Immigration needs to be drastically reduced. The combination of millions of foreign workers coming here and jobs being eliminated due to automation is producing a job shortage. The last thing we should be doing is bringing in more workers the way we are.
I had a very similar experience in the post office a few months ago. I stood in line, surrounded by first generation immigrants, feeling surrounded by strangers, when I heard the very welcome sound of an American black woman’s voice behind me.
Amy Chua's book, Political Tribes, addresses many of these issues in a fascinating way. In Intellectuals and Race, Thomas Sowell makes the point that slavery was ancient, and newly ended in the 18th century. No one reading Sowell's work could embrace 1619, also rebutted by Peter W. Wood's 1620, which marches through dates and facts with wit and reflection.
I was reading Huckleberry Finn. The Dauphin puts up a poster for the Royal Nonesuch. The sign says, “Women and Children will not be allowed admittance.” The Dauphin looks at his work and says, “if that don’t fetch a crowd then I don’t know Arkansaw.” My people.
Because it's a failure - a defeat - a dividing line in life. It's encountering something that's too difficult or too intimidating masquerading (in this case) as affinity for the familiar feelings of belonging, in a yearning for "home".
We all do this masquerade at times, mostly unconsciously, when we're faced with the choice: to go forward or go back. Back is always the path of least resistance, but on some level we know it's craven, or lazy, or weak. And who wants to feel craven or lazy or weak?
So we find reasons to justify the going back choice. To absolve ourselves. We give the decision a positive spin, and shout about how great it is; ideally to other people so we can dwell in a world where our justifications can be unambivalent. Eventually the unwanted feeling craven or lazy or weak goes away.
I got a sense this is what played out in the Paris memory. Which is a little sad.
Dr. Loury, your description of the creation of the George Floyd narrative is something everyone else seems afraid to address. (And I very much include the Taibbis and Greenwalds of the world.)
As you are undoubtedly aware, the creation of another narrative is right now being attempted in Grand Rapids, Michigan. From the refusal of the state to release driving records (an action which had to be reversed) to the fishiness surrounding criminal records (I'm not sure what the reality is, but Andy Ngo is providing a case number for an assault on a pregnant woman; other sources are saying nothing at all).
As you pointed out, the media and politicians have the agency to create a narrative. Right now their cards are face up on the table for all to see in Grand Rapids.
In addition to those two matters I just mentioned, the New York Times has written:
"The police in Grand Rapids, Mich., released videos on Wednesday showing a white officer fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya, a 26-year-old Black man, after a struggle during a traffic stop last week."
Contrast to their withholding the race of the Black mass shooter on the NYC subway last week. Because, race doesn't matter when a mass shooter is loose amongst the public, I suppose.
The surest way to tell that someone hasn't read the 1619 Project is if they imply it rejects American patriotism or stands apart from the American project. In fact, Hannah-Jones' whole pitch for it is that it's a way of telling an American story that can make Black Americans feel patriotic. Her main essay is about the American flag her father used to keep in the yard, and how she used to be embarrassed by it but then came to understand that her father's patriotism was a way of saying that American white people's crimes against Black people did not mean that Black people were any less American. The 1619 Project is widely misunderstood by its critics.
BTW, here is another very interesting essay. What do you think of Dr. Painter's contribution? ...it starts with:
"400 years ago, the first Africans who came to America were not ‘enslaved’, they were indentured – and this makes a crucial difference when we think about the meanings of our past"
In 1619, there was no America as we know it. There were British colonies under the rule of the Crown. Slavery on these shores lasted for a shorter time after the Founding that before it. Moreover, ascribing current-day sensibilities to actions and actors of the past is among the most intellectually dishonest exercises in existence. As Glenn points out - slavery was not new but emancipation was.
I have a dilemma concerning religion. While religion may provide some solid moral examples - along with their opposite - it is superstition. So many of the beliefs are ludicrous to me, that going along with "religion is a good" seems incredibly condescending.
I completely agree. I can understand -- and perhaps even accept -- that the recession of religion in American society over the past half-century or so has created problems that clarify the benefits religion can provide to the culture -- or any culture -- as a whole.
The problem I have is that anytime I read arguments in any way touching upon this perceived need for society to re-embrace organized religion, like what Glenn is doing here, fails to account for the many of us for whom the rejection of religion as traditionally understood was a conscious and thoughtful decision. I am willing to join communities that provide the benefits of religion that the rest of our society currently lacks, but I do not want my membership to have to be predicated on having to believe things that aren't true -- or at the very least, things that I truly, honestly believe are not true and will almost certainly not be convinced of otherwise (e.g. the existence of God and/or realities other than the purely empirical and materialist one we inhabit). I believe people like Glenn simply don't realize how alienating the resurgence of a Judeo-Christian dogma and worldview in civic society at large will be not only to atheists and nonreligious people like myself, but people of other faith and spiritual practices as well.
I don't see how it's condescending. Even the most dogged anti-religionist must realize religion is verbalization of advantageous evolutionary traits. The person who sacrifices a bushel of corn shows a strong ability plan for the future, i.e., refrain from eating his seed corn before next spring's planting.
I couldn't be less sure that their cherished beliefs are false. I put a high value on truth and knowledge. So even though I agree religion is integral to our cultural development, the magic beliefs are false and they are not necessary for people who can do without them.
Don't you think the paragraph I just wrote is condescending?
I get what you are saying, and understand that interpretation. And I am not saying it is unreasonable whatsoever.
But there are kinder interpretations. Perhaps: I wish I had your faith, but even though I don't, I agree with you about the Ten Commandments. I think that can be an earnest mindset.
Jordan Peterson is often asked, pointblank, "Do you believe in God?" His answer is, "I try to live my life as if there is." To many people, that's an unsatisfying answer, a non-answer. But I think it's a good answer. Certainly many of the great religious thinkers and writers of the past had doubts.
So, to tidy up, when I said, "I don't see how it's condescending," I was wrong to do so. Because I do understand your point. I was being overly combative. My own point would have been better expressed as, "There are framings which I think are not condescending."
Wonderful
Immigration needs to be drastically reduced. The combination of millions of foreign workers coming here and jobs being eliminated due to automation is producing a job shortage. The last thing we should be doing is bringing in more workers the way we are.
Brilliant pun:
“That's a very economistic way of looking at it, and I'm not married to it.”
So, anyone know if JBP has had any interesting guests lately...?
https://youtu.be/pRTU6IEepPM
I had a very similar experience in the post office a few months ago. I stood in line, surrounded by first generation immigrants, feeling surrounded by strangers, when I heard the very welcome sound of an American black woman’s voice behind me.
Amy Chua's book, Political Tribes, addresses many of these issues in a fascinating way. In Intellectuals and Race, Thomas Sowell makes the point that slavery was ancient, and newly ended in the 18th century. No one reading Sowell's work could embrace 1619, also rebutted by Peter W. Wood's 1620, which marches through dates and facts with wit and reflection.
I was reading Huckleberry Finn. The Dauphin puts up a poster for the Royal Nonesuch. The sign says, “Women and Children will not be allowed admittance.” The Dauphin looks at his work and says, “if that don’t fetch a crowd then I don’t know Arkansaw.” My people.
Enlightening!
The Paris anecdote at the end was a little sad.
Why?
Because it's a failure - a defeat - a dividing line in life. It's encountering something that's too difficult or too intimidating masquerading (in this case) as affinity for the familiar feelings of belonging, in a yearning for "home".
We all do this masquerade at times, mostly unconsciously, when we're faced with the choice: to go forward or go back. Back is always the path of least resistance, but on some level we know it's craven, or lazy, or weak. And who wants to feel craven or lazy or weak?
So we find reasons to justify the going back choice. To absolve ourselves. We give the decision a positive spin, and shout about how great it is; ideally to other people so we can dwell in a world where our justifications can be unambivalent. Eventually the unwanted feeling craven or lazy or weak goes away.
I got a sense this is what played out in the Paris memory. Which is a little sad.
Dr. Loury, your description of the creation of the George Floyd narrative is something everyone else seems afraid to address. (And I very much include the Taibbis and Greenwalds of the world.)
As you are undoubtedly aware, the creation of another narrative is right now being attempted in Grand Rapids, Michigan. From the refusal of the state to release driving records (an action which had to be reversed) to the fishiness surrounding criminal records (I'm not sure what the reality is, but Andy Ngo is providing a case number for an assault on a pregnant woman; other sources are saying nothing at all).
As you pointed out, the media and politicians have the agency to create a narrative. Right now their cards are face up on the table for all to see in Grand Rapids.
In addition to those two matters I just mentioned, the New York Times has written:
"The police in Grand Rapids, Mich., released videos on Wednesday showing a white officer fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya, a 26-year-old Black man, after a struggle during a traffic stop last week."
Contrast to their withholding the race of the Black mass shooter on the NYC subway last week. Because, race doesn't matter when a mass shooter is loose amongst the public, I suppose.
Agency, indeed.
The surest way to tell that someone hasn't read the 1619 Project is if they imply it rejects American patriotism or stands apart from the American project. In fact, Hannah-Jones' whole pitch for it is that it's a way of telling an American story that can make Black Americans feel patriotic. Her main essay is about the American flag her father used to keep in the yard, and how she used to be embarrassed by it but then came to understand that her father's patriotism was a way of saying that American white people's crimes against Black people did not mean that Black people were any less American. The 1619 Project is widely misunderstood by its critics.
BTW, here is another very interesting essay. What do you think of Dr. Painter's contribution? ...it starts with:
"400 years ago, the first Africans who came to America were not ‘enslaved’, they were indentured – and this makes a crucial difference when we think about the meanings of our past"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/14/slavery-in-america-1619-first-ships-jamestown
Hi Nathan, you and other readers may want to check out these 2 excellent essays, one by James Oakes and the other by Sean Wilentz.
BTW, keep in mind that Hannah-Jones's essay is just one among many. What do you think about the one contributed by Matthew Desmond?
https://catalyst-journal.com/2021/12/what-the-1619-project-got-wrong
https://www.opera-historica.com/artkey/oph-202101-0005_the-1619-project-and-living-in-truth.php
That’s not how it’s being taught in the schools.
In 1619, there was no America as we know it. There were British colonies under the rule of the Crown. Slavery on these shores lasted for a shorter time after the Founding that before it. Moreover, ascribing current-day sensibilities to actions and actors of the past is among the most intellectually dishonest exercises in existence. As Glenn points out - slavery was not new but emancipation was.
Nathan, The 1619 Project is not accurate. It is a polemic. End of narrative. Search Gordon Wood's analysis.
What I wrote in my comment here about "religion" could be repeated almost word for word with "The 1619 project" substituted.
I have a dilemma concerning religion. While religion may provide some solid moral examples - along with their opposite - it is superstition. So many of the beliefs are ludicrous to me, that going along with "religion is a good" seems incredibly condescending.
I completely agree. I can understand -- and perhaps even accept -- that the recession of religion in American society over the past half-century or so has created problems that clarify the benefits religion can provide to the culture -- or any culture -- as a whole.
The problem I have is that anytime I read arguments in any way touching upon this perceived need for society to re-embrace organized religion, like what Glenn is doing here, fails to account for the many of us for whom the rejection of religion as traditionally understood was a conscious and thoughtful decision. I am willing to join communities that provide the benefits of religion that the rest of our society currently lacks, but I do not want my membership to have to be predicated on having to believe things that aren't true -- or at the very least, things that I truly, honestly believe are not true and will almost certainly not be convinced of otherwise (e.g. the existence of God and/or realities other than the purely empirical and materialist one we inhabit). I believe people like Glenn simply don't realize how alienating the resurgence of a Judeo-Christian dogma and worldview in civic society at large will be not only to atheists and nonreligious people like myself, but people of other faith and spiritual practices as well.
I don't see how it's condescending. Even the most dogged anti-religionist must realize religion is verbalization of advantageous evolutionary traits. The person who sacrifices a bushel of corn shows a strong ability plan for the future, i.e., refrain from eating his seed corn before next spring's planting.
I couldn't be less sure that their cherished beliefs are false. I put a high value on truth and knowledge. So even though I agree religion is integral to our cultural development, the magic beliefs are false and they are not necessary for people who can do without them.
Don't you think the paragraph I just wrote is condescending?
I get what you are saying, and understand that interpretation. And I am not saying it is unreasonable whatsoever.
But there are kinder interpretations. Perhaps: I wish I had your faith, but even though I don't, I agree with you about the Ten Commandments. I think that can be an earnest mindset.
Jordan Peterson is often asked, pointblank, "Do you believe in God?" His answer is, "I try to live my life as if there is." To many people, that's an unsatisfying answer, a non-answer. But I think it's a good answer. Certainly many of the great religious thinkers and writers of the past had doubts.
So, to tidy up, when I said, "I don't see how it's condescending," I was wrong to do so. Because I do understand your point. I was being overly combative. My own point would have been better expressed as, "There are framings which I think are not condescending."
Wish there was an audio companion piece to these long articles.