Just watching this one... the moderator starts off with false premise. Stating that all statistical disparities in education, family, etc.... is due completely to the legacy of slavery. There are many that argue against that.
How in the heck do we have these "debates", while willfully excluding that there were always two factions involved in slavery. At LEAST two. For the sake of keeping things brief, there were pro-slavery and anti-slavery. In the end, the pro-slavery faction seceded from the union, leaving the ant-slavery faction to write law as they pleased. And in short order, they amended the CONSITUTION to say that slavery is not to be permitted within the USA. Yes, the secessionist states were forced back into the union, but had no voice in these decisions.
So, how can we pretend to be thoughtfully considering reparations, while ignoring that, post 1865, the federal government actively involved itself in ending slavery. Pre 1965, the majority of the federal government favored ending it. My relatives fought for the North, fought and died to end slavery, yet I hear BOTH of the debaters here suggest that ALL White people share responsibility for slavery. No, we DON'T. And don't forget, the federal government did not create slavery, it was already here. So, it is not the federal government that is responsible for it, it is, perhaps, King George who is responsible. Too, far back to go? It's only mere decades previous to the constitution.
If reparations are to be paid, then by who? The federal government? The only real money the federal government has is the money it takes from us. Why should we all pay? It is insulting to suggest that the descendants of slaves should be paid reparations by the descendants of the soldiers who fought and died for the North, to FREE them. No, if there are to be reparations, write that check on the account of the people who fought to KEEP slavery. That would be the Confederate States of America. Unfortunately, the Confederate States are defunct and have no money. But do not despair. The political party from which the Confederate States sprang still exists. It is the Democratic party. Send THEM the bill.
Thank u so much for reposting this debate - timely, challenging and inspired as a taking off point for all of us. What was true at that time is more evident and urgent today. I adored Hitch, and like another poster, believe Glenn bested him with the force of his argument.
What the hell was Hitchens going on about? I expected *way* better than I got from him, and I fail to see what the Elgin Marbles debate has to do with it. Yes, I DO think they should be returned and even if Elgin wasn't entirely honest about why he took them, he did have a point that the Turks were slowly destroying them - about 40% until Elgin got there - and they were using the Parthenon to store munitions. One big explosion and the Parthenon would now be cement, which the Turks would undoubtedly used the line the streets.
What any of that nonsense had to do with slavery is beyond me. He never addressed the critical issue about the whole thing - Why should people who never owned slaves pay money to people who never were slaves? That's just the first of many big questions the Ta-Nehisi Coates folks fail to answer. Your answer was MUCH better, Glenn - how are we going to work toward an equitable society? That's what *I* think about while others are trying to figure out how to get white people to give them free handouts - handouts that will NEVER end as the Regressive Left will forever dig deeper to find new depths of racism we never knew before. Too bad we can't power our vehicles with racism rather than oil because I'm pretty sure with the CRT set in charge, racism really would become a neverending fuel source :)
I think about how we can equalize the economic system and redistibute wealth mostly by requiring the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Black people aren't the only ones who would benefit from a more just & equitable society - we *all* would, and so would most white men. The only ones who wouldn't would likely be the Trumpers, but that would be their choice,
Hitch really blew it on this one. I didn't even *once* think, "Well, yeah, he's got a point there," which I can at least say for a few things Ta-Nehisi Coates says. (I agree with Hitch on the wealth issue but it wasn't an a-ha moment since I'd heard fit from Coates first).
Debate was 2001. Too bad, my perspective was previously influenced by David Horowitz’s book, Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery (2002). That said, I shall limit my comments to the narrow particulars of this debate.
Does the question of Reparations arise from the issue of historical group injustice or historical individual injustice? If there is a meaningful construct of “historical group justice,” could someone provide clear examples? For my part, I think “justice,” if it might be defined/achieved, would necessarily be related to individuals and individual actions. If an individual faces a trial, the jury can render a verdict. However, if we are trying to determine “group justice,” how do we account for group members who have no meaningful relationship to the group, aside from a religious, racial, or ethnic attribute? Honestly, can we consider “group justice” anything other than stereotypical generalizations that ineluctably embody internal contradictions?
If reparations are a valid construct for historical justice, then should native tribes apply it against each other? Tribal territorial battles over land (and other issues) were as common between different native tribes as they were between natives and whites. What about internecine tribal struggles within Africa about slaves before Europeans plied the Middle Passage? Or, to whom do the descendants of the Aztecs owe money? What about capture and transport of slaves to the Arab kingdoms, producing a far greater measure of human misery? What about the moral/ethical culpability of African tribes for their agency in slave trading, East and West? Who is justified in demanding reparations from the Saudis and/or Egyptians for historical “crimes”?
Hitchens argues we should not make <b>“The Best the enemy of the Good.” </b> That may have worked in a congressional legislative debate, but would we apply the same principle to a racial minority that has a demonstrated pathology of violence toward members of their own race? Would Hitchens project “guilt” on a criminal suspect because of a gang profile? Would he countenance surveillance of racial minorities by stores who have experienced abnormal incidents of theft? <i>The Best the Enemy of the Good? </i> There are too many examples of dictators who applied this logic, producing brutal, inhumane outcomes.
Glenn urged us not to go down the reparations road, “Precisely because there are millions of people whose lives are yet to be blessed with the riches and the potentiality of what this society holds so dear.” In a sense, I agree with Glenn, but my agreement is qualified because our society placed and continues to place a great measure of value on AGENCY. Only to a minimum degree, does our society distribute “riches” to citizens (Covid stimulus checks, notwithstanding). The attitude and consciousness that rejects “acting white,” fails to understand the path to real wealth and higher levels of personal consumption, are directly related to hard work, education, diligence, and individualism.
The world is imperfect. Resources and people are distributed in an unequal manner. If given a choice, what proportion of folks would opt to live/grow-up in a non-European society? The legacy of slavery and oppression has not motivated many to move back to the continent of their ancestors.
Hard to imagine anyone who could reach back twenty years and come up with something so timely and important. Yes, from the perspective of a privileged white guy I don't see where much has been done to address our historical legacy. I'm left saddened that we couldn't have taken Glenn's position as a foundation for our movement forward. Funny how this old video has become for me an unexpected, surprise bonus of my subscription! Real added value, if you will.
Consider: You have a large number of Americans who read your every word and look to you for leadership. Don't you think we'd benefit from reading your views on reparations TODAY, vs your debate with Hitchens 20 years ago? I know its a minefield but you've repeatedly demonstrated your abilty to negotiate minefields. Here's hoping... Frank Miceli
Not being one myself, however I suspect the mark of a truly great intellectual debater would be the ability to brilliantly argue both sides of an issue. In this case I’ve no don’t the sides could have been swapped and both Hitchens and Loury would have delivered equally brilliant orations.
Absolutely great, Glenn is an orator Roman style (Cato, Cicero) Thanks a lot for posting this video ( i thought i had by now seen all the Hitch -videos, apparently not)
Glenn, you came up against the best and you presented the only intelligent argument against both the real problem and how to have a future to (try) and best resolve it - which we can never fully do. Christopher is so good he can make even the lesser argument sound a winner.
I was fortunate and my aging memory delighted to remember my 20 minute one-on-one with Christopher in about 2009 at Brockport University. That evening, he demolished Reverend David Wolpe (a delightful debater). You avenged Rabbi Wolpe before the fact. Good show!
I remember randomly stumbling across this you tube 5 years ago or so, shortly after Glenn’s appearance on sam Harris’s podcast. I was transfixed. How I wish hitch could come on the Glenn show now...
I was and remain an insufferably ardent fan of Christopher Hitchens. I had never seen Hitchens lose a debate, but I genuinely think he was bested by Glenn here.
Hitch's Elgin Marbles analogy actually makes Glenn's point. If Britian paid a billion pounds to Greece, kept the marbles, and declared the issue resolved, that would be akin to reparations. But Hitch argued that the Marbles should be returned to Greece, and the Parthenon made whole again. By implication, the cultural damage done by removing the marbles cannot be repaired financially.
This one of Glenn's points: the social damage done by slavery and its resulting legacy cannot be bought off with dollars.
Just watching this one... the moderator starts off with false premise. Stating that all statistical disparities in education, family, etc.... is due completely to the legacy of slavery. There are many that argue against that.
How in the heck do we have these "debates", while willfully excluding that there were always two factions involved in slavery. At LEAST two. For the sake of keeping things brief, there were pro-slavery and anti-slavery. In the end, the pro-slavery faction seceded from the union, leaving the ant-slavery faction to write law as they pleased. And in short order, they amended the CONSITUTION to say that slavery is not to be permitted within the USA. Yes, the secessionist states were forced back into the union, but had no voice in these decisions.
So, how can we pretend to be thoughtfully considering reparations, while ignoring that, post 1865, the federal government actively involved itself in ending slavery. Pre 1965, the majority of the federal government favored ending it. My relatives fought for the North, fought and died to end slavery, yet I hear BOTH of the debaters here suggest that ALL White people share responsibility for slavery. No, we DON'T. And don't forget, the federal government did not create slavery, it was already here. So, it is not the federal government that is responsible for it, it is, perhaps, King George who is responsible. Too, far back to go? It's only mere decades previous to the constitution.
If reparations are to be paid, then by who? The federal government? The only real money the federal government has is the money it takes from us. Why should we all pay? It is insulting to suggest that the descendants of slaves should be paid reparations by the descendants of the soldiers who fought and died for the North, to FREE them. No, if there are to be reparations, write that check on the account of the people who fought to KEEP slavery. That would be the Confederate States of America. Unfortunately, the Confederate States are defunct and have no money. But do not despair. The political party from which the Confederate States sprang still exists. It is the Democratic party. Send THEM the bill.
I'm signing up for paid just for this! I miss Hitch! Keep up the great work, professor!
I'm signing up for paid just for this! I miss Hitch! Keep up the great work, professor!
Thank u so much for reposting this debate - timely, challenging and inspired as a taking off point for all of us. What was true at that time is more evident and urgent today. I adored Hitch, and like another poster, believe Glenn bested him with the force of his argument.
What the hell was Hitchens going on about? I expected *way* better than I got from him, and I fail to see what the Elgin Marbles debate has to do with it. Yes, I DO think they should be returned and even if Elgin wasn't entirely honest about why he took them, he did have a point that the Turks were slowly destroying them - about 40% until Elgin got there - and they were using the Parthenon to store munitions. One big explosion and the Parthenon would now be cement, which the Turks would undoubtedly used the line the streets.
What any of that nonsense had to do with slavery is beyond me. He never addressed the critical issue about the whole thing - Why should people who never owned slaves pay money to people who never were slaves? That's just the first of many big questions the Ta-Nehisi Coates folks fail to answer. Your answer was MUCH better, Glenn - how are we going to work toward an equitable society? That's what *I* think about while others are trying to figure out how to get white people to give them free handouts - handouts that will NEVER end as the Regressive Left will forever dig deeper to find new depths of racism we never knew before. Too bad we can't power our vehicles with racism rather than oil because I'm pretty sure with the CRT set in charge, racism really would become a neverending fuel source :)
I think about how we can equalize the economic system and redistibute wealth mostly by requiring the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Black people aren't the only ones who would benefit from a more just & equitable society - we *all* would, and so would most white men. The only ones who wouldn't would likely be the Trumpers, but that would be their choice,
Hitch really blew it on this one. I didn't even *once* think, "Well, yeah, he's got a point there," which I can at least say for a few things Ta-Nehisi Coates says. (I agree with Hitch on the wealth issue but it wasn't an a-ha moment since I'd heard fit from Coates first).
Different view.
Debate was 2001. Too bad, my perspective was previously influenced by David Horowitz’s book, Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery (2002). That said, I shall limit my comments to the narrow particulars of this debate.
Does the question of Reparations arise from the issue of historical group injustice or historical individual injustice? If there is a meaningful construct of “historical group justice,” could someone provide clear examples? For my part, I think “justice,” if it might be defined/achieved, would necessarily be related to individuals and individual actions. If an individual faces a trial, the jury can render a verdict. However, if we are trying to determine “group justice,” how do we account for group members who have no meaningful relationship to the group, aside from a religious, racial, or ethnic attribute? Honestly, can we consider “group justice” anything other than stereotypical generalizations that ineluctably embody internal contradictions?
If reparations are a valid construct for historical justice, then should native tribes apply it against each other? Tribal territorial battles over land (and other issues) were as common between different native tribes as they were between natives and whites. What about internecine tribal struggles within Africa about slaves before Europeans plied the Middle Passage? Or, to whom do the descendants of the Aztecs owe money? What about capture and transport of slaves to the Arab kingdoms, producing a far greater measure of human misery? What about the moral/ethical culpability of African tribes for their agency in slave trading, East and West? Who is justified in demanding reparations from the Saudis and/or Egyptians for historical “crimes”?
Hitchens argues we should not make <b>“The Best the enemy of the Good.” </b> That may have worked in a congressional legislative debate, but would we apply the same principle to a racial minority that has a demonstrated pathology of violence toward members of their own race? Would Hitchens project “guilt” on a criminal suspect because of a gang profile? Would he countenance surveillance of racial minorities by stores who have experienced abnormal incidents of theft? <i>The Best the Enemy of the Good? </i> There are too many examples of dictators who applied this logic, producing brutal, inhumane outcomes.
Glenn urged us not to go down the reparations road, “Precisely because there are millions of people whose lives are yet to be blessed with the riches and the potentiality of what this society holds so dear.” In a sense, I agree with Glenn, but my agreement is qualified because our society placed and continues to place a great measure of value on AGENCY. Only to a minimum degree, does our society distribute “riches” to citizens (Covid stimulus checks, notwithstanding). The attitude and consciousness that rejects “acting white,” fails to understand the path to real wealth and higher levels of personal consumption, are directly related to hard work, education, diligence, and individualism.
The world is imperfect. Resources and people are distributed in an unequal manner. If given a choice, what proportion of folks would opt to live/grow-up in a non-European society? The legacy of slavery and oppression has not motivated many to move back to the continent of their ancestors.
Hard to imagine anyone who could reach back twenty years and come up with something so timely and important. Yes, from the perspective of a privileged white guy I don't see where much has been done to address our historical legacy. I'm left saddened that we couldn't have taken Glenn's position as a foundation for our movement forward. Funny how this old video has become for me an unexpected, surprise bonus of my subscription! Real added value, if you will.
Consider: You have a large number of Americans who read your every word and look to you for leadership. Don't you think we'd benefit from reading your views on reparations TODAY, vs your debate with Hitchens 20 years ago? I know its a minefield but you've repeatedly demonstrated your abilty to negotiate minefields. Here's hoping... Frank Miceli
Not being one myself, however I suspect the mark of a truly great intellectual debater would be the ability to brilliantly argue both sides of an issue. In this case I’ve no don’t the sides could have been swapped and both Hitchens and Loury would have delivered equally brilliant orations.
Absolutely great, Glenn is an orator Roman style (Cato, Cicero) Thanks a lot for posting this video ( i thought i had by now seen all the Hitch -videos, apparently not)
Glenn, you came up against the best and you presented the only intelligent argument against both the real problem and how to have a future to (try) and best resolve it - which we can never fully do. Christopher is so good he can make even the lesser argument sound a winner.
I was fortunate and my aging memory delighted to remember my 20 minute one-on-one with Christopher in about 2009 at Brockport University. That evening, he demolished Reverend David Wolpe (a delightful debater). You avenged Rabbi Wolpe before the fact. Good show!
I remember randomly stumbling across this you tube 5 years ago or so, shortly after Glenn’s appearance on sam Harris’s podcast. I was transfixed. How I wish hitch could come on the Glenn show now...
I was and remain an insufferably ardent fan of Christopher Hitchens. I had never seen Hitchens lose a debate, but I genuinely think he was bested by Glenn here.
It is rather odd to hear from the moderator the claim that black people were enslaved AS IF they were unique in that respect. That claim is false.
Hitch's Elgin Marbles analogy actually makes Glenn's point. If Britian paid a billion pounds to Greece, kept the marbles, and declared the issue resolved, that would be akin to reparations. But Hitch argued that the Marbles should be returned to Greece, and the Parthenon made whole again. By implication, the cultural damage done by removing the marbles cannot be repaired financially.
This one of Glenn's points: the social damage done by slavery and its resulting legacy cannot be bought off with dollars.