Maybe have a look at this: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/04/03/hip-hop-is-for-lovers/

Specifically:

>...LB: I find that as a hip hop fan who also keeps some mainstream feminist company, I find myself defending the very existence of the genre among other feminists. Uche, I know you’ve addressed this before in prior interviews more generally, but what do the HH4L ladies have to say to feminists who accuse hip hop at large of too much sexual bravado and objectification of women?

>Uche: When I first began discussing the concept of HH4L, I got mixed responses. People said everything from there is not enough music to support that to Hip Hop doesn’t talk about love and even expecting us to not deal with certain subjects or play certain songs. Sexual bravado and objectification of women happens in every culture. Hip Hop is not the only one. If you are not attuned to the culture of Hip Hop or anything remotely related to the experience of those that make or enjoy this varied and layered music, I would suggest you do some real investigation into it before labeling it as such. All hip hop music does not have sexual bravado and objectify women just like all feminists aren’t white man hating lesbians. Right?

>Lenée: I’m taking a deep breath as I type this, because I have so very much to say. First, Hip Hop culture and music are the result of a colonial history: the history of Black folks in the US. Hip Hop culture exists as a mirror of larger US culture and also as a filter of that culture. As an agent of the culture, the music speaks to an array of experiences and perspectives. Yes, the primary media makers in the culture are heterosexual cisgender men of color (mostly black-identified). Yes, there is sexual bravado, and yes there’s objectification of women. I think that the tendency of people I identify as outsiders — usually academics, often white people, and way too often white cisgender women who ID as feminists — is to be outraged first and ask questions later.

>LB: (Also, dear readers, there is about ten-plus years of womanist and feminist scholarship by women of color on hip hop, on women in hip hop, and hip hop feminism, so please google-fu if this is news.)

>Lenée: If a straight man makes a song about someone he’s attracted to, we know it sure as shit isn’t gonna be a song about one of his homeboys. So, objectification of women is gonna happen. It cannot be avoided. The extent to which it goes is my concern. As far as the sexual bravado goes, I’d like to direct any and everyone with this critique to study stereotypes about black men — namely the construct of the big black buck. Sometimes rappers reinforce the constructs, sometimes they build their own identities in the shadow of those constructs… And other times, nobody’s paying attention to what doesn’t fit what they’re looking for. Just so they can be outraged first and ask questions later. Also: Lady (“Yankin’”) is just as full of braggadocio as any song by a man that we’ve played on the show, if not more. I’m certain that different ideas apply because she’s a woman and the decency police feel differently about her. But that’s probably a blog post in and of itself.

>LB: No kidding. I was googling Lady out of curiosity and saw that she gets a lot of blowback about that song. (I can’t even begin to dissect the video.) Sure it’s sexually explicit, but it’s not meant to be a deep song. What it is is an affirmative, body-positive song about getting laid. The narrator has agency, she’s enjoying herself, it’s consensual. There’s a place for that and it’s a worthwhile narrative, so I think the real problem — and there is considerable scholarship on the “acceptable” roles for women in hip hop — is when the only available slots for women in the mainstream are the super-sexy Trinas or the crunchier Lauryn Hills.

>Uche: The song “Yankin’” and those like it have its place in Hip Hop. The whole social construct that it’s taboo for women to speak on their sexual prowess is really outdated (to me anyway).

>Lenée: I agree. It’s really simple to me: dudes rap about the presence of alcohol and/ or drugs in sexual encounters. They talk about being great in bed, good in bed, the king of cunnilingus or whatever. A lot. T.I. (he calls himself the pussy pumper!), for instance, talks about handing out bottles of Grey Goose and ecstasy pills as he has multiple partner sex. In more than one song. I’ve heard the most harsh criticism about Lady from “real Hip Hop heads,” people who actively and vocally ask for the return of Leaders of the New School, DAS Efx, and LL Cool J’s first nose. I think Lady’s song is epic. It’s fun. It’s got a good beat. And at the end of the day she’s not hurting anyone. Lots of folks seem to have gone out of their way in online spaces to decry “Yankin’” and act like it’s The Sole Reason Black People Can’t Have Nice Things. As if it isn’t R. Kelly. (Jokes.)...

Lauren Bruce interview with Uche and Lenée, hosts of Hip Hop is For Lovers (a multimedia web experience dedicated to looking at love, sex and intimacy through the lens of hip hop culture. Its centerpiece is a weekly woman-centered, queer-friendly and justice-heavy podcast that features discussions about a variety of relationship topics punctuated with the best in rap.)

Glad I refreshed before posting, you answer is much more complete than mine. I'm going to add in terms of making friends with similar interests, you have to be willing to participate in the things they want to do and ask them to join you in activities you like. Some people will say no, but in general you don't know if you like a particular activity unless you try.

"Just joining clubs" just gives you exposure to new people. You still have to do the legwork for actually making friends there. It's not really much different from meeting people anywhere else, it just gives you some starter conversational topics.

If you're lacking the social skills to feel comfortable having deeper conversations with others, that's where you need start. Like any other skill it takes practice, and practice builds confidence, and confidence makes you more comfortable. Restricting conversations to banter has to do with your insecurities not theirs.

With racial politics, people just aren't aware of them, and don't want to be preached at, as they're not in a position to contribute. You have to put in a little extra work when you're trying to get to those topics. Think intersectionality and start there. When people feel heard about their issues, they're much more willing to hear about ours. Then at least it's a conversation everyone can partake in. After that initial work, you'll know which one of your friends are allies willing to have these types of conversations, and which are not. I've personally found women to be a little more sympathetic about these issues than men, since you don't have to deal with the MRA and hotep crowds. Adding to what BSworld777 said, you also run into people who only care about the issues that personally affect them. So they're all for advocating for issues that gay men may face, but not issues that gay men of colour face. Same for feminism. You get people who care about feminism, except when an issue doesn't affect them as much as women of colour. (Don't be one of these people! It's really easy to fall into that trap.)

If you've not read it yet, I'm going to recommend "So you want to talk about race by Ijeoma Oluo". It's a book I've almost religiously been recommending people read this past year, as it's the best introduction to intersectionality I've found that I've actually been able to get people to engage with.

(PS - I enjoyed your reading blog post on the portrayal of women in The Boondocks)

There are two points here which seem to conflict but I think are both true at the same time.

1. Focus is needed
   
   Have you ever worked in any of these kinds of groups? Well I have and I will tell you that maintaining focus is crucial to success. Groups which allow themselves to take on every "issue" that bothers it's membership don't get anywhere because they are incredibly unfocused. In fact there is a strong tendency (at least in the radical left where I hang out) to want to do all the things all the time. it just doesn't work.
   
   The fact is that groups with different targets which are allied with each other and work together when needed, are the strongest type, in general. This isn't to say that they must ignore other struggles. In fact they ought to take the concerns and work of other specific groups into consideration, because in all likelihood there are members of that group in their organization. (I hope that sentance makes sense. I mean there will be queers in the union and women in the civil rights organizatin, etc.)
   
   Feminists have developed a theoretical framework known as Intersectionalision (and here ) which attempts to recognize the impacts of different forces (the "big three" being gender, race and class, but also disability, immigration status etc) on people's lives. Organizations which take this model into account typically address a wide range of issues, but again, some sort of focus will have to be maintained.
   
   
   
2. Focus drops as organizations become more powerful
   
   A generation ago, the Black Panther Party's Ten Point Plan outlined what I would say would be a fairly ambitious and far ranging set of goals. In the real world they ran medical clinics, gave away clothing, dealt with crime, and ran an extensive free school lunch program. Unfortunately, because of the revolutionary nature of the BPP they were heavily targetted by a campaign of disruption and espionage led by the FBI.
   
   If you read history of different liberation movements, you do find that eventually, the successful ones start out with a specific focus and tend towards addressing more and more concerns as power and memebrship rises. This was true of the feminist movement, the civilrights/black liberation movements, and also historically the union movement (the Big Three I mentioned above.) If you are really interested in learning about this aspect of history (which is way more fucking amazing that you would imagine, I guarentee it) you should start with A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
   
   However, at this point, if not well before it, these groups will be facing severe repression from those opposed. It has often been really, really brutal. And this has been the limiting factor. I would suggest that if you are my generation (born in the 70s or after) and you live in western europe, you have likely never seen a movement like any of these I have described. It is well, well worth looking into if you are at all interested. An amazing history.
   
   If you want to get more into specific organizations and their difficulties and successes in integrating this kind of thought, you might then try Women, Race and Class by Angela Davis, who writes about black women in the early feminist movements and women in the abolitionists movement.

Haven't you ever wondered why the scientific consensus is the opposite of your claims?

For starters, IQ isn't a great all-around measure of intelligence. It does accurately predict social outcomes and is highly correlated with many intellectual and academic accomplishments, but it has severe flaws. Take for example the Flynn Effect: previous generations had much lower IQ scores than today, when normalized to be on the same scale. The rapid increase of IQ globally (Great Britain saw an increase of 15 points in 70 years) cannot be explained by any plausible genetic explanation—the increase has simply been too fast. Genetic effects couldn't have spread throughout the entire population. There is also no plausible argument that general intelligence has improved by that much. If it had, 40% of the British population a century ago would be mentally damaged by today's standards.

The reasons for the Flynn Effect are unclear. A rise in standardized testing and formal schooling appears to be at least part of it. What is clear is that when comparing people from wildly different environments, IQ is a poor measure of general intelligence. (When comparing people from similar environments, it does remarkably well. The reasons for this are still being studied.)

_

Even if IQ were a good measure of intelligence (which it isn't), that doesn't mean IQ score differences are genetic. Indeed, we know for a fact that they aren't.

Take the Burakumin of Japan. They are an ostracized class and have been for centuries; due to complex religious/spiritual/social reasons, if you have an ancestor who engaged in an "unclean" profession (e.g., a prostitute, a butcher, an actor, etc.), you too are unclean and are socially inferior. The important thing is that the class is genetically identical to the rest of the Japanese population. You can't tell the difference by looking, which is why the Burakumin were forced to get tattoos, and why corporations started keeping lists of who was Burakumin so they knew who not to hire. Today, while those lists are banned, they are still socially stigmatized, and the group forms the ranks of the Japanese mafia, with the tattoos becoming a source of pride.

Anyway, the average have an IQ of the Burakumin is 10-15 points lower than the average Japanese person. See here. This is the same as the gap between white Americans and black Americans. Importantly, both gaps have been shrinking. Most interestingly, the Japanese gap completely disappears among immigrants to the United States—the people here don't know that they're supposed to discriminate against one of the groups.

Similar stories of vanishing IQ gaps appear all over the field. Adopting someone at three years old from Sub-Saharan Africa into a European family cuts the IQ gap by 15 points., cutting the IQ gap in half. The remaining gap, to reiterate, is the same sized that is known to be caused by discrimination. And note further that this is without any improved pre-natal care, which is known to be extremely important to a child's health.

_

Finally, this is all assuming that "race" is a thing, scientifically speaking, which it isn't. To draw an analogy, it's like constellations. Yes, some stars are closer to others. But the physical differences have little connection with how they appear in the sky, any anyways are not clustered into distinct groups. The stars and the distances between them exist; the pictures only exist in your head. I mean, the idea of "whiteness" isn't even self-consistent and varies across time. Are Poles white? Are Russians? Are Italians? Are Southern-Europeans? Are North-Africans and Middle-Easterners? Are Indians? Are Jews? Are Spaniards? Are Mexicans? Are Chileans? (The last few are the most hilarious currently—the jumps required to assert that South Americans are genetically inferior to "us", but "us" includes the Spanish and Portuguese, are hilarious.)

__

Race doesn't exist the way you think it does. Intelligence might, based on the g-factor (scores in completely different aptitude tests are correlated, suggesting a legitimate "general intelligence"), but IQ is not a good measure of it cross-populations. Intelligence is not a metric of moral standing; the Jews aren't naturally the superiors of everyone else just because they have higher IQ. And IQ differences are entirely explainable by environmental factors.

That's so cool! I'm glad you know so much already about your family. Some things I'd wonder about (and might answer through talking to relatives or reading books):

• The Creole experience -- there's lots of stuff about this, of course.
  
• The free black experience in St. Louis. Everything I know about this comes from a museum exhibit, but it seemed pretty interesting.
  
• Did your Creole relatives move from Louisiana to St. Louis? If so, when? What was going on (in both states) that might have prompted that?
  
• Was your maternal grandfather in the military before it desegregated, and if so what was that like? What was the end of Jim Crow like generally for your relatives? (I think either your parents or your grandparents would have gone through school desegregation?)
  
• Is either side of your family religious? If so, which denomination(s) do they belong to? What's it like being black in that denomination? If not, why not, and what's their black agnostic/atheist experience like?
  
• Your parents' experiences--you say they were raised around white people, but they both married black. Where did they meet, and how? Did/do they have any particular feelings about interracial dating/marriage? On your mom's side, what was her military brat experience like?
  
• Did you have any relatives who passed? (I do!) What were the circumstances? How does the family talk about them? Are there people who could have passed and chose not to?
  
  I don't know if you've read it, but I would suggest the book "Our Kind of People"--it's flawed in many ways, and my family was never an upper-class black family, but I found a lot of resonances to my own family in it, and from your description of your family, I think you may too. Another suggestion would be "The Warmth of Other Suns", and particularly the experiences of Robert Foster, a Creole doctor who moved from Louisiana to California in the 1950s. (I'm not sure if your family is readers, but see if you can get your parents to read it; I suspect they'd really enjoy it, and it would open some good conversations.) Finally, keep an eye out for "Black Elephants in the Room", which is being released in October and is about the particular experiences of black Republicans.

Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote an amazing book on this topic. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

Sowell discusses the premise behind Vision of the Anointed

>Sowell presents a devastating critique of the mind-set behind the failed social policies of the past thirty years. Sowell sees what has happened during that time not as a series of isolated mistakes but as a logical consequence of a tainted vision whose defects have led to crises in education, crime, and family dynamics, and to other social pathologies. In this book, he describes how elites—the anointed—have replaced facts and rational thinking with rhetorical assertions, thereby altering the course of our social policy.

Also Intellectuals and Race

>Intellectuals and Race is a radical book in the original sense of one that goes to the root of the problem. The role of intellectuals in racial strife is explored in an international context that puts the American experience in a wholly new light.

>The views of individual intellectuals have spanned the spectrum, but the views of intellectuals as a whole have tended to cluster. Indeed, these views have clustered at one end of the spectrum in the early twentieth century and then clustered at the opposite end of the spectrum in the late twentieth century. Moreover, these radically different views of race in these two eras were held by intellectuals whose views on other issues were very similar in both eras.

>Intellectuals and Race is not, however, a book about history, even though it has much historical evidence, as well as demographic, geographic, economic and statistical evidence-- all of it directed toward testing the underlying assumptions about race that have prevailed at times among intellectuals in general, and especially intellectuals at the highest levels. Nor is this simply a theoretical exercise. The impact of intellectuals' ideas and crusades on the larger society, both past and present, is the ultimate concern. These ideas and crusades have ranged widely from racial theories of intelligence to eugenics to "social justice" and multiculturalism.

>In addition to in-depth examinations of these and other issues, Intellectuals and Race explores the incentives, the visions and the rationales that drive intellectuals at the highest levels to conclusions that have often turned out to be counterproductive and even disastrous, not only for particular racial or ethnic groups, but for societies as a whole.

Class-based affirmative action is an oft-cited alternative to race-based affirmative action, because Americans would rather ascribe social concerns to class rather than racial inequities.

Regarding the oft-cited Espenshade quote: he elaborated that he "does not think his data establish[es]” an anti-Asian bias, because his study with Radford, which was the centerpiece of No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, only accounted for "objective" numbers such as GPA and SAT scores -- not extracurricular activities, personal statements, or other extenuating circumstances that are typically considered by private schools. The Espenshade and Radford study also found that race-conscious affirmative action creates more diversity on college campuses than any other form (and they used over 7 models that featured combinations of considering/not considering income, test scores in general, and race). Whether one believes diversity on college campuses is valuable is a personal matter of consideration, of course, though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that this is a legitimate reason for affirmative action to exist, at least for the time being.

Race-based affirmative action tilts admission outcomes in favor of historically underserved and underrepresented minorities, but one should not fall for the whole-to-part fallacy and believe that race is the first thing admissions committees look at. It's usually a more distant factor in determining admission, behind all of the other things I've listed. It's easy to believe that race is a primary or secondary consideration because we look at the numbers that the admissions process produces, not the entire process of admission, and draw conclusions quickly.

Also, this may not be entirely relevant, but Unz's "analysis" in The Myth of American Meritocracy (a mostly admirable article, one must admit) that allowed him to conclude that Jews have fallen precipitously in academic achievement while maintaining ludicrously high levels of Ivy League enrollment is at best, specious, and at worst, complete bullshit.

Personal perspective comment: I can say with some confidence that as an aggregate, Asian students are weaker on the non-quantitative aspects of college admission. They (and their parents) mull over joining clubs and performing extracurricular activities explicitly for the purpose of admission and nothing more, and the lack of conviction shows on college applications. Keep in mind that most Asians, like any other people, are merely average.

tl;dr: Class-based affirmative action is popular but race-based affirmative action is more effective for diversity, an explanation SCOTUS approves of. Asian students need a higher SAT score to get in college, yes, but it's not just because the deck is stacked against them; there are some things they need to work on. Ron Unz tried too hard to call out the Jews in his book-length article about higher ed.

-an Asian who cares too much about this issue

This is the type of mindset that allows for something called "de facto segregation." It has existed in rhetoric in the Jim Crow South but was actually perfected by the North and remains today. Structures were created from "on high" to "aritificially impose" segregation and these structures and their effects still exist today. Hoping they will just disappear "organically" is wishful thinking that allows inequality to exist unopposed.

This book is a good place to start on the subject.

However, since I know people have lives and don't necessarily have free time to sift through textbooks. Here's about an hour worth of podcast introducing the subject. The majority of people I see on reddit who begin this discourse don't even understand background information like this. The American education system has done an amazing job at convincing its youth that Brown v. Board of Education was the nail in the coffin for segregation and once you're indoctrinated into that belief it becomes obvious why the highest upvoted comments on threads like this exist.

This looks like an interesting read. I'll have to pick this up, but my Kindle backlog is already building as it is.

Interestingly, I saw this by him as well.

>The impact of intellectuals' ideas and crusades on the larger society, both past and present, is the ultimate concern. These ideas and crusades have ranged widely from racial theories of intelligence to eugenics to "social justice" and multiculturalism.

>In addition to in-depth examinations of these and other issues, Intellectuals and Race explores the incentives, the visions and the rationales that drive intellectuals at the highest levels to conclusions that have often turned out to be counterproductive and even disastrous, not only for particular racial or ethnic groups, but for societies as a whole.

Probably a good read given the Hernandez/Cross tweets regarding NYS some people [like myself] find to be offensively condescending.

I didn't realize I had to do your homework for you. This was the top result of a google search for "shaker heights sociology study schools". When I saw this study last it was in article format but I am not surprised the author wrote a book about it.

Anyways, you are remembering the study incorrectly. It was a study of middle class black families in comparison to middle class whites within the same community. He found that the white parents were significantly more likely to preach the value of education and homework and hold their children responsible when they performed poorly academically, whereas the reverse was true with the black parents. They did little to reinforce the importance of school or homework and blamed the teachers/schools when their children did poorly. So yes, actually, it addresses this point directly.

Look, I do not care to "convert" you. I couldn't care less if you believe what I am saying. The link to the book is of zero help to you as you are not going to order it and read it and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to search for any evidence that is contrary to your claim (unless it is spoon fed to you), so what do you want? Shall I xerox the relevant pages of the article (assuming I ever find my copy) and mail them to you? Why is that my responsibility? I have told you that there is evidence to support my claim, I gave you a really good jumping off point, and you do not want to do any work. Fine. Again, I don't care. But do not make the mistake of assuming that your laziness or my apathy is reason enough to continue believing you are right about this.

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728

Heads up : Author is black guy. World known intellectual. He owns multiple books about race, discrimination and economics. There is huge amount of numbers there gathered from last 60 years.

​

> It’s like we have to do this once a week now. Y’all need to work on your memory recall.

You need to work on your attitude. Virtue signaling doesnt make your arguments more valid. In the end, if you really wanted to see larger picture, you could google numerous literature outside of feminist narrative.

When you are ready, please enlighten me and show me statistics for :

-income compared to whites

-family wealth compared to whites

-middle class status

-education

-life expectancy

Compared to black people in 2019 from your knowledge and perspective. I wait.

Cites you want?

There have been many studies done on the schools in Shaker Heights, Ohio, an affluent (generally middle class to very wealthy), racially integrated suburb of Cleveland. Even in one of the best funded districts in the state, black students perform worse than white students.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v044/44.6jackson.html

Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb presents an interesting departure from traditional studies of the Black and White achievement gap. A trio of elements made this study uniquely different. First, the school district is considered to be one of the best in the nation. Second, Shaker Heights is an upper middle-class suburb with a median family income of $66,000. Third, Shaker Heights is a highly educated community with an estimated 61% of the residents over 25 years old holding at least a bachelor's degree. The presence of these three elements, which are traditionally used to explain the achievement gap, adds a perplexing dynamic to the research contained in this book.

The gap in academic achievement between Black and White students in Shaker Heights led to the fundamental question that guided this research: Why do Black students, who seemingly have the appropriate conditions of life that should lead to academic success, still perform far below their White counterparts? Interestingly, the academic performance of Blacks in Shaker Heights was above the state and national average for Black students.

A few more cites:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X (considered the most authoritative study)
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=etd_hon_theses (pdf)
http://generaltoolbox.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/the_canary_in_the_mine.pdf (pdf)
http://annenberginstitute.org/pdf/cj_acheivement_gap.pdf(pdf)


For several years, I lived in South Euclid, a lower middle- to upper middle-class, stably racially integrated suburb not too far from Shaker Heights. There was the same gap between black students and white students, with special programs at the high school targeted specifically towards black students to ensure they graduate.

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/class-action/Content?oid=1502634

TL/DR: the district didn't succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Meanwhile, district officials, led by Superintendent Bill Zelei, refused to let daunting national trends discourage them. Half of black male students drop out anyway. Why bother trying? They didn't ship the new arrivals to special ed or let them coast in dumbed-down classes. They didn't pull money out of the high school and into majority-white elementary schools. They kept the honors courses, the Japanese language instruction, the art classes, and the drama club.

I'm sorry, I must disagree. He continually glossed over their depravity, making them seem like they were great people, almost to the point of veneration, up until they beat him up at the end. He went in with a notion of what he wanted to find, found it, and wrote about it. Not only that, but he was drunk/high almost the entire time he was writing it, so I highly doubt the validity of anything he says. I've read a lot of great literature and bad literature in my day, and that falls under bad lit.

If you want a good, properly done, unbiased, and well written ethnographic work that draws you into the lives of people in a shitty place in life, read Brothel or Sidewalk. If you want to read a piece of yellow gonzo journalism, pick up Hell's Angels.

My major critique is not so much that that he was biased (which he was), but that he wrote in a very fragmented style that wasn't lucid. You can write in such a style and be a great author (e.g. Kurt Vonnegut), however, he constantly sturggled to draw his fragments together. He hopped about sequentially without rhyme or reason, leaving stories half told and interjecting quotes between fragments that had nothing to do with the story. While some of his works might be great, I do not by any means consider Hell's Angels to be a great piece or journalism, literature, fiction, fantasy, or writing.

I can't speak for BBES, but respectful allies are usually welcome.

If you want learn more than you'll get out of a Reddit thread, I find So You Want to Talk About Race? is a great primer for people who want to understand, and are looking for a place to start.

Bullet three is exactly backward. Shaker Heights high school used to be ranked in the 90th percentile, but as the mix changed to the one you quote, the Percentage of Students Passing All Four Parts of the Ohio Graduation Test dropped to 67.4%, the high school stopped being one of the most desirable, and white flight has and is occurring.

I agree with you that Clevelanders do NOT fear integrated education, but people value education and will chase these rankings. So if an influx of black students changes a highschool's pass rate, you will see white flight based on the change in status of the highschool. It's also worth noting that the high desirability of these schools is a draw which creates demand for real-estate and as the rankings decline, people will abandon the community as it is a precursor to declining home values, which is where most of the middle-class has the majority of their wealth, exasperating the "white flight" scenario.

There was a Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement written about the phenomenon.

The author John U. Ogbu was ostricized by the black community because of it.

In a wide-ranging life, Hentoff made some vital contributions to Jazz. Some of the things I've personally found to be of great worth:

Co-author with Nat Shapiro of Hear Me Talkin' To Ya, an invaluable oral history of Jazz musicians.

As A&R Director of Candid Records, he was responsible for many great records, including:

Charles Mingus Presents Charles Mingus

Mingus

Cecil Taylor's The World Of..., Air, Cell Walk For Celeste, Jumpin' Punkins, and New York R&B

and many others...

oh wow. dat history.

r/tumblrinaction

r/the_donald

r/imgoingtohellforthis

yeah, you're totally asking in good faith.

Here. this is the most effort I'm willing to waste on you. Read a book if you're interested. If you're not, then just don't talk about it.

You're welcome.

Thank you for your perspective! I wanted to recommend a book that you might find interesting as to the difficulties in engaging white people in discussions on race. I found it especially enlightening regarding the language used in such discussion: Racism without Racists: Colorblind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States.

And here's a PDF I found (looking for the book link) that is a little bit of a preview to the material in the book by the same author: The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism

Edits: formatting, cutting down to size.

Koggit is being downvoted, but his statement is backed up by research. There was an article in the Boston Globe not too long ago about this and an entire book about admission practices called No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal.

There's a great deal of evidence that suggests if the admission system were entirely merit-based, Asian Americans would be present in even greater proportion in the country's ivy league schools. And there's strong evidence that schools are selecting against this outcome.

Hear Me Talkin to Ya is a great way to get into the history of Jazz. You feel like you are there.

Synopsis:

"A work of considerable substance." — The New Yorker. In this marvelous oral history, the words of such legends as Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, and Billy Holiday trace the birth, growth, and changes in jazz over the years. Includes excerpts from hundreds of personal interviews, letters, tapes, and articles.

Survival Math, The Color of Law, Killing The Black Body, and Stamped From The Beginning are all really good ones as well. Not sure which avenue of "black books" you're trying to go down specifically so I just threw out some general titles. Let me know if you're looking for something unlike what I listed and I'd be happy to give more!

Thomas Sowell is a black economist and author who writes on these (and other) topics very clearly and convincingly. In short: it's not about race at all - various ethnicities have been subjugated and marginalized throughout history around the world. Many have overcome adversity and become wildly successful...but it's always due to cultural values of work ethic, focus on education, and trying to create better opportunities for children, in spite of whatever social barriers may exist. Whenever political methods of "equalization" are tried they never work, because they don't come from within that group and don't address what's necessary for a given group to become successful.

Here's my vote for the most amusing book: https://www.amazon.com/Nigger-Strange-Career-Troublesome-Word-dp-B00K56UL2G/dp/B00K56UL2G/

Dat audiobook sample. I'm legitimately tempted to buy it.

Someone should start an outrage campaign to ban this next, even though it's written and read by a black legal scholar and apparently touches on the Huck Finn bannings.

I am curious on how Jared Taylor's book sales were going. I assume "fucking terribly", but maybe Amazon is reacting to a popularity surge? Curious on why now.

If anyone's curious on how I know this book exists, blame the our legal savior Eugene Volokh: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/11/professor-at-augsburg-university-minneso

Dude. I'm trying to help you and provide some information but you seem really dug into the "I'm not a racist" knee-jerk defensiveness. I might suggest a couple of books if you really care about learning about this stuff. These should get you started.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Want-Talk-About-Race/dp/1580056776

https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07D6XQQRY

Another lib proving my point. How about you read some of her research and educate yourself! Oh wait, I forgot libs can't handle FACTS 😂😂😂

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

Seriously you ask for my opinion and that's the reply I get? And I thought we were friends. I also find you attitudes on the achievement gap to be quaint. Here is a study by a black sociologist on the reasons black students perform poorly in a rich middle class school district. His conclussion...It isn't the teachers.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/rich-black-flunking/Content?oid=1070459

Here is another perspective from a white teacher who chose to teach in a primarily black school district. I am sure the blame for the achievement gap rest on his shoulders as well.

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html

Yes, they have. I don't know about comparing the real dollar value of slaves to the value of a worker in the 21st Century, but historians have certainly explored the economics of a slave-based economy versus a free-enterprise economy.

The late Kenneth Stampp notably concluded that a slave-based economy was drastically less efficient (and obviously, immoral and hideous) than one in which employers competed for the services of free workers.

SOURCES:

Stampp, Kenneth M. Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Knopf, 1956.

Kolchin, Peter. Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom. Belknap Press, 1987.

Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before The Civil War. Oxford University Press, 1995.

The study itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

Thomas Sowell's book where he talks about this study and much, much more: https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728

Sowell also talks a lot about the subject in his autobiography-- and he has a really good perspective on this as a black man who grew up in Harlem, became a Marxist, studied economics, and then later became fiscally conservative after working at the labor department and realizing that they actually didn't want him to prove the truth about the minimum wage due to the political implications: https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Odyssey-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0684864657

If you don't want to read the books, here's a fairly quick youtube interview on the Intellectuals and Race book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ImP-gJvas

You really do.

>In his book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal; Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life, Espenshade notes that the biggest testing advantage belongs to African-American students. Black students who were accepted into these elite schools could have SAT scores on a 1600 scale that were 310 points lower than a white, middle-class applicant. Hispanic applicants enjoyed a 130 point advantage.
>
>Low-income students, regardless of race, also enjoyed a 130-point advantage and working-class applicants got a 70-point advantage. Upper-middle class students enjoyed a 50-point advantage.
>
>The applicants who were hurt the most by the affirmative-action admission policies were Asian students, who had to earn 140 points more than the typical middle-class, white applicant to gain admission.

No one even denies this nonsense; The Atlantic even argues that affirmative action hasn't gone far enough and only concedes that it's sometimes discriminatory in terms of the negative effect on Asian students.

You're just spamming the sub now with this.
Repeating the same things and not advancing your position.

Nor are you responding to my questions so that we can have a rational discussion by establishing what is "racism and privilege" exactly and how it pertains to the city.

Because right now it's all this fuzzy notion that makes excuses far too easy. Talking to you really does remind me of a good will hunting secene. I even brought up Howard Zin for cryin out loud.

Anyway, Perhaps something like John Ogbu's study "Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement" would be of benefit here.

Otherwise this is isn't going anywhere and it's clear that no amount of reasoning is going to change whatever some militant BLM mantra crept into your mind.

Hanging around /r/conspiracy does not imply that I should take theories at face value. I think that there are power structures designed to keep people in power, but I disagree that they're based on race, race division is nothing but another diversion tactic from those that are truly in power, to divide and conquer.

You've pointed me towards no proof or any reasonable indicator that black people are truly oppressed. Black people that have decided to transcend the culture that would bring them down have been successful, those that decide to blame others for their problems probably have not. It's really that simple. You can't argue inequality and oppression when black people have the same rights and can even rise to be president or attorney general, this is something that you have not addressed.

I recommend this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/product-reviews/0465058728/ref=cm_cr_dp_text?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=helpful#R3PI46WC1VDA6T

Sowell explains why cultural differences and not genetic or racial discrimination determine how certain minorities excel and others not so much.

I also recommend taking a look at the crime statistics coming from the USA census bureau and the FBI. They show that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crimes in proportion to their % of the overall population, this is something that many people don't get into their heads, the concept of representation.

Not everyone who lacks a house wants one. That was an interesting take away from when I read this really good book in college.

You really, honestly should. Especially if you take your interest in sociology seriously. It would be like not reading The Bell Curve (which a bunch of people disagree with)

https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X/

To be fair, there are many books on this subject. Sometimes a pithy tweet works even better.

Wow, but this guy is ignorant, which I guess has become mandatory for the mainstream libertarianism that Reason represents.

> I'd imagine that some of the most conservative students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural backgrounds. And point three is also true, though some conservatives evidently feel that their professors will retaliate against them if they speak up (though they could be wrong about this—feelings are not facts).

By and large, if reports about what this book says about competitive admissions are true, at places like Cornell they've found ways to all but eliminate admitting strong non-legacy conservative students. And those "feelings" he denigrates are very much "factual" given that there have been for years, decades really, too many well publicized horror stories about conservative students speaking out in class and getting anything from failing grades to actions trying to and as I recall at least a few times getting them expelled. Plus starting in the Obama era it's become trivial for a female peer to arrange expulsion in far too many colleges.

He also claims to be ignorant in words I've not quoted of all the fields that in the US have become almost or entirely closed to conservatives, like science and math; today I wouldn't even try to become a scientist, and the signs were clear when I started that process in higher education back in 1979.

So you aren't open-minded about the idea that racial discrimination against people of color isn't comparable to racial discrimination against white people. Got it. Glad I didn't waste my time arguing. If you ever want to educate yourself, this is a good place to start.

Well, here's a good resource on the science behind implicit biases:Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Notice that this isn't even critical theory, this is simply social science research demonstrating how otherwise good and moral people can inherit biases, racist/sexist/or what have you, without knowing they possess these biases.

Feminist critiques of video game culture take this kind of research for granted. It's something we've known about for a long time. We can then build off of that and point out what the gender biases in video game culture are. When a feminist criticises video game culture, she is not implying that video gamers by and large are all sexist pigs who think women should go back to the kitchen. Feminists are criticising the implicit biases that we don't even realize we have that portray women in sexist ways, sexist imagery we don't even recognize as sexist.
When the majority of PC gamers react to feminists, they react to the idea that feminists are calling them all sexist pigs. And this reaction stems from an ignorance of what feminists are actually saying. And when this kind of ignorance gets passed around in a circle jerk fashion like on this subreddit, you can probably start to understand why those of us who do read this stuff get so damn angered and venomous in our tone.

Another great resource is racism without racists. Same general idea. How many of us have inherited racist attitudes and values without ever even realizing it. And we can test for these racist attitudes with some rather sophisticated techniques available in the social sciences.

That's where I'm coming from. I apologize for my tone.

Yeah really. Like it or not, he is pretty much correct.

For instance, check out this 30-year sociology study on academic habits.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465058728/?coliid=IV5OVDM0KKXN2&colid=33OPSQMTB84F&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

Enjoy, I did.

It has been noted that voluntary immigrants (whites, asians) do far better than most involuntry immigrants (most african americans, native americans).

I've always liked Nat Hentoff

Evidence shows the differences in academic aptitudes among races are so small as to be negligible. The same is true about gender where females tend to be very slightly better at some tasks on average ... but who cares. It's negligible on average and says nothing about any individual.

The problems with inner city schools that you mention are primarily socio-economic and also cultural (see Shaker Heights: https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X ), not genetic.

I think you are arguing that teachers should be evaluated based on growth rather than proficiency.

You might find this book interesting; it's about homeless people making a living by selling books or magazines on the street.

Archives for links in comments:

• By hga_another (amazon.com): http://archive.is/xW7tK
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.0, I believe we are supposed to file a police report, yes? And all the little things go in baggies for evidence.^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^Website

I think you might appreciate this book: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1580056776/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XjDzCb2ZYMA9J

Amazon link to the printed studies and other of his works.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=John+Ogobu&x=10&y=22

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-1-spell

Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement (Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education)

http://www.amazon.com/Minority-Education-Caste-Cross-Cultural-Perspective/dp/0125242506/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-2-spell

Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective (A Carnegie Council on Children Monograph)

http://www.amazon.com/Next-Generation-Ethnography-Neighbourhood-anthropology/dp/0127855890/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-3-spell

Next Generation: Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neighbourhood (Studies in anthropology)

Read this one in grad school, might have some relevant topics.
https://www.amazon.com/Sidewalk-Mitchell-Duneier/dp/0374527253

Not sure how modern you're looking for, but "How the Other Half Lives" is a well known book about the slums of the late 1800s.

I figured that was what you were thinking but didn't expect you to admit it openly.

> Spoiler: it's black people.
>
> I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

The Pew Research Center found that a significant majority of whites voted for Trump, regardless of their education level or economic status. To paraphrase Ijeoma Oluo, the election wasn't just about race, but race was a factor.

I prefer: Non-fiction (Wide range)

Currently reading:

Intellectuals and Race, by Thomas Sowell.

Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement

Minority Status, Oppositional Culture and Schooling

The book is in google books. You can read a lot of it.

Spoiler: it's black people.

I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

John Ogbu?

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Tanning-America-Hip-Hop-Created/dp/1592407382
  
  
• Hip Hop America (Personally read this)
  
  
• From Black Power to Hip Hop: Racism, Nationalism, and Feminism (Politics, History, & Social Change)
  
  You'd most likely to find more about your topic in papers rather than books. Better off going to your local library. I have a few from my university's library, but that was about the simillarity of traditional poetry and Hip-Hop.
  
  
  EDIT: Format

Here's a book that more or less sums it up:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X

I agree with you on two points:

1. The condition blacks are in today is due in large part to being enslaved for ~100 years, then being subject to institutional racism for another ~100 years.
   
2. There are still people who hold positions of power that who knowingly or unknowingly hold black people back.
   
   
   After that our agreement ends. The position and opportunity of black people in society today is better than it has ever been. If they had the culture of Asians or Jews they could easily outpace white people in every metric. Further, whining and blaming everything on "white racism" will hold black people in the ghetto forever. Your viewpoints are actively oppressing African Americans.

He has written maybe a dozen books about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Culture-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465067972

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Economics-and-Politics-of-Race-Audiobook

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/067930262X

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X

But here is a speech he wrote about three such books (Race and Culture, Migrations and Culture, and Conquests and Cultures.)

https://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

Note he immediately points out not only that things aren’t equal or just, but also that there’s no reason one should expect equality, nor that we should expect everyone to behave morally. That’s specifically what I was responding to re. your post.

Of course you don’t see or feel the privilege. And this is absolutely no fault of your own. You’ve had it your whole life. To you it’s perfectly normal, expected, it’s the status quo and it is invisible to you.

I had this very discussion with my uncle-in-law a little while back. He couldn’t understand how people of color and people in poverty can’t live “the American Dream” simply by working hard (ie “pull yourself up by your bootstraps). He kept pointing out the challenges in his own upbringing and how he had overcome them “all on his own.” He just could not see how his upper middle class upbringing which included a working father and stay at home mom both of whom were college educated, four bedroom house in a good neighborhood, and private schooling with after school tutoring had afforded him a level of privilege not available to people in poverty.

So here is my challenge to you. Go and find a black man any black man and ask them about how they have experienced racism and discrimination in their own lives; ask him how he responds to being pulled over by a cop. Find a poor family of color using government assistance and ask them about how they are talked to by everyday people while they work two full time jobs and go without food to make sure their kids have dinner. Go and find a person who speaks with a Spanish accent and ask them how often they are told to “go back where they came from.” Go and find a woman working in the same position as you do and ask her what her salary is. Go and ask a woman what she does to protect herself when she has to go out alone at night.

Then ask yourself why YOU have never experienced those things. The answer is because you are a white male. Still don’t believe me. Then pull out a book and read. Here are some great books that will educate you to the condition of people of color:

• Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal
  
• Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome: America's Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing
  
• So You Want to Talk About Race
  
• The Hate U Give
  
  These are just a few examples. There are Oh so many more. Before you discount the idea of privilege make sure you educate yourself about the condition of the people under your feet.
  
  YOU may not be putting people down to pull yourself up, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t start higher up the ladder than they did.

Doesn't have much to do with graffiti/street art, but your comment on the broken window theory reminded me of this. That theory was not a very grounded one in either economics or any of the social sciences, and is considered by more than a few anthropologists as more damaging then helpful.

I'm having some issues finding information on desegregation experiences in schools (USA, particularly private schools in the north-east).

This article is the best one I've found so far. As far as books go, I read Going to School in Black & White but it wasn't really what I was expecting. So You Want To Talk About Race was an excellent (if not always enjoyable) read though. I've also read a few general books on the civil rights movement, and more articles/blog posts than I can name.

Also looking for books about "The Stanley Plan" in Virginia.

Would anyone be able to point me towards some more resources? I'll take anything really: timelines, anecdotes, books/biographies or speculation (just label it as such). I'm also looking for information from both perspectives (white vs PoC)... and I'm aiming for realism, not happy go-lucky unicorns that fart rainbows. There is a reason that (it seems like) a lot of the first PoC admitted to previously white schools transferred out after all, and while I can make some guesses about the reasoning that's all it would be.

For background -

>!This is for a Harry Potter -ish story set at Ilvermorny during the 60s, with the assumption that Rappaport's Law essentially banned muggle-borns from the school until it's repeal in '65, and discrimination is a pretty big theme. A lot of it revolves around the whole blood purity thing, the racism that those muggle-born kids learned from society/parents and how those things interact. Also: the squib marches, voldemort's rise and first wizarding war from a foreign perspective, the civil rights movement and how that effects MACUSA's policies, and so on. Yes, the story spans a few years :D!<

• Only defining characteristic is Black skin color (skinny Black guy looks nothing like the deeply muscular athlete)
  
• Caption's central idea is a status argument
  
• Black guy is serving white people
  
  If your comment was genuine, you have a civic responsibility to read this 5-star, easy to understand book so you can learn how to not be an accidental racism apologist.

On average, black Americans are poorer than white Americans. This was initially due to pre-Civil Rights Movement blatant racism and discrimination. After the Civil Rights Movement, blatant racism started to fade away, but our educational system has kept blacks from escaping from their poverty. Schools are funded by local taxes, so when the people are poorer, the schools aren't as good. The abundance of land and quality of roads has allowed the wealthy to geographically isolate themselves from the poor (usually black, but also white and Hispanic).

However, African American culture may also play a detrimental role, as addressed in this book by anthropologist John Ogbu.

>I'm saying Thai particular time racial prejudice in NYC was a major factor.

And I'm saying you need to have more of a reason than, "Because black murders weren't on the front page of the news paper there's racial injustice."

Would you please quit the personal attacks? The only thing you have to defend yourself are personal attacks at this point. I'm telling you that saying, "Because something happened to a white person and not a black person. Or because something happened to a black person and not a white person, that's racism." Isn't enough of a reason to call someone a racist. It's ridiculous. But it's really the only way liberals can keep up the facade of a racist culture and create an image of being a protector of minorities.

>First of all that's not the name of the book. It's "society" not "race."

Actually I'm talking about the book Intellectuals and Race. http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728

Some people agree and disagree with his work. Is it any wonder intellectuals take issue with him when he criticizes their culture and methods so heavily?

Let me give you some free advice.

Know who has it harder than white males when it comes to fighting quotas and taking a hit on admissions or employment because of their race? It’s Asian males. They get all the shit of being a minority, but none of the benefits.

The government considers them a minority (which they are), but not an under-represented minority, so they don’t get into the quotas. Asian females don’t get the race quota either, but they get the gender quota, so they are better off.

Lots of people have done studies and found this to be the case. For example, these folks did a study and published a book about it. Here’s a chart from their book. Compared to white males as the baseline, blacks get an equivalent of 130 free SAT points when it comes to admission to elite schools. That is, a white student would need 130 more SAT points than the black student to have the same chance of admission. But guess where Asians place? They suffer a penalty of 140 points relative to whites, and 270 points relative to blacks. To have the same chance for admission as a white student, an Asian needs to have a SAT score 140 points higher than whites. Talk about race-based discrimination, these guys get the short end of the stick.

This is why when someone says “OMG! Everyone is sexist and racist to white males!” but forgets to mention Asian males, it comes across as racist/sexist whining. If you were really concerned about fairness, why the fuck would you omit the class that has it even worse than you? They never even had “white privilege” in the country, so what past sins of their forefathers are they paying for?

I don’t mean to offend, I am offering some genuine, well-intentioned advice. When you say something like “poor persecuted white males, we’re the new lowest rung on the discrimination ladder”, people realize that this isn’t true, so you’re not seen as championing fairness or equality, you’re seen as fighting for the white male privilege you once enjoyed and lost. You come across as a racist and sexist.

I don’t ask you to take the “white” out of the picture. By all means say “white”, but if you were to modify your statement to “Asian and white males face the heaviest discrimination from society these days”, not only would you be more truthful, people would also have a harder time calling you racist. Because hey, you’re not just fighting for your own sex and race, you’re fighting against the system of treating people unfairly.

I highly recommend this even if you are a racist/sexist fuckwad who hates everyone else. It’s just good politics. It makes your case stronger.

For anyone interested in my notes on this interview with Harvard, Columbia, and University of Chicago educated Thomas Sowell, on his book Intellectuals and Race (no affiliate link), please see below. I was watching it on Youtube at 1.5.x, and it's just so packed full of common sense, backed by research, that I had to take notes to do it justice. Keep in mind these are my notes, and not all are just straight quotes. So there's some intelligence guided by experience.

Substandard English (e.g. black-speak) is holding black people back. Aspects of the language (e.g. "axe" for "ask" ) traces back to both the south and Britain before that - not Africa.

In societies where widespread multiculturalism and diversity exists, you find societies that are barely able to constrain widespread violence. (e.g. India barley coheres as a nation; the number of killed between Hinduism and Muslims ran into the hundreds of thousands when Britain made India free).

Diversity in college acceptance policies doesn't produce integration. Before affirmative action, particularly in the form of diversity quotas in College acceptance policies, and you find increased division. Institutions in eras prior to diversity mandates generally had better integration and less racial division. The data for diversity programs doesn't support the existence of diversity programs - it refutes it.

The black subculture in America today is is holding blacks back. Intellectuals today should be fixing the problem, instead of extending, or exploiting it.

Progressives were the racists. Under Woodrow Wilson, certain aspects of segregation began enforcement. Liberals by insisting on their views repeatedly, without data supporting their views, setup an intellectual culture that made things worse - not better. Multiculturalism - bringing students into institutions that they're ill-qualified for, sets the students back. The " intelligentsia" pays no price for its views because there's not test, nor evidence for the basis of their ideas.

"Intellectuals" have deep intelligence in very limited areas and it's dangerous. E.g. they're a mile-deep, but an inch wide. Most have not studied affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc. But the ideas, amidst the intellectual crowd have expanded - like a plague.

"No individual or Group can be blamed for being born into circumstances that lack... advantages. But neither can 'society' be automatically assumed to be either the cause or the cure for such disparities." - Despite centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, bad policy in urban environments, etc. For the child born into challenging circumstances (e.g. Detroit vs. Greenwich, CT) - no one (e.g. not society, not whites, not me) is to blame (expect perhaps that child's parents). The average black kid today is, materially, better off than the average black kid growing up in the 50s. The difference today, is that the schools are worse, and that's bad policy (primarily, bad liberal policy - since liberals run many/most urban schools). Circumstances are not the fault of slavery, or anything else that happened 100 - 200 years ago.

James Flynn; after the Second World War, black and white American Soldiers had children. And those children, growing up in Germany, showed no IQ differences at all. The black and white kids had the same IQ. The reason that blacks and whites had the same IQ in Germany, unlike int he US, according to Flynn, is that the children growing up in Germany grew up with no black subculture. (e.g. there was no gangster rap in Germany).

... Also, just because I think it's appropriate... "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

I can't really help your internal qualms but I can suggest books that might help.

Sociology undergrad here. Went through a huge anti-racist-militant phase and now I'm still that but covert. The most crucial problem a lot of PoC have with racism is that they have no words or dictation to find out what exactly is bothering them. Racism is carefully crafted that way to be. It's pedantic, however, to argue whether or not that is purposefully done or not. We can acknowledge that it's a product of racism (the inability to have a dialogue about it).

THE BOOKS

Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America

• This will probably resonate the most with you because it's the more frequent amount of racism we experience. It's a different critique because instead of addressing the right's racism, it addresses the left's supposedly openness and diversity.
  
  The New Jim Crow
  
  
• This book was written by a lawyer who first completely dismissed the idea that there was still a racial caste system in the U.S. However, her research told her otherwise as she investigated the ways that the 5th amendment was violated on a federal level, how prison populations are used for manual labor at low pay that equates to a modern day-covert form of slavery, and how prison populations count as 2/3rds or 3/5ths a person for a state's population.
  
  Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class
  
  
• This approaches racism in how it's affected and formed our modern day political institutions. It talks about how politicians use racism to convince white voters to vote against their own best interests.
  
  Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood, 3rd Edition
  
  
• This book was written by a Catholic priest who followed two groups of poor income boys; one group was majority white and one group was majority black. It's both a academic and personal account of his observations on how these boys grew up over three decades. An incredible longitudinal study that is both objective and genuine.
  
  If you're serious about understanding race and ethnic relations, you'll read tese books. If you need any advice on starter chapters I have a few.