This week John and I are joined by Coleman Hughes, podcaster, writer, and now author of the forthcoming book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. Coleman recently gave a TED Talk about the central ideas in his book, but faced
Well, here's a first. I strongly disagree with John on two points.
First (chronologically) that color-blindness isn't the natural human state. While tribalism has been a thing for all of human history and presumably for as long as humanity has existed, tribalism based on skin color has not. I think that it is a big deal only because people continue to make it a big deal, because at a purely rational level, organizing by skin color makes as much sense as organizing by hair or eye color. As Coleman says - in his TED talk, in his debate with Jamal Bouie, and here - using race as a proxy for advantage or disadvantage makes no sense when you can use the thing itself, advantage/disadvantage to set public policy. But John has, in the past, made similar comments without ever actually substantiating WHY he is so certain. It frustrates me every time, but to be honest, I just don't see him ever actually addressing it.
Second, in criticizing Israel's response, he says that it will simply fuel the cycle. But as Coleman points out, as far as the Israelis can see, forebearance and violence both lead to the same thing. Glenn notes that a news article compares 10/7 to 9/11 and then proceeds to talk about the disastrous consequences of the US actions in the wake of that event. Now, I would agree that the US response was awful. I thought it was awful at the time. Pinning it on Iraq seemed obviously wrong to me even in 2001 - I looked at it as baby Bush wanting to cement his legacy by finishing what daddy started. I never believed in WMDs. Personally, I think the most terrifying thing to come out of that whole affair was the Patriot Act. All that aside, however, I can ALSO see that it's unrealistic to ask a nation to accept a massive terror attack and turn the other cheek. Israel is much smaller than the US. Given the population of Israel, 10/7 would be like if 9/11 had seen 43,000 dead instead of 3,000. I think the better comparison, given that Hamas IS part of the government, not just a group based out of Palestine, would be Pearl Harbor. Except Pearl Harbor would've needed to have 20,000 fatalities to be on par with 10/7, again, given the population difference between the two nations. I would find it hard to fault Israel for nearly any action they take at this point.
Finally, there was something Glenn said that I felt was a mischaracterization. Antisemitism was never a central factor of Fascism. I *really* hate that the word has morphed into a synonym for "evil authoritarianism". It's bad enough that the people on the left do it, you do a podcast with a language professor, let's be more precise. Fascism was an Italian ideology -- it was French Syndicalism with a healthy dose of Jingoism tossed in. It was a reaction to the *international* Socialism of Russia with the adherence to a *national* Socialism predicated on an ethnic homogeneity. "Blood and soil". Socialism fails, at a fundamental level, because resources the state pools into an individual can be leveraged for greater benefit to the individual if the individual can move to a Capitalist state. That leads to people and resources leaking out of the state. International Socialism sought to solve this problem by spreading Socialism across the entire world, Fascism (or the National Socialism of Germany) sought to solve this problem by instilling a sense of national supremacy that would keep individuals emotionally (and therefore hopefully physically) tied to their homeland. Frankly, I think the international Socialists were... less stupid. Still stupid, but national Socialism was a much dumber idea. That aside, Germany wasn't particularly Fascist because there was far less Socialism and far more Nationalism; it wasn't so much a fusion of ideas as it was lip service to Socialism as a means to sell the authoritarian government to the common people. While Italy had businesses nominally owned by private individuals, the Italian government did far more to answer the economic questions of what to produce, where, when and how much. Which makes Antifa rather ironic, since it's a much closer ideological successor to Fascism than pretty much anything the American right has to offer at the moment.
Here is the simplistic, but I suspect somewhat accurate explanation of the Israeli/Palestinian Dispute
Nominal GDP per capita
USA - $75K
EU - $40K
Israel - $57K
Saudi - $30K
UAE - $54K
Russia - $16K
Iran - $4K
China - $13K
Palestine - $4k
Qatar - $88K
The first list are countries that are liberal democracies, or monarchies that extend rights to their citizens, or who would like to, allowing them to achieve their human potential. The second list are dictatorships or theocracies that do not extend the same type of rights. Qatar is the outlier because of oil and a population of 2.7 million.
What the fighting in the Middle East is really about is the countries on the second list doing everything in their power to prevent their populations from wanting what the populations on the top list have. Israel is the fly in their ointment. It's the economic engine of its sub-region. If Israel removes Hamas, and a coalition of nations on the top list rebuild Gaza and increase the per capita GDP, the damage to the countries on the second list will be significant and could include a regime like Iran's falling.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian people are pawns in this larger geopolitical dispute. But it is a bed of their own making as the expression goes. History is littered with populations that were decimated by dynamics similar to these. And as much as many of us would like to see them not be harmed, I don't see how that is possible until the larger dispute is over, given the historical choices the Palestinians have made to stick with their leaders. If people were really interested in saving Palestinian lives, they would call for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages.
Coleman’s story and John’s about TedTalks reminded me of SF 2012 February Presidents’ Day Weekend when SF CounterPulse performance arts center was taken over by 5 FB activists who were “injured” because leftist bleeding-heart liberals disagreed with them. In all three cases - normal people like Hughes, McWhorter and me become disoriented in the absence of transparency. When entering into a business contract with social media platforms- transparency about rules and process is necessary. What Hughes and McWhorter experienced was the failure of Ted to interact transparently with a business partner. A few months back, Loury also experienced a transparency failure on the part of YouTube.
HR also needs to demonstrate transparency. Employee Chris shouldn’t have to speculate about getting in trouble because of imagined harm/injury. HR needs to distinguish between “offense” and “injury”.
Activist knowledge about weaponizing HR has resulted in too much harm and needs sunlight. The nationwide HR organization is located In Wisconsin. It may be in need of new leadership.
I have long rejected the idea that I have benefited from white privilege. I don't mean that I haven't been fortunate to have been born to middle-class, college-educated parents. That upbringing allowed me to do well in school and eventually become a lawyer. But I don't think any of my accomplishments were the result of my being white. Some would argue that I benefited from white privilege because I did not experience racism. That may be true, but I don't believe that not being discriminated against because of my race should be considered an unfair “privilege.” Look at it this way. If a person benefits from an unfair, unearned privilege, wouldn't the right thing to do be to remove that privilege? Presumably, that would require discriminating against everyone equally. I think working to eliminate racism and racial disparities is a much more productive approach. Not being discriminated against because of your race shouldn't be considered a privilege because it should be the right of every person.
But Coleman's experience with TED made me realize that I probably do have at least one privilege that Coleman doesn't enjoy. If I had given the same TED talk that Coleman gave, I doubt it would have created anywhere near the backlash that was aimed at Coleman. (Let's just ignore the fact that I wouldn't have been invited to give the talk.) The reason there was so much backlash against Coleman was because he is Black. Clarence Thomas has been the focus of far more hatred from the Left than was ever aimed at Antonin Scalia, even though they shared a very similar judicial philosophy. Part of that was because, being white, it was OK for Scalia to be a conservative. (Hey, I just discovered another example of white privilege!) But more of the vitriol is probably because they fear other African Americans might be convinced to share his views. Coleman is a far more persuasive advocate for color-blind policies than I could ever be. The people who were so upset at Coleman being given the platform of a TED Talk realized that they couldn't really debate Coleman on the substance of his talk. If a white man had given the same talk, they could just call him a racist and be done with it. But that is a much harder charge to successfully lodge against Coleman, not that they haven't tried.
I have a few of thoughts to share with you. I know that you all are highly intelligent and what I am about to say will not be a surprise you.
I agree that Hamas is an evil and violent organization. But under this column I would include the Israeli Likud party and its coalition partners. For instance, they protect right-wing-settler militias in the West Bank so they can terrorize the indigenous population. (That is why the response was so slow.)
They say that they don’t target civilians. That is misleading. During the first six days of this war, they dropped 1000 bombs a day on Gaza. It is impossible to drop that many bombs that quickly while properly vetting the target to assure the protection of civilians. Therefore they knew that a lot of civilians would be killed at the target.
I will add the evidence provided by the peaceful 18 month Great March of Return. During these demonstrations the Israelis routinely used snipers to aim at the knees of the protesters, maiming them for life. This kind of sub-lethal violence is what the Israelis use to terrorize Palestinians while keeping under the radar of their western allies.
Israel, under the Likud party is a violent settler-colonial power every bit as bad as the 19th century settler colonial versions that are condemned today. But this is the 21st century.
Question: do you condemn the US Native American resistance to the westward settler expansion? They committed massacres, kidnapped civilians, and mutilated bodies.
One thing can be said for in favor of the US version, the US was willing to accept the Indians into the American nation. (Note the notorious Indian schools.) The Israelis offer no such plan for the Palestinians.
You all touched on all of this, but even before 1967 there was "occupation" and there were "settlements." When you hear most Palestinians use these words now they're talking about all of Israel.
Also I think the 2 state solution has been impossible for over 20 years now. Israel offered 99% of what the world was demanding and in return they got the Second Intifada, and almost everyone in Israel knew someone who was killed or maimed in it. There is still a "left" in Israel but there hasn't really been a peace movement since then.
One note on the discussion about who has the power. The statement presumes Israel has the power and has exercised internal restraint.
This is an incorrect assumption. The U.S. Military Industrial complex support, the U.N., and other forces exercise external restraint.
There may be some internal restraint from the Israeli left, but they have almost no power.
As it stands, only the U.S. veto keeps Israel out of trouble. They know if they cross certain lines their billions from the U.S. dry up.
Netanyahu's cabinet has many extremists that want to engage in genocide. And if they weren't reliant on international aid, they would.
As far as support...more Israelis support Likud and their war crimes than support Hamas. And the Hamas number is likely high, as Hamas is not elected, but in power by force.
In reply to "A.S": "Netanyahu's cabinet has many extremists that want to engage in genocide. And if they weren't reliant on international aid, they would."
Are you referring to Muslim extremists in Netanyahu's cabinet or in voting public Israel has been forced to accept into their country?
I'm referring to convicted Jewish terrorists like Ben-Gvir serving in Netanyahu's cabinet. And as far as I'm concerned, nominating a convicted terrorist into one's cabinet makes one a terrorist.
The current Israeli government supports dislocation and expansion by force to what they believe their little story book gives them the right to.
And yes, logically a majority of the Jewish population supports these policies since they keep voting them into power.
I can't remember if it was here or 538, but over 30% of the Israeli population believes in the most extreme version of their religion. So Pentateuch style genocide. And the rest refuse to stand against them.
So if all Palestinians are complicit with Hamas, which rules Gaza through force, so much more so are Israelis that nominally live in a democracy and choose barbarism over and over.
As such, I'm opposed to any aid to Israel. At all. And overwhelming military force against any restricting by either Hamas or Israel to relief provided to Gaza.
Palestians support Hamas clearly. What innocent people are we talking about? They teach children hate. Israel’s leveling Gaza is irrelevant, they will hate. Terrorist don’t only hate Israel’s they hate Americans, they would kill all those who are protesting for them without hesitation. This is their world and they don’t get along with any neighbors, they take over countries and rule with hate. Like they did with Lebanon and Germany is next.
Thanks for stating the unvarnished truth of the matter: "Terrorist don’t only hate Israel’s they hate Americans, they would kill all those who are protesting for them without hesitation."
and "they don’t get along with any neighbors, they take over countries and rule with hate. Like they did with Lebanon and Germany is next."
37:20 Of course Coleman's right that white people preferring to associate with other white people doesn't harm him. However, I don't think "white" is a meaningful identity in the way that black or Yemeni might be. Russians associating with Russians and Arabs with Arabs (classified as "white" by the US government oddly enough) makes some sense. BTW, I happen to have pale skin, but don't like the "as an X" form of statement.
Maybe the best episode of Glenn and John all year. There is nothing like having all three of these men together on the same platform. Reminiscent of them appearing on the Fifith Column with Kmele Foster and Thomas Chatterton Williams in 2018 and 2020.
It comes down to power. That small black group of the TED organization feel that they hold the cards because enough whites have given them so much deference through the years. They can shuffle the cards in anyway they want, but sometimes ethics and morality get lost in the shuffle.
I also love the analogies the men made when referring to Hamas. It doesn't take much to see the similarities.
I happened to listen to Coleman's "Colorblindness" Ted Talk last week and found it wonderfully coherent, thoughtful, factual and informative. However, upon listening to Coleman's podcast describing the surprising, negative, turn of events initiated by Chris Anderson and a few Ted Talk staff, I found myself reaching for my blood pressure meds. (I immediately thought Glenn is going to have Coleman on his show to discuss this.) The level of depravity and absolute cowardice levelled at Coleman's very rational talk and the lack of promotion from the TT organization was irrational and unfair. Essentially, Coleman was subtly punished for delivering a talk that lacked a hefty dose of a victim narrative with emphasis on systematic racism and white-blaming. This was simply too much for me to stomach.
A message to white CEOs and corporate managers: STOP allowing yourselves to be held hostage by uninformed, unenlightened, people who perpetually see themselves as victims. You are not helping us to live up to Dr. King's dream of colorblindness by kow-towing to the cultural elites employed by TT. Moreover, please get a backbone, grow a pair, and stand up to black and white bullies of the woke persuasion that throw unnecessary temper tantrums. What happened to the Ted Talk mission to "foster the spread of great ideas." Did they forget?
Hamas does not want normalization of relations between the Saudis and Israel. It carried out a murderous attack hoping Israel would severely punish those in Gaza. Muslims in other countries would look as a Saudi-Israel treaty as a betrayal of Muslims. Hamas expects the Saudis to back off. They may reach their objective. They care little about the loss of life on either side.
Only the latest example of a long string of "must see" discussions.
Well, here's a first. I strongly disagree with John on two points.
First (chronologically) that color-blindness isn't the natural human state. While tribalism has been a thing for all of human history and presumably for as long as humanity has existed, tribalism based on skin color has not. I think that it is a big deal only because people continue to make it a big deal, because at a purely rational level, organizing by skin color makes as much sense as organizing by hair or eye color. As Coleman says - in his TED talk, in his debate with Jamal Bouie, and here - using race as a proxy for advantage or disadvantage makes no sense when you can use the thing itself, advantage/disadvantage to set public policy. But John has, in the past, made similar comments without ever actually substantiating WHY he is so certain. It frustrates me every time, but to be honest, I just don't see him ever actually addressing it.
Second, in criticizing Israel's response, he says that it will simply fuel the cycle. But as Coleman points out, as far as the Israelis can see, forebearance and violence both lead to the same thing. Glenn notes that a news article compares 10/7 to 9/11 and then proceeds to talk about the disastrous consequences of the US actions in the wake of that event. Now, I would agree that the US response was awful. I thought it was awful at the time. Pinning it on Iraq seemed obviously wrong to me even in 2001 - I looked at it as baby Bush wanting to cement his legacy by finishing what daddy started. I never believed in WMDs. Personally, I think the most terrifying thing to come out of that whole affair was the Patriot Act. All that aside, however, I can ALSO see that it's unrealistic to ask a nation to accept a massive terror attack and turn the other cheek. Israel is much smaller than the US. Given the population of Israel, 10/7 would be like if 9/11 had seen 43,000 dead instead of 3,000. I think the better comparison, given that Hamas IS part of the government, not just a group based out of Palestine, would be Pearl Harbor. Except Pearl Harbor would've needed to have 20,000 fatalities to be on par with 10/7, again, given the population difference between the two nations. I would find it hard to fault Israel for nearly any action they take at this point.
Finally, there was something Glenn said that I felt was a mischaracterization. Antisemitism was never a central factor of Fascism. I *really* hate that the word has morphed into a synonym for "evil authoritarianism". It's bad enough that the people on the left do it, you do a podcast with a language professor, let's be more precise. Fascism was an Italian ideology -- it was French Syndicalism with a healthy dose of Jingoism tossed in. It was a reaction to the *international* Socialism of Russia with the adherence to a *national* Socialism predicated on an ethnic homogeneity. "Blood and soil". Socialism fails, at a fundamental level, because resources the state pools into an individual can be leveraged for greater benefit to the individual if the individual can move to a Capitalist state. That leads to people and resources leaking out of the state. International Socialism sought to solve this problem by spreading Socialism across the entire world, Fascism (or the National Socialism of Germany) sought to solve this problem by instilling a sense of national supremacy that would keep individuals emotionally (and therefore hopefully physically) tied to their homeland. Frankly, I think the international Socialists were... less stupid. Still stupid, but national Socialism was a much dumber idea. That aside, Germany wasn't particularly Fascist because there was far less Socialism and far more Nationalism; it wasn't so much a fusion of ideas as it was lip service to Socialism as a means to sell the authoritarian government to the common people. While Italy had businesses nominally owned by private individuals, the Italian government did far more to answer the economic questions of what to produce, where, when and how much. Which makes Antifa rather ironic, since it's a much closer ideological successor to Fascism than pretty much anything the American right has to offer at the moment.
Here is the simplistic, but I suspect somewhat accurate explanation of the Israeli/Palestinian Dispute
Nominal GDP per capita
USA - $75K
EU - $40K
Israel - $57K
Saudi - $30K
UAE - $54K
Russia - $16K
Iran - $4K
China - $13K
Palestine - $4k
Qatar - $88K
The first list are countries that are liberal democracies, or monarchies that extend rights to their citizens, or who would like to, allowing them to achieve their human potential. The second list are dictatorships or theocracies that do not extend the same type of rights. Qatar is the outlier because of oil and a population of 2.7 million.
What the fighting in the Middle East is really about is the countries on the second list doing everything in their power to prevent their populations from wanting what the populations on the top list have. Israel is the fly in their ointment. It's the economic engine of its sub-region. If Israel removes Hamas, and a coalition of nations on the top list rebuild Gaza and increase the per capita GDP, the damage to the countries on the second list will be significant and could include a regime like Iran's falling.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian people are pawns in this larger geopolitical dispute. But it is a bed of their own making as the expression goes. History is littered with populations that were decimated by dynamics similar to these. And as much as many of us would like to see them not be harmed, I don't see how that is possible until the larger dispute is over, given the historical choices the Palestinians have made to stick with their leaders. If people were really interested in saving Palestinian lives, they would call for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages.
This is shameful. There is no other way to look at the situation. TED talks have gone way down to my estimation.
Coleman’s story and John’s about TedTalks reminded me of SF 2012 February Presidents’ Day Weekend when SF CounterPulse performance arts center was taken over by 5 FB activists who were “injured” because leftist bleeding-heart liberals disagreed with them. In all three cases - normal people like Hughes, McWhorter and me become disoriented in the absence of transparency. When entering into a business contract with social media platforms- transparency about rules and process is necessary. What Hughes and McWhorter experienced was the failure of Ted to interact transparently with a business partner. A few months back, Loury also experienced a transparency failure on the part of YouTube.
HR also needs to demonstrate transparency. Employee Chris shouldn’t have to speculate about getting in trouble because of imagined harm/injury. HR needs to distinguish between “offense” and “injury”.
Activist knowledge about weaponizing HR has resulted in too much harm and needs sunlight. The nationwide HR organization is located In Wisconsin. It may be in need of new leadership.
I have long rejected the idea that I have benefited from white privilege. I don't mean that I haven't been fortunate to have been born to middle-class, college-educated parents. That upbringing allowed me to do well in school and eventually become a lawyer. But I don't think any of my accomplishments were the result of my being white. Some would argue that I benefited from white privilege because I did not experience racism. That may be true, but I don't believe that not being discriminated against because of my race should be considered an unfair “privilege.” Look at it this way. If a person benefits from an unfair, unearned privilege, wouldn't the right thing to do be to remove that privilege? Presumably, that would require discriminating against everyone equally. I think working to eliminate racism and racial disparities is a much more productive approach. Not being discriminated against because of your race shouldn't be considered a privilege because it should be the right of every person.
But Coleman's experience with TED made me realize that I probably do have at least one privilege that Coleman doesn't enjoy. If I had given the same TED talk that Coleman gave, I doubt it would have created anywhere near the backlash that was aimed at Coleman. (Let's just ignore the fact that I wouldn't have been invited to give the talk.) The reason there was so much backlash against Coleman was because he is Black. Clarence Thomas has been the focus of far more hatred from the Left than was ever aimed at Antonin Scalia, even though they shared a very similar judicial philosophy. Part of that was because, being white, it was OK for Scalia to be a conservative. (Hey, I just discovered another example of white privilege!) But more of the vitriol is probably because they fear other African Americans might be convinced to share his views. Coleman is a far more persuasive advocate for color-blind policies than I could ever be. The people who were so upset at Coleman being given the platform of a TED Talk realized that they couldn't really debate Coleman on the substance of his talk. If a white man had given the same talk, they could just call him a racist and be done with it. But that is a much harder charge to successfully lodge against Coleman, not that they haven't tried.
I have a few of thoughts to share with you. I know that you all are highly intelligent and what I am about to say will not be a surprise you.
I agree that Hamas is an evil and violent organization. But under this column I would include the Israeli Likud party and its coalition partners. For instance, they protect right-wing-settler militias in the West Bank so they can terrorize the indigenous population. (That is why the response was so slow.)
They say that they don’t target civilians. That is misleading. During the first six days of this war, they dropped 1000 bombs a day on Gaza. It is impossible to drop that many bombs that quickly while properly vetting the target to assure the protection of civilians. Therefore they knew that a lot of civilians would be killed at the target.
I will add the evidence provided by the peaceful 18 month Great March of Return. During these demonstrations the Israelis routinely used snipers to aim at the knees of the protesters, maiming them for life. This kind of sub-lethal violence is what the Israelis use to terrorize Palestinians while keeping under the radar of their western allies.
Israel, under the Likud party is a violent settler-colonial power every bit as bad as the 19th century settler colonial versions that are condemned today. But this is the 21st century.
Question: do you condemn the US Native American resistance to the westward settler expansion? They committed massacres, kidnapped civilians, and mutilated bodies.
One thing can be said for in favor of the US version, the US was willing to accept the Indians into the American nation. (Note the notorious Indian schools.) The Israelis offer no such plan for the Palestinians.
Israel is truly a systemically racist country.
A Baby Boomer, a Gen X-er and a Millennial stroll into a bar...
Good stuff.
Sometimes I just wanna hear smart people engage on a critical topic in a dispassionate way (if possible).
You all touched on all of this, but even before 1967 there was "occupation" and there were "settlements." When you hear most Palestinians use these words now they're talking about all of Israel.
Also I think the 2 state solution has been impossible for over 20 years now. Israel offered 99% of what the world was demanding and in return they got the Second Intifada, and almost everyone in Israel knew someone who was killed or maimed in it. There is still a "left" in Israel but there hasn't really been a peace movement since then.
One note on the discussion about who has the power. The statement presumes Israel has the power and has exercised internal restraint.
This is an incorrect assumption. The U.S. Military Industrial complex support, the U.N., and other forces exercise external restraint.
There may be some internal restraint from the Israeli left, but they have almost no power.
As it stands, only the U.S. veto keeps Israel out of trouble. They know if they cross certain lines their billions from the U.S. dry up.
Netanyahu's cabinet has many extremists that want to engage in genocide. And if they weren't reliant on international aid, they would.
As far as support...more Israelis support Likud and their war crimes than support Hamas. And the Hamas number is likely high, as Hamas is not elected, but in power by force.
In reply to "A.S": "Netanyahu's cabinet has many extremists that want to engage in genocide. And if they weren't reliant on international aid, they would."
Are you referring to Muslim extremists in Netanyahu's cabinet or in voting public Israel has been forced to accept into their country?
I'm referring to convicted Jewish terrorists like Ben-Gvir serving in Netanyahu's cabinet. And as far as I'm concerned, nominating a convicted terrorist into one's cabinet makes one a terrorist.
The current Israeli government supports dislocation and expansion by force to what they believe their little story book gives them the right to.
And yes, logically a majority of the Jewish population supports these policies since they keep voting them into power.
I can't remember if it was here or 538, but over 30% of the Israeli population believes in the most extreme version of their religion. So Pentateuch style genocide. And the rest refuse to stand against them.
So if all Palestinians are complicit with Hamas, which rules Gaza through force, so much more so are Israelis that nominally live in a democracy and choose barbarism over and over.
As such, I'm opposed to any aid to Israel. At all. And overwhelming military force against any restricting by either Hamas or Israel to relief provided to Gaza.
A great discussion about difficult subjects.
Palestians support Hamas clearly. What innocent people are we talking about? They teach children hate. Israel’s leveling Gaza is irrelevant, they will hate. Terrorist don’t only hate Israel’s they hate Americans, they would kill all those who are protesting for them without hesitation. This is their world and they don’t get along with any neighbors, they take over countries and rule with hate. Like they did with Lebanon and Germany is next.
Thanks for stating the unvarnished truth of the matter: "Terrorist don’t only hate Israel’s they hate Americans, they would kill all those who are protesting for them without hesitation."
and "they don’t get along with any neighbors, they take over countries and rule with hate. Like they did with Lebanon and Germany is next."
37:20 Of course Coleman's right that white people preferring to associate with other white people doesn't harm him. However, I don't think "white" is a meaningful identity in the way that black or Yemeni might be. Russians associating with Russians and Arabs with Arabs (classified as "white" by the US government oddly enough) makes some sense. BTW, I happen to have pale skin, but don't like the "as an X" form of statement.
"Cards of Power"
Maybe the best episode of Glenn and John all year. There is nothing like having all three of these men together on the same platform. Reminiscent of them appearing on the Fifith Column with Kmele Foster and Thomas Chatterton Williams in 2018 and 2020.
It comes down to power. That small black group of the TED organization feel that they hold the cards because enough whites have given them so much deference through the years. They can shuffle the cards in anyway they want, but sometimes ethics and morality get lost in the shuffle.
I also love the analogies the men made when referring to Hamas. It doesn't take much to see the similarities.
Feel free to agree or disagree.
I happened to listen to Coleman's "Colorblindness" Ted Talk last week and found it wonderfully coherent, thoughtful, factual and informative. However, upon listening to Coleman's podcast describing the surprising, negative, turn of events initiated by Chris Anderson and a few Ted Talk staff, I found myself reaching for my blood pressure meds. (I immediately thought Glenn is going to have Coleman on his show to discuss this.) The level of depravity and absolute cowardice levelled at Coleman's very rational talk and the lack of promotion from the TT organization was irrational and unfair. Essentially, Coleman was subtly punished for delivering a talk that lacked a hefty dose of a victim narrative with emphasis on systematic racism and white-blaming. This was simply too much for me to stomach.
A message to white CEOs and corporate managers: STOP allowing yourselves to be held hostage by uninformed, unenlightened, people who perpetually see themselves as victims. You are not helping us to live up to Dr. King's dream of colorblindness by kow-towing to the cultural elites employed by TT. Moreover, please get a backbone, grow a pair, and stand up to black and white bullies of the woke persuasion that throw unnecessary temper tantrums. What happened to the Ted Talk mission to "foster the spread of great ideas." Did they forget?
I thought that Rev. William Barber had a good article on how to think about the Hamas terror attacks:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/13/hamas-no-moral-justification-william-barber
Netanyahu did not want a two-state solution, so he propped up Hamas to diminish the Palestinian Authority.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Hamas does not want normalization of relations between the Saudis and Israel. It carried out a murderous attack hoping Israel would severely punish those in Gaza. Muslims in other countries would look as a Saudi-Israel treaty as a betrayal of Muslims. Hamas expects the Saudis to back off. They may reach their objective. They care little about the loss of life on either side.