Jump to content
NovaPlasm

Islamophobia Articles/Books

Recommended Posts

Hey All,

 

I'm cutting a semi-kritikal affirmative for next years topic, and I'm planning on having an Islamophobia advantage.  However, I'm unsure where I should start cutting my evidence from.  Do any of you have some good articles and/or books pertaining about Islamophobia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

 

I'm cutting a semi-kritikal affirmative for next years topic, and I'm planning on having an Islamophobia advantage.  However, I'm unsure where I should start cutting my evidence from.  Do any of you have some good articles and/or books pertaining about Islamophobia?

Since you are reading a policy aff you don't need "books" about them. I'd look into some articles about squo racist practices to construct your advantage. 

 

 

 

https://news.vice.com/article/the-nsas-racist-targeting-of-individuals-is-as-troubling-as-indiscriminate-surveillance

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are reading a policy aff you don't need "books" about them. I'd look into some articles about squo racist practices to construct your advantage. 

 

Nah books are chill. Case in point above.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said they were bad. I was talking about how a lot of islamaphobia literature wouldn't support soft left policy affs 

Never did he say that he was reading a policy aff. A semi-kritikal =/= soft left policy aff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said they were bad. I was talking about how a lot of islamaphobia literature wouldn't support soft left policy affs 

I think this is Factually Incorrect. Activists make political demands. Philosophers/theorists make observations about the world. These observations usually are about problematic phenomenon in the world. They might not say these phenomenon can be resolved in one shot policies, but for the most part, making policy recommendations is critical to most movements (particularly movements concerning Islamophobia). Especially on this topic, Islamophobia can be discussed in terms of policy. This can entail NSA/other shady organizations spying on Muslims. There could be affs that say we should strip the USFG of the ability to classify Muslims on certain or maybe all documents. As a Muslim, I can say that any theorist who speaks of Islamophobia, but does not say anything of policy recommendations or material strategies regarding islamophobia, is in a privileged position that cannot grasp the reality of Muslims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very hard to give an exact definition obviously but one could say material strategies constitute challenging specific mechanisms in society (whether managed by the state or  non state actors by interacting with them directly) that affect life chances (for example there's attempts to stop policing, get access to medicare, redistribute wealth and try to gain rights).

 

There's always a very small fringe on both the radical left/right that prefers not to get their hands dirty with laws or organizations because they are seen as essentially terrible. They tend to say the world is tainted and it is violent to engage in institutions that redistribute life chances. Examples I've heard before. Some feminists claim that the state no longer can be utilized for progress (Irigaray compares the idea of human rights/reform to genocide). Problematic when we have the gender gap, when trans people don't have universal labour protections. Some marxists claim that the state and institutions are just nodes of redistribution of wealth for the rich so they are impossible to reform. Some afro pessimists (wilderson for sure) say theres no such thing as black institutions and white is always anti black in the world. He therefore forsakes materiality and efforts "in the world." The radical right wing also has its fair share of idealism/nonmaterialism. Soverign citizen tries to blow shit up (material but its more negation rather than changing (almost certainly) inevitable social organizations. Michigan militia men and women just camp out with guns and throw inflammatory rhetoric. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very hard to give an exact definition obviously but one could say material strategies constitute challenging specific mechanisms in society (whether managed by the state or  non state actors by interacting with them directly) that affect life chances (for example there's attempts to stop policing, get access to medicare, redistribute wealth and try to gain rights).

 

There's always a very small fringe on both the radical left/right that prefers not to get their hands dirty with laws or organizations because they are seen as essentially terrible. They tend to say the world is tainted and it is violent to engage in institutions that redistribute life chances. Examples I've heard before. Some feminists claim that the state no longer can be utilized for progress (Irigaray compares the idea of human rights/reform to genocide). Problematic when we have the gender gap, when trans people don't have universal labour protections. Some marxists claim that the state and institutions are just nodes of redistribution of wealth for the rich so they are impossible to reform. Some afro pessimists (wilderson for sure) say theres no such thing as black institutions and white is always anti black in the world. He therefore forsakes materiality and efforts "in the world." The radical right wing also has its fair share of idealism/nonmaterialism. Soverign citizen tries to blow shit up (material but its more negation rather than changing (almost certainly) inevitable social organizations. Michigan militia men and women just camp out with guns and throw inflammatory rhetoric. 

To argue that the state is for everyone is from a position of privelege, the one you kritiked earlier. If a material strategy is one that aims too change mechanisms in society, I don't see why things like feminist movements and afropessimist movements (a la burning down civil society) are not material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To argue that the state is for everyone is from a position of privelege, the one you kritiked earlier. If a material strategy is one that aims too change mechanisms in society, I don't see why things like feminist movements and afropessimist movements (a la burning down civil society) are not material.

In our age its pretty hard to find delineations between material and non material. Obviously burning down civil society and proliferating feminist discourse can have material implications. However, burning down the world is a pretty hard thing to do. in fact, wilderson in interviews and texts doesn't really tell us what it means (i.e. are we burning it all down or breaking down liberal subjectivity) and how to do it (what's the roadmap; how do we get the guns and tanks to black people and sympathizers; how do we inform out politics of this viewpoint). Afropessimism seems to sometimes go down the rabbit hole of interrogating the social ontology of the world rather than addressing the materiality black subject's lived expediences. Feminists sometimes go down the rabbit hole of criticizing liberal legalism to the point that they imagine the state can't doing anything important. You've got these theorists who think that legal measures either do nothing or make things worse. They might say that we just need discussions so people are informed and we spread the word about things like date rape and trafficking. The law shapes public opinion. Lax rape laws make date rape seem okay. if the law went the other way, then people would understand the law to be common sense and make justifications for it. some of the worst examples of feminism in public policy is when feminists try to crack down on trafficking. they track down companies that use labour trafficking victims and ask the public to shame them. Marxist feminists and labour organizers say we should have tighter labour regulations to crack down on companies and give rights to migrants. what's happening is that feminists who are law phobic unintentionally assuage the capitalists to feel good about their purchases and make it impossible to stop mass violence. 

 

So yes. the state is EXTREMELY important and is critical to any movement. Law social norms as well as the disparity in wealth shape social reality immensely and tells us what is common sense. so there is an incentive to change the material world first and foremost before we can change any supposed ontological underpinnings of the world.

 

Im not saying the state is for everybody but that the state affects everybody. Therefore, social movements can at best make marginal gains at best when materiality and institution building is not a large part of their focus. Obviously the state affects some people more than anything, but thats why people in privilege are essential to bridging the gap between extremely vulnerable populations and institutions. Without each other, we all burn (although some are burning now and will burn more before others). 

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our age its pretty hard to find delineations between material and non material. Obviously burning down civil society and proliferating feminist discourse can have material implications. However, burning down the world is a pretty hard thing to do. in fact, wilderson in interviews and texts doesn't really tell us what it means (i.e. are we burning it all down or breaking down liberal subjectivity) and how to do it (what's the roadmap; how do we get the guns and tanks to black people and sympathizers; how do we inform out politics of this viewpoint). Afropessimism seems to sometimes go down the rabbit hole of interrogating the social ontology of the world rather than addressing the materiality black subject's lived expediences. Feminists sometimes go down the rabbit hole of criticizing liberal legalism to the point that they imagine the state can't doing anything important. You've got these theorists who think that legal measures either do nothing or make things worse. They might say that we just need discussions so people are informed and we spread the word about things like date rape and trafficking. The law shapes public opinion. Lax rape laws make date rape seem okay. if the law went the other way, then people would understand the law to be common sense and make justifications for it. some of the worst examples of feminism in public policy is when feminists try to crack down on trafficking. they track down companies that use labour trafficking victims and ask the public to shame them. Marxist feminists and labour organizers say we should have tighter labour regulations to crack down on companies and give rights to migrants. what's happening is that feminists who are law phobic unintentionally assuage the capitalists to feel good about their purchases and make it impossible to stop mass violence. 

 

So yes. the state is EXTREMELY important and is critical to any movement. Law social norms as well as the disparity in wealth shape social reality immensely and tells us what is common sense. so there is an incentive to change the material world first and foremost before we can change any supposed ontological underpinnings of the world.

 

Im not saying the state is for everybody but that the state affects everybody. Therefore, social movements can at best make marginal gains at best when materiality and institution building is not a large part of their focus. Obviously the state affects some people more than anything, but thats why people in privilege are essential to bridging the gap between extremely vulnerable populations and institutions. Without each other, we all burn (although some are burning now and will burn more before others). 

The law does not shape public opinion, public opinion shapes the law. What's really cool is hoping the state will solve everything, in a magical world it would; but we don't live in that world, we live in a world where congress is controlled by white neoliberal racist males who dictate policy for their business interests.

Tighter labor regulations? Seems cool, except policies today are loosening them. Rape Laws? Already very strict, the problem is courts and public opinion not convicting people or even charging them.

On the note of Afropessimism, social ontology = black subject materiality.

Along with that:

 

 

...all these progressive groups come with an orientation toward the problem that does two things: first, it crowds out what we have been talking about here; then, it polices the terrain of political discourse so that we can't get a word in edgewise about how there is no solution that can be thought of to Black suffering. They say: 'If you can't think of a solution then don't talk about it.' And if we can provide for ourselves what Hortense Spillers calls an 'intramural context' to talk about how the problem today is the same as it was in 1855 even though the technologies have changed, then that is something, and it can move us towards the next big moment in which we are able to set it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law does not shape public opinion, public opinion shapes the law. 

Lol, and you say Alwaysgoforinherency lives in a "magical world."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, and you say Alwaysgoforinherency lives in a "magical world."

Yes, as it turns out, the majority of the public in the US is incredibly racist, the only reason we don't think so is the only people we talk to are hyper liberal debaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as it turns out, the majority of the public in the US is incredibly racist, the only reason we don't think so is the only people we talk to are hyper liberal debaters.

No I meant that you have causality backwards: public opinion rarely influences lawmakers; rather, lawmakers influence public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I meant that you have causality backwards: public opinion rarely influences lawmakers; rather, lawmakers influence public opinion.

Yes, I know.

and

3f1005b90028ea2ea85d84533269505c.600x600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×