacks who have upheld systems of white supremacy and racist policy, racist thought, racist reactions. Including himself. Happily, he critiques from a place of love and admiration. No reactionary critique of common targets like "inner city" violence, hip hop culture and rap music, Black separatism. His critiques are based on whether or not a person - or a policy - upholds inequity. Any person or policy. The book is a great tool for those who want to understand and address the systemic inequities forced upon Black communities (and many others) and the harm done by generations of White policy makers (and those who abetted them). The writing is simple. Basic, even. Definitions are stated and then restated. The repetition can be a bit much! But Kendi is educating people. Repetition is important when teaching. This is not my favorite style of writing but guidebooks rarely feature exciting prose. What is exciting are the ideas. The best sort of travel books feature the writers themselves, going on a journey. And so this travel book, this guidebook, features the journey that Kendi himself went on to become an antiracist. We learn a lot about him, step by step. He literalizes the personal made political. As a mixed-race queer guy who is trying to support the implementation of antiracist policies at my workplace, this book really helped me out. That may sound like a limp way to end this so-called review, but it's also the basic truth. I read it for a work book club, a pleasant activity in my weekly work load - work that often involves heavy emotions, oppressed communities, poverty, disease, death. Despite its anger, this book often functioned as a sort of healing tonic for all of that. Looking forward is a healing activity. Some of these ideas have resonated with me in ways that I hope will impact my agency's push for positive change, internally and externally, personally and professionally. Lots of important lessons to be learned here. Everything is a work in progress. PROGRESS NOTES ✍ What I particularly loved:- Kendi's personal story. awesome to read about him growing up, and all about his parents' lives - the opportunity to re-examine my own definitions of "racist" and "racism". Kendi has a surprising stance on this that challenges me, in a good way. I'm more comfortable with the idea that racism = prejudice + power (i.e. Blacks cannot be considered racist in the current U.S. system). Kendi is not so comfortable with that definition; he's more old school: racism can be displayed by any race (including internalized racism, of course). - segregation vs. assimilation vs. antiracism: feels so true. we talk about this during work trainings - the perspective on biological racism and the idea that "race" is both a construct and a reality. too often people choose one or the other when both can be true - history re. slavery and how there are two different eras of slavery: multiracial slavery across all ethnicities, followed by a focused enslavement of Africans - history re. how the term "microagression" came about - crime rates linked to unemployment rates rather than crime rates linked to demographics. YES! - history re. the SAT. I would really like to read a whole book on why standardized testing is problematic. such an unknown to me. I'm reminded about how many of my peers and I are committed to the idea of hiring people based on life experiences rather than on college degrees. the idea of there being a standardized assessment of intelligence and therefore capability has always been suspect to me. - Kendi's focus on individuals not groups is admirable. totally with him on that - I'm an admirer of the Black contrarian John McWhorter but oh boy Kendi is not! Had to chuckle when Kendi reminded me of McWhorter's foolish statement that the U.S. was now post-racial since Obama was elected. Oh John, I love you but you're never gonna live that one down. - had to LOL at Kendi's comparison of Blacks bleaching their skin with Whites using tanning beds! Not sure I agree but I love the comparison, mainly because I can't stand either ridiculous activity. pale is beautiful, dark is beautiful, right? - the back to back chapters WHITE and BLACK are incredible. so eye-opening and powerful. I admire how Kendi positions his own changing feelings, his mistakes and his epiphanies, as a battle between anti-Black racism, anti-White racism, and antiracism. the humility on display and the willingness to describe his mistakes are so real. I love how anti-White Fragility/Robin DiAngelo these chapters are, with his attack on "conflating the entire race of White people with racist power". Even more, I really love how he's challenged me to reject my own ideas on how Blacks can't be racist due to lacking systemic power because then I am actually, literally, saying that Black people don't have power enough to be racist against other Black people - for example, by supporting institutionalized racism and racist processes (e.g. certain voter suppression tactics). Which is also, even more importantly, ignoring the power that many Black people have attained in this country. And that is then... disempowering Black people and their many continuing accomplishments. Which is not something I will be doing from now on. Didn't expect this book to so fully shift my paradigm on that definition. - I should also note that the above ideas are by no means Kendi defending the problematic phrase "reverse racism" - a phrase which so far has yet to appear. The focus is mainly on how Blacks can also oppress other Blacks due to internalized racism, and capitulation to and support of white supremacist structures. Happily, there is nothing in these chapters admonishing Black people to be nicer to White people, as some fools on Twitter appear to think. - Interesting take on Elizabeth Warren's definition of capitalism! Basically he is saying that what she is espousing - capitalism should have fair market rules and benefits - is not actually "capitalism" but is something else entirely, a new thing that has yet to exist. I don't really agree, but I love the argument, it's eye-opening. - very enjoyable review of classic intersectionalism. glad that chapter didn't delve too deeply into modern intersectionalism (I have issues with it. or maybe just issues lol). LOVED the number of times my idol Audre Lorde was mentioned in this and the following chapter. - super inspiring take on queer antiracism. appreciated that Kendi owned his prior homophobia. always nice to see straight men address this topic & be allies. And I really respect that Kendi identifies as a queer antiracist. Reminds me of some of my own very crush-worthy straight friends. Be still my beating heart! ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ - fascinating chapter titled FAILURE that focuses on the idea that the "race problem" is rooted in "powerful self-interest" and not in hate or ignorance. This is institutional versus individual racism. Kendi posits that a true activist wields power and creates or forces policy change, and that a demonstration is weaker than a protest. He argues that reaching hearts & minds, educating racists out of ignorance, is not the logical first step in creating change. Creating policy that forces change and upends racist structures is the true path. Of course this echoes MLK's own thoughts. I'm reminded of Van Jones' successful work to have the Trump White House and the Republican-led Senate approve criminal justice reform legislation via the First Step Act. This was a particularly powerful and illuminating chapter. -Emotional and moving last couple chapters as he focuses on the anger leading to action springing from the murder of Trayvon Martin, and on how his and his wife's dual cancer diagnoses compelled him to look at racist policies as a cancer and so to refocus away from confronting individual racism and towards bringing down institutional racism and the policies that support it. What I didn't love so much/food for thought:- Kendi's pushing back on "microagression". Is it simply racist abuse and should be called out as such? I dunno. I don't love the idea but I don't hate it? food for thought. - he's pretty judgmental regarding his parents' decision to take "mainstream" jobs instead of remaining activists - I'm really challenged by the idea of "cultural relativity" being the essence of cultural antiracism. despite being a committed multiculturalist, I still think there are norms that all cultures must ascribe to, at least to be considered cultures that truly respect their people. Norms around treatment of women, children and norms around freedom of movement, expression. etc. Cultural relativity will often excuse oppressive behavior in its perhaps too-liberal attempt to not be seen as racist. - not in love with this quote: "As long as the mind oppresses the oppressed by thinking their oppressive environment has retarded their behavior, the mind can never be antiracist." I don't think it makes complete sense to not recognize that oppressive environments often do not encourage growth. Hard to think outside of the box when you are struggling to survive in that box. But it's also true that challenging environments can often produce vital communities, art, individuals, music, movements. Hmm, more food for thought. - I don't think capitalism & racism are necessarily conjoined twins (love the metaphor though, one he uses poetically throughout the chapter). I guess I'm not an anticapitalist? I subscribe to Warren's ideals on what capitalism could be. - Some mixed feelings about how Kendi is so against integration efforts. When thinking back on on Kendi's central position that everything should be considered as either racist or antiracist, I'm surprised to realize that despite how much I admired this book, I still don't buy into that thesis. I don't think every idea (or policy or practice or activity or action) is either antiracist or racist. I just don't believe in such reductive binaries. And I refuse to believe that everything is always about or impacts race. Even though this is one of his foundational ideas, I'm also somewhat surprised that Kendi himself engages in this sort of binary thinking e.g. check out the last quote I included, my favorite one. I don't want to end on a critical note because overall I loved this book, so here's some Great quotes:"Black people are apparently responsible for calming down the fears of violent cops in the way women are supposedly responsible for calming the sexual desires of male rapists. If we don't, then we are blamed for our own assaults, our own deaths." "One of racism's harms is the way it falls on the unexceptional Black person who is asked to be extraordinary just to survive - and, even worse, the Black screwup who faces the abyss after one error, while the White screwup is handed second chances and empathy." "Antiracism means separating the idea of a culture from the idea of behavior. Culture defines a group tradition that a particular racial group might share but that is not shared among all individuals in that racial group or among all racial groups." "White racists do not want to define racial hierarchy or policies that yield racial inequities as racist. To do so would be to define their ideas and policies as racist." "Like every other racist idea, the powerless defense underestimates Black people and overestimates White people. It erases the small amount of Black power and expands the already expansive reach of White power." "The pathological ghetto made pathological people, assimilationists say. To be antiracist is to say the political and economic conditions, not the people, in poor Black neighborhoods are pathological. Pathological conditions are making the residents sicker and poorer while they strive to survive and thrive, while they invent and reinvent cultures and behaviors that may be different but never inferior to those of residents in richer neighborhoods." and my favorite quote: "To be antiracist is to recognize there is no such thing as the 'real world,' only real worlds, multiple worldviews." ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 02, 2020
|
Nov 11, 2020
|
Nov 02, 2020
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0807047414
| 9780807047415
| 0807047414
| 4.17
| 165,394
| Jun 26, 2018
| Jun 26, 2018
|
did not like it
|
This is a sometimes interesting yet essentially broken vessel for the author's frustration in dealing with the ignorant and often prejudiced white peo
This is a sometimes interesting yet essentially broken vessel for the author's frustration in dealing with the ignorant and often prejudiced white people who have participated in her diversity seminars. The book trolls those participants while purporting to be a learning tool itself. To a limited extent, it is that tool. Its chapter on white privilege provides a superb overview. Likewise its chapter on the essentially racist character of much U.S. history. These lessons can also be found elsewhere, including Google. Unfortunately, its flaws far outweigh its virtues. Who is this book for? The audience is clearly liberal whites, and masochistic ones at that. Why masochistic? Because this book offers no way forward. It simply and repeatedly instructs its white readers on why they are racist and will always be racist. To "learn" this lesson is to parrot back what the author has told them, while backing it up with facts about American history and white privilege. Dialogue and emotional responses from trainees are not just disdained, they are seen as pervasive symptoms of racism. A person can read this polemic and gain an understanding of white culpability today and throughout history. But it provides no impetus to move forward, to create actual change. The book is a dead end. Lessons learned should provide meaningful paths to the future. Better paths. Paths to protest, to repair, to dialogue, to activism, to legislation. But White Fragility exists in a vacuum, it ignores such potentialities. It only scolds. If you acknowledge your apparently inherent racism as a white person, it has done its job. Congratulations, racist. Now just shut up, there is nothing more for you to do. As a trainer who trains people of all races to provide peer support to other people of all races; as an individual who identifies variously as mixed-race, Filipino, and white; and as a professional in a leadership position at my agency who wants to encourage openness and reflection from my nervous white colleagues on the topics of racial equity and anti-racism... this book was utterly useless to me. This is a reductive book in all ways. 1.5 stars, rounded down. PROGRESS NOTES (quotes from the book are in italics) > Well I like the forward, maybe because I'm mixed-race and she seems to be bending over backwards to understand me: Multiracial people, because they challenge racial constructs and boundaries, face unique challenges in a society in which racial categories have profound meaning. But anyway, on to reading some white-bashing written by a white person! That always amuses me. STOP, MARK. You want to get something from this, you need to adjust your bad attitude! Keep an open mind, Mark! > LOL: I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. - Um, no. Liberals & progressives (like myself) are used to being bashed by conservatives, Republicans, the deplorables, but I've always found the most skilled bashers of liberals & progressives to be other liberals & progressives. Such a masochistic breed! People with empathy know the softest spots, and where to hit the hardest. The ignorance of that comment about white progressives sorta took my breath away. Not a great start. > This part is true, and I'm seeing this now as I've seen it before, in discussions we're currently having at my very progressive agency: Being seen racially is a common trigger of white fragility, and thus, to build our stamina, white people must face the first challenge: naming our race. - DiAngelo's definition of "Individualism" is remarkably self-serving. Particularly in how she posits it as an ideology that props up racism. I think I get where she's coming from: she wants white people to focus on one particular trait - whiteness - and not on how all people are individuals because they are the intersection of many different identities. And there's truth to the idea that whites are afforded an individuality that POC are often unable to attain in group settings and in representations in the media. But I'm not loving how she refuses to see complexity of identity as a valid way to understand how different people engage with the world, and how she would rather look at all whites as simply white. Although I understand that not wanting to look at the complexity of individuals means your message will be very easy to package and sell! In general, DiAngelo is quite comfortable with generalizing - she's a sociologist after all. But doesn't she realize that she's doing the exact same thing to white people that POC have complained about being done to us/them for approximately forever? And how has that worked out? > This feels true: If we “look white,” we are treated as white in society at large. For example, people of southern European heritage, such as Spanish or Portuguese, or from the former Soviet Union ... are likely to have a stronger sense of ethnic identity than will someone of the same ethnicity whose ancestors have been here for generations. Yet although their internal identity may be different, if they “pass” as white, they will still have a white experience externally. If they look white, the default assumption will be that they are white and thus they will be responded to as white. - I do have a challenge with this idea of a "white experience" because class and other factors are not being taken into consideration. Is there a monolithic "white experience"? I should ask some white people! As a mixed-race person, this sort of tribalism is hard for me to understand. But as a half-white person, perhaps I should just examine my own experiences. How often have I "passed"? And how would I even know, absent overt displays of racism towards me? > This is ye olde collegiate definition of racism that I actually agree with: When I say that only whites can be racist, I mean that in the United States, only whites have the collective social and institutional power and privilege over people of color. People of color do not have this power and privilege over white people. - Earlier she mentioned that POC can be prejudiced just like whites, so that combined with her definition of racism makes sense to me. While anyone can "pre-judge" others, and discriminate against them, "racism" can only be exhibited by the race that holds the most power. But I wonder how she will link this definition to her basic idea that all whites are racist. > Whiteness rests upon a foundational premise: the definition of whites as the norm or standard for human, and people of color as a deviation from that norm. - I've railed against this in various reviews of modern genre novels, this white norm that occurs in settings where that doesn't make sense. In the novel Sand most explicitly. And still I persist in wondering: if the majority of the population in a given place is a certain race, wouldn't that race always be considered the norm? There's something true and also something so obvious, so meaningless about her definition of whiteness. - She makes an interesting case for "white supremacy" to be seen as a political system, a system that includes everything from government to entertainment. If only by her use of stats to illustrate percentages of whites in positions of leadership. I can then compare those percentages to the actual percentage of white people in the US, which ends up being @ 87% whites in those positions vs. 73% of whites in the US population. Food for thought. - I'm not in love with her example of a white mother shushing a child saying "Mommy, his skin is black!" as upholding the idea that black is a disability or less than white. Couldn't it be because Mommy doesn't want her kid to be othering another person? - I was on-board with her definition of "aversive racism" as the kind of racism - although I would actually call it prejudice - practiced by people, consciously or unconsciously, when using coded language to describe black spaces. But I'm not so on-board with the example of a friend talking about a dangerous neighborhood meaning that that friend had a "horror of black spaces". I think there is clearly a potential racial corollary there, but at the same time this is too simplistic. To insist that the description of a neighborhood as "dangerous" is only about its blackness seems to be a self-serving way to turn what is a loaded statement - i.e. potentially prejudiced but also possibly about class systems - into a genuinely racist statement. So yeah, more generalizations. > DiAngelo equates Being careful not to use racial terms or labels when people of color are present with Mimicking “black mannerisms and speech” and with actions like Avoiding contact (e.g., crossing a street or not going to a particular bar or club), Using code words to talk negatively about people of color, Occasional violence directed at people of color.. - These seem to me to be very different sorts of behavior, some being examples of prejudice or racism while others being a lot more complex. But hell, why not call them all "examples of racially conscious behavior" because that's the book I'm reading. - The chapter HOW DOES RACE SHAPE THE LIVES OF WHITE PEOPLE? is the most sustained exploration of how white privilege is lived unconsciously that I've read so far in the book. Of course the last page diminishes all that came before by engaging in DiAngelo's typically lazy generalizations, but for the most part, this is really effective. I also love the idea of "white innocence". This all could be useful for me as a trainer - except I am almost always training people who identify as leftist, and they are usually already fully aware of how they (if they are white) benefit from being white. And so they appreciate my discussion of privilege more as a series of handy tips and reminders on how to be a better volunteer & person rather than as a launching point for cultural self-exploration. Because they've already done all that self-exploration, usually in college, and that's why they moved to the Bay Area in the first place. Well, that and those Big Tech greenbacks, of course. Gotta make that money if you wanna be a true coastal elite, amiright? > If, as a white person, I conceptualize racism as a binary and I place myself on the “not racist” side, what further action is required of me? No action is required, because I am not a racist. Therefore, racism is not my problem; it doesn’t concern me and there is nothing further I need to do. This worldview guarantees that I will not build my skills in thinking critically about racism or use my position to challenge racial inequality. - I question this cause & effect. Especially in light of the recent protests, but also in general. It seems to be admonishing binary thinking while actually engaging in it. If someone does not consider themselves racist, why then does this automatically mean they will not engage in anti-racism? - Very interesting point about how "color-blind claims" (e.g. "I don't see race") and "color-celebrate claims" (e.g. "I have people of color in my family") both function as ways to exempt people from engaging in conversations about racism. > No person of color whom I’ve met has said that racism isn’t at play in his or her friendships with white people. - This was a somewhat shocking thing for me to read because this hasn't been my experience at all as a POC. Of course I've experienced racism, numerous times, but not from the words or deeds of actual friends. What makes me different from all the POC that DiAngelo has met? Is it because I'm mixed race? Am I just lucky, just ignorant, just benefiting from my mixed-race status, or is DiAngelo just stacking the deck? I honestly don't know. - It's interesting to me that the author has so far (to page 112) only provided examples (during her experiences as a diversity trainer) of people who defiantly oppose what she is teaching them. Will there be any examples of her getting through to people, how she got through to them, how they improved, how workplaces became safer spaces for POC, etc? Or are all of these examples meant to say that white people will always fail at understanding their racist behavior, no matter what or how she tries to teach them? It's a curious use of her real life experiences. Is this a purposeful indictment of all white people or an inadvertent indictment of her own methods and ideologies as a diversity trainer? Or maybe she's just shy of talking about her accomplishments! Yes, let's say that, it's a better look. - Ok, page 114 did make me smile with its mordantly amusing story of a young white woman whose co-workers were afraid she was having an actual heart attack after being criticized for making certain comments. But I still really wish there was a part 2 to that story, describing how DiAngelo ended up engaging this melodramatic young woman successfully. Did that part 2 ever happen? It would have been useful for me as a trainer and as a colleague interested in proactive dialogue with my white colleagues. But I suppose that's not the point of this book, which is apparently to just repeatedly provide examples of white fragility. *Sigh* > Sweet Jesus, now DiAngelo has taken it upon herself to denounce the basic guidelines for building trust in a training as accommodations made to coddle white fragility: • Don’t judge • Don’t make assumptions • Speak your truth • Respect - I dunno what to even say. It's like she perfectly understands white privilege but has no actual comprehension about how to reach people. Does she not understand that gathering people in a room and telling them all how wrong they are, and will always be, is not an effective mechanism for genuine change or understanding? Or that these guidelines have helped POC in trainings to also feel safe enough to express opinions and share experiences? Ugh! - Ok I was prepared to hate this chapter entitled WHITE WOMEN’S TEARS. I've heard about DiAngelo's thoughts on this. But it does make some solid points: tears and other emotional displays can be a form of manipulation and they can shift focus away from the important topic at hand. That said, DiAngelo barely acknowledges the most frequent reason women (AND MEN) cry in these settings: because they are experiencing sorrow or pain over something they have learned about themselves, or are reacting to a story they are hearing that illustrates a terrible injustice or a painful experience. It is like the author does not really want to acknowledge the importance and necessity of empathy as a key to bridging divides. - Last chapter finally features the book's sole example of a breakthrough from a white person who acknowledges their problematic behavior and gracefully accepts feedback, promising to learn from the experience. This white person is... Robin DiAngelo! I assume DiAngelo could think of no other examples to provide. LMAO ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 23, 2020
|
Jun 24, 2020
|
Jun 23, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1558622063
| 9781558622067
| 1558622063
| 3.60
| 5
| Dec 16, 1997
| Dec 16, 1997
|
Sad to say, this massive and annoyingly expensive 700+ page guide defeated me. It was interesting while it lasted, but about halfway through, I had to
Sad to say, this massive and annoyingly expensive 700+ page guide defeated me. It was interesting while it lasted, but about halfway through, I had to give up. Bit of irony that I gave up right when I came to the entry on Thomas Ligotti, who of course is the master of writing tales about people who have given up. The horror, the horror. I'm sure I will return to it from time to time, but despite this being a comprehensive survey full of in-depth articles on a range of authors known and unknown to me, in my favorite genre... I just can't fucking deal with it anymore! Possibly my irritation was compounded by reading this while watching the short-lived 1980 tv series Hammer House of Horror, which is likewise filled with dross that overwhelm the occasional bit of treasure. A very basic but still important thing I learned: reading pieces on authors is only as interesting or as insightful as the writer who is writing on that author. Some of these entries are quite good (in particular I enjoyed the piece on Algernon Blackwood) but some are just eye rolling. When a writer decides to lump Angela Carter and - of all people - William Kotzwinkle (author of the E.T. novelization) together as examples of quality authors who are overlooked, I just have to keep an eye out for that writer and view any of their subsequent articles with suspicion. It became really mind-numbing seeing all of these entries on 80's & 90's b-authors with a collection of goofy one-word titles whose works sound terribly uninteresting (and those articles on this particular era are so dryly written, comparing unfavorably to the sparkle and verve within Paperbacks from Hell)... all of these entries on obscure authors from well over a century or so ago with one horror title to their name and 2+ pages of other titles listed (as Shawn noted in his review)... all of these entries that are basically spoiler-filled plot synopses that do little to give me a sense of the author's prose and/or ability to create an interesting atmosphere. That last one was a real problem for me, as style is as important as plot mechanics when it comes to my enjoyment of a story. Although, to give the many article writers' their due, each author's themes are pretty much always noted and explored. Orders must have come from on high to make sure that happened so consistently, because otherwise the quality of these pieces are quite inconsistent. He said with a really snobby tone of voice. Still, my copy of this monster is full of post-its marking books of interest, so it has definitely been useful. Here are some of the books/authors that I will look into later, thanks to this book (although honestly, sometimes it was just the title that interested me - I'm a shallow guy): Webs- Scott Baker "The Cat Jumps" & "Look At All Those Roses" - Elizabeth Bowen The Garden & Dead of Light - Chaz Brenchley "Couching at the Door" - D.K. (Dorothy Kathleen) Broster The Horses of the Night - Michael Cadnum "By Reason of Darkness" - Jack Cady In Search of the Unknown - Robert W. Chambers Strange Objects - Gary Crew The Angelic Avengers - Isak Dinesen (as Pierre Andrezel) Wormwood - Terry Dowling Cold Blue Midnight & Shadow Games - Ed Gorman Moon Lake - Stephen Gresham Little Brothers - Rick Hautala The Ghost Pirates - William Hope Hodgson Dead in the Water - Nancy Holder Ancient Echoes & The Fetch - Robert Holdstock Supping with Panthers - Tom Holland A Shropshire Lad [not horror] - A.E. Housman The Unknown Sea - Clemence Housman 'Darktree' & 'Lladloh Wheels' [story cycles] - Rhys Hughes The Green Piper [YA] - Victor Kelleher (aka Michael Kitchener) Solitary Hunters, and the Abyss & Tales from Underwood - David Keller The Undying Monster - Jessie Kerruish Lord of the Hollow Dark - Russell Kirk The Ceremonies - T.E.D. Klein Conference with the Dead - Terry Lamsley ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 22, 2019
|
Dec 30, 2019
|
Dec 22, 2019
|
Hardcover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.04
|
really liked it
|
Jul 24, 2024
|
Jul 03, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.34
|
liked it
|
Jul 02, 2024
|
Jun 23, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.02
|
liked it
|
Apr 29, 2024
|
Apr 08, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.80
|
liked it
|
Mar 24, 2024
|
Mar 08, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.50
|
liked it
|
Mar 08, 2024
|
Feb 19, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.59
|
really liked it
|
Jan 20, 2024
|
Jan 01, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.06
|
it was amazing
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 3.93
|
it was amazing
|
Aug 17, 2023
|
Aug 06, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.33
|
really liked it
|
Apr 03, 2022
|
Apr 03, 2022
|
|||||
|
| 3.94
|
liked it
|
Nov 18, 2021
|
Nov 06, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 4.20
|
it was amazing
|
Sep 24, 2021
|
Sep 07, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 3.92
|
liked it
|
Aug 29, 2022
|
Aug 09, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 4.53
|
really liked it
|
Aug 25, 2021
|
Jul 04, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 3.90
|
liked it
|
Jun 13, 2021
|
May 23, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 4.03
|
liked it
|
May 02, 2021
|
Apr 09, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 4.64
|
not set
|
Dec 28, 2020
|
||||||
|
| 3.98
|
not set
|
Dec 28, 2020
|
||||||
|
| 4.37
|
really liked it
|
Nov 11, 2020
|
Nov 02, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 4.17
|
did not like it
|
Jun 24, 2020
|
Jun 23, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 3.60
|
Dec 30, 2019
|
Dec 22, 2019
|
Loading...
