Back in the 1980s, opposition to South African apartheid among prominent African Americans was nearly universal. One hardly needed to explain why. Despite the very different histories of apartheid and American segregation, there was a natural solidarity between recently liberated black people in America and those still oppressed halfway around the world. In this clip from our most recent conversation, I ask John why he sees widespread opposition to apartheid in South Africa in thre ‘80s as an “easier” issue than opposition to the treatment of Palestinians is now.
This is a clip from the episode that went out to paying subscribers on Monday. To get access to the full episode, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
The only reason the history of this apartheid is "complex" is because Zionists have been very effective at convoluting a simple injustice with relentless propaganda and lobbying. Zionists have been able to weave a fantastical mythology of the modern genocidal apartheid state of Israel that even exceeds the density of bullshit that the mythology of the Torah has about the ancient genocidal slaver state of Israel. The moral duty of any honorable "black intellectual" is the same of that of all worthy intellectuals, and that is to boldly speak what they believe to be true and just regardless of its popularity among powerful factions or the masses. Thus, with regard to Palestine, black intellectuals who think Israel's apartheid and America's support of it is unjust should candidly say so.
People like Coleman Hughes or John McWhorter who grew their careers on disparaging racial tribalism and essentialism and arguing against clamoring for political privileges based on racial identity are making a mockery of themselves by enabling a narrative of a pseudo racial cult: Zionism (Jews are not a race despite what Nazis and lots of Zionists would like people to believe). The most powerful identity politics organization in the united states today is AIPAC. It is not BLM. I have become extremely disillusioned with intellectuals who are so focused on combatting "wokism" because of the racial tribalism and identity politics but have become outspoken defenders of the country's most powerful offenders of it. Congress is passing laws equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, aka racism. But I'm not witnessing the kind of response we would witness from those "intellectuals" were congress to pass laws equating disparagement of critical race theory with racism. Either the "intellectuals" aren't particularly intelligent or they are more interested in pleasing powerful factions. Israel is carrying out a genocide against all non Jewish Gazans (not just Muslims despite what the propagandists want people to believe). This should not be just a concern for black intellectuals but for any person with a functioning moral compass. No American should want the country heading in the direction that Zionists are navigating it.
Reviewing Coates' book should begin with a celebration that there's someone with an audience of his size boldly disparaging a catastrophic injustice that Americans are being hoodwinked and coerced to subsidize at harm to national security and economic prosperity. What America lacks the most when coming to understand and act on this injustice are more "intellectuals" who have explored it, have a large audience, and are courageous enough to challenge the deceitful and pernicious narrative that congress and zionists want to enforce with laws.
My take from John is that he has some snobby condescending prejudice toward Coates and a mysterious unholy sympathetic bias toward a pseudo ethno-theocratic genocidal apartheid state. John thinks that Coates is uncurious but he might be projecting. John thinks that Coates is simple but he might be projecting with that too. "Benny Morris" he says as an example of a champion of Palestinian injustice. He need say nothing else to demonstrate his ignorance. Here is a taste of Benny Morris' perverted sense of justice for Palestine:
"If he [Ben Gurion] was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."
and his despicable lack of imagination:
"That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."
https://web.archive.org/web/20080607060238/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984
But who needs an imagination when you can just use ethnic cleansing to create a harmonious and clean state to keep your genocidal pseudo racial ancient slaver cult safe and stable?
I have not read Coates' new book, but I did read Between the World and Me and admittedly I found too much of it to be poorly written arguments wrapped in poetry for my taste. But on your suggestion and spite towards John's stupid, condescending, and detestable "what about Hamas" apologetics for the apartheid pseudo ethno genocidal state of Israel, I will purchase and read Coates' new book.
Glenn, I appreciate the concern that you shared for the injustices in Palestine. Here are more of my thoughts on it:
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/the-children-of-amalek
Try reading the recent short book by Bernard Henri Levy, "Israel Alone" to hear the views of an internationally recognized Public Intellectual on the morality of what has been happening in Israel for the past year plus.