'Abolition Geography' by Ruth Wilson Gilmore | Book Discourse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Abolition is a social activist movement committed to entirely ending the practice of policing, prisons, and surveillance. What is the philosophy behind this movement? By critically analyzing prisons through geography, author Ruth Wilson Gilmore provides deep insights and constructive reasonings for why abolition can deliver creatively positive societal change.
Feel free to follow me:
Blog: theblackponderer.wordpress.com
Twitter: @blackponderer
Background Music:
Chillhop - / chillhopdotcom
Sleepy Fish - Pond Sketch chll.to/b47cd969
Arbour - Solarium chll.to/fd043d15
Comodo - Last Up chll.to/d61110c2
oddfish - Indian Summer Rally chll.to/9542080a
Plusma - Luumi chll.to/85cece7c
Philanthrope, Ian Ewing - Barcade chll.to/f3eed53c
chromonicci - Summer's Delight. chll.to/85c728fd
Masked Man - Benson & Hedges chll.to/8c94fcd8
Vhsceral - Gimetime chll.to/27424a9f
Mama Aiuto - Beach Safari chll.to/548cff4d
Enzalla - Morning View chll.to/075321f3
C Y G N - 2Girls 1Rose chll.to/0e00f5d6
Poldoore - Serenity chll.to/d31e5f50
The Doppelgangaz - Dialed Up chll.to/c7bb8a3a
mommy - Jellyfish-Lamp chll.to/f6007bae
Makzo, jacuzzi jefferson, [ocean jams] - Zephyr chll.to/c6943035
King I Divine - Reflections chll.to/f2208e33
Psalm Trees - Curosau chll.to/06757d7d
Aves - Stay Positive chll.to/0d713bc6
Moods, Yasper - Blessed chll.to/65d6efd9
Taro - Pale Fire chll.to/0d628127
sadtoi - Noir de Jais chll.to/4c660b71
Tesk, C4C - Misty chll.to/ff40156a
L'Indécis - Windmills In My Head chll.to/891d9b9b
Afroham - Ambivalence chll.to/7f8a687b
Stan Forebee - Circles In The Sand chll.to/be449f3c
Mo Anando - Oase chll.to/79617bc9
Leavv - Stargaze chll.to/2c5c5044
Masked Man - Childhood Dream chll.to/49fcd6d3
there's a quote from levar burton "all literature is political," the truth of which is even more apparent when we recognize that to live is itself political -- to take up space somewhere on this planet is itself political... "just by living and breathing is political" -- brilliant!... we can see how different skin tones evolved as humans left africa and lost dark color through less exposure to the sun -- such that "race" as skin color was originally the result of taking different space on earth, very naturally... BUT, the cultural hegemonies that built xenophobic fear of "outsider" that created racism is based upon the manmade territorial borders that decreasingly natural, gerry-mandered according to enhancing hegemonic power... whereas racism may have seemed essential to columbus and eurocentric colonizers, in the 21st century, with global connection through planes and telecommunication, we could make racism and xenophobia obsolete... the only thing preventing that is the fact that dominator patriarchy continues to accrue imbalanced privilege by perpetuating racism and xenophobia... and yeah, prison-police-state overlord control has very little to do with preventing crime if crime were defined as behaviors that perpetuate suffering and inequity -- they actually sustain and enhance suffering and inequity..
A very interesting exploration of a very interesting sounding book. I'll certainly be picking it up and good to see you in my feed again!
Super interesting
Saying freedom is a place is nice because it removes the abstraction that generally comes with thoughts of freedom
pr໐๓໐Ş๓ ✌️
I bet you reach more people through youtube (12.2k subscribers) which seems maybe more effective, in terms of relating to *_the masses,_* instead of canvassing, etc. Just in terms of priorities, I always wonder how to dedicate my time. I heard theoretical work is just the class struggle but in the realm of ideas, so the internet maybe does play a role. The internet feels more centralized, while in the streets people have their niche's, friend groups, places to go, things to do.
It's a lot easier to remain in niches on the internet than in person. It's because the internet is designed this way. The ideal for the internet was to connect people from all around the world with vastly different life experiences and points of views for the purposes of sharing knowledge to ultimately learn from each other. But the reality is the internet is shaped in large part by corporations who generate profit through ad revenue and therefore design the internet so like minded and similar people are grouped together into demographics that advertisers can easily target. So the internet has in large part become a collection of echo chambers, being sold specialized commodities, rather than exchanging knowledge. Of course, that's not all the internet, but that's a huge part of it, and it is the part that is most frequented. I'd like to think my channel brings people of different mindsets and opinions together for critical discussion. Even when we disagree, there is constructive discussion where learning takes place and hopefully even some progress toward addressing the problems I highlight. I find that that kind of interaction is more likely to happen when you're talking to someone face to face, rather than virtually because it's more apparent you're talking to a human being similar to yourself with the same level of complexities and depth. There's more of an opportunity to relate to each other on a human level so there's a kind of mutual foundation you can work off of that's harder to create when your typing to an avatar picture attached to a pseudo/user name.
I will have to say that Abolition Geography is a near parody with what is wrong with academia nowaday. The footnotes loops around literature and references of the same type (anti racist literature and other self approving members of this part of academia), conjectures are made under the context of quasi Hegelianism and post Marxism, which are taken as granted. The author has a poor understanding, as usual, of economics, and in particular, capitalism, which is strangely ''racialized'', even though West Africa, Ghana for example, was capitalist without colonialism. A strange recipe of badly structured and extremely biased ''research'' , which doesn't try to discover, as any good scientist would do, but tries to prove, without any formal or consistent epistemological (proof) system. We're seeing the end of an ''intellectual'' system, plagued with lack of consistency in order to be complete.
I’d say your comment is an example of what’s wrong with critical discussion nowadays. You’re tossing out a lot of academic terms and phrases as a way to appear that you’re making a point but actually you’re using all these terms to avoid or navigate around the main issue. The main issue being that our criminal justice system doesn’t do anything to actually solve the problem of crime. At least this text, Abolition Geography, cites sociological research studies that show prisons create more problems than they solve. Rather than use academic jargon to hide your refusal to actually address the issue this text raises, try to speak directly to the text’s thesis, citing reasons why you agree or not.
@@theblackponderer I'm not trying to throw academic terms around, that's how i speak, and if you don't like it, it's completely fine, but, i am not sure that your disguised shot at me was warranted in any form. We do not know each others, hence i wouldn't throw ad hominem at you. Those terms, contain the reasoning. For example, nowhere did i disagree with the ''main issue'' as you present it, a justice reform. Transformation of American law is an actual good place to look at, when trying to rethink law. Or, The Economic of the Law/Justice by Poser, Rawl , ect. There's is no focus on the foundation of justice and law in the West in the author's book, J.G.A Pocock comes to mind. At the same time, you did not refute the fact that most of the footnotes are self referential, which is a prime factor in bad arguments. A poor set of prime document/sources in an indicator of a strong bias. Nothing controversial here. The book is full of Marxian perspectives on history. Hegelianism automate the future, there's a wind of change, upward, no one can stop it, in the case of Hegel it's the man of history, Marx, the force of production, work, we are seeing in the anti racist material, this idea, transformed along racial lines. It's embedded in the logic of the author. Capitalism, the usual suspect on the far left, is again, a vilain, instead of looking at it, just like Posner or Rawl did, as a problem generated by ideas, positivism of Bentham, the end game of pure utilitarianism, or the Hobbesian trap derived from Hobbes's vision of humanity. for example, which is much more interesting and profound. Instead, we have a piece of ''work'' in the same range as what has been popular in humanities depts, and what has been selling in bookstore, in between Floyd's murder and now, which is funny, coming from the anti-capitalist left. And listen, if what i just wrote is not satisfactory, that's cool. Take care of yourself man.
@@gaulindidier5995 But I wasn't throwing ad hominem at you, and this again showcases the problem with critical discussion nowadays, which is when a critique is given about a person's argument it is interpreted as a personal critique, which then offshoots into a rabbit hole of sideways intellectual oneupmanship, rather than focusing on the main issue. I didn't imply that you disagreed. Rather I asked whether you agreed or disagreed. That's one of the primary points of this text. Many people don't want to actually address the issue that abolition raises, rather they just concentrate on why abolition is too "radical" or "anti-capitalist" or "post Marxist" or "pseudo Hegelian" or whatever. It's this constant overly gross generalized critique of the critique, rather than addressing what is actually being critiqued. It's like rather than addressing the elephant in the room, people talk about problems with the room. Our society is not addressing the issue of crime effectively. This is blatantly obvious. Yet, collectively we have decided either not to address the issue at all or have pseudo intellectual discussions about how what we currently have is good enough.
@@gaulindidier5995 Did you really just cite Hobbes, Rawls and Bentham as profound? I totally agree that you're not making any critical points, you're just parroting what people like Jordan Peterson say, with no understanding of what these terms mean, or what they are trying to critique. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but try to read the book first and understand it before throwing all these terms around.
@@NuttyNeil76 How predictable, the Peterson take. I don't really intellectually care about what he has to say, but of course, you will think so, because in your mind, a person that thinks that the whole anti racist set of claims is bogus automatically means that i read 12 rules for life, on a weekly basis or something. It's caricatural, which doesn't surprise me, because the anti racist claims are more often than not, caricatural. It's also an easier model to live with, when we lack culture and general knowledge of things. Yes, Hobbes, Rawls and Bentham have made profound intellectual marks in western thoughts, are you actually arguing against that? That would be completely ridiculous. Are you going to make the statement that Hobbes, for example, is not a central figure in Natural rights laws? I don't think you know what you are talking about. Again, i am being accused of not making critical points, which i have done in my reply, but you have not tackled anything here. You've just emptily pin pointed names, and acted as if what i have said is out of bounds ,as if that the guys i have mentioned did not make critical contributions, if even i personally disagree with Hobbes in the final analysis for example, which i have made clear (Hobbesian trap, is a critique of Hobbes, which you did not get, because i don't think you know what you're talking about). So maybe, follow your own advice, and read outside of what you've been made to read. It's embarrassing for you that you're under the impression that you've made a point. And if you have any sort of education, the education system where you live, failed miserably. And yes, using the term parroting, is a personal attack, and i will reply, with a personal attack, and tell you, that you have no clue about laws or economics, and that you should stop acting like you do. And next time someone disagree with you, don't go for the ''you're a right winger that watch Peterson and you're a Trump supporter'' and blablabla.
Gonna read this one!! Thank you