Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani blamed Barack Obama — the nation's first Black president — for a deterioration of race relations in the United States.
On his Sunday radio program, Giuliani called Democrats "the party of slavery."
"These miserable anti-American leaders of the party of slave...
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
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?