Before I head out, I would like to respond to the question posed: "When will we KNOW we have WON!" (I thin' it was.)
I was told by a boss that didn't like me, "I never said You DIDN'T have good instincts." Closest the #*$)#+@ came to a compliment.
Although I'm white, I think I have the correct answer: First off, if there's a "winner" then there's a "loser." I would ask, "When will we know we've ARRIVED." I know... Nitpicking.
I'll maybe write a couple comments, or something longer, if I need to defend the (IMV, FACT) that Black people as of right NOW!
HAVE WON. Game, set, and match. Bottom of the ninth homerun. ALL that, and MORE to come.
Just now had thought that it also makes sense from POV that white people have won as individuals, also. May seem strange, but I set the bar low. You lived to see another day? You're a WINNER these days.
But as far as races, I'm saying that IMHO, the Black (cough) "race" has arrived, right on schedule.
(Sorry, I actually get HIGH just from listening to Professor Loury sometimes, but that's just me.)
Dunno the purpose of subscribing to Prof. Loury's YouTube. Never get any notice when one comes out, but dunno how YouTube works in the first place, so there is that. Saw links at bottom of above, saw "Affirmative Action with Asterisks" with Prof. Kennedy. Liked it. Clicked on another with him in it. One HOUR and 22 minutes!?! Lor' ha MERCY! And no transcript?? The TIME... (Why I listen to almost NO videos, plus You can't THINK/FEEL and REFLECT properly as when Your reading.)
Turns OUT, it was long version of above, apparently. Okay.. Okay! I'm 36:11 into it, I need to take a walk outside and firstly read Prof. Kennedy's recent book, which I'd not heard-a before.
I was GONNA complain about M. Kennedy's view that we need reparations because white people need to ATONE. Hmmmph. But another time.
AFAIK, and I think/feel I know PLENTY, this conversation should never-a been had. Per usual, IM-not so-HO, Professors McWhorter and Kennedy should just sit themselves down and just LISTEN TO PROFESSOR LOURY. Nothing else needed, AFAIK. Again, I'll get through Prof. Kennedy's "boilerplate Harvard faculty lunch room responses" in his new book first. Then come back and spend about 1.5 hours on video WHILE TAKING NOTES this time.
TYTY all but, of COURSE, especially Dr. Loury, right?
From 5:10 to 6:35, John is asking about the source of the Black-White difference in violence perpetration. I suggest looking at McNulty, Bellair, and Watts' (2012) study titled "Neighborhood Disadvantage and Verbal Ability as Explanations of the Black-White Difference in Adolescent Violence: Toward an Integrated Model."
They write, "This article integrates an individual difference approach that emphasizes variation in verbal ability with a sociological approach that highlights neighborhood disadvantage, both of which are relevant to explanation of the race difference in violence. Black children are far more likely than their White counterparts to grow up in neighborhoods featuring high rates of structural disadvantage, which has repercussions for the acquisition of verbal skills that are crucial for achievement in school and the labor market. Our results show that low verbal ability and diminished school attainment are criminogenic risk factors that are in part outcomes of exposure to neighborhood disadvantage. Verbal ability partly mediates the effect of disadvantage at the neighborhood level and in turn provides a succinct explanation for the racial disparity in violence. Although sociological variables also explain the race disparity, verbal ability in conjunction with neighborhood disadvantage reduces the Black–White gap in violence to zero and is thus part of the explanation. " (pp. 14-16).
Watched Dr. Loury on Mahar last night. He made two great counter-narrative points, one cheered by the audience, the other causing hear-the-pin-drop silence.
Michael Eric Dyson filibustered his way through the segment. He's a verbose vault of talking points, who must think speaking quickly and confidently shields his words from logical analysis. Here's one of his "points":
"If January 6 showed us nothing, white people have bad values, have bad activity, have bad behavior, and they live to tell the story about it in the face of the cops."
Seriously? Not only was one of those "white people" shot and killed at pointblank range, but it was done by a black cop.
At one time, "Vanderbilt is the Harvard of the South" was high praise. Amusingly, while it's still true, it's no longer praise.
Thanks for talkin' about this. I bring up many of these same points, carefully qualified, with every measure of uncertainty over-accounted for, and still get shouted down as a racist. It's tough to not become so disenchanted with the entire conversation that I feel like I just shouldn't care what happens to the black community. Glad to at least have voices I can support in the matter when my own voice is suppressed.
Kennedy believing Trump a racist is mehh. The people who voted for him did so because he’s not a politician, he’s a business man. It’s frustrating to hear this repeated rhetoric with zero evidence. It reminds me of leaders of the past who were mistreated (media) because of the color of their skin. I enjoyed his contribution, enjoyed listening to his thoughts and always look forward to 2nd Monday to hear you and John’s conversations. Congrats to John on the book.
Sir, I may be nitpicking here, but “Deracialize the Police” as a title for this message is misleading, as it suggests something different than “Deracialize the discussion about policing.”
That said, I strongly agree that the latter would create conditions for a much better conversation about policing. I might add that deracializing discussions on a number of issues would be similarly beneficial, as the undue focus on race, often to the exclusion of all other factors and mountains of countervailing evidence, undermines our ability to truly understand the nature and causes of our problems, and in turn to find effective solutions.
Much appreciate your work in general and this podcast with John McWhorter and Randall Kennedy in particular.
This clip shows some of the intensity of what can only be described as a wonderful conversation.
I know some people were triggered by Kennedy's initial responses but I would ask that they listen his more nuanced positions once challenged by Glenn and John.
Once they dragged him out of his boilerplate Harvard faculty lunch room responses, the three of them began to explore the deeper complexities of these issues and the conversation became extraordinary....
Absolutely agree, Frank. I wrote in a previous comment that this was one of the best conversations on race that I've ever heard, and it's precisely for the reasons you outlined.
Just to emphasize something also said in my previous comment, which is really more of a question or request for Loury. This conversation was so powerful and timely, I wonder if there's way to expand it into a book, a documentary, a series of national roundtables, etc. I'm glad I'm part of the expanding audience/community here. But I believe more Americans everywhere need to hear and be exposed to this kind of honest, thoughtful, nuanced, and ultimately morally and civically grounded conversation.
Before I head out, I would like to respond to the question posed: "When will we KNOW we have WON!" (I thin' it was.)
I was told by a boss that didn't like me, "I never said You DIDN'T have good instincts." Closest the #*$)#+@ came to a compliment.
Although I'm white, I think I have the correct answer: First off, if there's a "winner" then there's a "loser." I would ask, "When will we know we've ARRIVED." I know... Nitpicking.
I'll maybe write a couple comments, or something longer, if I need to defend the (IMV, FACT) that Black people as of right NOW!
HAVE WON. Game, set, and match. Bottom of the ninth homerun. ALL that, and MORE to come.
Just now had thought that it also makes sense from POV that white people have won as individuals, also. May seem strange, but I set the bar low. You lived to see another day? You're a WINNER these days.
But as far as races, I'm saying that IMHO, the Black (cough) "race" has arrived, right on schedule.
(Sorry, I actually get HIGH just from listening to Professor Loury sometimes, but that's just me.)
Dunno the purpose of subscribing to Prof. Loury's YouTube. Never get any notice when one comes out, but dunno how YouTube works in the first place, so there is that. Saw links at bottom of above, saw "Affirmative Action with Asterisks" with Prof. Kennedy. Liked it. Clicked on another with him in it. One HOUR and 22 minutes!?! Lor' ha MERCY! And no transcript?? The TIME... (Why I listen to almost NO videos, plus You can't THINK/FEEL and REFLECT properly as when Your reading.)
Turns OUT, it was long version of above, apparently. Okay.. Okay! I'm 36:11 into it, I need to take a walk outside and firstly read Prof. Kennedy's recent book, which I'd not heard-a before.
I was GONNA complain about M. Kennedy's view that we need reparations because white people need to ATONE. Hmmmph. But another time.
AFAIK, and I think/feel I know PLENTY, this conversation should never-a been had. Per usual, IM-not so-HO, Professors McWhorter and Kennedy should just sit themselves down and just LISTEN TO PROFESSOR LOURY. Nothing else needed, AFAIK. Again, I'll get through Prof. Kennedy's "boilerplate Harvard faculty lunch room responses" in his new book first. Then come back and spend about 1.5 hours on video WHILE TAKING NOTES this time.
TYTY all but, of COURSE, especially Dr. Loury, right?
Lor' ha mercy AGAIN! Prof. K's book 529 PAGES. Phew. This thread may be dead by then. Ah well... May reverse order. WSS.
From 5:10 to 6:35, John is asking about the source of the Black-White difference in violence perpetration. I suggest looking at McNulty, Bellair, and Watts' (2012) study titled "Neighborhood Disadvantage and Verbal Ability as Explanations of the Black-White Difference in Adolescent Violence: Toward an Integrated Model."
They write, "This article integrates an individual difference approach that emphasizes variation in verbal ability with a sociological approach that highlights neighborhood disadvantage, both of which are relevant to explanation of the race difference in violence. Black children are far more likely than their White counterparts to grow up in neighborhoods featuring high rates of structural disadvantage, which has repercussions for the acquisition of verbal skills that are crucial for achievement in school and the labor market. Our results show that low verbal ability and diminished school attainment are criminogenic risk factors that are in part outcomes of exposure to neighborhood disadvantage. Verbal ability partly mediates the effect of disadvantage at the neighborhood level and in turn provides a succinct explanation for the racial disparity in violence. Although sociological variables also explain the race disparity, verbal ability in conjunction with neighborhood disadvantage reduces the Black–White gap in violence to zero and is thus part of the explanation. " (pp. 14-16).
Watched Dr. Loury on Mahar last night. He made two great counter-narrative points, one cheered by the audience, the other causing hear-the-pin-drop silence.
Michael Eric Dyson filibustered his way through the segment. He's a verbose vault of talking points, who must think speaking quickly and confidently shields his words from logical analysis. Here's one of his "points":
"If January 6 showed us nothing, white people have bad values, have bad activity, have bad behavior, and they live to tell the story about it in the face of the cops."
Seriously? Not only was one of those "white people" shot and killed at pointblank range, but it was done by a black cop.
At one time, "Vanderbilt is the Harvard of the South" was high praise. Amusingly, while it's still true, it's no longer praise.
Thanks for talkin' about this. I bring up many of these same points, carefully qualified, with every measure of uncertainty over-accounted for, and still get shouted down as a racist. It's tough to not become so disenchanted with the entire conversation that I feel like I just shouldn't care what happens to the black community. Glad to at least have voices I can support in the matter when my own voice is suppressed.
YEAH, and mebbe someday more and MORE will hear the Professors, and mebbe You too will get heard, M. Crohn.
Kennedy believing Trump a racist is mehh. The people who voted for him did so because he’s not a politician, he’s a business man. It’s frustrating to hear this repeated rhetoric with zero evidence. It reminds me of leaders of the past who were mistreated (media) because of the color of their skin. I enjoyed his contribution, enjoyed listening to his thoughts and always look forward to 2nd Monday to hear you and John’s conversations. Congrats to John on the book.
Greetings to Prof. Kennedy--one of the few Harvard Law professors who would voluntarily recognize students on the street and say hello.
Sir, I may be nitpicking here, but “Deracialize the Police” as a title for this message is misleading, as it suggests something different than “Deracialize the discussion about policing.”
That said, I strongly agree that the latter would create conditions for a much better conversation about policing. I might add that deracializing discussions on a number of issues would be similarly beneficial, as the undue focus on race, often to the exclusion of all other factors and mountains of countervailing evidence, undermines our ability to truly understand the nature and causes of our problems, and in turn to find effective solutions.
Much appreciate your work in general and this podcast with John McWhorter and Randall Kennedy in particular.
YEAH!
This clip shows some of the intensity of what can only be described as a wonderful conversation.
I know some people were triggered by Kennedy's initial responses but I would ask that they listen his more nuanced positions once challenged by Glenn and John.
Once they dragged him out of his boilerplate Harvard faculty lunch room responses, the three of them began to explore the deeper complexities of these issues and the conversation became extraordinary....
Absolutely agree, Frank. I wrote in a previous comment that this was one of the best conversations on race that I've ever heard, and it's precisely for the reasons you outlined.
Just to emphasize something also said in my previous comment, which is really more of a question or request for Loury. This conversation was so powerful and timely, I wonder if there's way to expand it into a book, a documentary, a series of national roundtables, etc. I'm glad I'm part of the expanding audience/community here. But I believe more Americans everywhere need to hear and be exposed to this kind of honest, thoughtful, nuanced, and ultimately morally and civically grounded conversation.