The first comprehensive reader on punk and race, from The Clash to Bad Brains.
From the Clash to Los Crudos, skinheads to afro-punks, the punk rock movement has been obsessed by race. And yet the connections have never been traced in a comprehensive way. White Riot is a definitive study of the subject, collecting first-person writing, lyrics, letters to zines, and analyses of punk history from across the globe. This book brings together writing from leading critics such as Greil Marcus and Dick Hebdige, personal reflections from punk pioneers such as Jimmy Pursey, Darryl Jenifer and Mimi Nguyen, and reports on punk scenes from Toronto to Jakarta. 36 black-and-white photographs
White Riot: Punk Rock and the Politics of Race
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
Praise for Notes from Underground At long last, somebody's got it right. Duncombe does the essential work of cultural analysis that neither the national weeklies with their demographic fantasies, nor the czars of cultural studies with their determination to locate dissent in daytime television, can ever bring themselves to perform.A" Tom Frank Praise for Cultural Resistance Reader An impressive book - Duncombe's pioneering study engages some of the elemental issues of our time.A" Stuart Ewen
About the Author
Stephen Duncombe, an Associate Professor at the Gallatin School of New York University, is the author of Dream and Notes from Underground, editor of The Cultural Resistance Reader, and coeditor (with Maxwell Tremblay) of White Riot.
Maxwell Tremblay writes for Maximumrocknroll, plays drums in the band SLEEPiES, and is a doctoral student in Philosophy at the New School for Social Research.
Maxwell Tremblay writes for Maximumrocknroll, plays drums in the band SLEEPiES, and is a doctoral student in Philosophy at the New School for Social Research.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This is a piece that must have been gestating in the collective consciousness for many years. I have long been interested in the sociological foundations and implications of the punk rock movement and this book covers that terrain with enthusiasm and vigor. Well done and highly recommended!
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
By Jenny Lens
Format:Paperback
This book is an insulting, condescending fantasy-driven response to those of us who lived and created the LA punk lifestyle. Traber's off-the-wall totally-out-of-touch-with-LA-punk rant is not based on any actual interviews or archival material other than ONE source.
--I was shocked reading his 'essay' which is a CLASSIC! A classic? How can one man be the authority when he woefully closed his eyes to realities easily refuted by so many other sources, esp photos and fanzines which contradict most everything he states. He cherry-picked his quotes and thesis based on a ONE movie with a very specific, very narrow POV.
--The way he describes the punks at the Canterbury made me nauseous. MANY of them went onto very productive, accomplished creative lives and careers. They were far from "spoiled brats." Many were abused, neglected, confused, some mentally ill and most using drugs/booze (to self-medicate) who had NOWHERE else to go. Or were exploring their lives between high school and either college, trade school, work, marriage, raising a family.
--I was shocked when I first saw Penelope Spheeris' Decline. I'm in it and some of my most famous, iconic photos of X taken during her filming of that segment. Her film, although true from HER POV, didn't reflect my vast photo archive and personal experiences the previous four yrs, living and documenting the punk lifestyle, genre and scene. There's so much available refuting his feeble, wordy and obtuse essay. Read Slash Magazine and go from there! SHE had access to all the issues but chose to focus on the dark side.
--Those of us who created it, starting around 1976 and by spring/summer 1977, have a vastly different take on what, why and how LA Punk developed. I am SO tired of hearing we were racists or excluded the Other. Our doors were open. Many, many Latinos/Latinas involved, many Jews, many gay young men and women. WE were the Other. he goes on and about the Other. Wassup with that? WE were the rejected ones or rejected following the path society expects from us. At least for awhile, while we explored other CREATIVE options.
--Plus none of us embraced poverty. He went on and on about that. Tell me how we were supposed to make money when writing, photographing, performing and looking like we did and kept the hours we did. Plus many did work, at record stories, for bands, record companies, temp jobs and a wide variety of other jobs (some in the sex trade). He TOTALLY missed the point of living at the Canterbury. I was amazed no mention of the Masque.
--He's made a whole career by projecting HIS fantasies on the scene. Shame on him. Shame on the editors who included more of this tripe. Apparently, not many of the contributors were actually involved in punk back in the day and don't know how to research real facts. Oh well, people only see what THEY want to see. URGH!
--I was shocked reading his 'essay' which is a CLASSIC! A classic? How can one man be the authority when he woefully closed his eyes to realities easily refuted by so many other sources, esp photos and fanzines which contradict most everything he states. He cherry-picked his quotes and thesis based on a ONE movie with a very specific, very narrow POV.
--The way he describes the punks at the Canterbury made me nauseous. MANY of them went onto very productive, accomplished creative lives and careers. They were far from "spoiled brats." Many were abused, neglected, confused, some mentally ill and most using drugs/booze (to self-medicate) who had NOWHERE else to go. Or were exploring their lives between high school and either college, trade school, work, marriage, raising a family.
--I was shocked when I first saw Penelope Spheeris' Decline. I'm in it and some of my most famous, iconic photos of X taken during her filming of that segment. Her film, although true from HER POV, didn't reflect my vast photo archive and personal experiences the previous four yrs, living and documenting the punk lifestyle, genre and scene. There's so much available refuting his feeble, wordy and obtuse essay. Read Slash Magazine and go from there! SHE had access to all the issues but chose to focus on the dark side.
--Those of us who created it, starting around 1976 and by spring/summer 1977, have a vastly different take on what, why and how LA Punk developed. I am SO tired of hearing we were racists or excluded the Other. Our doors were open. Many, many Latinos/Latinas involved, many Jews, many gay young men and women. WE were the Other. he goes on and about the Other. Wassup with that? WE were the rejected ones or rejected following the path society expects from us. At least for awhile, while we explored other CREATIVE options.
--Plus none of us embraced poverty. He went on and on about that. Tell me how we were supposed to make money when writing, photographing, performing and looking like we did and kept the hours we did. Plus many did work, at record stories, for bands, record companies, temp jobs and a wide variety of other jobs (some in the sex trade). He TOTALLY missed the point of living at the Canterbury. I was amazed no mention of the Masque.
--He's made a whole career by projecting HIS fantasies on the scene. Shame on him. Shame on the editors who included more of this tripe. Apparently, not many of the contributors were actually involved in punk back in the day and don't know how to research real facts. Oh well, people only see what THEY want to see. URGH!
2 of 9 people found the following review helpful
By N. Smith
Format:Paperback
This book is long, somewhat boring, includes an essay by Lester Bangs that was loathsome at the time and that he himself REGRETTED writing in the first place and is WAY LATE - in 1989 this might have meant something. In 2012, who cares?!?!?!
