413
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
413 points (90.9% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2130 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, his idea of "race relation" is going back to colored people in chains and white people with whips. Getting 40 or 50 years away from that is a good thing.
"The dominance of neoliberalism frames inequality as deriving from personal responsibility or the lack thereof and replaces structural analysis with a focus on “race relations.”" - Barbara Fields
The Jacobin lol
Always worth a read just for the chuckle.
Not the type to read an interview with leading scholars on this subject I take it.
A historian is not a leading scholar on economics. That's a Jacobin-level tale from ya there
A historian, with a Ph.D from Yale, Professor at Columbia University, first African American woman to earn tenure there, a multiple award winning author including the MacArthur's Fellows Program, who spent her professional career studying the concepts of race and racism in America.
But sure, throw out her point because a website you don't like talked about it.
Not only that but race and racism in America as a uniquely economic relation. One of her central thesis is that this notion of race developed out of economic relations and not the other way around as it is often presented, or in her words, "as though the point of slavery was to produce white supremacy instead of cotton." She argues that race is not a real biological category and against essentialist notions of race that suggest they are ontologically "real," and that race is invoked to explain and justify economic inequalities. She often invokes the absurdities within so-called "biracial" or "mixed" racial categories to highlight the lack of explanatory power race offers as a point of analysis.
None of this has anything to do with economics lol
First off, Neolibralism is broader in scope than just economics, reducing it to such shows a profound lack of knowledge on the subject.
Secondly, even if your limited definition was sufficient, the study of how economic systems affects racism and societal structures is a common topic amongst scholars in her field. Racism and racial divides directly impacted the social structures of the United States, economic systems also directly affect social structures, so (intentionally or otherwise) economic systems will have an effect on the divisions along racial lines.
Feel free to make continue glib assumptions that a respected scholar discussing a topic she spent her life researching must have missed your brilliant point that "economics is a different word than race", but the reality is that you are dismissing a well researched point out of ignorance on both the topic at hand, and the argument being made. But do us all a favor, the next time you don't know what you are talking about, read up or shut up.
Oh I will definitely continue to mock the Jacobin blaming every I'll in the world on "neoliberalism" because The Jacobin is not deserving of respect and "neoliberalism" loses all meaning when they say it.
I know more than you and everyone who now or ever has or will ever work at the Jacobin
"The Jacobin" sounds like how an old person says "the pokeymans." ITS PRONOUNCED JACOBIN MOM!
You're not wrong, and that's very funny
And that my foolish friend, is a genetic fallacy.
Their major area of study and impact as scholars is contextualizing the institution of slavery as a primarily economic relation. You're being confidently incorrect.
Jacobin is a leading left publication, if you're a right wing or liberal you probably don't agree with it's editorial stance, but dismissing leading scholars on a topic because of this is pure anti-intellectualism. Here's one of her essays Ideology and Race in American History that a prof seems to have hosted on their university site which contains some of her main ideas, you can lead a horse to water after all...
Jacobin is a rag, regardless of its leanings. It is poor quality reporting, writing, and commentary.
That it happens to be leftist is not part of why it sucks.
Yes you have made your opinion known, I would just say don't read it if it makes you uncomfortable. This is what happens when you get between an American and his anti-intellectualism I guess. For someone who is so self-aggrandizing about their superior intelligence it's surprising you don't know who someone as renown as Barbara Fields is. Your other pedestrian remarks make it obvious you don't know about the ideas being discussed here either.
It doesn't make me uncomfortable though. My OP says, straight out, that I read it for the laugh.
Same reason I read shit from Heritage Foundation.
Have you ever seen the old Nicktoons show Doug?
Only thing I'm hearing is that I need to share way more Jacobin links on lemmy now, but I'll block you so you can't see them, best of both worlds. Move over New Left Review it's Bhaskar's time to shine.
Lol have fun