Welcome to the main discussion thread for Michael Eric Dyson's Race Rules: Navigating the Color Line. Here I will pose some questions based on the reading. Feel free to ponder these privately or publicly here on the forum, and post any other questions or comments or thoughts you had while reading.
1. On page 39, Dyson asserts that both objectivity and reason "have been used to justify black suffering and death around the globe." Given this, are objectivity and reason really possible? How do we reclaim these concepts when they are used in the way Dyson describes?
2. On page 114, Dyson asks the question, "Would more support for positive hip-hop really have changed the trajectory given trends in the rest of society?" What do you think? How reflective is most commercial hip-hop of typical American society, and whose responsibility is it then to address the inherent issues?
3. On page 115, Dyson expounds on the hip-hop theme, saying, "The crossover of hip-hop to white teens is certainly a driving force behind the attack on black youth." Meaning that the more 'mainstream' and prevalent representations of black culture are, the more white fear is stoked and retaliation attempted. But isn't more representation a good thing? Do we just have to keep pushing this representation in hopes that it will one day be the norm, or is there some other way to address this?
4. Respond to this paragraph on page 142: " Black youth hang together - in gangs, crews, groups and so on - for affection and protection. And, yes, for distraction as well. In fact such behavior does not show an ethical estrangement from American society, but a feverish embrace of its pragmatic principles of survival. Black youth show a frightening moral intimacy with the traditions of American violence. Appealing to a distinction that moral philosophers have made for centuries, the behavior of juvenocrats may not be reasonable - its effect on communities, homes and schools is unreasonably destructive - but in light of the violence and poverty black youth face, the behavior of juvenocrats is certainly rational."
5. Page 157: "To get beyond race, to transcend it, really expresses the national need to get beyond blackness per se." Is there anything else that could be meant when white people (because isn't it almost all white people?) say this? Do you think this is true?
6. Page 222: "The Supreme Court's judgments underscore a dilemma the court has failed to successfully address: how our nation can overcome racism without taking race into account." Is a post-racial society truly possible given the colorblind philosophy many Americans seem to have adopted? This of course leads into many discussions regarding Affirmative Action - is it helpful or hurtful to consider race in its contexts? Is it both, or neither? If we do away with Affirmative Action, is there any other viable alternative?
Stay tuned for our next book announcement coming soon.
1. On page 39, Dyson asserts that both objectivity and reason "have been used to justify black suffering and death around the globe." Given this, are objectivity and reason really possible? How do we reclaim these concepts when they are used in the way Dyson describes?
2. On page 114, Dyson asks the question, "Would more support for positive hip-hop really have changed the trajectory given trends in the rest of society?" What do you think? How reflective is most commercial hip-hop of typical American society, and whose responsibility is it then to address the inherent issues?
3. On page 115, Dyson expounds on the hip-hop theme, saying, "The crossover of hip-hop to white teens is certainly a driving force behind the attack on black youth." Meaning that the more 'mainstream' and prevalent representations of black culture are, the more white fear is stoked and retaliation attempted. But isn't more representation a good thing? Do we just have to keep pushing this representation in hopes that it will one day be the norm, or is there some other way to address this?
4. Respond to this paragraph on page 142: " Black youth hang together - in gangs, crews, groups and so on - for affection and protection. And, yes, for distraction as well. In fact such behavior does not show an ethical estrangement from American society, but a feverish embrace of its pragmatic principles of survival. Black youth show a frightening moral intimacy with the traditions of American violence. Appealing to a distinction that moral philosophers have made for centuries, the behavior of juvenocrats may not be reasonable - its effect on communities, homes and schools is unreasonably destructive - but in light of the violence and poverty black youth face, the behavior of juvenocrats is certainly rational."
5. Page 157: "To get beyond race, to transcend it, really expresses the national need to get beyond blackness per se." Is there anything else that could be meant when white people (because isn't it almost all white people?) say this? Do you think this is true?
6. Page 222: "The Supreme Court's judgments underscore a dilemma the court has failed to successfully address: how our nation can overcome racism without taking race into account." Is a post-racial society truly possible given the colorblind philosophy many Americans seem to have adopted? This of course leads into many discussions regarding Affirmative Action - is it helpful or hurtful to consider race in its contexts? Is it both, or neither? If we do away with Affirmative Action, is there any other viable alternative?
Stay tuned for our next book announcement coming soon.