Lin Chun, The Transformation of Chinese Socialism (2006)
.PDF (alternative link)
In this significant contribution to both political theory and China studies, Lin Chun provides a critical assessment of the scope and limits of socialist experiments in China, analyzing their development since the victory of the Chinese communist revolution in 1949 and reflecting on the country’s likely paths into the future. Lin suggests that China’s twentieth-century trajectory be grasped in terms of the collective search by its people for a modern alternative to colonial modernity and capitalist subordination. Evaluating contending interpretations of the formation and transformation of Chinese socialism in the contemporary conditions of global capitalism, Lin argues that the post-Mao reform model must be remade.
Found from various places online:
Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde
Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic
The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America- Robert M. Entman and Andrew Rojecki
Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism - bell hooks
Feminism is for Everybody - bell hooks
outlaw culture - bell hooks
Faces at the Bottom of the Well - Derrick Bell
Sex, Power, and Consent - Anastasia Powell
I am Your Sister - Audre Lorde
Patricia Hill Collins - Black Feminist Thought
Gender Trouble - Judith Butler
Their Eyes Were Watching God - Zora Neale Hurston
Medical Apartheid - Harriet Washington
Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory - edited by Michael Warner
Colonialism/Postcolonialism - Ania Loomba
Discipline and Punish - Michel Foucault
Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher
Cultural Theory and Popular Culture - John Storey
Michel Foucault - The Archeology of Knowledge
(Sorry they aren’t organized very well.)
Edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun, Was Mao Really a Monster?: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday’s “Mao: The Unknown Story” (2009)
.PDF (alternative link)
Complete Introduction at China Study Group
Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday was published in 2005 to a great fanfare. The book predictably portrays Mao as a monster – equal to or worse than Hitler and Stalin – and a fool who won power by native cunning and ruled by terror. It received a rapturous welcome from reviewers in the popular press and rocketed to the top of the worldwide bestseller list. Few works on China by writers in the West have achieved its impact. Reviews by serious China scholars, however, tended to take a vastly different view. Most were sharply critical, questioning its authority and the authors’ methods, arguing that Chang and Halliday’s book is not at all a work of balanced scholarship, as it purports to be, but a highly selective and blatantly revisionist polemical study that sets out to demonize Mao and the achievements of Chinese Socialism. This book brings together sixteen reviews of Mao: The Unknown Story – all by internationally well-regarded specialists in modern Chinese history – and published in relatively specialized scholarly journals. Taken together, they demonstrate that Chang and Halliday’s portrayal of Mao is in most places wholly inaccurate. While agreeing that Mao had faults and bears responsibility for some unfortunate policies, they conclude that a far more balanced picture is needed, thus providing one.
Las Soldaderas were female soldiers who went into combat alongside men during the Mexican Revolution, which initially broke out in opposition to the conservative Díaz regime. The term comes from the Spanish word soldada which denotes a payment made to the person who provided for a soldier’s well being. The majority of these women led ordinary lives, but took up arms during the war to fight for freedom. Among the soldaderas, Dolores Jiménez y Muro, Margarita Neri, and Hermila Galindo are often considered heroines in contemporary Mexico.
Today, the term La Adelita is used with pride among Mexican women. La Adelita was the title of a corrido (folk ballad) about a soldadera named “Adelita” and became one of the most beloved songs to come out of the Revolution.
“Soldaderas,” camp followers in the revolution, cooked, nursed, and provided sexual and emotional comfort. Some fought and were executed in the course of battle. The image of “la soldadera,” the woman fighting on behalf of the Mexican community, was praised as a national symbol of strength and resistance. Yet it was an ambivalent image: praised within the context of an often mythicized revolution, the “soldaderas” were criticized for their relative sexual freedom and independence. The term “soldadera” became double edged. When used to describe an individual woman, it could be synonymous with “whore.”
Source reference by Devra Weber Oral History and Mexicana Farmworkers
harryhenry1 asked: Wow, you've shown me so many examples of people of color in medieval art, that i'm suprised that even professers of history seem to deny the there were POC in medieval europe! My question though, is this: has there been any research done as to when this white-washing of medieval europe began?
The amount of “science” devoted to proving that people of color were inherently inferior to white people was like…pretty much the ENTIRETY of “science” from the late 1700s to….well. [implying that this is to the present]
The internet just exists to to try to prove that PoC are inferior to whites. Same with mass production, quantum physics, cosmology, polio vaccines, driving the smallpox virus nearly to extinction (yes, people did this, the only smallpox left in the world is frozen in vaults somewhere, it’s awesome);
And, of course, robotics, graphene, trains, airplanes, and cars were all invented to prove white people are better than everyone else.
But it’s not fair to criticize science, technology, and engineering without moving on to mathematics. Linear algebra is some racist honky bullshit. In addition, analytic number theory is absolutely repulsive. Just look at how racist one of its so-called “important” ideas is:
The non-trivial zeros of the Zeta function all lie on the critical line with real part one-half, and also black people are subhuman monkeys
-The Riemann Hypothesis.
Some crackers offer one million dollars to whichever cracker can prove this. Disgusting and vile.
Aren’t you adorable. Do you really think this stuff is invented out of whole cloth by people on tumblr? The sad part is, you MUST, since apparently you’ve never had to experience any of it in any other realm of your life. Sadly, your innocence is much more repulsive than it is precious.
[tw: link contains descriptions of Black people being burned with acid and subjected to other “scientific” tortures] Conceptions and Perceptions of Human Difference: Albinos and Hermaphrodites in the Enlightenment (132-pg thesis on the birth of scientific racism):
In this case study of the attempt to understand blackness in the Enlightenment, many eighteenth century scientists and philosophers exploited science to create categories in the human species based on differences between the European norm and the black African.
Skin color served as a marker to define humans on a spectrum of quality, where Europeans were the prime example and Africans existed as lower ranks of degeneration from the white prototype.
Scientific evidence was harnessed to legitimize prevailing racial subjugation and human differentiation. Furthermore, based on “scientific” theories of degeneration and the development of blackness from disease, evidence concluded that the black African was an abnormal condition as opposed to the European.
Moreover, the specimenization of the black African led to scientific excuses to create racial hierarchies, where the white European stood above the inferior black African; and the black condition was clinicalized as a result. The resulting theory of blackness as a disease made the presence of the African in society detrimental and poisonous, thereby warranting its domination and control.
Science was used during the eighteenth century not as unbiased third-party source to assess the origin of the black African’s skin coloration, but as evidentiary support to racial inequities proposed by naturalists ideas through black dehumanization, abnormalization, and pathologization.
The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, and historian of science on the history of scientific racism)
Race and the Enlightenment: A Reader, edited by Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze:
Eze also includes a text by Hume that Kant used to justify his dismissal of Africans’ mental capacities. In a footnote to his essay “Of National Characters” (1748), Hume asserted “I am apt to suspect the Negroes and in general all other species of men… to be naturally inferior to the whites.” Kant quotes this footnote in his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1764) to support his claim that “the Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling” and thus possess monstrously defective aesthetic and moral sensibilities
And if you think that this kind of thinking ended then?
Well, North Carolina forcibly sterilized over 8,000 people, mostly poor Black women, between 1930 and 1980 under the jurisdiction of their Eugenics board, and the “science” behind that was supposedly the improvement of the human race by weeding out the “undesirables”…
Description for Black and Blue: The Origins and Consequences of Medical Racism, by John Hoberman:
Black & Blue is the first systematic description of how American doctors think about racial differences and how this kind of thinking affects the treatment of their black patients. The standard studies of medical racism examine past medical abuses of black people and do not address the racially motivated thinking and behaviors of physicians practicing medicine today.
Black & Blue penetrates the physician’s private sphere where racial fantasies and misinformation distort diagnoses and treatments. Doctors have always absorbed the racial stereotypes and folkloric beliefs about racial differences that permeate the general population. Within the world of medicine this racial folklore has infiltrated all of the medical sub-disciplines, from cardiology to gynecology to psychiatry. Doctors have thus imposed white or black racial identities upon every organ system of the human body, along with racial interpretations of black children, the black elderly, the black athlete, black musicality, black pain thresholds, and other aspects of black minds and bodies. The American medical establishment does not readily absorb either historical or current information about medical racism. For this reason, racial enlightenment will not reach medical schools until the current race-aversive curricula include new historical and sociological perspectives.
And of course, there’s Jason Richwine, who actually earned a degree from Harvard on his dissertation that postulated:
Actually, my next queued post addresses that in detail, particularly in regards to Art Education.
Quick-n-Dirty Version: it began during “The Enlightenment”, during colonization and the beginnings of chattel slavery. The idea of “White People” had just been invented, along with the idea of White supremacy. Basically, all the leading “scientific minds” directly benefited from genocide, kidnapping people an enslaving them, and stealing their land, resources, and skills.
And in order to justify this, it was very important to create this idea not just that “these people are in a subordinate position now”, it had to be retroactive. As in, “these people have never had any accomplishments, their culture is primitive, worthless, ugly, uninteresting, therefore whatever we do to them is okay/for their own good/helping them/better than leaving them to their own depravity” et cetera.
The amount of “science” devoted to proving that people of color were inherently inferior to white people was like…pretty much the ENTIRETY of “science” from the late 1700s to….well.
This asshat got his degree from Harvard on the premise that “Hispanics have lower IQs than American Whites” IN 2009.
And the consistent disenfranchisement of specifically Mestiz@ and other “not white” Mexican Americans has been documented by sociologist Richard Shingles, who says:
Shingles concludes it is an American problem brought on by the history of the nation’s oldest and largest Mexican American communities, a history that started with conquest and has excluded generations from the benefits of development. “Our past cannot be separated from our future.”
See how that works?
No past, no history, no context, just a huge group of people that are somehow “inherently inferior”, and coincidentally not historically f*cked over for hundreds of years. It’s about blaming the victims of racism for suffering from the results of racism.
That’s why they teach whitewashed history.
…he wrote that Hispanic immigrants have a substantially lower IQ than the white native-born population and that, because of the hereditary nature of IQ, this fact should be taken into consideration when designing immigration policy.
This work is problematic because it is part of a tradition of scientific racism, and because it is based on discredited ideas of intelligence testing and the relationship between racialised categories and genetic makeup.
But of course, all of these people are just overreeacting.
- Allen, Garland E. 1983. ‘‘The Misuse of Biological Hierarchies: The American Eugenics Movement, 1900–1940.’’ History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 5 (2): 105–128.
- Bachrach, Susan, and Dieter Kuntz. 2004. Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race. Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
- Barkan, Elazar. 1992. The Retreat of Scientific Racism . New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Barzun, Jacques. 1937. Race: A Study in Superstition . New York: Harcourt, Brace.
- Bowler, Peter. 1995. ‘‘Social Metaphors in Evolutionary Biology, 1879–1930: The Wider Dimension of Social Darwinism.’’ In Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors , edited by Sabine Maason, et al. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
- Brace, C. Loring. 1982. ‘‘The Roots of the Race Concept in American Physical Anthropology.’’ In A History of American Physical Anthropology, 1930–1980 , edited by Frank Spencer. New York: Academic Press.
- Chase, Allen. 1977. The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
- Dubow, Saul. 1995. Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa . New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Gillham, Nicholas Wright. 2001. A Life of Sir Francis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics . New York: Oxford University Press.
- Goddard, Henry H. 1942. ‘‘In Defense of the Kallikak Study.’’ Science 95: 574–576.
- Gould, Stephen Jay. 1978. ‘‘Morton’s Ranking of Races by Cranial Capacity.’’ Science 200: 503–509. ———. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
- 1998. ‘‘On Mental and Visual Geometry.’’ Isis 89: 502–504.
- Grant, Madison. 1916. The Passing of the Great Race . New York: Scribner.
- Graves, Joseph L. 2002. ‘‘The Misuse of Life History Theory: J. P. Rushton and the Pseudoscience of Racial Hierarchy.’’ In Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth , edited by Jefferson M. Fish. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Greene, John C. 1954. ‘‘Some Early Speculations on the Origin of Human Races. American Anthropologist 56: 31–41.
- Haller, John S., Jr. 1970. ‘‘The Species Problem: Nineteenth- Century Concepts of Racial Inferiority in the Origin of Man Controversy.’’ American Anthropologist 72: 1319–1329.
- Haraway, Donna J. 1988. ‘‘Remodelling the Human Way of Life: Sherwood Washburn and the New Physical Anthropology, 1950–1980.’’ In Bones, Bodies, Behavior: Essays on Biological Anthropology. History of Anthropology, vol. 5, edited by George W. Stocking. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- Hoberman, John. 1997. Darwin’s Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged America and Preserved the Myth of Race . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Hooton, Earnest A. 1936. ‘‘Plain Statements about Race.’’ Science 83: 511–513. Hrdlicka, Ales. 1914. ‘‘Physical Anthropology in America: An Historical Sketch.’’ American Anthropologist 16: 507–554.
- Isaac, Benjamin. 2004. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jackson, John J., Jr. 2001. ‘‘‘In Ways Unacademical’: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon’s The Origin of Races .’’ Journal of the History of Biology 34: 247–285.
- Kevles, Daniel J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics . Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Kline, Wendy. 2001. Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom . Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Kuhl, Stefan. 1994. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism . New York: Oxford University Press.
- Lieberman, Leonard. 2001. ‘‘How Caucasoids Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton.’’ Current Anthropology 42: 63–85.
- Lombardo, Paul A. 1985. ‘‘Three Generations, No Imbeciles: New Light on Buck v. Bell. ’’ New York University Law Review 60 (1): 30–62. ———. 2002. ‘‘‘The American Breed’: Nazi Eugenics and the Origins of the Pioneer Fund.’’ Albany Law 65: 748–828.
- Lurie, Edward. 1954. ‘‘Louis Agassiz and the Races of Man.’’ Isis 45: 227–242.
- Marks, Jonathan. 1995. Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History . New York: Aldine de Gruyter. ———. 2005 ‘‘Anthropology and The Bell Curve .’’ In Why America’s Top Pundits Are Wrong: Anthropologists Talk Back , edited by Catherine Besteman and Hugh Gusterson, 206–227. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Massin, Benoit. 1996. ‘‘From Virchow to Fischer: Physical Anthropology and ‘Modern Race Theories’ in Wilhelmine Germany.’’ In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition , edited by George Stocking. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- Mencken, Henry L. 1927. ‘‘On Eugenics.’’ Baltimore Sun, May 15, 1927. Muller, Hermann J. 1933. ‘‘The Dominance of Economics over Eugenics.’’ Scientific Monthly 37: 40–47.
- Mu ̈ ller-Hill, Benno. 1988. Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and Others: Germany 1933–1945. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Odom, H. H. 1967. ‘‘Generalizations of Race in Nineteenth- Century Physical Anthropology.’’ Isis (58): 5–18. Paul, Diane B., and Hamish G. Spencer. 1995. ‘‘The Hidden Science of Eugenics.’’ Nature 374: 302–304.
- Pearl, Raymond. 1927. ‘‘The Biology of Superiority.’’ The American Mercury 12: 257–266.
- Plotz, David. 2005. The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank . New York: Random House.
- Proctor, Robert N. 2003. ‘‘Three Roots of Human Recency: Molecular Anthropology, the Refigured Acheulean, and the UNESCO Response to Auschwitz.’’ Current Anthropology 44: 213–239.
- Provine, William B. 1973. ‘‘Geneticists and the Biology of Race Crossing.’’ Science 182: 790–796.
- Snowden, Frank M., Jr. 1948. ‘‘The Negro in Ancient Greece.’’ American Anthropologist 50: 31–44.
- Sommer, Marianne. 2005. ‘‘Ancient Hunters and their Modern Representatives: William Sollas’s (1849–1936) Anthropology from Disappointed Bridge to Trunkless Tree and the Instrumentalisation of Racial Conflict.’’ Journal of the History of Biology 38: 327–365.
- Stanton, William R. 1960. The Leopard’s Spots: Scientific Attitudes toward Race in America, 1815–59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Stocking, George W., Jr. 1966. ‘‘Franz Boas and the Culture Concept in Historical Perspective.’’ American Anthropologist 68: 867–882. ———. 1987. Victorian Anthropology . New York: Free Press.
- Tobias, Philip V. 2002. ‘‘Saartje Baartman: Her Life, Her Remains, and the Negotiations for their Repatriation from France to South Africa.’’ South African Journal of Science 98: 107–110.
- Tucker, William H. 1994. The Science and Politics of Racial Research . Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ———. 2002. The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
- Washburn, Sherwood L. 1951. ‘‘The New Physical Anthropology.’’ Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II. 13: 298-304.
- Weiner, Joseph S. 1957. ‘‘Physical Anthropology: An Appraisal.’’ American Scientist 45: 79–89
When an anti-sj speaks, prepare to hear the opposite of reality, fact and logic. Oh and medievalpoc, you are GREATNESS!
Suppose an evil king decides to do a twisted moral experiment on you. He tells you to kick a small child really hard, right in the face. If you do, he will end the experiment with no further damage. If you refuse, he will kick the child himself, and then execute that child plus a hundred innocent people.
The best solution is to somehow overthrow the king or escape the experiment. Assuming you can’t, what do you do?
There are certain moral philosophers who would tell you to refuse. Sure, the child would get hurt and lots of innocent people would die, but it wouldn’t, technically, be your fault. But if you kicked the child, well, that would be your fault, and then you’d have to feel bad about it.
But this excessive concern about whether something is your fault or not is a form of selfishness. If you sided with those philosophers, it wouldn’t be out of a concern for the child’s welfare - the child’s getting kicked anyway, not to mention executed - it would be out of concern with whether you might feel bad about it later. The desire involved is the desire to avoid guilt, not the desire to help others.
We tend to identify guilt as a sign that we’ve done something morally wrong, and often it is. But guilt is a faulty signal; the course of action which minimizes our guilt is not always the course of action that is morally right. A desire to minimize guilt is no more noble than any other desire to make one’s self feel good at the expense of others, and so a morality that follows the principle of according value to other people must worry about more than just feeling guilty.
Diasporic intimacy does not promise a comforting recovery of identity through shared nostalgia for the lost home and homeland. It might be seen as the mutual enchantment of two immigrants from different parts of the world or as the sense of the fragile coziness of a foreign home. just as one learns to live with alienation and reconciles oneself to the uncanniness of the world around and to the strangeness of the human touch, there comes a surprise, a pang of intimate recognition, a hope that sneaks in through the back door, punctuating the habitual estrangement of everyday life.
In a class I taught, we discussed the issue of spiritual appropriation. The white students told me how beneficial Native spirituality was to them and that they had to take part in these New Age movements because they find no other substitute. So I asked, even if the New Age movement is as beneficial to you as you say, do you have any responsibility to Native communities when you take part in these practices? What struck me was that no one had even considered this question before. This practice of taking without asking, the assumption that the needs of the taker are paramount whereas the needs of the one being taken from are irrelevant, mirrors the rape culture of the dominant society.
Thus, it is particularly ironic that this colonial practice, structured by sexual violence, is often perpetuated by white feminists in their efforts to heal from the wounds of patriarchal violence. Sadly, they do not consider how such practices may hinder Native women from healing as well. Native counselors generally agree that a strong cultural identity is essential if Native people are to heal from abuse because a Native woman’s healing entails not only healing from any personal abuse she has suffered but also from the patterned history of abuse against her family, her nation, and her environment. When white women appropriate Indian spirituality for their own benefit, for whatever reason, they continue this pattern of abuse against Indian peoples’ cultures. This exploitation has a specific negative impact on Native peoples’ ability to heal from abuse. Shelley McIntyre, formerly of the Minneapolis Indian Women’s Resource Center, complains that Native women who are trying to heal from abuse have difficulty finding their rootedness in Native culture because all they can find is Lynn Andrews or other ‘plastic medicine wo/men’ who masquerade as Indians for profit. It is unfortunate that, as many white women attempt to heal themselves from the damage brought on by Christian patriarchy, they are unable to do so in a way that is not parasitic on Native women. They continue the practice of their colonial fathers who sought paradise in Native lands without regard for the peoples of these lands.
Andrea Smith (via reiminister)
actually queuing this because it’s too heavy a brick of truth for me to handle right now, but holy shit
this is so. spot. ON.