The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[PointOfViewGun]

Job security for da workers
But really it’s very dangerous for a democracy if people can’t express their political opinions on say, BLM fir fear of losing their job.
Seriously though, this is very much a case of labour unionisation if you think about it. I wonder will left wingers and labour movements account for this or not when it comes to contentious political issues.

So, the guy in question should be able to freely express his opinion but the board of trustees can't? Not sure what labor unionization have to do with anything here.

[alhoon]

So, the guy in question should be able to freely express his opinion but the board of trustees can't? Not sure what labor unionization have to do with anything here.

The board can also express their opinion.
Firing someone for wrong-think is not the same as expressing their opinion though.

[PointOfViewGun]

The board can also express their opinion.
Firing someone for wrong-think is not the same as expressing their opinion though.

They express their opinion through choosing who they wanna work with. This is not a case of a cashier getting fired for expressing an unrelated opinion.

[Ludicus]

anti-racist...is predicated on anti-capitalism and anti-whiteness

Historically speaking, the origins of racism cannot be separated from the origins of capitalism.Racism has long been integral to capital's drive for self-expansion- and white supremacy was the economic engine of American history.Capitalism first emerged as a world system through the anti-black racism generated by the transatlantic slave trade, and it has depended on racism to ensure its perpetration and reproduction ever since,

A key feature of a pedagogy of whiteness involves inducing white people as a key aspect of their analysis of their subjectivity to listen to non-whites...Thus, it is no exaggeration to maintain that racial peace in the twenty-first century will depend on Whites’ developing the willingness to listen and make meaning from what they hear.The meaning-making process in which Whites must engage will require that for the first time they will accept the presence of non-White culture.(Kincheloe 1999:184)

A triple conflation of White = European = Christian arose that imparted moral,cultural and territorial content to whiteness. The broad constituency of this latter identity is suggestive of the [transformation of the concept of race from a category denoting nobility, more specifically a noble line of descent, to the more socially inclusive idea of a people and/or nation] . . . themes of nobility, skin colour, and Christianity, codified within the language of race in fifteenth century Spain,were transmuted into a colonial discourse of white superiority and non-white inferiority. (Bonnett 1998a:1038–1039)

Just before the outbreak of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis told the United States Senate ‘One of the reconciling features of the existence [of Negro slavery] is the fact that it raises every white man to the same general level, that it dignifies and exalts every white man by the presence of a lower race. (Banton 1966:11)

America is inherently a "white" country: in character, in structure, in culture.Needless to say, black Americans create lives of their own. Yet as a people,they face boundaries and constrictions set by the white majority. America’s version of apartheid, while lacking overt legal sanction, comes closest to the system even now... reformed in the land of its invention.”(Hacker 1992:4)

By employing blackness and whiteness as opposing dualisms in sociological discourse, we seek to explain – but, in effect, allow ourselves to tacitly legitimate and/or justify – the institutional order of American "race" relations.(Berger and Luckmann 1966:61)

Racism and race-making are part and parcel of the manner by which major industrial, European-descent nation states such as the United States have originated and developed, and that the significance of race-making in American nation-state building has been normative, not accidental.(Stanfield 1985:162)

Power is generated in and through the reproduction of structures of domination. The resources which constitute structures of domination are of two sorts – allocative and authoritative. (Giddens 1984:258)

Industry brings people together and sorts them out for various kinds of work;the sorting will, where the mixture is new, of necessity follow racial and ethnic lines. For cultures (and when races first meet they are always unlike inculture) differ in nothing more than in the skills, work habits, and goals which they instill into the individual. These differences may tend to disappear in the course of industrial experience, although segregation may tend to keep them alive in some modified form for a long time.(Everett C. and Helen MacGill Hughes 1952:64)

Whiteness is also a historically contingent and socially constructed racial category, once defined to be sure, by privilege and power ...whiteness and other racial categories are part of the same racial order and racial hierarchy in the history of this country and in contemporary social reality. (Rodriguez,1999:21)

Even though no one at this point really knows what whiteness is, most observers agree that it is intimately involved with issues of power and power differences between white and non-white people ...As with any racial category, whiteness is a social construction in that it can be invented, lived,analyzed, modified and discarded ...the ephemeral nature of whiteness as a social construction begins to reveal itself when we understand that the Irish,Italians, and Jews have all been viewed as non-white in particular places at specific moments in history. (Joe Kincheloe 1999:162–167)
-------
To sum up (is it possible?) Fanon held that "while race is a product of class relations, which serves as their mask, it is not a secondary factor. While race reflects class formations, the reflection is not a one-way mirror image. The reflection is taken up in consciousness and performs a sort of doubling by mirroring its origin at the same time as reshaping it. Determinations of reflection are not passive but actively reconstructive. And since racial determinations are often not superstructural but integral to the logic of capital accumulation, efforts by people of colour to challenge them can serve as the catalyst for targeting and challenging class relations"

[sumskilz]

By employing blackness and whiteness as opposing dualisms in sociological discourse, we seek to explain – but, in effect, allow ourselves to tacitly legitimate and/or justify – the institutional order of American "race" relations.(Berger and Luckmann 1966:61)

Berger and Luckmann never wrote this. You're quoting this woman, who is apparently a lecturer in sociology at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, although she's not listed as faculty.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Historically speaking, the origins of racism cannot be separated from the origins of capitalism.Racism has long been integral to capital's drive for self-expansion- and white supremacy was the economic engine of American history.Capitalism first emerged as a world system through the anti-black racism generated by the transatlantic slave trade, and it has depended on racism to ensure its perpetration and reproduction ever since,

Completely counterfactual and debunked on this page already.

Reverse engineering a conspiracy of “whiteness” from race realist talking points doesn’t seem conducive to the alleged goal of anti-racism; but then, that’s the new orthodoxy in a nutshell, an attempt to attach value systems and judgements to race in an effort just as false and heinous as any white supremacist propaganda. In fact, the US is an explicitly anti-racist country. When supposedly scholarly institutions like the Smithsonian lie to a non-white person like me that rational thought, Christianity, self discipline or industriousness represents “internalized whiteness,” or that slavery was the economic engine of capitalism in America, it’s merely a resurgence of the horrifying race realism of yesteryear that “trained Marxists” are exploiting in order to “take down local governments and transform systems.” Racism is racism. It doesn’t become anti-racist when practiced “correctly.”

At this point the “whiteness” narrative is behind the times anyway, and so was adjusted accordingly to invent “brown privilege” and keep up with a changing reality. At this rate in ten years the “woke” missionaries will be trying to convince us all that the wealthy elite in Beijing, Dubai or Mumbai are conspiring to keep the common white and black proletariat down through mudsill theory or something.

[Muizer]

To sum up (is it possible?) Fanon held that "while race is a product of class relations, which serves as their mask, it is not a secondary factor. While race reflects class formations, the reflection is not a one-way mirror image. The reflection is taken up in consciousness and performs a sort of doubling by mirroring its origin at the same time as reshaping it. Determinations of reflection are not passive but actively reconstructive. And since racial determinations are often not superstructural but integral to the logic of capital accumulation, efforts by people of colour to challenge them can serve as the catalyst for targeting and challenging class relations"

Perhaps it's possible to sum up, but I'm afraid this was a failed attempt. That's utterly unreadable.

[Love Mountain]

A racist woman named Nikole Hannah Jones was a humble staff writer for NYT magazine. She wrote a discredited opinion piece published in the summer of last year that is a barely veneered version of her worldview as she personally explained it in my last post. Her racist worldview has since become the foundation of an entire school curriculum now indoctrinating American kids, and she is feted by the press and political class accordingly. Like I said, racism is anti-racism if you’re the right kind. Propaganda is progress if it offers perceived benefits to the powers that be. It just has to be made palatable/credible first, and that’s the role the stewards of our national institutions are all too willing to play for perceived political gain. When Nick Cannon says the same stuff Jones writes and publishes, it’s racist and he has to at least issue a fake public apology, if only for the anti-Jewish part. When it’s filtered through the press and education, it’s scholarship.

So I went ahead and read through both articles, the 1619 Project's first article by Nikole Jones, "Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.". You've linked a criticism piece by Sean Wilentz, titled "A Matter of Facts", with subtitle, The New York Times’ 1619 Project launched with the best of intentions, but has been undermined by some of its claims.

As always, I looked into Wikipedia for both authors. Nikole Jones is a journalist with a degree in African American studies from Notre Dame, and a Masters' from the North Carolina School of Journalism. She is an award winning journalist, whose controversies being that she offends too many people through her aggressive rhetoric on race relations in United States. Considering that she is an African American journalist whose primary area of expertise is civil rights and race relations... I can see why she would be a target for so many people.


Sean Wilentz is a Pulitzer winning historian and professor of the American Revolution in Princeton. Apparently a long time ally of President Clinton. His major works, according to Wikipedia, are,

[B]"His goal was to revive the reputation of Andrew Jackson and Jacksonian democracy, which was under attack from the left because of Jackson's support for slavery and pursuit of escaped slaves, and especially his harshness toward Indians, including his forced removals of Indian populations from land confiscated by European-ancestry populations. Wilentz returned to the pro-Jackson themes of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who in 1946 had hailed the pro-labor policies of Northern, urban Jacksonians. He has more recently turned his scholarship to modern U.S. history, notably in The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008, published in May 2008."

This stood out to me for obvious reasons. Anyway, his first major point is the following;

"The essay argues that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” That is a striking claim built on three false assertions.

“By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere,” Hannah-Jones wrote. But apart from the activity of the pioneering abolitionist Granville Sharp, Britain was hardly conflicted at all in 1776 over its involvement in the slave system. Sharp played a key role in securing the 1772 Somerset v. Stewart ruling, which declared that chattel slavery was not recognized in English common law. That ruling did little, however, to reverse Britain’s devotion to human bondage, which lay almost entirely in its colonial slavery and its heavy involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. Nor did it generate a movement inside Britain in opposition to either slavery or the slave trade. As the historian Christopher Leslie Brown writes in his authoritative study of British abolitionism, Moral Capital, Sharp “worked tirelessly against the institution of slavery everywhere within the British Empire after 1772, but for many years in England he would stand nearly alone.” What Hannah-Jones described as a perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776 in fact did not exist.

“In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade,” Hannah-Jones continued. But the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired, as Brown demonstrates in great detail, by American antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and ’70s. There were no “growing calls” in London to abolish the trade as early as 1776.

“This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South,” Hannah-Jones wrote. But the colonists had themselves taken decisive steps to end the Atlantic slave trade from 1769 to 1774. During that time, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island either outlawed the trade or imposed prohibitive duties on it. Measures to abolish the trade also won approval in Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, and Virginia, but were denied by royal officials. The colonials’ motives were not always humanitarian: Virginia, for example, had more enslaved black people than it needed to sustain its economy and saw the further importation of Africans as a threat to social order. But the Americans who attempted to end the trade did not believe that they were committing economic suicide."

Here is the response from the Editor-In-Chief;

The work of various historians, among them David Waldstreicher and Alfred W. and Ruth G. Blumrosen, supports the contention that uneasiness among slaveholders in the colonies about growing antislavery sentiment in Britain and increasing imperial regulation helped motivate the Revolution. One main episode that these and other historians refer to is the landmark 1772 decision of the British high court in Somerset v. Stewart. The case concerned a British customs agent named Charles Stewart who bought an enslaved man named Somerset and took him to England, where he briefly escaped. Stewart captured Somerset and planned to sell him and ship him to Jamaica, only for the chief justice, Lord Mansfield, to declare this unlawful, because chattel slavery was not supported by English common law.

It is true, as Professor Wilentz has noted elsewhere, that the Somerset decision did not legally threaten slavery in the colonies, but the ruling caused a sensation nonetheless. Numerous colonial newspapers covered it and warned of the tyranny it represented. Multiple historians have pointed out that in part because of the Somerset case, slavery joined other issues in helping to gradually drive apart the patriots and their colonial governments. The British often tried to undermine the patriots by mocking their hypocrisy in fighting for liberty while keeping Africans in bondage, and colonial officials repeatedly encouraged enslaved people to seek freedom by fleeing to British lines. For their part, large numbers of the enslaved came to see the struggle as one between freedom and continued subjugation. As Waldstreicher writes, “The black-British alliance decisively pushed planters in these [Southern] states toward independence.”

The culmination of this was the Dunmore Proclamation, issued in late 1775 by the colonial governor of Virginia, which offered freedom to any enslaved person who fled his plantation and joined the British Army. A member of South Carolina’s delegation to the Continental Congress wrote that this act did more to sever the ties between Britain and its colonies “than any other expedient which could possibly have been thought of.” The historian Jill Lepore writes in her recent book, “These Truths: A History of the United States,” “Not the taxes and the tea, not the shots at Lexington and Concord, not the siege of Boston; rather, it was this act, Dunmore’s offer of freedom to slaves, that tipped the scales in favor of American independence.” And yet how many contemporary Americans have ever even heard of it? Enslaved people at the time certainly knew about it. During the Revolution, thousands sought freedom by taking refuge with British forces."

Now, I don't have an issue with siding with one Historian over another, nor do I have an issue with criticism of the 1619 project. To claim that it was discredited however, is a little much to me.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Now, I don't have an issue with siding with one Historian over another, nor do I have an issue with criticism of the 1619 project. To claim that it was discredited however, is a little much to me.

I’m comfortable describing a counterfactual and revisionist narrative as discredited.

[alhoon]

They express their opinion through choosing who they wanna work with. This is not a case of a cashier getting fired for expressing an unrelated opinion.

Firing a Latin American truck driver because someone accused him of being a White Supremacist is not an unrelated opinion?
Even if we assume that the Latin American man was a white supremacist, how is that in any way relevant to his job?


But there's the other issue here.
If the board fired a man for saying "I believe White Supremacists suck!" then I am pretty sure many progressives would be singing a different tone about the board expressing their opinion about choosing who they want to work with.

[Infidel144]

But there's the other issue here.
If the board fired a man for saying "I believe White Supremacists suck!" then I am pretty sure many progressives would be singing a different tone about the board expressing their opinion about choosing who they want to work with.

I thought the article said the Board resigned from the charity.
That would seem to be expressing their opinion by choosing not to work with the founder of the charity.

[PointOfViewGun]

Firing a Latin American truck driver because someone accused him of being a White Supremacist is not an unrelated opinion?
Even if we assume that the Latin American man was a white supremacist, how is that in any way relevant to his job?

But there's the other issue here.
If the board fired a man for saying "I believe White Supremacists suck!" then I am pretty sure many progressives would be singing a different tone about the board expressing their opinion about choosing who they want to work with.

That is an unrelated opinion, however, we don't really have truck driver being fired for his white supremacist opinions, do we? It's more like we have a truck driver who keeps talking to the customers how transportation via trucks is a very bad way of transporting goods and that they should choose trains next time.

[alhoon]

That is an unrelated opinion, however, we don't really have truck driver being fired for his white supremacist opinions, do we? It's more like we have a truck driver who keeps talking to the customers how transportation via trucks is a very bad way of transporting goods and that they should choose trains next time.

No, we have a Latin-American truck driver that was unwittingly making a white supremacy sign, someone captured that in a pic... and he was fired for being a white supremacist.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, we have a Latin-American truck driver that was unwittingly making a white supremacy sign, someone captured that in a pic... and he was fired for being a white supremacist.

Are you actually trying to refer to a real life case or are you still trying to make a simile work while it doesn't really cover the case with charity?

[Lord Thesaurian]

In today’s episode of dystopian America, read this completely innocuous statement of fact, and see if you can determine what the woke industrial complex is going to do with it:

Asked what he’d say to people who consider Confederate statues and military base names “racially divisive,” Cotton noted that Arkansas is already taking steps to remove its own segregation-era statues.

“I have no problem with people debating that in a constructive, reasoned, deliberate fashion,” he said. “What I can’t tolerate, what I think no one should tolerate, are angry mobs tearing down statues of anyone. They tear down a statue of [Confederate Gen.] Robert E. Lee today; tomorrow they come for [Presidents George] Washington and for [Abraham] Lincoln and for [Ulysses S.] Grant.”

In the interview, Cotton said the role of slavery can’t be overlooked.

“We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction,” he said.

Instead of portraying America as “an irredeemably corrupt, rotten and racist country,” the nation should be viewed “as an imperfect and flawed land, but the greatest and noblest country in the history of mankind,” Cotton said.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/...um-on-slavery/

Now, if a Democrat had said this, it goes without saying we’d be hearing about how “stunning and brave” these rather banal remarks are.

When he presented his plan for the frame of government to the Convention on its first day, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that for the purposes of apportionment, a "House of Delegates" be determined through the apportionment of "one Member for every thousand Inhabitants 3/5 of Blacks included."[8][9] The Convention unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations, but it initially rejected his proposal regarding apportionment of the black population along with the rest of his plan. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal to count slaves by a three-fifths ratio was first proposed on June 11, and agreed to by nine states to two with only a brief debate.[10] It was debated at length between July 9 and 13, inclusive, when it was initially voted down by the members present at the Convention.[11][12] A few Southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population.[13][14] Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to by eight states to two.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Here’s another statement of fact:

If Cotton’s legislation passes, school districts that embrace the curriculum would no longer qualify for federal professional development funds, money that is intended to improve teacher quality.

Federal funding would also be lowered slightly to reflect any “cost associated with teaching the 1619 Project, including in planning time and teaching time.”

Funds tied to low-income or special-needs students would not be affected.

The secretaries of Education, Agriculture and Health and Human Services would create “prorated formulas” to determine the size of the reduction in federal money for schools adopting the curriculum.

“It won’t be much money,” Cotton said. “But even a penny is too much to go to the 1619 Project in our public schools. The New York Times should not be teaching American history to our kids.”
Capitol Hill isn’t the place where curriculum decisions are typically made, Cotton acknowledged.

If educators want to use the materials, they’ll still be free to do so, he said.

“Curriculum is a matter for local decisions and if local left-wing school boards want to fill their children’s heads with anti-American rot, that’s their regrettable choice. But they ought not to benefit from federal tax dollars to teach America’s children to hate America,” he said.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/...um-on-slavery/

So is the media going to do its job and talk about how a racist hack peddling debunked yellow journalism now pumps her lies and propaganda into American schools with the blessing of our institutions and political establishment? Are we as a general public going to talk about federal funding and the latter’s impact on the propagation of these lies? Of course not. In the umpteenth illustration of how the woke industrial complex exercises ideological control and ejects politically inconvenient reality, the propagandist responsible for these lies is given control of the public discourse through the press against a sitting US official. Cue the strawmen and faux outrage from those whose revisionist and counterfactual ideological agenda is threatened by basic facts.

"Were the Founders right or wrong, @TomCottonAR, when they called slavery a 'necessary evil upon which the Union was built'? Because either you agree with their assessment of slavery as necessary or you admit they were lying and it was just an evil and dishonorable choice. Which?" Hannah-Jones said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...il/5523063002/

Accordingly, the 1619 cult continues its campaign to erase America’s abolitionist and anti-slavery history. As abolitionists, Union Army officers, and even Abe Lincoln himself come down, it seems no one is safe from the cultural revolutionaries:

It was originally envisioned as a traditional equestrian monument to Shaw, but the colonel’s family, a wealthy Boston clan strongly opposed to slavery, requested that it also honor the Black men who served and died alongside him during their famed charge on Fort Wagner in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1863.

The monument is also significant because it's the nation's first honoring Black soldiers, said Elizabeth Vizza, executive director of the Friends of the Public Garden, a group helping pay for a $3 million restoration of the monument, which started in earnest in May.
Saint-Gaudens spent 14 years creating a richly detailed bas relief, using Black men of different ages as models for his realistic soldiers. After it was unveiled to fanfare in 1897, American author Henry James declared the work “real perfection,” according to the National Park Service.

The work, which sits across from the Massachusetts Statehouse, has been vandalized over the years, mostly by people snapping off Shaw’s broadsword. But during the unrest that followed Floyd’s killing in May, the monument was tagged with anti-police slogans, expletives and other graffiti, along with about a dozen others in and around the Common.

Kevin Peterson, founder of the New Democracy Coalition that’s calling on Boston to rename Faneuil Hall after Crispus Attucks, said the Shaw monument should be moved to a museum because it casts Blacks as “subservient” to whites.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-wo...cial-reckoning

At this point, the singular common theme around the ideological purging of America’s anti-racist history is that anything perceived to threaten Jones’/NYT’s/BLM’s campaign of lies and indoctrination is racist and therefore urgently due for cancelation.

[alhoon]

Are you actually trying to refer to a real life case or are you still trying to make a simile work while it doesn't really cover the case with charity?

What case with charity? If someone else brought up a different story, then I didn't read it.

I am talking about this

Here is a nice (albeit big) article of why Slacktivists are more than just annoying, but dangerous and why cancel culture is toxic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...nocent/613615/

Three people have lost their livelihoods because of Twitter mobs of slacktivists that find validation in doing nothing but bash people. Judgemental buttholes are costing the job of people because of a misunderstanding or because they cannot accept that others may have different opinions than themselves.

Look at the story of Emmanuel Cafferty and tell me that the white people that fired a Latin American because he was accused to be a White Supremacist just chose to "express their opinion through choosing who they wanna work with. This is not a case of a cashier getting fired for expressing an unrelated opinion."

THIS is what I am talking about.
This and the other cases referred in that article, that show how toxic many of the ultraprogressives have become, how they have bullied companies to fire perfectly innocent people because of alleged wrong-think or destroyed livelihoods over things someone in the family of the to-be-destroyed person said years ago.

The reason I want my anonymity here is because of things like this.

[PointOfViewGun]

What case with charity? If someone else brought up a different story, then I didn't read it.
I am talking about this
Look at the story of Emmanuel Cafferty and tell me that the white people that fired a Latin American because he was accused to be a White Supremacist just chose to "express their opinion through choosing who they wanna work with. This is not a case of a cashier getting fired for expressing an unrelated opinion."
THIS is what I am talking about.
This and the other cases referred in that article, that show how toxic many of the ultraprogressives have become, how they have bullied companies to fire perfectly innocent people because of alleged wrong-think or destroyed livelihoods over things someone in the family of the to-be-destroyed person said years ago.
The reason I want my anonymity here is because of things like this.

Sigh... You really need to read what you're responding to properly. You butt in to the conversation about Nick Buckley and you're telling me that you didn't read about it. Amazing.

I will comment on the case about Cafferty once I read enough about it.

[Ludicus]

Berger and Luckmann never wrote this. You're quoting this woman, who is apparently a lecturer in sociology at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, although she's not listed as faculty.

A very malicious statement. Being black doesn't mean she is "apparently" a liar.

anthropology sociology languages - University of Missouri–St ...

The Newsletter of the University of Missouri - St. Louis, Anthropology, Sociology and Languages Department, Spring 2011

Congratulations to Dr. Teresa Guess! After 12 years of service to the Department of Sociology, Dr. Teresa Guess retired in May 2010. She received her B.A. and M.A. degrees in Sociology from the University of Missouri-St. Louis and her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. A retirement reception was held for Dr. Guess at the home of Dr. Nancy Shields in August 2010, and was attended by both faculty and students. Dr. Guess was an extremely popular professor, and she will be missed by students and faculty alike. Dr. Guess is passionate about sociology, and was a mentor to many undergraduate and graduate students over the years. Although she is retired, Dr. Guess is still sited on campus on a regular basis and her current office is room 701 Tower. She is still using her UMSL e-mail address (GuessT@msx.umsl.edu) and would love to hear from you.

-------
Corrected quote,

Following Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) logic, the notions of “race” and whiteness may be regarded as the conceptual machineries of universe maintenance for American “race” relations. According to Berger and Luckmann (1966:108), “the success of particular conceptual machineries is related to the power possessed by those who operate them.” Thus, the terms “blackness” and “whiteness” represent conceptual machineries of universe-maintenance relative to the concept, “race.” By employing blackness and whiteness as opposing dualisms in sociological discourse, we seek to explain – but, in effect, allow ourselves to tacitly legitimate and/or justify – the institutional order of American “race” relations. Such legitimations “ . . .are learned by the new generation during the same process that socializes them into the institutional order” (Berger and Luckmann 1966:61).

-------

Completely counterfactual and debunked on this page already.

Not at all.Race issue is integral to the development of capitalism.Capitalism always produces racism.Racism was, and still is,an ideological justification for colonial war and conquest.
As Marx pointed out in The Poverty of Philosophy - Chapter 2.1

Slavery is an economic category like any other … Needless to say we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.

---
Fanon repeatedly emphasised anti-Black racism is not natural but is rooted in the economic imperatives of capitalism, beginning with the transatlantic slave trade and extending to the neo-colonialism of today. Racism and the Logic of Capitalism | Historical Materialism
----
Racism was/is the foundational institution of American capitalism. Read Martin Luther King,
"The segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land".
Racial capitalism, Is Capitalism Racist? | The New Yorker

The arguments about slavery imply larger arguments about America. At least among respectable academic historians, the days of triumphant historical accounts of the greatness of the United States are long past.

But for some the national enterprise can still be seen as a slow and often interrupted progression toward a more just and democratic society; for others, it amounts to a set of variations on racial hierarchy and economic exploitation.

Once slavery is positioned as the foundational institution of American capitalism, the country’s subsequent history can be depicted as an extension of this basic dynamic. This is what Walter Johnson does in his new book, “The Broken Heart of America: St. Louis and the Violent History of the United States”

Johnson’s guiding concept is “racial capitalism”: racism as a technique for exploiting black people and for fomenting the hostility of working-class whites toward blacks, so as to enable white capitalists to extract value from everyone else. For his purposes, St. Louis is a case study in the pervasiveness and the longevity of racism outside the formal boundaries of slavery. As he wrote in an earlier essay, “The history of racial capitalism, it must be emphasized, is a history of wages as well as whips, of factories as well as plantations, of whiteness as well as blackness, of ‘freedom’ as well as slavery.”

--

Who saw the movie "How the West was Won" selected for preservation in the Library of Congress?
The movie should be renamed as "The Right of Conquest".With narration by Spencer Tracy -a grandiloquent white propaganda,

The west that was won by its pioneers, settlers, adventurers is long gone now. Yet it is theirs forever, for they left tracks in history that will never be eroded by wind or rain – never plowed under by tractors, never buried in a compost of events. Out of the hard simplicity of their lives, out of their vitality, of their hopes and sorrows grew legends of courage and pride to inspire their children and their children's children. From soil enriched by their blood, out of their fever to explore and be, came lakes where once there were burning deserts – came the goods of the earth; mine and wheat fields, orchards and great lumber mills. All the sinews of a growing country. Out of their rude settlements, their trading posts came cities to rank among the great ones of the world. All the heritage of a people free to dream, free to act, free to mold their own destiny.

I saw this movie.It came to my mind that after 500 years in Angola, the native "Indians" expelled the white population (insert irony, I'm anti-colonialist). It all boils down to a simple rule: the relationship of forces.In Americas, the British and Spanish were never opposed by foes who enjoyed technological parity.
The process by which imperialism develops develops is endemic to capitalist system.That is to say, a capitalist system necessarily develops into a imperialist system.Its not difficult to understand the direct relationship between military expenditure and capitalism.
Contrary to popular belief, capitalism prefers war.Military Expansion Serving Economic Objectives - Global Issues

[sumskilz]

Corrected quote

So rather than deriving from one of the most influential books in the history of the social sciences, the quote came from one of the two articles this woman managed to get published during her 12 year career. That's quite a misattribution.

Even her citation to Berger and Luckmann 1966 is misleading and to the wrong page. Although I agree with the implication of her claim, use of the terms "blackness" and "whiteness" by sociologists does appear to functionally serve to legitimate and justify racism in the minds of those who subscribe to such a worldview.

[Ludicus]

Even her citation to Berger and Luckmann 1966 is... to the wrong page.

Don't say...so, it seems that you read The Social Construction of Reality? accidently, I have the book here, tell me the right page, if you don't mind.

two articles this woman managed to get published during her 12 year career.

Not exactly, not exactly, try again. Ah, don't forget, "she's not listed as faculty".
Have I said "malicious"? it's malicious and inaccurate. On a side note, in scientific production, quantity is not a bad thing "'per se", of course, but quality and not quantity should dominate.

use of the terms "blackness" and "whiteness" by sociologists does appear to functionally serve to legitimate and justify racism in the minds of those who subscribe to such a worldview.

Berger says more than that. For that matter- according to Berger- the terms "Jew", "Gentiles", "White", "Negro",etc., are categories that supply appellations to people, and become exercises in "bad faith", as soon as they are charged with ontological implications.
He explains that anyone included in these categories - A "Jew", a "Negro", etc, - is a person so designated by the society, and this designation releases pressures that tend to make him into the designated image.

As he says, those in the receiving end of negative identity assignments are prone to accept the categories invented by their oppressors.

He adds that Jewish reactions to anti-semitism furnish classic illustrations of this process., with Jewish counter definitions of their own identity, simply reversing the minus sign originally attached to the identity in question with a plus sign.
The same happens with the Negro "pride of race", building up a counter formation of black racism that is a shadow of its white prototype. ( I'm quoting Berger, btw)
And he adds that the very concept of "race" is nothing but a fiction to begin with, the real problem is how to be a human being.
And finally, he says that conterformations such as the ones mentioned (in the case of Negros, Jews, etc) may be functional in organizing resistance to oppression and may have political validity (1)- much like other myths.

And he concludes that all the same, they are rooted in bad faith, the corrosive power of which eventually exacts its toll as those who have painfully acquired "pride of race", discover that their acquisition is a hollow one indeed.
The white man despises the the Negro and in that very act confirms his own identity as one entitled to show contempt. As Sartre has shown the anti-semite legitimates oneself by hating the figure one has set up as the opposite of oneself.
I'm still quoting Berger, not Sartre. Berger isn't the obscure Teresa Bass, I need to be careful when citing. That is to say, I need to reread the Anti-Semite and Jew.
----
(1) We don't see any American dream, we've experienced only the American nightmare (Malcolm X , 1964)

The origins of racism cannot be separated from the origins of capitalism: as someone has already put it, capitalism and racism are conjoined twins. Banks are well aware of its lethality. Some of them said they are considering their historic links to the slave trade.
Update: Lloyd's of London Apologizes for Its 'Shameful' Role ...

We are sorry for the role played by the Lloyd’s market in the 18th and 19th Century slave trade – an appalling and shameful period of English history, as well as our own,” Lloyd’s said in a statement on Thursday.
“Recent events have shone a spotlight on the inequality that black people have experienced over many years as a result of systematic and structural racism that has existed in many aspects of society and unleashed difficult conversations that were long overdue,” it added.
Lloyd’s grew to dominate the shipping insurance market, a key element of Europe’s global scramble for empire, treasure and slaves, who were usually in the 18th Century included in insurance policies in the general rate for ship cargo.
Weapons and gunpowder from Europe were swapped for African slaves who were shipped across the Atlantic to the Americas.

The Mea Culpa includes banks such as Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, and the private bank Arbuthnot Latham Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds among UK banks that had links to