4 ms·

While I agree that no one should have their identity defined by their ethnicity, that does not describe many of these books. Perhaps none, it's presumptuous to

While I agree that no one should have their identity defined by their ethnicity, that does not describe many of these books. Perhaps none, it's presumptuous to say that an author writing about oppression wants to increase divisiveness. Beyond that, there is no shortage of people in favor of book bans that absolutely believe in ethnically-defined identity.

rayiner 1y ago
If you’re in a room full of white people and you’re reading a book about Chinese railroad workers, then you’re correct that’s not divisive. If you add some asian kids, and then treat the Asian kids indistinguishable from the white kids—everyone is a modern american reading about history—that’s also not divisive. But what you have in schools today is an additional layer on top of that, where the non-white kids are treated differently than the white kids. The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t. At my kids school, they have racially segregated “affinity” groups to facilitate this. My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid). I know that sounds like something I just made up but it’s absolutely true. This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity. Specifically, they generalize african american racial identity and solidarity and politics to all non-whites. If you walk into a book reading for some of this stuff, you’ll find way more people promoting “brown people” ethnic identity and solidarity than you will find people promoting “white people” ethnic identity and solidarity at a Trump rally. The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.”
- UltraSane 1y ago
  I truly cannot fathom how anybody can listen to Trump talk for more than 5 minutes and read more than one of his moronic truth social posts and his constant lies and then still be a supporter.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  I hear what you're saying, and agree with large parts of it. Ethnic background shouldn't override individual autonomy. But... > The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.” ... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). It'd be nice if the reasonable people from both parties could ignore their extremist wings, get to together, and realize they have more in common than different.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). Actually, it's back to 1868[0] at least that they'd like[1] (rolling back birthright citizenship) to go. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14160 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14160
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). This is a relatively small number in comparison to the chunk of Harris supporters who would call color blindness “racist.” In my own experience, “brown” ethno-narcissism and ethnic tribalism is more accepted, and even encouraged, among liberals than white ethno-nationalism is tolerated among conservatives. This is a result of the political incentives of the respective parties. Republicans don’t need white nationalism, they can win when minorities are assimilated into the what the dominant Anglo-American culture (what the left might call “multiracial whiteness”). That’s basically what’s happened in Florida: Hispanics retain their culture in the way Irish and Italian Americans do, but don’t have a strong ethnic identity that is politically motivating.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
- jtanderson 1y ago
  Is your example here a bit oblique to the point? I see this more of a failing of the people to properly appreciate and discuss/process the contents of the book, and as well as, in my opinion, socially overcompensating for the diversity in the room? I definitely see your point around a lot of people trying to be so inclusive, they end up being somewhat racist. But I see this more of a lack of proper cultural empathy/education -- go figure, Dunning-Kruger is everywhere all the time. But as you said, > This law is about what books are in public libraries. So why would we ban the books, rather than encourage reading them and having the more meaningful discussions focusing on heritage rather than identity? As a slightly more abstract aside, identity anything to me is a slippery slope because it will always automatically encourage one to make assumptions; it's a mental shortcut to say Person A == Person B iff PersonA.identity == PersonB.identity. Given that education is hard, learning is hard, and life is hard, I think we need to at least emphathize and appreciate that teachers and the the education system in general need to often fall back on these sorts of mental shortcuts. But that's we need to really invoke our right, privilege, and duty of grassroots participation. Why not walk into that book club that's overcompensating and help them learn what is making you uncomfortable? You might be surprised at how ignorant they were of their own mistakes and that they're willing to learn from your perspective.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > I definitely see your point around a lot of people trying to be so inclusive, they end up being somewhat racist. But it’s not inclusiveness at all, it’s a caste system. In academic liberal spaces, non-whites are not “included” on the same terms as whites. We are bucketed into a separate caste subject to different standards and expectations. And that caste system plays out in routine social interactions, because white people afraid of being called “racist” will not treat you the same. Calling it “heritage” instead of identity doesn’t change anything. Your average second-generation non-white American has weak ties to any non-american society. My kids have no meaningful ties to Bangladeshi society, only superficial ones. They can’t, and they wouldn’t even like it if they did. So the only outcome of talking to them about their “heritage” would be to encourage them to see themselves differently from their peers based on connections that are at best superficial. As to your point about “banning”—we’re not banning the book club. This law is about school libraries. People are voting for what kind of ideas their children are socialized into, which is one of the fundamental rights as a parent.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid). > This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity. Beverly Bond, who holds the trademark, was an influencer avant la lettre. She wanted to make a brand—looks line like a clothing line, followed by a TV show, then a podcast. I get that it’s tempting to blame everything on radical leftist academics or whatever but that’s not what happened here. This is simply capitalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Girl_Magic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Girl_Magic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Bond https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Bond
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Most people who aren't radical Leftists aren't going to agree with you that radical Leftists aren't primarily responsible for the experience described by Rayiner just because a personal profit motive was involved in addition to the ideological motive. You might believe that if an ideological Leftist motive can be kept separate from motives of personal enrichment, then it cannot do significant harm. But most US voters would disagree with you about that: they believe that it can be harmful to believe that there is an oppressive structure at the center of American society if in fact there is not an oppressive structure at the center of American society.
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
      When people say “radical leftists caused my gout” or “fascists gave me arthritis” I think they should stop for a second and consider where lies the proximate cause of their inconvenience, instead of clinging to convenient, if emotionally satisfying, myths. Your assumptions about my motives are incorrect.
      - Chris2048 1y ago
        What is the ridiculous effect attributed to "radical leftists" you are responding to that you believe is the same as "caused my gout"?
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  It's not an ideal situation for sure. Some want their heritage to be their identity. Some do not. Academia tries to accommodate both. Meanwhile we are slowly trying to fix the lingering effects of centuries of injustice where solidarity is one of the few tools to fight people in power who want to return to unjust times. I'm not sure the best option is to vote for the country club guy whose public statements strongly indicate reports of his private statements on race are accurate. The guy who has kept Stephen Miller around for a decade and talked the proud boys into being the armed second wave of Jan 6. Then pardoned them. Speaking for myself, even if Trump is somehow the shining light of a post-discrimination society (after failing to do so in his first term), it can't possibly offset the damage he wants to do the economy, consumer protection, and national security.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  How does banning the handmaid's tail fix any of these problems exactly?
- kristjansson 1y ago
  > [90s] didn’t talk about the race “April 26 1992. There was a riot in the streets tell me where were you”
- const_cast 1y ago
  > The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t. Well, um, yeah. That's because white people just aren't oppressed. Its the same way I don't identify with feminist literature. I can read it, understand it, enjoy it - but I can never fully relate, because I'm not a woman and the way I experience the patriachy will always be different. Of course black people identify with or relate more to something like the color purple. That doesn't mean the color purple is racist.
  - Chris2048 1y ago
    > the way I experience the patriarchy will always be different Then how can you evaluate feminist literature to be accurate?
    - const_cast 1y ago
      The same way I evaluate my doctor to be doing a good job - trust. Your experience in life will always represent a tiny tiny fraction of one percent of all experiences. If you require a "see it to believe it" approach, you will live and die closed-minded. That does not mean I need to blindly trust feminists, however.
      - Chris2048 1y ago
        I don't trust my doctor, or any doctor. I do my own research and if anything seems fishy I get a second opinion. but then, maybe I can trust a statistically relevant sample of doctor on the basis they are objectively and scientifically trained, regulated and liable?

rayiner 1y ago

If you’re in a room full of white people and you’re reading a book about Chinese railroad workers, then you’re correct that’s not divisive. If you add some asian kids, and then treat the Asian kids indistinguishable from the white kids—everyone is a modern american reading about history—that’s also not divisive. But what you have in schools today is an additional layer on top of that, where the non-white kids are treated differently than the white kids. The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t. At my kids school, they have racially segregated “affinity” groups to facilitate this. My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid). I know that sounds like something I just made up but it’s absolutely true. This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity. Specifically, they generalize african american racial identity and solidarity and politics to all non-whites. If you walk into a book reading for some of this stuff, you’ll find way more people promoting “brown people” ethnic identity and solidarity than you will find people promoting “white people” ethnic identity and solidarity at a Trump rally. The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.”

UltraSane 1y ago
I truly cannot fathom how anybody can listen to Trump talk for more than 5 minutes and read more than one of his moronic truth social posts and his constant lies and then still be a supporter.
ethbr1 1y ago
I hear what you're saying, and agree with large parts of it. Ethnic background shouldn't override individual autonomy. But... > The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.” ... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). It'd be nice if the reasonable people from both parties could ignore their extremist wings, get to together, and realize they have more in common than different.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). Actually, it's back to 1868[0] at least that they'd like[1] (rolling back birthright citizenship) to go. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14160 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14160
- rayiner 1y ago
  > there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). This is a relatively small number in comparison to the chunk of Harris supporters who would call color blindness “racist.” In my own experience, “brown” ethno-narcissism and ethnic tribalism is more accepted, and even encouraged, among liberals than white ethno-nationalism is tolerated among conservatives. This is a result of the political incentives of the respective parties. Republicans don’t need white nationalism, they can win when minorities are assimilated into the what the dominant Anglo-American culture (what the left might call “multiracial whiteness”). That’s basically what’s happened in Florida: Hispanics retain their culture in the way Irish and Italian Americans do, but don’t have a strong ethnic identity that is politically motivating.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
jtanderson 1y ago
Is your example here a bit oblique to the point? I see this more of a failing of the people to properly appreciate and discuss/process the contents of the book, and as well as, in my opinion, socially overcompensating for the diversity in the room? I definitely see your point around a lot of people trying to be so inclusive, they end up being somewhat racist. But I see this more of a lack of proper cultural empathy/education -- go figure, Dunning-Kruger is everywhere all the time. But as you said, > This law is about what books are in public libraries. So why would we ban the books, rather than encourage reading them and having the more meaningful discussions focusing on heritage rather than identity? As a slightly more abstract aside, identity anything to me is a slippery slope because it will always automatically encourage one to make assumptions; it's a mental shortcut to say Person A == Person B iff PersonA.identity == PersonB.identity. Given that education is hard, learning is hard, and life is hard, I think we need to at least emphathize and appreciate that teachers and the the education system in general need to often fall back on these sorts of mental shortcuts. But that's we need to really invoke our right, privilege, and duty of grassroots participation. Why not walk into that book club that's overcompensating and help them learn what is making you uncomfortable? You might be surprised at how ignorant they were of their own mistakes and that they're willing to learn from your perspective.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > I definitely see your point around a lot of people trying to be so inclusive, they end up being somewhat racist. But it’s not inclusiveness at all, it’s a caste system. In academic liberal spaces, non-whites are not “included” on the same terms as whites. We are bucketed into a separate caste subject to different standards and expectations. And that caste system plays out in routine social interactions, because white people afraid of being called “racist” will not treat you the same. Calling it “heritage” instead of identity doesn’t change anything. Your average second-generation non-white American has weak ties to any non-american society. My kids have no meaningful ties to Bangladeshi society, only superficial ones. They can’t, and they wouldn’t even like it if they did. So the only outcome of talking to them about their “heritage” would be to encourage them to see themselves differently from their peers based on connections that are at best superficial. As to your point about “banning”—we’re not banning the book club. This law is about school libraries. People are voting for what kind of ideas their children are socialized into, which is one of the fundamental rights as a parent.
TimorousBestie 1y ago
> My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid). > This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity. Beverly Bond, who holds the trademark, was an influencer avant la lettre. She wanted to make a brand—looks line like a clothing line, followed by a TV show, then a podcast. I get that it’s tempting to blame everything on radical leftist academics or whatever but that’s not what happened here. This is simply capitalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Girl_Magic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Girl_Magic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Bond https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Bond
- hollerith 1y ago
  Most people who aren't radical Leftists aren't going to agree with you that radical Leftists aren't primarily responsible for the experience described by Rayiner just because a personal profit motive was involved in addition to the ideological motive. You might believe that if an ideological Leftist motive can be kept separate from motives of personal enrichment, then it cannot do significant harm. But most US voters would disagree with you about that: they believe that it can be harmful to believe that there is an oppressive structure at the center of American society if in fact there is not an oppressive structure at the center of American society.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    When people say “radical leftists caused my gout” or “fascists gave me arthritis” I think they should stop for a second and consider where lies the proximate cause of their inconvenience, instead of clinging to convenient, if emotionally satisfying, myths. Your assumptions about my motives are incorrect.
    - Chris2048 1y ago
      What is the ridiculous effect attributed to "radical leftists" you are responding to that you believe is the same as "caused my gout"?
cosmicgadget 1y ago
It's not an ideal situation for sure. Some want their heritage to be their identity. Some do not. Academia tries to accommodate both. Meanwhile we are slowly trying to fix the lingering effects of centuries of injustice where solidarity is one of the few tools to fight people in power who want to return to unjust times. I'm not sure the best option is to vote for the country club guy whose public statements strongly indicate reports of his private statements on race are accurate. The guy who has kept Stephen Miller around for a decade and talked the proud boys into being the armed second wave of Jan 6. Then pardoned them. Speaking for myself, even if Trump is somehow the shining light of a post-discrimination society (after failing to do so in his first term), it can't possibly offset the damage he wants to do the economy, consumer protection, and national security.
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
How does banning the handmaid's tail fix any of these problems exactly?
kristjansson 1y ago
> [90s] didn’t talk about the race “April 26 1992. There was a riot in the streets tell me where were you”
const_cast 1y ago
> The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t. Well, um, yeah. That's because white people just aren't oppressed. Its the same way I don't identify with feminist literature. I can read it, understand it, enjoy it - but I can never fully relate, because I'm not a woman and the way I experience the patriachy will always be different. Of course black people identify with or relate more to something like the color purple. That doesn't mean the color purple is racist.
- Chris2048 1y ago
  > the way I experience the patriarchy will always be different Then how can you evaluate feminist literature to be accurate?
  - const_cast 1y ago
    The same way I evaluate my doctor to be doing a good job - trust. Your experience in life will always represent a tiny tiny fraction of one percent of all experiences. If you require a "see it to believe it" approach, you will live and die closed-minded. That does not mean I need to blindly trust feminists, however.
    - Chris2048 1y ago
      I don't trust my doctor, or any doctor. I do my own research and if anything seems fishy I get a second opinion. but then, maybe I can trust a statistically relevant sample of doctor on the basis they are objectively and scientifically trained, regulated and liable?