Taking an African-American literature course (it's a requirement for the English major)

Whites still have cultural hedgemony, white supremacy cast a huge shadow over our current political climate, and much of our criminal justice system and other state administrative functions are still occupied by white supremacist ghosts.
I think your professor is being a bit dramatic, which doesn't serve the seriousness of the circumstances justice. Either that or you have some kind coping mechanism fucking with you.
Here check this out
youtu.be/GkYZtfxj0RM

>outing yourself as american
ew

it's not that they should be "discounted" because of being racist. its that racism has to be understood as a material, ideological (back)ground upon which the supposedly "pure" insights of radical empiricism and transcendental philosophy found themselves.

I think we should take pride in the results western society has produced, even if ethnic disparity exists

>hedgemony
blacky is in over his head here

What sort of white supremacy culture positively discriminates against a demographic of net drains?

But don't take it too seriously, because it's in no way our personal achievement. It's like saying that you're proud because you have curly hair: it's fine when you say it casually but if you actually expect to be given any priviledge because of that you're crazy.

Holy... an intelligent post not infected with distorting reactionary emotions or blind liberal pandering. Where am I?

Every culture on Earth is white supremacist because whites are superior to non-whites in every way, everywhere.

i would think i have more to do with the achievements of my ancestors than an Asian or African person. values have been passed down through generations and i'm more likely to be taught similar values to those that were held by people that made achievements in the past. Doesn't mean i will use the position i was given at birth at all though, see me posting on Veeky Forums

it did. I don't know how to prove it, so you'll just have to take my word for it

I'm required to take a "literature in context" course for the English major.
It was either this, queer literature, or disabilities in literature.
I would've like to take a course on literature in the digital age that fulfilled this requirement, but it didn't fit in my schedule

which school? hey at least you're hearing the garbage arguments from the horse's mouth first so you can explain things in a way that makes sense to these indoctrinated people later on.

Yes, and so?

Also, if blacks ever developed a philosophical culture, they would have probably said the same thing about whites

Discrimination between races and ethnic groups is normal and has always been: the Japanese were very discriminating towards Europeans, Greek thinkers (Aristotle and Plato among others) outright believed that non-Greeks were naturally inferior, Arabs believed blacks to be inferior, et cetera et cetera

You may try to fight it, but naturally different races tend to discriminate one another

OP Kant said a lot of bad shit about women too.
What you should you do is pretend to be a feminist and accuse your teacher of being a misogynist because she willfully ignored the parts where Kant shits on women.

I think you're dumb

Does your prof say Kant and Hume should be discounted for their opinions on race? It's a tall order to try to top every philosopher who's written something considered tasteless to today's ears. If your prof thinks Hume and Kant should be wholly ignored you should extrapolate on that idea and ask him if Plato, Aristotle should also be ignored, and where it leaves a society that discards all these excellent examples of human beings (that society likely belongs in chains as slaves to a greater society)

Im with u, my brother
The evil trump racscists will be sorry when we gone

will white American men ever become uncucked enough to start another race war?

I had a course on Nietzsche where the professor spent two entire weeks trying to convince the class that he was not an anti-semite and a supporter of Nazism. Bitch who gives a fuck if some retards think he's a nazi, get with the damn course.

Thankfully I dropped from philosophy and am a STEMfag now.

?

what the hell happened?!

logical extent

>the telos of marxist thought is both extreme prejudice towards one demographic and the equal treatment of all demographics
wow regale us with more wisdom, Doctor Philosophy

you're saying the point was lost along the way?

>posting Abby Martin
How did you get here?

My theory hinges on two facts: a) left-wing people stopped caring about economics; and b) became too pussified by the progress of industrial society. Studying economics seriously is terribly hard, and I doubt your day to day guy would think about it in a meaningful way. But they can still take some credit if the cling to some small point about identity politics, which is comprised of very easily assimilated concepts and can be used to critique stuff without thinking too much. The pussification meant that there is no actual furor aimed against the system, thus squashing any possibility of overthrowing the government. And, due to 'a', even if such a revolutionary spirit existed, people wouldn't know what to do next. Lenin had very clear goals: industrialize Russia. Now things are less clear.

> the equal treatment of all demographics
tell me more about how every child born is a blank slate with the same IQ as every other child. should i, a lazy shit posting on Veeky Forums, be given the same power as my hardworking coworker who i see with his brain running at much higher speeds than mine? should my words be treated as equal to his?

>ideological (back)ground upon which the supposedly "pure" insights of radical empiricism and transcendental philosophy found themselves.
How does it affect the latter?
That seems like a good case for normalizing racist proclivity, instead of using it to condemn western society as a whole because some shut in from Prussia had negative views on Black people he never saw. I mean how could they even be people to him? He probably just read about them from 1700s manuscripts that probably lumped them with monkeys

>thinking Marx thought all people were equal and had the same capabilities

kek you must be American

>It's like saying that you're proud because you have curly hair
Except it's not even close, we're talking about cultural-linguistic backgrounds that will affect who grew up in them. Or are you just an American who thinks the world revolves around white vs black?

prob because the logical extent has been demonstrated as a catastrophic failure. how can you expect every leader born from today until the end of time will be coldly rational but also possess great admiration for his subservient populace?

> thinking this isn't the core of Marxism
why would everyone deserve the same respect if they haven't done anything to deserve it?

I've been here for a long time.
I don't know too much about Abby besides that I would and she is probably a lib Marxist which is silly but not the least agreeable thing in the world by far. All I know is empire files is a quality production. This is relevant and worth posting and watching it shouldn't be any trouble to anyone with a shred of skepticism. Regardless of the personalities involved.

>thinking American is a bad thing
oh boy i can't wait to learn so much from your highly educated and productive society. why don't you break it down for my tiny American brain because it's very hard for me i think very slowly

>implying fat black woman arbitrarily demanding money = common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange

>Leninism =/= Marxism
or is that bait

>>thinking American is a bad thing
>not thinking this

please explain mr. smarty pants.. and type slowly my small American brain has a hard time, you understand you can sympathize

The only thing the humanities had going for them, in terms of practicality, was the promise of teaching students how to "think critically". Now that radical lefty ideologues have taken over the departments, the soul of the university has been compromised. It's only a matter of time before the system crumbles under the weight of its incompetence and stratifies from infighting among the different groups who make up the rainbow coalition.

But that's what i'm saying you fucking retarded. The guy whom I quoted asked 'What happened?' and showed a picture of Lenin in contrast with some fat black lady.

>Lenin wasnt a marxist!

hey mister smart euro, do you have time to read this post () and make a response to it? i understand if you don't have a lot of time on your hands, you're probably off doing smart people stuff, i totally understand if it isn't really at your intellectual level because you weren't damned to a lowly American education (heh heh burgers amirite??)

>why would everyone deserve the same respect if they haven't done anything to deserve it?

Are you literally retarded? I guess you must be from Vermont or something.

do you treat your father with the same respect that you treat the migrant sleeping with your sister?

Sorry, Miguel Alejandro Johnson, I don't know what you're talking about.

or better yet do you think an American deserves the same respect that a smart Euro deserves? Where would a lowly servile burger like myself fit into your utopia? How would you support all the stupid burgers? they'd likely bring the society down to their own level right?

You'd fit right in, my fellow low-self-esteem burger. You too are a human being who doesn't deserve to be subjected to the tyranny of capital.

why dont you both fuck off with this dumbass pol posting

> my shithole country that i barely see because i live in a basement is marginally better than your shithole country that you never see because you live in a basement

who the fuck cares

i think my point has been made, au revoir friends

>disabilities in literature.
>want to take this class
>blind with club hands

Could also just be Lenin was a notable person and people of note have been brushed away by all political mongrels.

"Back in the days of the Roman Empire, Cicero warned his fellow Romans not to buy British slaves, because he found them hard to teach anything. A 10th-century Moslem scholar noted that Europeans grew more pale the farther north they were and that the "farther they are to the north the more stupid, gross, and brutish they are."

With our love of labels today, we might dismiss both these statements as "racism." In reality, both statements were probably true, as of the time they were made. At the very least, the people who said these things were eyewitnesses, which we cannot possibly be.
Britain was a primitive, illiterate, tribal land at a time when the Roman Empire was in its glory as one of the most advanced civilizations on earth. A Briton transplanted to Rome in captivity must have found this complex civilization completely baffling and was probably none too quick to understand instructions on what to do and how to do it in such a wholly unfamiliar setting.

As of the 10th century, the Islamic world was more advanced than Europe in general and far more advanced than the northern regions of Europe, which had for centuries lagged behind Mediterranean Europe. The relative development of these different regions of Europe, especially in economic terms, would be reversed in later centuries, but what the Moslem scholar said in the 10th century was probably still true then."

Well actually I'm American, and a main tenet of Marxism is defining not only history by modes of production, but people as well. Meaning Marx thought a large part of your identity came from your labor and what you produced, and in the event you were estranged from the product and the labor itself turned into a commodity, your life would be defined by that object. So it doesn't equate everyone, in fact it is literally all about an individuals capability of labor, and how that gives them a right to labor surplus. It's been a while since I read Marx, but I suggest you actually do so instead of throwing out frankly fucking retarded posts about how Marx was a Russian Communist or how Russian Communists are contemporary sociologists who believe in equality of outcome and discursive power structures based on identity. This is why people here complain about /pol/

Well, that's obvious. But the shift in tone is very visible. If you check old Soviet propaganda movies and videos, they were all about production and achievement: industry, space exploration, excellency in sports, science and mathematics. Now it's all gone to hell and only the likes of Peterson (right wing loonies) still talk about duty and progress.

now here's a thoughtful response! i thought i'd been lost for a second, what is the sense in asking if i was an American in the first place? I have been curious about the attractiveness of Marxism as it can't be as simple as what Peterson lays out while holding such a large following. Would you say that Marx would abolish private property? Wouldn't entitlement to a labor surplus mean that some individuals would end up with more power than others? Wouldn't that end up promoting the same cycle he sought to disrupt?

I haven't read a lot of Marx, only really the labor estrangment theory because I thought it applicable on an indivdual level. I think you need to ground any of Marx or Engel's statements in the social conditions of their day, and more importantly in the ones they predicted.
>Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Marx wrote like that a lot, informal, eccentric at times, not what you'd expect.
You have to remember what they defined the Proletariat and Capital as, and from what I understand private property usually meant means of production, to Engels atleast the notion of private property of an artisan or middle class was going to be appropiated by bourgeoisie anyway.
But I'm no Marxist desu, I just read, if I remember correctly they defined Capital as a social product because it requires a collective to produce, so collectivisng it wouldn't do away with any private aspect other than the misappropiation of it by bourgeoisie. Sound like bullshit? It kind of is, since it relies on the validity of Labor Surplus value theory and class antagonism as the basis of wealth distribution; the former has been disproven apparently, no suprises there. Marx is interesting as a historical thinker, as a materialist Hegelian who undertook analysis of history on that basis. Thats how I read him anyway, if anyone has insight or if I got something wrong (you) me

Seconding this. All giving to the weakest link does is hold us back. Why the fuck should we care about someone who’s only drives in life are to do drugs and fuck as opposed to becoming something greater? Why do we have to act like these people matter? Why do they deserve anything from those who are most productive? All this does is de-encentivize working and providing for yourself if it will be taken and given to some dumbass parasite.

I wish we were living in a white supremacy culture, I hate 98% of the niggers I have encountered throughout my life.

lol wtf

forgot image

Oh wow so I guess whites in countries where they are the numerical minority are off the hook now! Someone call South Africa and tell them the genocide is cancelled.

>american wit

wrong heil hand J. Pete

XD

They were racists and pretty explicitly, see Kant’s Anthropology, Hegel’s history of the world. But of course this needs to be historicized. Also Kant’s racism can be altogether detached from his broader system, which is why most people have no idea about it, for Hegel it’s a bit more difficult because his whole notion of history is tied to Eurocentrism, and history is central to his bigger system.

The bigger notion of the western canon has roots in white supremacist ideology but that’s another thing

It's bizarre that in order to discuss African-American literature, you have to begin by undermining "white" literature or the "white" canon. It's as though the professors don't believe that African American works could stand tall enough on their own merit to share a pedestal and have resorted to attacking everything that already stands taller. I'm currently reading Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, and it has more than enough merit of its own to be discussed without silencing the voices of other works just because whitey wrote them.

because it's not about african-american literature. It's an excuse to further political and tribal ends. they've probably never read or cared about it.

>philosophers never create hypothetical situations in order to elucidate important understandings about complex issues
I thought philosophers were supposed to be thoughtful.

this is some quality bait

whoa... are you a radical centrist?

>Whites still have cultural hedgemony

Yes goyim. And the only way you can stop being racist is to throw away the EVIL European culture and let Tyrone fuck your wife as a (((reparation)))

>there is white supremacy
>other races are still around
does not compute

Naw man he's talking about the monies kept by white people in they hedges. You SEEN them hedges? Shiiiiiet.

FIXED

...

If we were living in a white supremacist country there wouldn't be any non-whites.
You know, like in just about every other society.

>Are we living in a white supremacy culture?
DAS RITE

First of ask him whats "white"?
Second of ask him what white supremacy mean?

You can do all you want after you go back to europe. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this hard to get?

>paypal me
absolutely based

Ashleigh Shackelford is an American treasure.

Ok. But do you also think we should try to make things a little better? Or is that futile.

>what the hell happened?!
you put two pictures next to each other, then labeled one of them correctly and the other incorrectly in order to promote your reactionary views
that's about it

>Whites still have cultural hedgemony
Examples, please.

>?
Go back to your pottery class.

yeah but all cultures are white supremacist, whyte genes are associated with all the strongest traits. In every society in human history, the people with the longer faces, narrower mouths, sharper more hooded eyes, thin lips, aqualine noses, palest skin tone were the aristocratic class. Globablly without fail this phenotype is considered superior, more desirable sexually and associated with nobility. What are they going to do about this? Its universal like their belief in intelligence is, so obviously these equally intelligent races all somehow came to the same conclusion that white skin and light hair, developed progressive physiognomy with angular features is the most appealing and dominant. Doesn't seem like any kind of tragedy, more just nature

>descendants of slaves
>15% of the population
>In a country built by white pilgrims
>All of wich come from a culture superior to yours
>Most of wich where examples of some of the best people from said culture
>Somehow end up at the bottom of society even with all the help you can possibly get
>Somehow end up being used as a weapon by politicians
>Keep saying that your community is your biggest strength even tho it has been proven that you do better when you are separated from each other
It must be racism

What do you mean what happened, this is what is.

Spooky