/lit/ - Literature

>>18786765
I'm guessing based upon their pictures alone that the authors don't acknowledge racial differences in intelligence and behaviour in their explanation of unequal outcomes lmao

>>18787699
Shut up Cletus

>>18787699
cope, you are afraid of getting schooled, so you just judge people of pictures

>>18786765
I like that book too. Read Frantz Fanon - Wretched of the Earth

>>18787712
Is my guess wrong though?

>>18786765
So fucking good dude.

>>18787742
how about you read the book and find out?
Based on your comment, in terms of racial analysis I can tell you that the Fields sisters are playing chess and you're stuck playing checkers

>>18787766
You're still dodging his question.

VERY cringe. I'm beginning to doubt you even read it if you can't confirm/deny his remarks and elucidate.

>>18787766
You haven't provided an incentive to read the book (if you're actually advocating for it, the least you could do is a need a question regarding content).

>>18787771
*answer

>>18787766
So no?

>>18787776
no

>>18787766
Oof, yikes

>>18787767
Look at this page.>>18787750
Seems like they are aware of the issue. Since they actually got published, they must deny it.

>>18786765
I don't know what you expected to happen posting this on /lit/ and not have a response prepared for this question.

>>18786765
Hey OP, what did you like about the book especially? Any nuanced takes you don't see anywhere else? What did you find most compelling?

>>18787767
>>18787771
>>18787776
>>18787783
all these posts, and yet the number of posters remains the same.
Racecraft is about the cultural construction of race. It's explicitly anti-biological, anti-essentialist. It comes down as mostly critical of liberal racism and liberal identitarianism, but also rejects rightoid ideas such as a racial soul or universal racial characteristics.
Seems like you hold these ideas. You might want to check out the more popular refutation of those ideas, if only to refine your thoughts.

>>18787833
So it's gibberish in the vein of Sylvia Wynter? We know that race is a folk taxonomy, any other revolutionary ideas?

>>18787833
>It's explicitly anti-biological, anti-essentialist
So you are saying it is anti-science

>>18787833
>all these posts, and yet the number of posters remains the same.
You autistic faggot, there's multiple people.
>It's explicitly anti-biological
But that's retarded.
So what did you get out of this book? How has it changed your views?

>>18787833
>racial soul or universal racial characteristics.
Le different averages face

>>18787833
Lmao. https://www.wired.com/story/these-algorithms-look-x-rays-detect-your-race/

Maybe the best contemporary book on this topic, OP. Shame more haven’t read it. It immediately does away with all the hollow liberal “anti-racism” both academia and social movements are full of, and, it goes without saying, the entire worldview of microcephalic /pol/tards. All of Barbara Fields’ essays are great, but if you’re looking for other texts like this, i.e. scientific accounts of the construction of race, Oliver C. Cox is a great predecessor.

>>18790176
You have no idea how ironic it is to use the word microcephalic in that post do you

>>18790180
>le funny german simpson man

>>18787766
Hello Ms. Fields, it seems you aren't aware of this, but you do have to post a picture of your breasts or feet to use 4chan as a female. please send sexually provocative pictures in order to continue posting.
regards, anonymous