Four Londoners share their reflections about participating in One Book One London
Is violence a viable means for achieving one’s liberation? Is Killmonger’s strategy justifiable? And importantly: who gets to decide?
Why does determining our personal actions toward reparation seem like such a hazy and convoluted dilemma for so many of us present day settlers?
Provocative metaphor? Simplistic soundbite? Journalistic sensationalism? Legitimate description of a truly critical situation?
What happens to the fight for justice when everyone is fighting a different battle?
What if white people have been effectively doing ‘identity politics’ for centuries — but now mobilize the term ‘identity politics’ pejoratively to refer to political actors and agendas that are not white?
Is the idea that “racism = some problem other people have” my greatest blinding bias? Before I glimpse my own racism, what am I describing as racism in others? When I want to exclaim, “How can you be so tone deaf?” I need to remember how much I have, might, and am probably still missing. …
When we weigh all the pros and cons, does social media come out as a net good or as a liability for society? …does it bring people together to mobilize for their rights? Or just give corporations and governments the ability to track our every move? …does it introduce us to new ideas and different …
A panel discussion unpacking the concept of ‘structural violence.’
“A different kind of prejudice / Like equating being liberated with westernized / And I am sick of being exotified.”
Do identity politics have what it takes to transform the institutions and structures of a society?
What would it take for nation known for its diversity to change its inclusionary policies?
We cannot talk about the prejudice of individuals without talking about the institutions of their society.
As societies, it feels like we are actively training ourselves to fear one another. How can we change the narrative?
What if we didn’t define identities by creeds, cultures, colours, or countries?