Take a photo of a barcode or cover
Since the book is non-linear, it is hard to understand and contextualize the events as they happen. I try to avoid critiquing book structure, but Dear America skips around and is told in small vignettes, which gets pretty tiring to read.
While I believe in the general sentiment that the United States' immigration policy is wack af and needs to be reformed to help undocumented folk, this book kinda left me with more questions than I came in.
1) I push back on Vargas' belief that immigrants have to provide value/work harder to earn citizenship. While it was mostly mentioned towards himself/reiterated about his journalism career, people don't have to create value to have rights.
2) I wish Vargas engaged with how the "left" critiques his politics more. A large portion of the book talks about how Republicans (obviously) have pushed back on immigrants/undocumented folk and how bad Obama/Clinton was through their deportations and harmful immigration policies (which I agree with), but he doesn't engage on more "left" critiques of himself/his policies. I'm surprised he isn't more radical, since he is undocumented and gay, yet he engages with the corrupt propaganda machine that is fox news and just calls himself "for progress". I think this article is a good response to his lack of political stance/questionable practices as a journalist - "An Open Letter to Jose Antonio Vargas " by Luis Serrano-Taha.
3) I don't know what to make of the "if just five people helped an undocumented person then they could be helped like I was" belief. Vargas's story is informative about his immigration experience, but his experience isn't scalable/widely applicable based on the fact that he had connections to wealthy people growing up and connections to powerful people now as an experienced journalist. I wish he addressed the luck that he had (full scholarship ride in college or even a community that paid for his school class trips???) that is not available to other undocumented folks.
I'm a US citizen and an ally to undocumented people, I'm very sympathetic to Vargas' story about finding out his status, how he gets targeted for being undocumented, and his struggles with his family. I won't ever know those feelings about homelessness and uncertainty. My review isn't trying to challenge his experiences. But his political ideologies around his "non-partisanship", his "I'm not an activist, I'm a journalist", his lacking acknowledgment towards undocumented activists or other marginalized folk are not something that I support.
I understand that he wants to tell a story about himself, his experience. However, when he talks about the undocumented experience on his wide platform, he should also listen to other undocumented folk and uplift their voices.
While I believe in the general sentiment that the United States' immigration policy is wack af and needs to be reformed to help undocumented folk, this book kinda left me with more questions than I came in.
1) I push back on Vargas' belief that immigrants have to provide value/work harder to earn citizenship. While it was mostly mentioned towards himself/reiterated about his journalism career, people don't have to create value to have rights.
2) I wish Vargas engaged with how the "left" critiques his politics more. A large portion of the book talks about how Republicans (obviously) have pushed back on immigrants/undocumented folk and how bad Obama/Clinton was through their deportations and harmful immigration policies (which I agree with), but he doesn't engage on more "left" critiques of himself/his policies. I'm surprised he isn't more radical, since he is undocumented and gay, yet he engages with the corrupt propaganda machine that is fox news and just calls himself "for progress". I think this article is a good response to his lack of political stance/questionable practices as a journalist - "An Open Letter to Jose Antonio Vargas " by Luis Serrano-Taha.
3) I don't know what to make of the "if just five people helped an undocumented person then they could be helped like I was" belief. Vargas's story is informative about his immigration experience, but his experience isn't scalable/widely applicable based on the fact that he had connections to wealthy people growing up and connections to powerful people now as an experienced journalist. I wish he addressed the luck that he had (full scholarship ride in college or even a community that paid for his school class trips???) that is not available to other undocumented folks.
I'm a US citizen and an ally to undocumented people, I'm very sympathetic to Vargas' story about finding out his status, how he gets targeted for being undocumented, and his struggles with his family. I won't ever know those feelings about homelessness and uncertainty. My review isn't trying to challenge his experiences. But his political ideologies around his "non-partisanship", his "I'm not an activist, I'm a journalist", his lacking acknowledgment towards undocumented activists or other marginalized folk are not something that I support.
I understand that he wants to tell a story about himself, his experience. However, when he talks about the undocumented experience on his wide platform, he should also listen to other undocumented folk and uplift their voices.
Honestly, the book started off rough with the first essays containing the therapist and the nail salon bit which made me question the exact direction of the book. Saying that, I think that Hong's later writings are very well thought out.
I particularly enjoyed the essays "An Education", "Portrait of an Artist" and "The End of White Innocence". I think Hong's ability to be overly self-critical of her identity shows that she has thought a lot about topics surrounding the Asian American experience. While she certainly could have expanded on certain topics, the essays were overall informative (Although this has been my first book about Asian Americans past whatever I read in college).
Fair warning this book is comprised from essays that are very casual, not specifically aiming to go over Asian American history from an academic/strictly historical standpoint. The broad topic changes flowed like a conversation, such as Hong dipping into casual critiques about the whiteness Moonrise Kingdom and Blade Runner before moving onto another topic.
I particularly enjoyed the essays "An Education", "Portrait of an Artist" and "The End of White Innocence". I think Hong's ability to be overly self-critical of her identity shows that she has thought a lot about topics surrounding the Asian American experience. While she certainly could have expanded on certain topics, the essays were overall informative (Although this has been my first book about Asian Americans past whatever I read in college).
Fair warning this book is comprised from essays that are very casual, not specifically aiming to go over Asian American history from an academic/strictly historical standpoint. The broad topic changes flowed like a conversation, such as Hong dipping into casual critiques about the whiteness Moonrise Kingdom and Blade Runner before moving onto another topic.
I wish I started my political reading with this book. After I read it, I understood why it is often listed and how it would have helped me digest other political books.
I agree with Freire's ideas for problem-posing education systems over the banking model of education when applied to school. I didn't know that it was a controversial stance when reading it tbh, but I also prefer English/Political Science/History classes that are discussions rather than the banking model. My favorite classes in college were small seminars that were group discussion instead of straight lectures (which I thought everyone liked? I know memorizing stuff is easier, but I suck at doing flashcards).
Freire's political stances are both complex and easy to understand. He repeats his ideas frequently and explains everything multiple times. There is academic language used, but looking up words or using the dictionary function on an e-book helps.
Basically, if you want to learn what praxis is, read this book.
I agree with Freire's ideas for problem-posing education systems over the banking model of education when applied to school. I didn't know that it was a controversial stance when reading it tbh, but I also prefer English/Political Science/History classes that are discussions rather than the banking model. My favorite classes in college were small seminars that were group discussion instead of straight lectures (which I thought everyone liked? I know memorizing stuff is easier, but I suck at doing flashcards).
Freire's political stances are both complex and easy to understand. He repeats his ideas frequently and explains everything multiple times. There is academic language used, but looking up words or using the dictionary function on an e-book helps.
Basically, if you want to learn what praxis is, read this book.
The Groundings with My Brothers is a collection of essays from activist/academic/revolutionary Walter Rodney. I loved reading it and learned a lot about liberation from Rodney's struggles in the Caribbean. Some of my highlights are:
1) Rodney's Article defining Black Power -> In multiple chapters, Rodney writes a broad critique against colonialism, capitalism, and white power. I love how he expresses solidarity with non-black poc in his definition of Black Power
The Black people of whom I speak, therefore, are non-whites - the hundreds of millions of people whose homelands are in Asia and Africa, with another few millions in the Americas. A further subdivision can be made with reference to all people of African descent, whose position is clearly more acute than that of nonwhite groups."
but also addresses how some nonwhite groups have become more welcomed into society than black people.
When we go to Britain we don't expect to take over all of the British real estate business, all their cinemas and most of their commerce, as the European, Chinese and Syrian have done here. All we ask for there is some work and shelter, and we can't get that. Black Power must proclaim that Jamaica is a black society - we should fly Garvey's Black Star Banner, and we will treat all other groups in the society on that understanding - they can have the basic right of all individuals but no privileges to exploit Africans as has been the pattern during slavery and ever since."
2) I loved Chapter 4 since Rodney explains that learning African History is not to be used in defense against white supremacy or to follow European measurements of cultural relevancy/power. The importance of history is instead to unlearn the inaccurate portrayal of Africa and gain confidence in historical achievements/structures that colonialism removed. Chapter 4's theme could apply to other colonialized countries that had their histories and self-image taken away.
3) I also liked how "The Groundings with My Brothers" neatly connects from the last book I read, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", and further details how to work with the people. Rodney details what intellectuals should do in their systems and what they should do alongside the masses. As Patricia Rodney states in the commentaries :
" groundings exemplified his approach to life: one where academics and activism were integrated and inseparable in the pursuit of equality, justice, and a common humanity."
1) Rodney's Article defining Black Power -> In multiple chapters, Rodney writes a broad critique against colonialism, capitalism, and white power. I love how he expresses solidarity with non-black poc in his definition of Black Power
The Black people of whom I speak, therefore, are non-whites - the hundreds of millions of people whose homelands are in Asia and Africa, with another few millions in the Americas. A further subdivision can be made with reference to all people of African descent, whose position is clearly more acute than that of nonwhite groups."
but also addresses how some nonwhite groups have become more welcomed into society than black people.
When we go to Britain we don't expect to take over all of the British real estate business, all their cinemas and most of their commerce, as the European, Chinese and Syrian have done here. All we ask for there is some work and shelter, and we can't get that. Black Power must proclaim that Jamaica is a black society - we should fly Garvey's Black Star Banner, and we will treat all other groups in the society on that understanding - they can have the basic right of all individuals but no privileges to exploit Africans as has been the pattern during slavery and ever since."
2) I loved Chapter 4 since Rodney explains that learning African History is not to be used in defense against white supremacy or to follow European measurements of cultural relevancy/power. The importance of history is instead to unlearn the inaccurate portrayal of Africa and gain confidence in historical achievements/structures that colonialism removed. Chapter 4's theme could apply to other colonialized countries that had their histories and self-image taken away.
3) I also liked how "The Groundings with My Brothers" neatly connects from the last book I read, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", and further details how to work with the people. Rodney details what intellectuals should do in their systems and what they should do alongside the masses. As Patricia Rodney states in the commentaries :
" groundings exemplified his approach to life: one where academics and activism were integrated and inseparable in the pursuit of equality, justice, and a common humanity."
This book is straight doo doo, garbage, dog shit. It’s not a history book, but Will and Ariel Durant’s own opinions about people’s motivations with stories attached. The history is so brief, so shallowly covered, and presented in a straightforward and one-dimensional way. Sure covering world history and drawing overarching themes is hard to do, but history is nuanced and multifaceted.
Heaven and utopia are buckets in a well: when one goes down the other goes up; when religion declines Communism grows
Yup, the fall of religion is the one thing that produces communism.
This book is so euro-centric in every possible way. From solely focusing on European/United-States American stories, praising Cathlocis/religion at every possible turn, to furiously jerking off to Greek/Roman art. His critiques and conclusions of modern/post-modern art are so laughable
“The producers of such nonsense are appealing not to the general public... but to gullible middle-class purchasers who are hypnotized by auctioneers and are thrilled by the new, however deformed. Democracy is responsible for this collapse only in the sense that it has not been able to develop standards and tastes to replace those with which aristocracies once kept the imagination and individualism of artists within the bounds of ineligible communication, the illumination of life, and the harmony of parts in a logical sequence and a coherent whole.”
Furthermore, non-white power structures/culture are measured through their Euro-centric/white/capitalist/racist/conservative views. My ability to critique his capitalist takes is lacking, but I can point out the ableist, racist, homophobic, eugenicist takes.
“subject to our physical and psychological heredity, and to the customs and traditions of our group; lf diversely endowed in health and strength, in mental capacity and quality of character... Inequality is not only natural inborn, it grows with the complexity of civilization.”
“we are grateful for the added years that medical science gives us if they are not a burdensome prolongation of illness, disability, and gloom”
“ ... meanwhile medicine, sanitation, and charity nullify selection by keeping the unfit alive to multiple their like...”
“the degeneration of a civilization is what the word itself indicates - falling away from the genus, stock, or race... Usually, this comes through intermarriage of the vigorous race with those whom it has conquered. Hence the superiority of the whites in the United States and Canada (who did not intermarry with the Indians) to the whites in Latin America (Who did).
“Educated has spread, but intelligence is perpetually retarded by the fertility of the simple.”
“Is it not wiser to resist at once, to carry the war to the enemy, to fight on foreign soil, to sacrifice, if it need be a, a hundred thousand American lives and perhaps a million noncombatants, but to leave America free to live its own life in security and freedom?... The philosopher answers: yes....”
The inaccuracies of the “history” Durant’s tell are ridiculous.
The Roman catholic Church labored to reduce slavery, family feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace...
No, the Roman Catholic Church enforced and justified genocide, slavery, and colonization, while starting wars for the sake of religion.
“But in most instances the effects achieved by the revolution would apparently have come without it through gradual compulsion of economic developments,”
Revolutions aren’t inevitable, radical change only comes through radical action. History and what happens are not predetermined but come from the actions of large amounts of people.
“The only real revolution is in the enlightenment of the mind and the improvement of character, the only real emancipation is individual, and the only real revolutionists are philosophers and saints.”
Sigh, no? Just incorrect on all fronts.
“Anglo-Saxon law, which from Magna Carta onward, had defended the citizens against the state...”
I can think of many moments in history where American laws and laws based on the Magna Carta/British Common law failed to protect the people from the state.
It also is funny how the Durant’s disagree with opposite opinions :
In the military interpretation of history war is the final arbiter, and is accepted as natural and necessary by all but cowards and simpletons.”
“... and that the idolizing of savages, like many other young moods, is an inpatient expression of adolescent maladaptation, of conscious ability not yet matured and comfortably placed.”
“None but a child will complain that our teachers have not yet eradicated the errors and superstitions of ten thousand years.”
“Even when repressed, inequality grows; only the man who is below the average in economic ability desires equality; those who are conscious of superior ability desire freedom and in the end superior ability has its way”
Yup, if you disagree or challenge any of their ideas you are a child or stupid, no valid other critiques can be made.
Reading critically, you have to challenge the obvious racist and laughable predictions/analysis by the Durants. It’s funny how they say that the future is not defined, but fall into the fatalist view of the rise and the fall and the inevitably of everything to come. The book is straight-up eugenics and white supremacist propaganda that likes to hide everything in whimsical and contradicting writing while also explicitly stating it.
Perhaps the only thing that I enjoyed is how the Durant’s comically pat themself on the back for studying history :
“To those of us who study history not merely as a warning reminder of man’s follies and crimes, but also as an encouraging remembrance of generative souls, the past ceases to be a depressing chamber of horrors; it becomes a celestial city, a spacious country of the mind, wherein a thousand saints, statesman, inventors, scientist, sports, artists, musicians, lovers and philosophers still live and speak, teach and carve and sing.
Heaven and utopia are buckets in a well: when one goes down the other goes up; when religion declines Communism grows
Yup, the fall of religion is the one thing that produces communism.
This book is so euro-centric in every possible way. From solely focusing on European/United-States American stories, praising Cathlocis/religion at every possible turn, to furiously jerking off to Greek/Roman art. His critiques and conclusions of modern/post-modern art are so laughable
“The producers of such nonsense are appealing not to the general public... but to gullible middle-class purchasers who are hypnotized by auctioneers and are thrilled by the new, however deformed. Democracy is responsible for this collapse only in the sense that it has not been able to develop standards and tastes to replace those with which aristocracies once kept the imagination and individualism of artists within the bounds of ineligible communication, the illumination of life, and the harmony of parts in a logical sequence and a coherent whole.”
Furthermore, non-white power structures/culture are measured through their Euro-centric/white/capitalist/racist/conservative views. My ability to critique his capitalist takes is lacking, but I can point out the ableist, racist, homophobic, eugenicist takes.
“subject to our physical and psychological heredity, and to the customs and traditions of our group; lf diversely endowed in health and strength, in mental capacity and quality of character... Inequality is not only natural inborn, it grows with the complexity of civilization.”
“we are grateful for the added years that medical science gives us if they are not a burdensome prolongation of illness, disability, and gloom”
“ ... meanwhile medicine, sanitation, and charity nullify selection by keeping the unfit alive to multiple their like...”
“the degeneration of a civilization is what the word itself indicates - falling away from the genus, stock, or race... Usually, this comes through intermarriage of the vigorous race with those whom it has conquered. Hence the superiority of the whites in the United States and Canada (who did not intermarry with the Indians) to the whites in Latin America (Who did).
“Educated has spread, but intelligence is perpetually retarded by the fertility of the simple.”
“Is it not wiser to resist at once, to carry the war to the enemy, to fight on foreign soil, to sacrifice, if it need be a, a hundred thousand American lives and perhaps a million noncombatants, but to leave America free to live its own life in security and freedom?... The philosopher answers: yes....”
The inaccuracies of the “history” Durant’s tell are ridiculous.
The Roman catholic Church labored to reduce slavery, family feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace...
No, the Roman Catholic Church enforced and justified genocide, slavery, and colonization, while starting wars for the sake of religion.
“But in most instances the effects achieved by the revolution would apparently have come without it through gradual compulsion of economic developments,”
Revolutions aren’t inevitable, radical change only comes through radical action. History and what happens are not predetermined but come from the actions of large amounts of people.
“The only real revolution is in the enlightenment of the mind and the improvement of character, the only real emancipation is individual, and the only real revolutionists are philosophers and saints.”
Sigh, no? Just incorrect on all fronts.
“Anglo-Saxon law, which from Magna Carta onward, had defended the citizens against the state...”
I can think of many moments in history where American laws and laws based on the Magna Carta/British Common law failed to protect the people from the state.
It also is funny how the Durant’s disagree with opposite opinions :
In the military interpretation of history war is the final arbiter, and is accepted as natural and necessary by all but cowards and simpletons.”
“... and that the idolizing of savages, like many other young moods, is an inpatient expression of adolescent maladaptation, of conscious ability not yet matured and comfortably placed.”
“None but a child will complain that our teachers have not yet eradicated the errors and superstitions of ten thousand years.”
“Even when repressed, inequality grows; only the man who is below the average in economic ability desires equality; those who are conscious of superior ability desire freedom and in the end superior ability has its way”
Yup, if you disagree or challenge any of their ideas you are a child or stupid, no valid other critiques can be made.
Reading critically, you have to challenge the obvious racist and laughable predictions/analysis by the Durants. It’s funny how they say that the future is not defined, but fall into the fatalist view of the rise and the fall and the inevitably of everything to come. The book is straight-up eugenics and white supremacist propaganda that likes to hide everything in whimsical and contradicting writing while also explicitly stating it.
Perhaps the only thing that I enjoyed is how the Durant’s comically pat themself on the back for studying history :
“To those of us who study history not merely as a warning reminder of man’s follies and crimes, but also as an encouraging remembrance of generative souls, the past ceases to be a depressing chamber of horrors; it becomes a celestial city, a spacious country of the mind, wherein a thousand saints, statesman, inventors, scientist, sports, artists, musicians, lovers and philosophers still live and speak, teach and carve and sing.
"This Nonviolent Stuff..." is a straightforward history book that goes through different stories/perspectives surrounding armed self-defense and nonviolence with only a small amount of analysis. I enjoyed how Cobb holistically addressed the practice of armed-self defense, covering the topic from north/south/etc perspectives. He covered the times that guns were needed to secure safety/rights, how guns are limited against the state or acts of terrorism, and how guns were used for local liberation.
While I echo the sentiment that this book was disjointed and repetitive, the message and breadth of Cobb's historical coverage make up for any editorial shortcomings.
While I echo the sentiment that this book was disjointed and repetitive, the message and breadth of Cobb's historical coverage make up for any editorial shortcomings.
.jpg)
The book is 1/4 explaining mutual aid, 1/2 explaining how to make sure the work done in mutual aid meets the needs of the people, and 1/4 how to improve the group dynamics of mutual aid programs.
Mutual aid is defined as the collective coordination to meet each other's needs while recognizing the failures of current systems in place. It is different than non-profit/charity organizations since it (1) provides resources people need and dismantles oppressive systems through education. (2) It mobilizes people and expands solidarity within movements. (3) Is proactive and gives agency, skills, and ways of resistance for the people.
I also enjoyed Spade's critiques on charities and non-profits. He points out that those groups usually operate under the rich, are used as tax breaks to concentrate wealth, and focus on university-educated saviors instead of empowering the people. Reading this section reminded me of a particular climbing gym in Long Beach that participates in charity, but still serves the interests of the rich through gentrification. Painting "Black Lives Matters" murals and donating to local organizations doesn't erase the unaffordable membership prices, non-diverse staff, and the fact that they don't provide jobs to the local community. This section helped me better differentiate between acts done in solidarity/liberation versus acts done in self-interest.
COVID and graduating made it hard for me to reflect on the group dynamic in my life and challenge those systems. However, since it is an approachable resource, I'm sure I will visit it back in the future. I think it is interesting how using a non-hierarchical structure is framed as an active radical practice, but I question the effectiveness of a decentralized group.
Mutual aid is defined as the collective coordination to meet each other's needs while recognizing the failures of current systems in place. It is different than non-profit/charity organizations since it (1) provides resources people need and dismantles oppressive systems through education. (2) It mobilizes people and expands solidarity within movements. (3) Is proactive and gives agency, skills, and ways of resistance for the people.
I also enjoyed Spade's critiques on charities and non-profits. He points out that those groups usually operate under the rich, are used as tax breaks to concentrate wealth, and focus on university-educated saviors instead of empowering the people. Reading this section reminded me of a particular climbing gym in Long Beach that participates in charity, but still serves the interests of the rich through gentrification. Painting "Black Lives Matters" murals and donating to local organizations doesn't erase the unaffordable membership prices, non-diverse staff, and the fact that they don't provide jobs to the local community. This section helped me better differentiate between acts done in solidarity/liberation versus acts done in self-interest.
COVID and graduating made it hard for me to reflect on the group dynamic in my life and challenge those systems. However, since it is an approachable resource, I'm sure I will visit it back in the future. I think it is interesting how using a non-hierarchical structure is framed as an active radical practice, but I question the effectiveness of a decentralized group.
Good Drinks is a neatly organized book about Non-alcoholic drinks. While I read this to get inspiration about cocktail recipes, the flavor combinations and syrups gave me a lot of different templates to try out. I look forward to replicating the easier drinks for non-alcoholic times (which are few these days).
Reread, still good. Reminded me of J. Kenji's approach to cooking -> methodical, repeatable, measured. Technical/scientific stuff can be confusing at times but offers a solid amount of actionable advice + ways to understand hard concepts.