Scan barcode
sdlauram's review against another edition
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
A bit repetitive & defensive, but very informative on how these conservative hateful policies backfire & end up being a poison pill for the majority of Americans.
sweetcaroline76's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.0
jasperburns's review against another edition
1.0
To be well-rounded, I try to read books outside of my normal worldview every once in a while. I'm one of those guys who dislike identity politics and thinks many people are blinded when seeing through the lens of race. I was hoping to learn something through this book to nuance my view of that position. Unfortunately, I did not. While the author is well-spoken and educated, I cannot say I came away from this book with much new knowledge or any changed opinions. I felt that I doubled-down in recognizing the failures of critical race theory.
The author is blinded by the identity politics dogma and the incoherence it applies to his arguments is obvious. Confusingly, Metzl introduces "whiteness" as not tied to being white, but instead a mindset. This is a terrible redefinition and it makes things more confusing. If whiteness isn't tied to race, to what is it tied... conservative politics? What does it mean when a black person believes in the same policies as one of the white people he describes? This is the kind of definitional maneuver that, when applied to public news, justifies absurd statements like Kanye West is no longer black by supporting Trump. It is poor enough of a definition that he doesn't seem to stick to it. Despite this explanation in the introduction, "whiteness" only seems referenced with regards to white people throughout the book.
The book starts with how "whiteness" is tied to gun culture, and how guns are killing people. The syllogism is approximately this: white people = guns, and guns = people dying, therefore white people = people dying. He parrots mostly standard democratic talking points and by tying in some personal interviews and statistics. He addresses approximately no strong standard conservative responses and thus makes arguments that feel quite weak.
But it is the tying of races to behavior that is so dangerous. Imagine if one were to make parallel arguments for other races. He ties white people to guns because of historical and modern tendencies to favor them over other races. It's the same logic that allows crazy right-wingers calling black people criminals because they historically commit more crime. We need to examine the behavior, the ideology, not the skin color.
After guns, he critiques other aspects of conservative principles (opinions on healthcare, reductions in social spending, etc) by tying them to whiteness. And then he again blames whiteness for being what kills people. This book would have been better if it was framed as how conservative politics was affecting society. I might not agree with all its conclusions but I would have given it an extra star or two. But by making it about race, the author abandons cogency for politically correct dogma.
The author is smart and measured in his words but not so in the basic assumptions that undergird the foundation of this argument. I cannot recommend this book to anyone, as there are more useful critiques of conservative ideology that are not shaded by racial dogma.
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
The author is blinded by the identity politics dogma and the incoherence it applies to his arguments is obvious. Confusingly, Metzl introduces "whiteness" as not tied to being white, but instead a mindset. This is a terrible redefinition and it makes things more confusing. If whiteness isn't tied to race, to what is it tied... conservative politics? What does it mean when a black person believes in the same policies as one of the white people he describes? This is the kind of definitional maneuver that, when applied to public news, justifies absurd statements like Kanye West is no longer black by supporting Trump. It is poor enough of a definition that he doesn't seem to stick to it. Despite this explanation in the introduction, "whiteness" only seems referenced with regards to white people throughout the book.
The book starts with how "whiteness" is tied to gun culture, and how guns are killing people. The syllogism is approximately this: white people = guns, and guns = people dying, therefore white people = people dying. He parrots mostly standard democratic talking points and by tying in some personal interviews and statistics. He addresses approximately no strong standard conservative responses and thus makes arguments that feel quite weak.
But it is the tying of races to behavior that is so dangerous. Imagine if one were to make parallel arguments for other races. He ties white people to guns because of historical and modern tendencies to favor them over other races. It's the same logic that allows crazy right-wingers calling black people criminals because they historically commit more crime. We need to examine the behavior, the ideology, not the skin color.
After guns, he critiques other aspects of conservative principles (opinions on healthcare, reductions in social spending, etc) by tying them to whiteness. And then he again blames whiteness for being what kills people. This book would have been better if it was framed as how conservative politics was affecting society. I might not agree with all its conclusions but I would have given it an extra star or two. But by making it about race, the author abandons cogency for politically correct dogma.
The author is smart and measured in his words but not so in the basic assumptions that undergird the foundation of this argument. I cannot recommend this book to anyone, as there are more useful critiques of conservative ideology that are not shaded by racial dogma.
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
alexisrt's review against another edition
5.0
This was excellent but infuriating. In this book, Dr. Jonathan Metzl, a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt (and KC native) seeks to answer the eternal question, "why do white Americans endorse policies that hurt them?" And his answer is that the most basic cause is racial resentment and ensuring their place at the top of the pyramid. They will support policies that hurt them, as long as they hurt people of color--especially African-Americans, but increasingly Latinos--more.
He looks at three examples: gun violence in Missouri, healthcare in Tennessee, and education in Kansas. He uses research to learn about why people support policies, and many of them say outright that they don't want money to go to black people/Mexicans/welfare queens. This includes people who are literally dying: a man suffering from liver disease due to Hepatitis C opposes Medicaid expansion because he doesn't want to give money to "welfare queens." The white participants in the healthcare section frame their beliefs about health as a matter of individual responsibility. Black men, on the other hand, talk about healthcare as a communal benefit that makes everyone healthier. It would be easy to dismiss quotes and interviews as cherry picking, except for the fact that large numbers of people continue to vote in politicians who implement these policies.
This is combined with a look at the rhetoric of politicians that promote these policies and how they use the politics of race. Gun rights are promoted as being about white self defense, ignorant of the link to white male suicide. The specter of black male violence is constantly raised, despite its actual decline.
Metzl goes beyond the usual sociological observations, though, and tries to quantify what these policies have actually cost white Americans--and it's a lot of lives lost and a lot of horrifying statistics. Of course, the statistics on gun violence aren't as robust as they could be, since there are legal limits to gun violence research. But even taking the specifics with a grain of salt, the conclusions are grim.
The section on Kansas is, in some ways, particularly revealing. Brownback's Kansas experiment was popular when it was believed to focus on waste. When his education cuts hit affluent Johnson County suburbanites who were proud of Kansas' tradition of strong public schooling, there was a revolt. (It's worth noting that after the book was completed, a Democrat won the race for Kansas governor, and moderate Democrat Sharice Davids won the Congressional seat for the KC suburbs.) This raises questions about the limits of how much white people are willing for themselves to suffer in order to take away from people of color.
He looks at three examples: gun violence in Missouri, healthcare in Tennessee, and education in Kansas. He uses research to learn about why people support policies, and many of them say outright that they don't want money to go to black people/Mexicans/welfare queens. This includes people who are literally dying: a man suffering from liver disease due to Hepatitis C opposes Medicaid expansion because he doesn't want to give money to "welfare queens." The white participants in the healthcare section frame their beliefs about health as a matter of individual responsibility. Black men, on the other hand, talk about healthcare as a communal benefit that makes everyone healthier. It would be easy to dismiss quotes and interviews as cherry picking, except for the fact that large numbers of people continue to vote in politicians who implement these policies.
This is combined with a look at the rhetoric of politicians that promote these policies and how they use the politics of race. Gun rights are promoted as being about white self defense, ignorant of the link to white male suicide. The specter of black male violence is constantly raised, despite its actual decline.
Metzl goes beyond the usual sociological observations, though, and tries to quantify what these policies have actually cost white Americans--and it's a lot of lives lost and a lot of horrifying statistics. Of course, the statistics on gun violence aren't as robust as they could be, since there are legal limits to gun violence research. But even taking the specifics with a grain of salt, the conclusions are grim.
The section on Kansas is, in some ways, particularly revealing. Brownback's Kansas experiment was popular when it was believed to focus on waste. When his education cuts hit affluent Johnson County suburbanites who were proud of Kansas' tradition of strong public schooling, there was a revolt. (It's worth noting that after the book was completed, a Democrat won the race for Kansas governor, and moderate Democrat Sharice Davids won the Congressional seat for the KC suburbs.) This raises questions about the limits of how much white people are willing for themselves to suffer in order to take away from people of color.