The Books/Reading Thread

[Dak]

And consistently dealing with racism, or acknowledging it, is not a process of perpetuation. That's all.

I think it does perpetuate it, to an extent.

It's not questionable. Read the Washington book. He blatantly states that the French are better some things, blacks are better at others, whites are good at managing, Native Americans would never allow themselves to be enslaved, etc. etc. There is no room for doubt, Dak. Read the book.

As historical statements, I'm not interested on how those statements make people feel reading through a modern lens, I'm interested in their accuracy - and at the time of the writing, people with the French culture probably did X better than others, white people in America in general had the management experience (compared to blacks and other ethnic minorities), and Native Americans by and large did not submit to slavery. These are statements of fact for the time and about cultures - not racist assertions about constant traits through all time.

He insinuates that without slavery, African Americans would never have been able to better themselves in the way they are currently able to. In his teleological vision of black ascendance, he sees slavery as a necessary institution. Maybe he would say those aren't his personal beliefs; but that's not what his text says.

Does he insinuate it was absolutely necessary, or does he merely assert the reality that has put X number of "African Americans" on these shores, and that for them to rise above this needs to be treated as a golden opportunity rather than a handicap or a perpetual victimization.

Because Jameson is speaking directly to your speculation and explaining not only why, but how it's a productive form of investigation. Yes, we might project or posit a certain cultural binary into a given literary text; but that is in order to see how that text will "read" the chosen binary, how it will distribute its terms, parse its meanings, and develop new terms and counter-terms. He mentions the unconscious in that quote because it's akin to "reading" the unconscious. You can't do it; it isn't a text. But it does participate in language and culture, and if you begin feeding terms into it (like a computer...) it will begin churning out responses, and we can study and document those responses. Granted, they are responses as discerned by a critic, but that's why there are thousands of us...

I never saw a why, and still don't. As far as these binarys and other constructions: Careful framing of questions heavily influences the sort of answers given - so the aim of the questioning is going to craft what is "spit out" to some degree. Science attempts to guard against this with control groups, placebos, null hypotheses, accounting for confounding factors, etc.

A text is NOT a depository of previously intended meanings and ideas. A text is a filter through which culture can appear. As Jameson specifically says, it's not as though a critic will just pick a set of binary terms out of thin air; they will somehow correspond to the critic's experience of reading. But as a trained reader, someone who engages with multiple texts, this choice will be a learned and responsible one. It is then the critic's job to see how the text responds to and filters that binary. And other critics might disagree! But that disagreement leads to the field of literary analysis and investigation which, as a whole, provides a distinctive and useful "image" of culture that's unavailable from politics, economics, or psychology.

Useful how? While said image might indeed be distinctive, how valid is it? How can such a framework be tested for reliability and validity?

Despite that better explanation, I still haven't gathered a why from any of it.

This is why we advocate a multiplicity of fields, and not just the Golden Mean of Economics plus Psychology plus Philosophy divided by three.

FFA.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think it does perpetuate it, to an extent.

Oh, to an extent; well, perhaps we should accept that "to an extent" is consistently getting less and less...

As historical statements, I'm not interested on how those statements make people feel reading through a modern lens, I'm interested in their accuracy - and at the time of the writing, people with the French culture probably did X better than others, white people in America in general had the management experience (compared to blacks and other ethnic minorities), and Native Americans by and large did not submit to slavery. These are statements of fact for the time and about cultures - not racist assertions about constant traits through all time.

I'm just amused that you keep looking past the point, somehow. Facts are fine - facts are facts; it's the essentialism of the facts, as stated by Washington, that becomes problematic.

Does he insinuate it was absolutely necessary, or does he merely assert the reality that has put X number of "African Americans" on these shores, and that for them to rise above this needs to be treated as a golden opportunity rather than a handicap or a perpetual victimization.

The way he frames it, it becomes absolutely necessary. For Washington, blacks in Africa don't have access to the good work ethic installed in them by slavery.

I never saw a why, and still don't. As far as these binarys and other constructions: Careful framing of questions heavily influences the sort of answers given - so the aim of the questioning is going to craft what is "spit out" to some degree. Science attempts to guard against this with control groups, placebos, null hypotheses, accounting for confounding factors, etc.

Useful how? While said image might indeed be distinctive, how valid is it? How can such a framework be tested for reliability and validity?

Despite that better explanation, I still haven't gathered a why from any of it.

The "Why" is the most obvious part: books/texts are cultural artifacts, and assuming that they can tell us nothing about our culture is absolute idiocy. They have something to say, and the approach outlined by Jameson is the most objective approach possible, when combined with a community of literary analysis.

FFA.

Future Farmers of America? I have no idea what the hell that means.

 

[Dak]

I'm just amused that you keep looking past the point, somehow. Facts are fine - facts are facts; it's the essentialism of the facts, as stated by Washington, that becomes problematic.

If we look at the NFL and the NBA of today (and for the last couple of decades at least), we might make essential conclusions about racial ability and sports. Of course, these essential differences continue to evolve, most noticeably today in the QB position in the NFL.

The way he frames it, it becomes absolutely necessary. For Washington, blacks in Africa don't have access to the good work ethic installed in them by slavery.

Just assuming that is a true assessment of the book: Is this statement true? Was a superior work ethic gained by slavery compared to the tribalism in Africa of the prior centuries? Was there a silver lining to be found?

The "Why" is the most obvious part: books/texts are cultural artifacts, and assuming that they can tell us nothing about our culture is absolute idiocy. They have something to say, and the approach outlined by Jameson is the most objective approach possible, when combined with a community of literary analysis.

Well of course texts (assuming fiction for literature) tell us something. But how is that something going to be dramatically different than what we can procure from other sources ("not nominally fiction"). Any dramatic differences come under scrutiny immediately for confounding factors: Fiction writers in themselves aren't exactly a broad sampling of the society, and they have already dramatically filtered/altered their thoughts and environment as words commit to paper.

Future Farmers of America? I have no idea what the hell that means.

Fixed For Accuracy.*

 

[Einherjar86]

If we look at the NFL and the NBA of today (and for the last couple of decades at least), we might make essential conclusions about racial ability and sports. Of course, these essential differences continue to evolve, most noticeably today in the QB position in the NFL.

Dak, you're distinguishing. That's good, but what I'm saying is that the non-essentialism isn't apparent in pure factual statements. You're consciously acknowledging (I think) that your factual conclusions aren't essential; but I'm saying Washington doesn't do that and, even further, he relies on essentialist claims about race. Of course, he doesn't intend this in a negative way; but he can't help the fact that his text reinforces white expectations of African Americans.

Just assuming that is a true assessment of the book: Is this statement true? Was a superior work ethic gained by slavery compared to the tribalism in Africa of the prior centuries? Was there a silver lining to be found?

If you think that, then you're oblivious to the truly objective position. There is no "superior work ethic" compared to tribal behavior in Africa. They don't need Western Puritan work ethic; that's what you need to understand. It isn't superior because it isn't even comparable. It's a totally different form of life. As you would probably say: "superior" is a subjective assessment.

Well of course texts (assuming fiction for literature) tell us something. But how is that something going to be dramatically different than what we can procure from other sources ("not nominally fiction"). Any dramatic differences come under scrutiny immediately for confounding factors: Fiction writers in themselves aren't exactly a broad sampling of the society, and they have already dramatically filtered/altered their thoughts and environment as words commit to paper.

Fiction provides a distinct means of representing reality, and fiction writers are often at liberty to portray "reality" in a way not allowed to scientists, or politicians, or clergymen. Writers of fiction abide by looser parameters, and because of this, they can realize the subtle, the nuanced, the unconscious of a culture. I know you might be skeptical of this, but it's because you've never really given fiction the time of day. You admit as much yourself. You've sampled a minimal amount of fiction; far less than what English departments across academia have studied.

 

[Dak]

Dak, you're distinguishing. That's good, but what I'm saying is that the non-essentialism isn't apparent in pure factual statements. You're consciously acknowledging (I think) that your factual conclusions aren't essential; but I'm saying Washington doesn't do that and, even further, he relies on essentialist claims about race. Of course, he doesn't intend this in a negative way; but he can't help the fact that his text reinforces white expectations of African Americans.

I think(?) my point was that what appears as essential is either essential or not, but what is essential at one point is not necessarily so at another point. So Washington could be correct. He is either correct or incorrect. Not racist (even inadvertently).

If you think that, then you're oblivious to the truly objective position. There is no "superior work ethic" compared to tribal behavior in Africa. They don't need Western Puritan work ethic; that's what you need to understand. It isn't superior because it isn't even comparable. It's a totally different form of life. As you would probably say: "superior" is a subjective assessment.

Of course they don't have to need the Western Puritan work ethic. Positing it as desirable is a value statement about means and ends. That the Western Puritan work ethic is superior isn't necessarily subjective (as you said, comparison is difficult). That the potentially superior work ethic is more valuable is absolutely subjective. Washington necessarily makes a value judgment in determining the acquisition of such a work ethic (possibly one even superior to former masters) as a positive. While it might be subjective, I don't see how this is racist.

Fiction provides a distinct means of representing reality, and fiction writers are often at liberty to portray "reality" in a way not allowed to scientists, or politicians, or clergymen. Writers of fiction abide by looser parameters, and because of this, they can realize the subtle, the nuanced, the unconscious of a culture. I know you might be skeptical of this, but it's because you've never really given fiction the time of day. You admit as much yourself. You've sampled a minimal amount of fiction; far less than what English departments across academia have studied.

It really doesn't have anything to do with an enjoyment or lack thereof of fiction. I've read a lot of fiction (although not nearly as much in my twenties), to include most of the "classics". I'm not skeptical of the free rein of fiction writers, I'm skeptical of reading their works as indicative of the "unconscious of culture" at large rather than the random and recorded configurement of ideas originating in a solitary oddball - and I use oddball endearingly.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think(?) my point was that what appears as essential is either essential or not, but what is essential at one point is not necessarily so at another point. So Washington could be correct. He is either correct or incorrect. Not racist (even inadvertently).

Of course they don't have to need the Western Puritan work ethic. Positing it as desirable is a value statement about means and ends. That the Western Puritan work ethic is superior isn't necessarily subjective (as you said, comparison is difficult). That the potentially superior work ethic is more valuable is absolutely subjective. Washington necessarily makes a value judgment in determining the acquisition of such a work ethic (possibly one even superior to former masters) as a positive. While it might be subjective, I don't see how this is racist.

I disagree. It is racist, especially given that he doesn't merely describe racial difference; he appeals to racial difference in order to rationalize historical development. If we insist that Washington isn't being racist, then slavery also ceases to be racist since it is nothing more than a historical fact. If we want to insist, however, that slavery was racist, then Washington's appeals to racial difference must also be racist. You can't have it both ways, unfortunately.

It really doesn't have anything to do with an enjoyment or lack thereof of fiction. I've read a lot of fiction (although not nearly as much in my twenties), to include most of the "classics". I'm not skeptical of the free rein of fiction writers, I'm skeptical of reading their works as indicative of the "unconscious of culture" at large rather than the random and recorded configurement of ideas originating in a solitary oddball - and I use oddball endearingly.

You're suggesting that these "oddballs" are isolated from the society around them. Let me make a few clear and undeniable points:

1. The authors of fictional texts are a part of the society around them; it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that their writings respond in some way to their society.

2. The authors I'm speaking of attain their celebrity, popular, or intellectual status for a reason. They strike a key with academics because of certain peculiarities in their writing, or they strike a key with the larger public. In either case, there's a reason why these writers reach the level that they do, and it can't be reduced to their own personal, individual, "oddball" mannerisms. It has to do with how they're reacting to society at large, and how the ways in which they do speak to those who read their works.

 

[rms]

Got all these bad boys for 15 bucks today.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Limiting or creating?

If you say that someone cannot do certain jobs because of their race and then give them an education that restricts them to that position then you are, by definition, putting a discriminatory limit on them.

I don't buy the "white boss will never let a black person do X", regardless of era.

I just want to make sure we're clear with each other. Did you interpret me as saying that a white boss will never let a black person do a certain job, regardless of historical eras? Because that wasn't what I was saying at all. I was speaking exclusively about the post-apartheid South. Or are you saying that you believe that there has never been a time period in which white bosses restricted blacks from certain jobs based on race? If that's the case, you are grossly uninformed.

I've seen the opposite too many times, even from overtly racist people (overtly as in, white people who will call black person a my pals to their face, complain about lazy my pals this and worthless my pals that, etc.). Regardless of racial prejudice, when X black man is a superior technician/driver/worker/etc, guess who gets the job. Very rarely do people "cut off their nose to spite their face".

That's a nice bit of anecdotal evidence, but statistics clearly show that blacks do not receive the same number or level of job opportunities as white people with equivocal education levels. Here's an article from a few years back but this is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

 

[Einherjar86]

Got all these bad boys for 15 bucks today.

Nice haul. The Road is amazing, although McCarthy is my favorite contemporary writer, so I'm biased; but it's an incredible story. Heartbreaking, but incredible.

EDIT:

If you say that someone cannot do certain jobs because of their race and then give them an education that restricts them to that position then you are, by definition, putting a discriminatory limit on them.

I just want to make sure we're clear with each other. Did you interpret me as saying that a white boss will never let a black person do a certain job, regardless of historical eras? Because that wasn't what I was saying at all. I was speaking exclusively about the post-apartheid South. Or are you saying that you believe that there has never been a time period in which white bosses restricted blacks from certain jobs based on race? If that's the case, you are grossly uninformed.

That's a nice bit of anecdotal evidence, but statistics clearly show that blacks do not receive the same number or level of job opportunities as white people with equivocal education levels. Here's an article from a few years back but this is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

I'm in agreement with your points, and I think it's important to point out that aftereffects of slavery, which result in low employment and lack of qualification/education for African Americans, still must be considered racist. There needn't be any single individual act of racism that is traceable to a specific person. The racism persists within the system itself, evident in the "fact" that fewer black people are qualified for more sought-after jobs, and that fewer black Americans receive an education equal to that of white Americans.

 

[Dak]

I disagree. It is racist, especially given that he doesn't merely describe racial difference; he appeals to racial difference in order to rationalize historical development. If we insist that Washington isn't being racist, then slavery also ceases to be racist since it is nothing more than a historical fact. If we want to insist, however, that slavery was racist, then Washington's appeals to racial difference must also be racist. You can't have it both ways, unfortunately.

Slavery in itself isn't racist, and is a historical fact that spans centuries. Slave traders flocked to Africa with zeal compared to South America why? Because the Africans were doing the capturing and the selling rather than fighting. Not because of skin color. We have racial differences now. They don't exist because of skin color. Or we need to speak of racism differently: The treatment of subjects only in terms of skin color, which would make this very discussion racist regardless of the overall tone, intent, etc. There absolutely were cultural(not racial) differences that led to historical differences. However, much of the cultural divergence had to do with trade (heya economics). The Dark Continent wasn't dark because of skin color. It was dark because Egypt effectively sealed it off from economic and subsequently cultural exchange with the rest of the "known world" for more than a thousand years.

You're suggesting that these "oddballs" are isolated from the society around them. Let me make a few clear and undeniable points:

1. The authors of fictional texts are a part of the society around them; it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that their writings respond in some way to their society.

2. The authors I'm speaking of attain their celebrity, popular, or intellectual status for a reason. They strike a key with academics because of certain peculiarities in their writing, or they strike a key with the larger public. In either case, there's a reason why these writers reach the level that they do, and it can't be reduced to their own personal, individual, "oddball" mannerisms. It has to do with how they're reacting to society at large, and how the ways in which they do speak to those who read their works.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that many writers are less engaged in the society around them than non-writers are.

Also, to pull Moby Dick back into the discussion: It was widely panned in it's time, correct? So going back and pulling it up as indicative of something popular is problematic.

It's like examining Benjamin Franklin's life and deducing that most everyone of the era was like him.

If you say that someone cannot do certain jobs because of their race and then give them an education that restricts them to that position then you are, by definition, putting a discriminatory limit on them.

. This lays bare a major problem of perspective both within and without educational circles. Formal schooling provides a sort of basic toolset. Learning is lifelong and occurs on the job at every job.

You cannot take a freshly freed slave and drop him straight into Harvard. Sure, there might be an exception, but calls to action on a broad scale cannot make rules for the exception. It's rather practical/ pragmatic to suggest that the former slaves and 1st/2nd generation of free blacks immediately get into the work force alongside other races - a basic education (which we must assume many lacked) was essential. Let those excel rise further, whether within the business or by continuing on with their education. It's a first step, foot-in-the-door, practical solution.

Or we can pay them to sit around doing nothing and tell them they can't do anything without jumping straight to the moon and then moan about why is there an employment gap. The environment in the US has grown increasingly toxic for mature development of *everyone*, and of course those without legacy support to fall on are going to have the worst time - in this case the legacy support being that old "Puritan Work Ethic", in short an internal locus of control.

I just want to make sure we're clear with each other. Did you interpret me as saying that a white boss will never let a black person do a certain job, regardless of historical eras? Because that wasn't what I was saying at all. I was speaking exclusively about the post-apartheid South. Or are you saying that you believe that there has never been a time period in which white bosses restricted blacks from certain jobs based on race? If that's the case, you are grossly uninformed.

I should have been more clear here. I was referring to a work situation where blacks and whites were already working together. That says nothing about refusing to work with those of another race, or still perpetuating a pay differential etc. I'm specifically referring to having employees (not slaves), and giving the better job/task to an incompetent white person over a highly competent minority.

That's a nice bit of anecdotal evidence, but statistics clearly show that blacks do not receive the same number or level of job opportunities as white people with equivocal education levels. Here's an article from a few years back but this is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

Hey look, anecdotal evidence galore but without further context. Statistics also without any further information. As I pointed out above, the environment has been toxic for everyone, and that includes the economy. The young and males, most especially young males obviously have been hit hardest by this depression(yes, it's a depression and it's not anywhere near over). The undereducated (disproportionately minorities) fall into jobs within fields like construction, which were hit hard. Turn-a-wrench/press-a-button all day union factory jobs have also been disappearing for decades now. The War on Poverty, and (essentially) the "War on Undereducation" haven't fixed the problem at all.

That article doesn't provide any further context than race for the evidence. So someone has JP Morgan on their resume: What did they do there? Why aren't they still there? Is the job they are applying for comparable to previous education and experience? How did one present onesself in person? Etc.

If someone had been dishonorably discharged from the military, technically they could moan about how they are a "Veteran" with "X years in military service" on their resume but "no one wants to hire veterans". All true, but not the whole story.

The last few times I participated in blanket interview processes it blew my mind how the others present were dressed. I received a job offer which I had zero experience or education for, just because I was the only one who appeared to show up dressed sharp and gave confident, no bullshit answers to their questions, etc. If I didn't know the answer to the technical questions I just told them that, but with the caveat that I am a quick study. Could I have been convincing in that regard if I showed up in sweats or dressed like a bro? Probably not. Yet those with qualifications showed up like that - and didn't get hired.

Systemically: You can't make someone want to rise above, and it's really difficult when the set perspective from academia, politics, activists, etc is to constantly strip the locus of control from individual blacks at every turn.

I'm in agreement with your points, and I think it's important to point out that aftereffects of slavery, which result in low employment and lack of qualification/education for African Americans, still must be considered racist. There needn't be any single individual act of racism that is traceable to a specific person. The racism persists within the system itself, evident in the "fact" that fewer black people are qualified for more sought-after jobs, and that fewer black Americans receive an education equal to that of white Americans.

At this point are these "aftereffects" of slavery or more accurately current effects of social and economic policy of the last 50+ years aimed to repress? Of course this isn't any single act, and comes supposedly from the best of intentions. "Just trying to help". Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have identified systemic issues, but their critiques actually do something to attack the systemic repression and so is systemically repressed. Of course, these repressive actions are not aimed at minorities alone, but at everyone who will succumb. It just takes longer to repress those with legacy support.

 

[Einherjar86]

Slavery in itself isn't racist, and is a historical fact that spans centuries. Slave traders flocked to Africa with zeal compared to South America why? Because the Africans were doing the capturing and the selling rather than fighting. Not because of skin color. We have racial differences now. They don't exist because of skin color. Or we need to speak of racism differently: The treatment of subjects only in terms of skin color, which would make this very discussion racist regardless of the overall tone, intent, etc. There absolutely were cultural(not racial) differences that led to historical differences. However, much of the cultural divergence had to do with trade (heya economics). The Dark Continent wasn't dark because of skin color. It was dark because Egypt effectively sealed it off from economic and subsequently cultural exchange with the rest of the "known world" for more than a thousand years.

Oh man, you are entering into deep fucking water.

Slavery was racist, Dak. Saying what you're saying is asinine. Europeans looked down upon Africans. They saw them as inferior because of skin color. They saw them as worthy of little more than serving European interests, and, in fact, they justified their intervention through this appeal to racial superiority. Local African tribes may have captured their neighbors and practiced enslavement; but the institution of slavery in America is racist through and through.

Nothing you say will change that "fact."

I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that many writers are less engaged in the society around them than non-writers are.

Also, to pull Moby Dick back into the discussion: It was widely panned in it's time, correct? So going back and pulling it up as indicative of something popular is problematic.

It's like examining Benjamin Franklin's life and deducing that most everyone of the era was like him.

You "think" wrong, Dak. I know you have hunches and little personal feelings, but you don't have experience in the field. Writers are extremely engaged in the society around them; the overwhelming majority of authors studied in academia leave behind letters and journals documenting their involvement, their consciousness, their awareness. You need to stop making these bullshit assumptions based on your "thoughts." They have no support.

Also, Moby-Dick was a commercial flop on its release, but Melville's other books - his travel narratives, short stories, and nonfiction works - were not. He was a very popular travel writer, in fact; and Moby-Dick is clearly influenced by that genre. The reason why Moby-Dick has become intellectually relevant is because critics and scholars can now detect the interrelation between it and Melville's other works.

You seem, again and again, to reflect back on nothing more than your own personal experience with texts and your own anecdotal hunches with regards to literature and literary scholarship (and race relations, it would appear). I appreciate your skepticism, but if you have any respect for research and academic study, then you have no basis of resistance toward literary study.

At this point are these "aftereffects" of slavery or more accurately current effects of social and economic policy of the last 50+ years aimed to repress? Of course this isn't any single act, and comes supposedly from the best of intentions. "Just trying to help". Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have identified systemic issues, but their critiques actually do something to attack the systemic repression and so is systemically repressed. Of course, these repressive actions are not aimed at minorities alone, but at everyone who will succumb. It just takes longer to repress those with legacy support.

They're aftereffects of slavery. Slavery wasn't that long ago, and if you think that African Americans have recovered (or have had the opportunity to recover) from its repercussions, then I'm sorry. Pre-civil rights, African Americans could not even share the same restaurants or bathrooms with white Americans, much less the same jobs. This goes back to Jim Crow laws in the later nineteenth century, which in turn derive from the failures of Reconstruction, which was instituted in direct response to the conclusion of the Civil War and the end of slavery. That entire historical period has been plagued by the aftermath of one glaring institution: American slavery.

You really seem to be perpetuating a flurry of uninformed positions in this thread.

 

[Dak]

Oh man, you are entering into deep fucking water.

Slavery was racist, Dak. Saying what you're saying is asinine. Europeans looked down upon Africans. They saw them as inferior because of skin color. They saw them as worthy of little more than serving European interests, and, in fact, they justified their intervention through this appeal to racial superiority. Local African tribes may have captured their neighbors and practiced enslavement; but the institution of slavery in America is racist through and through.

Nothing you say will change that "fact."

With this subject and then referencing the disagreement over writer engagement, it probably appears I'm in deep water/off the deep end/etc because you aren't understanding my framework whatsoever.

Yes, there was a race division in America in the institution of slavery. I'm not disputing that.

But: slavery in itself is not racial. Slavery is consequence of conquest dating as far back as we can date. Superiority was not assumed a priori due to phenotypical differences, otherwise a Mongol Invasion would have elicited no fear in Europeans. It is a question of actuated power. "Europeans were obviously superior because they were masters rather than slaves". Ignorantly seizing upon superficial phenotypical differences as to an explanation of why was a post hoc understanding, since economic knowledge is relatively new and still only slowly penetrating the "collective" mind.

The conqueror always sees the conquered as merely tools of its/their interests, phenotypical similarities or differences aside. Clashes are primarily cultural.

You "think" wrong, Dak. I know you have hunches and little personal feelings, but you don't have experience in the field. Writers are extremely engaged in the society around them; the overwhelming majority of authors studied in academia leave behind letters and journals documenting their involvement, their consciousness, their awareness. You need to stop making these bullshit assumptions based on your "thoughts." They have no support.

On to the second misunderstanding:

"Benjamin Franklin was world traveled and conversed with many other learned men." This makes my point, it does not refute it. You cannot gain an understanding of society at large by selecting only for this extremely small segment, a segment which necessarily cannot empathize with the majority.

It's no different than the problem of early and even relatively recent psychology. Samples and case studies were of convenience and thus not actually generalizable across class, gender, nationality, culture, etc. This is the problem a study of texts automatically presents. It's necessarily a study of the perspective and thoughts from a necessarily limited scope of selection.

They're aftereffects of slavery. Slavery wasn't that long ago, and if you think that African Americans have recovered (or have had the opportunity to recover) from its repercussions, then I'm sorry. Pre-civil rights, African Americans could not even share the same restaurants or bathrooms with white Americans, much less the same jobs. This goes back to Jim Crow laws in the later nineteenth century, which in turn derive from the failures of Reconstruction, which was instituted in direct response to the conclusion of the Civil War and the end of slavery. That entire historical period has been plagued by the aftermath of one glaring institution: American slavery.

Not all states had Jim Crow laws btw. I never suggested black Americans (African Americans as a blanket reference is an absurd and often even directly inaccurate term btw I only use when immediate prudence dictates) had recovered. I specifically recognize they have not as a group. However, this systematic repression post-slavery is through those very post-slavery mechanisms supposedly instituted to do the opposite. A mistaking of cause(s)/contingent factors or outright denial of them leads to what we have now.

My skepticism of the politically correct/popular interpretations of history and policy are born of careful application of practical scrutiny: What is the fruit? In this case and in most cases, the fruit is poison, and it does not distinguish.

Edit: I shouldn't need to qualify that last paragraph as a value statement from a humanistic/humanitarian perspective, but I will for assured clarity.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not the one misunderstanding; you are. And you're wittingly (or unwittingly, who knows) avoiding specific points that I'm mentioning.

With this subject and then referencing the disagreement over writer engagement, it probably appears I'm in deep water/off the deep end/etc because you aren't understanding my framework whatsoever.

Yes, there was a race division in America in the institution of slavery. I'm not disputing that.

But: slavery in itself is not racial. Slavery is consequence of conquest dating as far back as we can date. Superiority was not assumed a priori due to phenotypical differences, otherwise a Mongol Invasion would have elicited no fear in Europeans. It is a question of actuated power. "Europeans were obviously superior because they were masters rather than slaves". Ignorantly seizing upon superficial phenotypical differences as to an explanation of why was a post hoc understanding, since economic knowledge is relatively new and still only slowly penetrating the "collective" mind.

The conqueror always sees the conquered as merely tools of it's/their interests, phenotypical similarities or differences aside. Clashes are primarily cultural.

Washington is discussing slavery in America. We're discussing slavery in America. No one fucking cares about slavery dating back to the dawn of humanity, or whatever you're talking about. All you're doing is muddling the discussion.

And on top of that, slavery in general is racist in origins. The rationalization and justification for slavery lies in fantasies of racial superiority. This is how it's justified, and it's evident in historical texts through the ages. Obviously there is more to it than race (it may not be done for obviously racial reasons, but racial justification always figures into the mix).

On to the second misunderstanding:

"Benjamin Franklin was world traveled and conversed with many other learned men." This makes my point, it does not refute it. You cannot gain an understanding of society at large by selecting only for this extremely small segment, a segment which necessarily cannot empathize with the majority.

It's no different than the problem of early and even relatively recent psychology. Samples and case studies were of convenience and thus not actually generalizable across class, gender, nationality, culture, etc. This is the problem a study of texts automatically presents. It's necessarily a study of the perspective and thoughts of necessarily limited scope of selection.

I'm not misunderstanding. You are continuing to talk past me.

No one is trying to say "This is obviously what most people think, and in exactly this way!" Writers are a select group of people, and a minority; this is quite obviously true. But writers are no different than you and me - they still constitute a portion of the population. Writers are not part of some elite, special group somehow removed from society, and many of whom we study were certainly not of the economic class that Benjamin Franklin was.

For fuck's sake, Poe died in poverty, as did Melville, as did Fitzgerald, as did a slew of others. These are not isolated, penned up individuals separated from culture at large! Why are you elevating them on some kind of pedestal and claiming that they're a horrible example from which to derive some form of opinion? All scholars have to say is that these were clearly intelligent people and that they had something relevant to say. What is the big fucking deal?

If I'm coming off as annoyed, it's because I am.

Not all states had Jim Crow laws btw. I never suggested black Americans (African Americans as a blanket reference is an absurd and often even directly inaccurate term btw I only use when immediate prudence dictates) had recovered. I specifically recognize they have not as a group. However, this systematic repression post-slavery is through those very post-slavery mechanisms supposedly instituted to do the opposite. A mistaking of cause(s)/contingent factors or outright denial of them leads to what we have now.

My skepticism of the politically correct interpretations of history and policy are born of careful application of practical scrutiny: What is the fruit? In this case and in most cases, the fruit is poison, and it does not distinguish.

You're demonstrating no practical thinking, nor are you allowing for the possibility that literary texts could offer illuminating insight into culture, despite everything I've said and despite all the truly illuminating and critical work that the field has to offer. Your approach to this discussion isn't in order to gain knowledge; it's to justify your irrational preconceived attitude toward the matter. Not only do I see your comments as pointless; I see them as arrogant.

 

[Dak]

I'm not the one misunderstanding; you are. And you're wittingly (or unwittingly, who knows) avoiding specific points that I'm mentioning.

I feel the same way

Washington is discussing slavery in America. We're discussing slavery in America. No one fucking cares about slavery dating back to the dawn of humanity, or whatever you're talking about. All you're doing is muddling the discussion.

And on top of that, slavery in general is racist in origins. The rationalization and justification for slavery lies in fantasies of racial superiority. This is how it's justified, and it's evident in historical texts through the ages. Obviously there is more to it than race (it may not be done for obviously racial reasons, but racial justification always figures into the mix).

Is racial or cultural superiority ever trumpeted by a conquered people? I'm bringing this up because order is important. Yes race figures in at some point but it is not the be all end all like it is made to be.

No one is trying to say "This is obviously what most people think, and in exactly this way!" Writers are a select group of people, and a minority; this is quite obviously true. But writers are no different than you and me - they still constitute a portion of the population. Writers are not part of some elite, special group somehow removed from society, and many of whom we study were certainly not of the economic class that Benjamin Franklin was.

For fuck's sake, Poe died in poverty, as did Melville, as did Fitzgerald, as did a slew of others. These are not isolated, penned up individuals separated from culture at large! Why are you elevating them on some kind of pedestal and claiming that they're a horrible example from which to derive some form of opinion? All scholars have to say is that these were clearly intelligent people and that they had something relevant to say. What is the big fucking deal?

You're demonstrating no practical thinking, nor are you allowing for the possibility that literary texts could offer illuminating insight into culture, despite everything I've said and despite all the truly illuminating and critical work that the field has to offer. Your approach to this discussion isn't in order to gain knowledge; it's to justify your irrational preconceived attitude toward the matter. Not only do I see your comments as pointless; I see them as arrogant.

Maybe it's because thus far your description of current literary analysis looks dramatically similar to early psychology: Namely that it seeks to extrapolate to people/society at large the findings from a small and/or relatively eccentric sample.

Poe would be another excellent example: A pioneering writer in macabre fiction due to his own subjective experience and coping we can in (almost) no way (psychologically) extrapolate generally to the populace at large. But it appears as though you are suggesting that literary analysis can do just that by discounting the author for the reader who is operating under an entirely different paradigm. This explanation is sitting well with me (obviously). You would have to divorce culture from individuals and society entirely to make sense of this (it appears), but this seems ridiculous as well.

It appears neither scientific nor humanistic and so I am still left with a "why" - an answer to which is still absent in the discussion.

 

[-CC-]

When will you two realize that you are both stubborn as fuck and will never convince one another? You just keep going to have the last word. Also, you always end up arguing semantics. I'd compare your arguments to cancer in the way it grows out of proportion and kills all other things, including A FUCKING THREAD DISCUSSING BOOKS. THANKS OBAMA

 

[Einherjar86]

I can't help myself. This is the books and reading thread, so... maybe people will enjoy reading all this bullshit.

 

[Dak]

I can't help myself. This is the books and reading thread, so... maybe people will enjoy reading all this bullshit.

I'm reading Up from Slavery now. Appears to be rather short. Unfortunately I have a German test tomorrow so I can't devote 100% of my time to it, but according to my Kindle App I am 10% in and the Intro and self description of Washington so far align with my initial points about positive adjustment strategies including an internal locus of control and his educational approach and positive "spin" on slavery. I'll acknowledge and admit my critique is psychologically based - but any analysis with negative outcomes in practical application for both the individual and subsequently society at large is going to meet with resistance from me. Positing an internal locus of control and positive outlook as racist or perpetuating racism is going to fall under that.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I doubt you'll change your mind after reading it. It isn't a great book, in my opinion. He even uses dialect to portray ex-slaves (and what he occasionally dubs "black trash"), which I don't find attractive, considering he himself doesn't speak in dialect. It's just an interesting text to consider at the turn of the century.

 

[Dak]

Well, I doubt you'll change your mind after reading it. It isn't a great book, in my opinion.

It doesn't inspire?

He even uses dialect to portray ex-slaves (and what he occasionally dubs "black trash"), which I don't find attractive, considering he himself doesn't speak in dialect. It's just an interesting text to consider at the turn of the century.

Didn't Chris Rock do a bit on this?

[ame="www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4[/ame]

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Slavery in itself isn't racist, and is a historical fact that spans centuries.

The Transatlantic slave trade was clearly racist. You are literally the first person I've ever heard argue otherwise. Most the European slave traders and proponents argued that Africans were biologically inferior. Many even argued that they weren't fully human. There were some religious people who argued that Africans weren't biologically inferior but were culturally inferior. Either way, everyone involved was racist.

Slave traders flocked to Africa with zeal compared to South America why? Because the Africans were doing the capturing and the selling rather than fighting.

Actually the main reasons South Americans weren't used as slaves was because they had no immunity to European diseases.

Also the fact that Africans were participants in the slave trade has zero impact on whether or not the institution was racist. The only factor that matters is European ideology and motivation and the historical documents make that perfectly clear.

Not because of skin color. We have racial differences now. They don't exist because of skin color. Or we need to speak of racism differently: The treatment of subjects only in terms of skin color, which would make this very discussion racist regardless of the overall tone, intent, etc. There absolutely were cultural(not racial) differences that led to historical differences. However, much of the cultural divergence had to do with trade (heya economics). The Dark Continent wasn't dark because of skin color. It was dark because Egypt effectively sealed it off from economic and subsequently cultural exchange with the rest of the "known world" for more than a thousand years.

1. It was not purely cultural. Plenty of biological arguments were being thrown about.

2. Discriminating against a people for their culture is often a form of racism. In fact it's one of the most common ones.

3. When exactly was this time period when Africa was supposedly cut off from the rest of the world? It sounds extremely implausible.

You cannot take a freshly freed slave and drop him straight into Harvard. Sure, there might be an exception, but calls to action on a broad scale cannot make rules for the exception. It's rather practical/ pragmatic to suggest that the former slaves and 1st/2nd generation of free blacks immediately get into the work force alongside other races - a basic education (which we must assume many lacked) was essential. Let those excel rise further, whether within the business or by continuing on with their education. It's a first step, foot-in-the-door, practical solution.

What evidence is there to support this conclusion? Washington was himself a former slave and look what he accomplished with an education. You're projecting conclusions about what people could accomplish without evidence or even a firm hypothetical argument. This argument needs much more justification, especially considering what we see as far as communities and individuals turning their lives around quickly post-trauma when given the proper resources and/or opportunities (i.e. many Holocaust and Armenian Genocide survivors and their children).

Or we can pay them to sit around doing nothing and tell them they can't do anything without jumping straight to the moon and then moan about why is there an employment gap. The environment in the US has grown increasingly toxic for mature development of *everyone*, and of course those without

Again you've concluded that this would be the consequence without argument or evidence.

I should have been more clear here. I was referring to a work situation where blacks and whites were already working together. That says nothing about refusing to work with those of another race, or still perpetuating a pay differential etc. I'm specifically referring to having employees (not slaves), and giving the better job/task to an incompetent white person over a highly competent minority.

OK in that case what you're discussing is totally irrelevant to the argument.